Data from ACC

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Aahh, but you have not factored in the running costs for, bad management, meetings, lunches, expense accounts, adviser fees, lunches, bussiness class air travel, hotels, motels, lunches, admin' charges, staff vehicles and more lunches.

Apparently the running costs was 1/2 billion dollars last year

[Ixion]

That letter is a crook of shit and is the same BS they have been trying to push since the proposal

Ah you are not so old and cynical as me.

It is exactly what i expected.

But, now that they have committed to giving us something, they are admitting that they are REQUIRED to fulfill the original request.

And we get to determine what "fulfillment means"

Now I'll go back with specific demands. I want x, y z

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Ah you are not so old and cynical as me.

It is exactly what i expected.

To tell the honest truth... it was what I expected...

[Ixion]

OK. Crap it is

But already i have enough to prove, on their own figures that their cc related claims are total bullshit

Here are the costs, numbers and averages for claims in year 2009 (they have other years, 2009 seems valid to me), order by avergae cost perclaim

Clearly, the costs must include some wild guess of future costs, because the figures would be absud for actual payments in one year

So, I ask for teh actual payout values , also the split between ERC and medical etc.

I have teh data for cars (obviously noit by cc) so I can compare that

And I'll include in MoT figures for number of bikes registered in each category (From the graph - jantar would it be possible to get actual numbers ?)

But immediately we can see that their claims that "Big bikes cost more" is total crap. The 601 - 750 cc group is second cheapest (only the very small 251 - 400 group is less , very few claims as one would expect)

And the dearest average is 401 to 600 (not really surprising)

Does someone with a calculator want to ad those together into their three categories?

Note that "unknown" is the most expensive by average - maybe because those are the bikes so mangled that the cop couldn't figure out the size ?

Anyway I suspect that they have conveniently lumped those into their "Over 600cc " category.

How dodgy does something have to be before we can call in the Auditor General ?


Sorry,vbulletin scrambles the formatting somewhat

ccrating...........cost .........numberofclaims .........avgperclaim
251-400.......193110.42............10 ......................19311.042
601-750.......1039516.43...........35................. ......29700.4694
0-50.............2520662.53..........84............. .........30007.8872
126-250.........2899501.65.........88................. .....32948.8823
1001-1340.....2866583.22..........44................... ...65149.6186
51-125..........1290834.84..........19............... .......67938.6757
1341+...........2729601.19...........26........... ...........104984.6611
901-1000.......6460741.68..........57................. .....113346.3452
751-900.........4137470.95..........36................ ......114929.7486
401-600.........974371.7.............16............... .......123398.2312
.Unknown........5981107.39..... 29.................. 206245.0824

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

ummm am I reading that right???

hmmmm

I wonder if Jantars biker accident and claim is in Other since it happened in Aussie

[Ixion]

OK. I think I see where they are coming from

if you group the figures by their classifications (0-125,126-600, 600+) the big bikes come out ahead on both total claims and average per claim

BUT - that doesn't include numbers of each registered.

I've alreay determined that big bikes have only about half the crashes per bike as smaller ones.
(I'll put in actual figures tomorrow)

class 1 4 million 103 claims avg 37K
class 2..5 million 114 claims avg 44K
class 3..17 million 198 claims avg 87K

Sort of figures, big bikes = experienced riders (well, sometimes!). Less likely to have a minor bin than a moped rider. But when they do, it's likely to be nasty

And although the big bikes are costing more per claim, since they only claim ahlf as often it comes to about the same. Fewer claims per machine registered, but bigger oens

Since ACC get twice as much levy , they can't complain at twice as much claims.

[Ixion]

ummm am I reading that right???

hmmmm

I wonder if Jantars biker accident and claim is in Other since it happened in Aussie

Dunno. how are you reading it?

Could be. I'm ignoring 'other' , no valid data.

[Ixion]

Arggh .
whats going on here.

the total number of claims doesn't add up to anywhere near their figures for total claims (1337 or thereabouts)

Back to the data

yes it does . 444 records for type like '%motor%' and year = 2009

I'll have to inspect to see if there are bike claims with types not containing 'motor'

If it is only 444 for 2009, what's going on.

I'll validate it to 2008

2008 gives only 892 claims against acc figures of 1337

Dodgy data anyone?

I shall ask the question. Where is the rest

No records with a cc rating and type not containing motor.

They've left some out it looks like

[Ronin]

would someone in Auckland buy Ixion a beer? I think he deserves it.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

year = 2009

Ummm don't we won't 2008 where it is completed?

[Vern]

Hi Guys, My hand goes out to you all because I happen to be a dumb old bugger and it is all over my head, but I can ride a bike and will be in Wellington rain, hail or shine. Keep up the excellent work. Vern

[PhantasmNZ]

class 1 4 million 103 claims avg 37K
class 2..5 million 114 claims avg 44K
class 3..17 million 198 claims avg 87K

Hmm... the picture doesn't actually look much better when you overlay the vehicle fleet statistics (and I think Ixiom may had an error above - avg for class 2 comes out $ 35.6K)

This is a quick cut together of Ixiom's initial cut above (the more detailed data) with the vehicle fleet stats from the MoT

CC	Fleet	Cost	NumClaims	AvCostPerClaim	CostPerBike	ClaimsPerBike
0-125	35560	$3,811,497.37	103	$37,004.83	$107.18	0.29%
126-600	27276	$4,066,983.77	114	$35,675.30	$149.10	0.42%
600+	48454	$17,233,913.47	198	$87,039.97	$355.68	0.41%

Of course - if this sample is missing data then it's anyone's guess as to what that shows. This data could have been chosen to show this precise picture. Even if valus are wrong here (eg 2009 vs 2008) the ratios of ownership should be the same...

One question though - not sure if this has been answered - where did ACC get the CC rating of the bikes - I'm pretty sure I've never seen this on an ACC claim form?

[PhantasmNZ]

the fuller breakdown (with a little leap of imagination at vehicle fleet stats have lowest category at <60cc not <50cc) show that my 1100cc should be cheaper than a 600-1000cc - lets have more categories

CC	Fleet	Cost	NumClaims	AvCostPerClaim	CostPerBike	ClaimsPerBike
0-50	30826	$2,520,662.53	84	$30,007.89	$81.77	0.27%
51-125	4734	$1,290,834.84	19	$67,938.68	$272.67	0.40%
126-250	17336	$2,899,501.65	88	$32,948.88	$167.25	0.51%
251-600	9940	$1,167,482.12	26	$44,903.16	$117.45	0.26%
601-1000	28125	$11,637,729.06	128	$90,919.76	$413.79	0.46%
1000+	20329	$5,596,184.41	70	$79,945.49	$275.28	0.34%

[Ixion]

The main thing is not what any paricular category is, but rather that they are all over the place.

For instance 750s are cheaper than 600s.

We don't have to prove any relationship ourselves, or even disprove theirs, just show that it's not logical.

We can legitmately say that their model , bigger=costlier does not stack up.

I'll have a decnt go at the numbers tomorrow. And ask for more data. I want to know if the higher cost of big bikes is simply because people crashing them have well paying jobs and therefore cost more for ACC.

If it is, we can argue that expensive cars would show exactly the same result.

[Ocean1]

I want to know if the higher cost of big bikes is simply because people crashing them have well paying jobs and therefore cost more for ACC.

And then, of course, from a policy perspective, (and irrespective of supposed causal links) the better paid sort is more likely to be able to pay a higher tax. Not much point taxing them wot can't pay innit...