Crash Costs

[Drum]

The attached .doc file shows the crash cost figures as used by the "system" to determine funding for roading improvement projects.

The values are the total cost per accident, including lost production, taxes etc.

I have simplified the tables by taking out the costs for each crash movement (i.e. head on, lost control etc) just leaving the combined figures for all movements. Its a lot of data otherwise.

The values are from 2002 and should be factored up by around 5% per year to make them present day costs.

An example of how the figures are used (roughly):

If a motorcyclist is killed in a 100 km/h speed zone the cost to society is $3,000,000 (unfactored). If the cutoff benefit/ cost ratio is, say, 4, then you could spend $750,000 on roading improvements.

This is, however, very simplified as the project would be competing for cash against all other projects around the country!

Thought some of you might find the figures interesting.

[kickingzebra]

Quite interesting Drum! So we are at a lesser cost to sciety if we decide to kill ourselves?! What factors are they including in cost to society though? because, though I am glad to see we are cheaper to kill than car drivers, 2.8 million for a serious accident?! someone is creaming a lot off the top, unless they are adding in 40 years of lost productivity or something.

[Mr. Peanut]

So next time I fall off my bicycle I get $20??? I wish... WAAAAH CRUNCH!!! Here you go sonny, have $20 from the government...

But I hurt my pinky...

HOLY SHIT!!! thats a minor injury!!!, get this man $12000!!! Bwahahaha...

Interesting indeed, morose tho.

[John Banks]

It's interesting to see that a bicycle crash in a 100km/h zone will cost $40, but in a 50km/h zone will cost only $20.

[Squeak the Rat]

Wait a minute, aren't ACC levies higher for motorcyclists? - yet crash costs per incident are less?

[XP@]

Any idea where the data comes from?

[Drum]

Quite interesting Drum! So we are at a lesser cost to sciety if we decide to kill ourselves?! What factors are they including in cost to society though? because, though I am glad to see we are cheaper to kill than car drivers, 2.8 million for a serious accident?! someone is creaming a lot off the top, unless they are adding in 40 years of lost productivity or something.

Yep thats exactly right - the cost includes lost potential earnings, tax etc, plus the cost of rehabilitation, sickness benefits etc.

[Drum]

Any idea where the data comes from?

These tables are from a Transfund Manual called the "Project Feasibility Manual".

These are the actual crash cost values used to evaluate the feasibility of roading improvement projects in NZ.

[kickingzebra]

Ah, brilliant. Would be interesting to see the source figures as well. Non injury accidents are fairly straightforward, bike broken, tow and replace plus leathers. Injuries would be more interesting.

[Drum]

Wait a minute, aren't ACC levies higher for motorcyclists? - yet crash costs per incident are less?

Bingo! Motorcycle crash costs are lower in every category, yet we pay higher ACC levies through our registration (vehicle licensing) costs.

[kickingzebra]

Im telling Biiiggg Daaaavveeeee, they tricked us so they could rip us off without complaint!!!!!!!

Question is, are the figures fudged to allow for average injuries from cars/bikes, because the average injuries per car wold only have to be 1.14 occupants (off the top of my head) for the cost ratio to be much the same...

[Ixion]

Bingo! Motorcycle crash costs are lower in every category, yet we pay higher ACC levies through our registration (vehicle licensing) costs.

That is because more motorcycles crash than cars. Sorry guys, I know you are all brilliant riders, but the figures say that , from the ACCs point of view, motorcyclists are pretty incompetant. Dunno the percentages but the number of bike crashes AS A PROPORTION OF LEVIES PAID 9ie the number of bikes on the road) is far higher than cars.

Less cost per crash, but a greater probability of a crash means higher levies.

Simple answer. Stop crashing. Sorted.

[The Stranger:Me]

Sorry, these are the costs to whom?

[Drum]

Sorry, these are the costs to whom?

The cost to society.
For example if someone is seriously injured then they cost society in terms of hospital care, sickness benefits, etc and because theyre not working they no longer contribute taxes etc.

[The Stranger:Me]

Seriously should their tax contribution really be considered, or their loss of income?

If that is the case do they consider these costs when looking at the cost to society of say an abortion?

And what about all the employment they create, police, undertakers, ambo's, firemen, doctors and nurses all get a wage and pay tax.