PDA

View Full Version : ACC Levies - A resource thread



Mom
14th October 2009, 16:10
No doubt you will have heard about the new ACC levies that we are about to have imposed upon us. I thought this thread might be useful to use as a resource.


Here you will find the details of what is happening

Motor vehicle Policy

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129455904&postcount=22

This is where you go to make a submission about your thoughts - closes November 10th.

http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/levy-consultation/consultation-process/levy-consultation-2010-2011/index.htm

This contains a list of MPs contact details


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129457412&postcount=10

BRONZ Meeting details

21st October - 7:30pm

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=109889

I see Ixion has already started a thread for this but none the less, here are the details of the BRONZ meeting to be held next week.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129455967&postcount=69

Mods, would it be possible to have these threads sticky on the forum for a bit? No doubt there will be other things to add to this.

We need someone to write us a "good, pithy" letter to include with our submissions. This can be added in here too.

Brian d marge
14th October 2009, 16:36
in the mean time here is a report about ACC

Stephen


> BLOOD ON THE COAL: THE ORIGINS AND FUTURE OF NEW ZEALAND'S ACCIDENT COMPENSATION SCHEME (http://www.hazelarmstronglaw.co.nz/reports/Blood_on_the_Coal_Mark_final_%20May_%202008.pdf)

Sorry cant load it up too big

Web site

http://www.hazelarmstronglaw.co.nz/reports.php

Mom
14th October 2009, 16:58
A couple of useful email addresses here

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129456271&postcount=243

kewwig
14th October 2009, 19:38
ACC figures show 54,400 motorcycles over 600cc, double the number for those 126-600cc. More and more riders returning to motorcycling (as distinct from the scooter brigade) are males over 35, who ride predominantly on weekends, carry passengers and luggage and generally use the bikes for pleasure. Typically this group has more disposable income and will purchase larger machines. Weekend rides usually involve rural roads and higher speeds. As many writers point out, getting into trouble on a bike for going too fast is just as easy on a 500cc machine (arguably the smaller bikes have budget brakes, tyres and suspension) , and we all know how the typical 1500cc cruiser will fare lined up against a GSXR600.
The under 125cc group have lower risk, simply because those machines are typically used in a lower speed urban environment – primarily for transport and not so much for pleasure. Whilst the likelihood of a crash is higher, injury severity is generally lower.
The point I am making is that the crashes are not necessarily because of the capacity of the machine, but simply because there are a hell of a lot more older riders out there on bigger machines , thus more exposed to risk. If we all moved tomorrow to 599cc bikes, my view is that the risk profile will be the same. Age, errors, other vehicles and exposure to risk are not cc dependent.
Linking engine capacity to the argument is specious – in fact it is really a differential rate that correlates just as well with age and disposable income (again, generally a factor of age). The same linkages could be applied to bike prices – the more expensive bikes would correlate to a greater claim rate. Again, ccs are not causative. It could be argued that this is discrimination on the basis of age – a breach of Section 21(1)(i) of the Human Rights Act 1993.
If they are going to screw us, they should apply it evenly across the group, not single out the older riders by virtue of machine choice.
Any lawyers out there have a view on this?

beyond
14th October 2009, 20:07
Can anyone verify if we still have to pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident. I believe the costs involved in this are horrendous and if they want to save money, knock that on the head for a start! Hell, we have to get insurance when we travel overseas.

I heard a case where an overseas skier broke his leg and the total cost before he arrived at his home in Canada, was $80,000. I also believe that because the accident happened here that all the after care is still being paid by NZ'ers???!!!@@#$##@!!

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.

tri boy
14th October 2009, 20:16
Can anyone verify if we still have to pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident. I believe the costs involved in this are horrendous and if they want to save money, knock that on the head for a start! Hell, we have to get insurance when we travel overseas.

I heard a case where an overseas skier broke his leg and the total cost before he arrived at his home in Canada, was $80,000. I also believe that because the accident happened here that all the after care is still being paid by NZ'ers???!!!@@#$##@!!

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.


Yes it does.
A very free hospital for USA tourists that would of faced $100k bill at home for the equivalent surgery.

PZR
14th October 2009, 20:34
Here is a current list of all members of Parliament. Can this be added to the resource near the top. Their email addresses are on there. Perhaps someone email savy can compile them so people can copy and paste and send letters flooding the MPs with their complaints. Beyond my meager skills sorry

Genestho
14th October 2009, 21:48
"To make a submission, you need to write to us advising us what you think. As well as commenting on the proposed levy changes for the year, you can comment on all aspects of the ACC Scheme.

Your submission must include:

Your name
Your address
Your contact phone number(s)
You can send your submission:

By post:
Levy Consultation
ACC
PO Box 242
Wellington 6140

By fax:
04 918 4395

By email:
consultation@acc.co.nz"

Submissions are best in your own words, if you find a good argument, make it yours - don't copy it.
If you state a fact, cite your resource directly.
If you have a proposal think it right through to the end, and again cite your resource or research, if you search media, don't use media quotes, find the info yourself, that the media is quoting.

Emails to MP's are better if you wish to impart how this affects you personally as a rider. It is something affective and something anyone can do RIGHT NOW.



ACC FAQ's (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/media-centre/frequently-asked-questions/ABA00105) Any questions regarding ACC's works
Also How are we Funded (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-acc/how-were-funded/index.htm) - address the different accounts

Genestho
14th October 2009, 22:12
12 Requests(1) Any person, being—

(a) a New Zealand citizen; or

(b) a permanent resident of New Zealand; or

(c) a person who is in New Zealand; or

(d) a body corporate which is incorporated in New Zealand; or

(e) a body corporate which is incorporated outside New Zealand but which has a place of business in New Zealand,—

may request a department or Minister of the Crown or organisation to make available to him or it any specified official information.

(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a request made, on or after the date of commencement of this subsection, by or on behalf of a natural person for access to any personal information which is about that person shall be deemed to be a request made pursuant to subclause (1)(b) of principle 6 of the Privacy Act 1993, and shall be dealt with accordingly, and nothing in this Part or in Part 5 shall apply in relation to any such request.

(2) The official information requested shall be specified with due particularity in the request.
(3) If the person making the request asks that his request be treated as urgent, he shall give his reasons for seeking the information urgently.

Information Act -Your Right to Know a guideline (http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/o/official-information-your-right-to-know/publication/?searchterm=information%20act)

Link to Directory of Official Information (http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/d/directory-of-official-information-july-1999/publication/?searchterm=Directory%20of%20Official%20informatio n)

ACC link to Fact sheet (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=36977&dDocName=PRD_CTRB117924&allowInterrupt=1)for requesting Information under Official Information Act

I wonder if we (or BRONZ) can use this to gain the figures? I recon first you have to break it down so you can see what ya dealing with.

Exodus
15th October 2009, 09:01
The facts on Motorcycle crashes can be found here (assuming that ACC used these for their policy):

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/motorcyclecrashfacts/

Genestho
15th October 2009, 09:13
This thread is gathering good stats.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=109976

And I dragged out this petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nzbikers_vs_acc) from a thread (thanks to Ninja 750 :) )

Warren
15th October 2009, 16:49
I have created a page on the kiwi biker wiki to put some of the factual information which may be of help.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/2009_ACC_levy_proposal

Brian d marge
15th October 2009, 18:04
Conclusions on implementation and delivery of ACC
accounts
Employers
For the employers account, we can observe the following:
• ACC under its current structure performs comparatively well in
terms of overall cost, administrative cost and return to work
measures, with relatively high benefit levels.54
• Comparisons elsewhere indicate that privately underwritten
workers compensation schemes as a group have higher levels
of administrative cost on average than government monopoly
schemes, likely driven the need to cover profit margins and
marketing expenses.54,52 The especially long financial tail of
the ACC would be expected to further increase any required
level of private underwriting profit margins.55
Motor vehicle
For the motor vehicle account we can make the following
observations:
• There are few motor vehicle schemes in the world which share
the key features of ACC (full or largely no-fault coverage;
periodic benefits; comprehensive case management with
coordination of a full range of benefits and services; and a
focus on qualitative claimant outcomes of participation and
independence). These schemes are presented in more detail
in Chapter 4.
• The few schemes which are comparable to ACC are all
delivered through government monopoly schemes.
• When compared with other no-fault motor vehicle injury
schemes, ACC has relatively high benefit levels but very low
levels of overall cost.
xxviii | PricewaterhouseCoopers
Executive summary
• The motor vehicle account is the largest contributor of serious
injuries to the scheme accounting for 43% of total serious
injury claims and costs.
• A change to private competitive underwriting of the ACC motor
vehicle account would require significant operational
regulation in order to ensure delivery against the Woodhouse
Principles.


Attached it the report

Stephen

Spratt
15th October 2009, 20:03
I've been doing a bit of searching and made a start at pulling together some information on other ACC claims amounts, etc. My thoughts so far ...

ACC claim that their proposed levy restructuring more fairly shifts the costs to those of most ‘burden’ to the system. This could not be further from the truth! Once again, a minority group is being targeted by the Government, this time to offset debt incurred by the poorly managed ACC system. To begin with, ACC Board chairman John Judge is incorrect in his statement that ACC “paid out $62 million for accidents caused by motorcycle riders …”. In fact, Ministry of Transport data (Motorcyclists Crash Factsheet 2008 (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf)) shows that only around 51% of motorcycle accidents were actually caused by the rider. Motorcycle riders will know who caused the other 50%! He also failed to mention that ACC paid out over $208 million to drivers and passengers of car accidents.

The Ministry of Transport’s report ‘Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand 2008 (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/MOT_Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%202008_Full%20versio n.pdf)’ makes for interesting reading, perhaps ACC should have a closer look. It shows that injuries to motorcyclists and pillions in 2008 are at same level as 1957 (1397 vs 1396), but the number of car drivers injured has almost trebled (2964 vs 8536). What about passengers of motor vehicles? They do not pay an ACC levy to be in the car, yet last year there were 3365 motor vehicle passengers injured. Note as well that motorcycle injuries made up only 9% of all motor vehicle related injuries in 2008. While not all injuries may result in an ACC claim, these numbers point to an unbalanced view from ACC in apportioning blame to motorcycle riders.

And what about all the injuries that occur to other people who do not pay an ACC levy for the activity that resulted in their injury? Examples include car passengers as noted above, as well as the 939 pedestrians and 895 cyclists injured in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) in 2008. Should there be an ACC levy to walk down the street or own a push bike to cover the cost of treating these accidents? Aside from MVAs, how about all the other people injured in non-ACC levy paying activities? In the 12 months from July 2007, ACC paid out almost $35 million to people who suffered a serious injury related to recreational or sporting activities (note this is just serious injuries, not all). People injured just walking down the street (pedestrians) cost ACC $24 million alone! And what about the most common place for an accident to occur in New Zealand – the home. ACC paid $439,507,000 for injuries that resulted from an accident at home. Should there be an ACC level based on the size of your house? And of course we could not forget our national sport. Combined, injuries from rugby union and rugby league cost ACC over $50 million in the 07-08 year. Netball injuries cost them $11.5 million. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sport related injury claims. Where does the money come from to meet these claims? (see ACC injury statistics 2008 (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/index.htm) for more interesting facts)

Bend-it
15th October 2009, 22:36
Here's a submission I wrote, short and to the point. Feel free to use it for ideas, but please write yours in your own words...
==========================================
Hi,

I'm writing to protest the proposal to increase ACC levies for motorcycles, and not for other higher-risk activities, like rock climbing, rugby, bicycling etc. This penalises motorcyclists unfairly for the increased risk that all these other groups pose as well. Motorcyles are just an easy target.

1. If we are going down the route of higher risk pays higher ACC levies, then it should be applied uniformly, as opposed to just one high-risk activity.

2. If ACC premiums are linked to injury risk, then paying multiple premiums for multiple vehicles is not right, as one can only operate one vehicle at a time. A large number of motorcyclists have multiple vehicles and so are further penalised by this.

3. Motorcyclists should also then be creditted for benefits like easing congestion, parking and having a smaller carbon footprint.

My suggestion is that people's overall risk profiles get assessed individually, and ACC premiums charged on that, just like how insurance comapnies do it, which is what ACC is, at the end of the day.

Name:
Address:
Tel:

Bald Eagle
16th October 2009, 07:03
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///D:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ct813024%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cms ohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz
selwynoffice@parliament.govt.nz
jim.anderton@parliament.govt.nz
anderton.wigram@xtra.co.nz
jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz
shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz
chris.auchinvole@parliament.govt.nz
kanwaljit.singh.bakshi@parliament.govt.nz
rick.barker@parliament.govt.nz
carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz
david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz
loren.bolton@parliament.govt.nz
jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz
chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz
chester.wanganui@xtra.co.nz
chester.hawera@xtra.co.nz
sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz
socialjustice@greens.org.nz
simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz
g.brownlee@ministers.govt.nz
brendon.burns@parliament.govt.nz
bb@brendonburns.co.nz
juliane.jutz@parliament.govt.nz
chris.carter@parliament.govt.nz
d.carter@ministers.govt.nz
j.carter@ministers.govt.nz
northlandelectorate@xtra.co.nz
steve.chadwick@parliament.govt.nz
charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz
ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz
j.coleman@ministers.govt.nz
j.collins@ministers.govt.nz
office@judithcollins.co.nz
clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz
claytoncosgrovekaiapoi@xtra.co.nz
david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz
dcunliffe@xtra.co.nz
clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz
lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz
Kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz
Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz
Catherine.delahunty@parliament.govt.nz
roger.douglas@parliament.govt.nz
p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz
electjville@xtra.co.nz
ruth.dyson@parliament.govt.nz
porthills.mp@parliament.govt.nz
b.english@ministers.govt.nz
elecgor@esi.co.nz
darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz
office@labournorth.org.nz
c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz
jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz
teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz
craig.foss@parliament.govt.nz
craigfoss@backingthebay.co.nz
david.garrett@parliament.govt.nz
aaron.gilmore@parliament.govt.nz
p.goff@parliament.govt.nz
phil@goff.org.nz
jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz
sandra.goudie@national.org.nz
Kennedy.graham@parliament.govt.nz
tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz
nathan.guy@ministers.govt.nz
national.horowhenua@xtra.co.nz
national.kapiti@xtra.co.nz
kevin.hague@parliament.govt.nz
hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz
terry.ututaonga@arliament.govt.nz.
george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz
john.hayes@parliament.govt.nz
p.heatley@ministers.govt.nz
tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz
tau.henaremp@xtra.co.nz
r.hide@ministers.govt.nz
rodney@epsom.org.nz
chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz
janette.granville@xtra.co.nz
pete.hodgson@parliament.govt.nz
pete@petehodgson.co.nz
parekura.horomia@parliament.govt.nz
ikaroa.gis@xtra.co.nz
ikaroa.hstgs@xtra.co.nz
darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz
office@darrenhughes.co.nz
Raymond.huo@parliament.govt.nz
paul.hutchison@parliament.govt.nz
hunua.electorate@xtra.co.nz
shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz
shanejonesmp@xtra.co.nz
s.joyce@ministers.govt.nz
rahui.katene@parliament.govt.nz
nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz
sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz
j.key@ministers.govt.nz
genelle@johnkey.mp.net.nz
A.King@parliament.govt.nz
kilbirnieeo@xtra.co.nz
colin.kingmp@xtra.co.nz
winnie.laban@parliament.govt.nz
mana.electorate@xtra.co.nz
melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz
Iain.lees-galloway@parliament.govt.nz
joyce@iainleesgallowaymp.org
keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz
greenmps.auckland@greens.org.nz
peseta.sam.lotu-iiga@parliament.govt.nz
sam4maungakiekie@parliament.govt.nz
tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz
moana.mackey@labour.org.nz
nanaia.mahuta@parliament.govt.nz
tainuielectorate@xtra.co.nz
trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz
WOAoffice@xtra.co.nz
petone.eo@clear.net.nz
w.mapp@ministers.govt.nz
todd.mcclay@parliament.govt.nz
m.mccully@ministers.govt.nz
murray.mccully@xtra.co.nz
sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz
waikatohub.mps@xtra.co.nz
stuart.nash@parliament.govt.nz
russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz
moana.fuli@parliament.govt.nz
hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz
david.parker@parliament.govt.nz
allan.peachey@parliament.govt.nz
ritchie.wards@parliament.govt.nz
lynne.pillaymp@xtra.co.nz
s.power@ministers.govt.nz
simonpower.feilding@xtra.co.nz
simonpower.marton@xtra.co.nz
rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz
paul.quinn@parliament.govt.nz
angela.bray@parliament.govt.nz
jen.toogood@parliament.govt.nz
office@grantrobertson.co.nz
ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz
rae.waterhouse@xtra.co.nz
michael.clatworthy@xtra.co.nz
eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz
h.roy@ministers.govt.nz
t.ryall@ministers.govt.nz
heather.henderson@parliament.govt.nz
Pita.Sharples@parliament.govt.nz
david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz
info@mtalbertlabour.co.nz
sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz
beryl.bright@parliament.govt.nz
mp.rodney.warkworth@xtra.co.nz
n.smith@ministers.govt.nz
nick@nick4nelson.co.nz
maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz
lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz
tolleywhk@xtra.co.nz
tolleygis@xtra.co.nz
chris.tremain@national.org.nz
napier.electorate@airnet.net.nz
metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz
greenmps.dunedin@greens.org.nz
t.turia@ministers.govt.nz
Tari.Turia@xtra.co.nz
phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz
gabrielle.stewart@parliament.govt.nz
Upston.taupo@parliament.govt.nz
Upston.sthwaikato@parliament.govt.nz
Upston.cambridge@parliament.govt.nz
nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz
k.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nz
m.williamson@ministers.govt.nz
Michael.woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz
blueandgold@parliament.govt.nz
p.wong@ministers.govt.nz
pansy.wong@xtra.co.nz
jonathan.young@parliament.govt.nz

Genestho
16th October 2009, 09:31
Associate Professor of Marketing - Lincoln University

Academic and Professional Background

Head of Marketing Group
Director Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies Project
Guest lecturer
Consultant for a wide range of organisation in the public and private sector
Inaugural winner of Lincoln University Special Achievement Award for Excellence in Teaching
Researcher in all aspects of motorcycling and motorcyclist behaviour.

"Criticises Motorcycle Levy Logic."

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129461429&postcount=142

Spratt
16th October 2009, 11:33
Still working on my submission, but here is another interesting fact I have uncovered. Based on ACC statistics from 2007-2008, the average claim for a motor vehicle injury driver/passenger of a care is $3500 more than the average claim for a motorcycle accident related injury.

Driver/Passenger car
New claims - 3456
Active claims - 8528
Total claims - 11984
Cost - $208,305,000
Average cost per claim = $17,382

Rider/pillion motorcycle
New claims - 1336
Active claims - 3173
Total claims - 4509
Cost $62,523,000
Average cost per claim $13,866

This information is from their Motor Vehicle Account stats (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/is0800143). Also in this category are pedestrians involved in MVAs = 437 and cyclists involved in MVAs = 289, who are all covered by funds from petrol and registration levies!

Also, a quote from the ACC website also makes their proposed levy hikes seem just a little inconsistent - “Everyone in New Zealand has 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, no-fault comprehensive injury cover through ACC.”

Once again, go figure - what is ACC on?

Ms Piggy
18th October 2009, 07:46
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/first-manufacture-a-crisis/

CherryB
18th October 2009, 22:13
What about other ways to address the issue, rather than a blunt - let's put the costs up for the current generation who are easy to target, to meet higher costs of treatment, historic underfunding, a temporary loss of value on investment caused by worldwide financial market changes etc.

And what is with targeting pretty much anyone who has their full license with a huge fee - how many peoples' 2nd and later motorcycles are under 601cc... so if you have experience you have to pay more? Crazy.

Other ideas
- assess whether sharply increased treatment costs can be addressed (more supply of providers, other?)
- use fuel tax to offset some of the ACC costs, given that riding 2-wheel transport reduces congestion and indirectly contibutes to keeping roading costs down
- more education on how to drive and ride safely
- test during relicensing every 5 or 10 years for all drivers and riders, testing things like awareness, indicating before turning/switching lanes (without using the 1/2 second/indicate as I move rule), penalising the car drivers if they go slow then speed up if someone is overtaking or they get to a straight etc - and for riders to ensure they have a refresher if they haven't ridden for years before jumping on a flash 1000cc model that they can now afford - tests could be foregone by doing approved advanced driving courses that actually involve driving/riding.
- levy on alcohol to cover those accidents (not just road ones) it is a factor in.
- sports, cyclists, etc also targeted...

Also, I want better info on the stats. What number of bikes there are in different categories, not such bloody broad categories, and how many are in accidents, what license time and type is involved, recent experience of riders involved, cost of accidents in relation to fault of motorcyclist, number of the 58% of accidents where motorcyclist has some/main blame that are in each category and so on. I suspect that a much higher proportion of those where there is some rider blame are in the sub-250cc class, so that weighting for bigger bikes would be totally unfair especially if the cases with high treatment costs are mostly caused by other road users for big bikes.

RiderInBlack
19th October 2009, 06:57
Petition Site:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nzbikers_vs_acc/?e

shrub
19th October 2009, 08:38
pssst, I don't mean to be rude but this is a resource thread

If you visit http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz there is heaps of info, and within the next 24 hours or so (the web designer has a full time job as well) there will be tools to make it easy to submissions, sample emails you can send to your MP, posters and flyersyou can print out etc.

It's organised by PRISM (Promoting Responsibility in Safe Motorcycling), a group of well known and well regarded motorcyclists.

They are in the process of securing support from some very well known (household name) Kiwis who are passionate motorcyclists and the national spokesman will be someone we all know of. The team includes professional web designers, professional marketing and public relations people and academics. They have access to a wealth of information and data, including stuff that isn't normally available to the general public and relationships with the media. They also have an in to both the politicial circles and ACC, so part of their strategy is also to work from within.

They have been talking to, and have the support of the various importers and industry groups, and are working with non-motorcycle groups who will be keen to align with and support us.

They are meeting daily to develop a well researched and professional strategy for bikers to participate in influencing change, including making it easy to make submissions, lobby your MP and organise a series of national protest rides and media events. They are very keen to focus the energy and passion this event has triggered to stop the levies, but also to use the momentum to put in place a national and credible motorcycle interest lobby group.

MSTRS
19th October 2009, 11:12
My submission. Perhaps some of it can be used by others (in your own words though...cut'n'paste subs get lumped as one)

Motorcyclists won't take the proposed increases quietly. We do not believe that the ACC no fault system should target specific groups when it comes to vehicle-based levies. Job-type employment levies might be one thing, but as an organisation, ACC does not levy sports and recreation based on risk potentials. As always, the many subsidise the few. The founding ethos of ACC. But now...?

Claims that car-based levies 'subsidise' bike-based levies? Not so, when you take in the accident-caused-by stats.
Near 50% of motorcyclists injuries are not caused by the riders themselves, yet the levy hike appears based on the presumption that fault lies with the motorcyclist entirely.
The approx 100,000 registered motorcycles/mopeds do not equate to the same number of owners because of multiple ownership, and there are over 400,000 people with Class 6 licences...most of them also hold a Class 1 licence. So we 'subsidise' ourselves too. Plus, for many of us, our motorcycles are our recreation. We don't see horse riders/skateboarders/mountain climbers/cyclists being charged for their leisure pursuit.

As for bigger cc bikes being 'more dangerous'...I call bullshit to that. Size has nothing to do with rider injury. Personally, I have ridden 600cc+ bikes for some 35 years without accident or injury, and this class of machine is no different to small/er bikes in terms of injury-risk to a rider. Nor are these bigger machines necessarily faster than small bikes, when it comes to speed-related accident/injury. Legally, the fastest we can travel on any road is 100kph, and there are few bikes that can't attain this speed. In terms of potential speeds, there are 1000cc+ bikes that struggle to reach 180kph, but there are 250cc bikes that can surpass 220kph. The biggest factor is the rider him/herself when it comes to rider fault in an injury accident, and indeed it is also the rider's skill and roadcraft (or otherwise) that determines whether we are the victim of a car driver's inattention.

Either leave the system alone as no-fault, and everybody pays the same with the same entitlements, or if it's to be User Pays like insurance, then look at: -
1. Licence-based levies, with each class attracting its own amount, BUT only the highest levy applied in the case of muliple-class holders. This leads to the idea of rebates for those who have an accident/injury free record. And penalties for those who have many injury-causing accidents.
2. Mileage-based levies, rather like RUCs for diesel vehicles. Each kilometre travelled attracts x amount of risk-exposure, so levy according to mileage.
3. Fuel-based levies, paid at the pump. Fuel-hungry vehicles (like those horrible SUVs) will become less desireable, so the environment will benefit too.
4. Levy anyone who potentially has use of the road levy fund. Like cyclists. Or pedestrians.

Genestho
19th October 2009, 11:37
ACC Link Read More here (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=37054&dDocName=PRD_CTRB118121&allowInterrupt=1) on proposed Levy Increase Motorist FAQ's

Addressing questions such as:

Why transfer mopeds to the motorcycle class?

What is the true relativity between mopeds or motorcycles and passenger vehicles

Why do motorists have to pay levies? The levies cover:

Why has the average motor vehicle levy increased?

Why has the motor vehicle levy for pre-1999 claims increased?

How can ACC charge a different levy for different vehicles when ACC is a no-fault Scheme?

What is ACC doing to reduce injuries to road users?

If I own two cars why do I have to pay two ACC levies?

NighthawkNZ
19th October 2009, 11:50
http://www.southernrider.co.nz/ACC

Some info and ideas, similar to all the rest with a few more calculations. ( Still doing some calculations and research)

It will be the basis of Southern Riders submission in the next week or so...

sasfmj
19th October 2009, 13:31
sign the online petition everyone

the links is at the bottom right of the page !!

www.nothanks.co.nr

spread the word !! cant let these crazy acc levys happen !!

shrub
19th October 2009, 17:00
http://www.southernrider.co.nz/ACC

Some info and ideas, similar to all the rest with a few more calculations. ( Still doing some calculations and research)

It will be the basis of Southern Riders submission in the next week or so...

If you need any data, resources, material etc, contact us www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz. We have huge resources including information that is not generally available, we also have access to economists, researchers etc

rustic101
19th October 2009, 18:03
Posted in my own blog thingy but sure how to start a new one..

......

Hey Team

This afternoon I had a reply from an senior individual in Motoring Policy and Advocacy at AA in responce to my request, 'What is the AA stance on the proposed ACC levy increase for motorcyclists'.

I have removed the names to protect his privacy. I have directly copied and pasted his reply into an MS Word document (unchanged) and attached his below.

Make up your own mind where they stand.

Howie
19th October 2009, 18:23
Posted in my own blog thingy but sure how to start a new one..

......

Hey Team

This afternoon I had a reply from an senior individual in Motoring Policy and Advocacy at AA in responce to my request, 'What is the AA stance on the proposed ACC levy increase for motorcyclists'.

Make up your own mind where they stand.


That actually makes interesting reading, but unfortunatly looks like a very similar reply to the one received by Reckless over on this thread, apart from the introduction to the information.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110457
So it looks like the AA are prepared to use a type of Form letter in reply to any inquires we make to them.

Ms Piggy
19th October 2009, 18:42
Some of you might like this.

Brian d marge
21st October 2009, 02:58
http://www.radionz.co.nz/parliament


Yes it will put you to sleep but Motorcyclists get a bit of a mention

Stephen

sharknet
21st October 2009, 10:49
Have a look at what John Key said after the massive truck protest in Auckland last year...


"I struggled to get around Auckland this morning during the truck protest.

The Labour government has to step up and admit it was wrong to raise commercial road user charges without any warning on Monday night. It has shown contempt for the road transport industry and for businesses up and down the country.

The Minister of Transport promised the Road Transport Forum last year that she would modify the Road Users Charges Act so the Government could give truckies and other commercial road users a month's warning of any increases. The Minister's failure to do this is a breach of good faith.

The increase in the road user charge of about 7% for a typical truck comes at a time when the trucking industry is really struggling with higher fuel costs. These costs will eventually be passed on to all New Zealanders in the form of higher prices for food, clothing, and every other essential good that gets transported by road.

The hike in the road user charges for diesel vehicles came on the same day that Labour hiked the ACC levy on petrol by 2c a litre, and increased vehicle registration fees by $40 per vehicle.

These new costs for motorists and truckies were introduced just before Michael Cullen admitted that Labour paid a "premium" to buy the railway assets of Toll.

Hiking transport costs just when people are struggling with higher living costs and when Labour has paid several hundred million dollars too much for the trains and the ferries, is a slap in the face for every Kiwi road user, consumer, and taxpayer."

What a two faced bastard.....
The only way to fight this is to do the same thing the truckies did, fill the Auckland motorway with bikes, at rush hour.

Brian d marge
21st October 2009, 17:45
Here is a submission from the triumph owners club

Sone wording does need changing

such as
(02:42:11 PM) stephen: This triumph one is ok but 4. Many motorcycle family’s own more than one bike also several cars so we are getting bent over more than once
(02:42:24 PM) stephen: that needs to be changed
bent over?


Stephen

davereid
22nd October 2009, 10:14
The HURT report.. and old but very well respected, and never discredited report on motorcycle accident causes.

http://www.eslnz.com/hurt_report.pdf

Brian d marge
22nd October 2009, 17:59
From the imf report on NZ

( read what American economists think NZ should do)

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2009/032309.htm

snippy snip


8. Given the downside risks to the economic outlook, medium-term projections should be based on conservative revenue assumptions. The mission encourages the authorities to prepare contingency plans in case the economic and fiscal outlook deteriorates further. In that event, the authorities should allow the automatic stabilizers to operate, but put in place offsetting measures that would reduce the deficit in the medium term.
9. Over the long term, key budgetary risks are the growing healthcare costs and public pension outlays. These risks should be addressed before the demographic pressures intensify, by reforming health care and the public pension schemes.


Feel the burn,,,,,,,

Stephen

Brian d marge
22nd October 2009, 18:16
eeeeuuuuwwwww

Anyhow this is the terms of refgerence they are using

http://www.dol.govt.nz/initiatives/workplace/acc/index.asp


No one Raisin smuggler among them

Stephen


ohhhh nasty



Gordon Smith

Gordon Smith has extensive insurance industry experience and a thorough understanding of the financial aspects of the insurance sector. He also has a very clear understanding of financial reporting, compliance and regulatory requirements, and business risk. He was Chief Executive of Farmers’ Mutual Group from January 2001 to December 2008 and currently serves on the boards of Calliden Group Limited – Australia, and Doubleshot Group Limited.

NighthawkNZ
22nd October 2009, 23:05
I hear tonight that cars currently subsidise us to the sum of $77.00 per year.


ACC paid out to motorcyclists $62,523,000

$77 x 2,584,509 (2008 car fleet) = $199,007,193

Interestingly enough;
208,305,000 + 62,523,000 = 270,828,000 total car and motorcycle claim
130,213 + 2,788,938(current fleet) = 2,919,151 bike and car fleet
270,828,000 / 2919151 = $92.78 levy required by each vehicle at present car is $168 and a bike is $253



$62,523,000 / 130,213 = $480.16 I am not sure how he got $2000.00 or the $3700.00 if involved with a car.



The true cost of the levy is suposse to be $3700.00
$3700.00 x 130,213 = $481,788,100 just unver 0.5 billion



Total claims by car and bike are only $270,828,000


The total claims in 2008 was 1.7b or $1,700,000,000

Genestho
25th October 2009, 08:13
ACC Motor Vehicle Account - 56 page Technical Report.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129477935&postcount=36

Ms Piggy
26th October 2009, 19:44
I've been sent these by a WIMA.

GSXR Trace
26th October 2009, 20:36
I don't know if this is the place for this article, or whether it has already been posted, but thought it was an interesting read.
If its already been posted just delete the post

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=10605395

scootnz
27th October 2009, 17:27
Here they are as PDF's.


I've been sent these by a WIMA.

Brian d marge
27th October 2009, 17:45
Here is the bill as per the first reading ( it past ,,)

Stephen

PLEASE TAKE A MIN TO READ IT


http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0090/latest/DLM2417504.html

Genestho
27th October 2009, 21:45
Bills before Select committee, dates etc, scroll down. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/BusSum/0/c/6/00DBHOH_BSC_SCALL_1-Bills-before-select-committees.htm

This here link to Parlimentary council office (http://www.pco.parliament.govt.nz/bills-and-supplementary-order-papers/) is a good resource for those who have questions and who want to follow the process of the bill with ALL the following Q&A's pointing to the relevant links.

How do I find a particular Bill or Supplementary Order Paper?
How does a Bill become law?
At which stage of the legislative process may I make a contribution?
How do I find out whether a Bill or any regulations are being drafted?
How do I find out what stage a Bill is at in the House of Representatives?
How do I find an explanatory note for a Bill?
How do I get a copy of a select committee's report on a Bill?
How do I find a departmental report on a Bill?
How do I find submissions to a select committee on a Bill?
How do I find parliamentary speeches on a Bill

Ixion
28th October 2009, 17:35
Has anyone figures for the breakdown of the bike fleet by capacity.

Specifically, I'm after what percentage of bikes are over 600cc

Jantar
28th October 2009, 17:51
The attached graph is from Phil Reads report. It gives motorcycle registrations by cc rating.

Ixion
28th October 2009, 18:07
EXCELLENT!

That shows that about 50000 bikes are 600 cc or bigger. That is, about two thirds of them

MoT motorcycle crash statistics (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf) show that about 38% of crashes involved bikes 750cc or larger (they don't split at 600cc but the extra 601 to 750 is going to be small. . Say even 45% for over 600cc).

So, big bikes crash LESS proportionately.

66% of the bike fleet. 45% (say) of the crashes

ANOTHER ACC LIE.

Mystic13
29th October 2009, 15:00
I've been re-reading and filtering through the ACC site and I missed the background papers. There are more ACC quoted stats in their including the figures quoted by politicians.

So it's these categories;

Consultation documents 2010-2011
Introduction to Levy consultation 2010-11 (PDF 188K)
Levy rates for motorists - Levy consultation 2010/11 (PDF 365K)
Background papers to Levy consultation 2010/11 (DOC 30K)

At this link.

http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/levy-consultation/consultation-process/levy-consultation-2010-2011/index.htm#P15_801

I am going to send in another submission because they ask specifically for comment on increasing the fuel levy by between 2 and 3 cents and so far as a group we haven't commented on that. I think they should look for their funds there and drop the bike rego to the same as cars.

Ixion
29th October 2009, 15:59
There is a massive anomaly

According to http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/papers_plans/prd_ctrb118085.pdf

The claim frequency for bikes is (as a percentage of that for cars)

0-125 cc(mainly mopeds) 285%
126 - 600cc 443%
601+ 331%

Now, those seem sane figures to me. They equate well to our own figures based on MoT stats, that show bike crashes at about 3 to 4 times those of cars

And, BTW totally give the lie to the "bikes are 16 x as dangerous", because if they were we would have a 16x claim frequency !

But - the anomaly

Same document (all this is on P29 BTW) shows the cost per claim, again as a percentage of car :

0-125 cc(mainly mopeds) 146%
126 - 600cc 187%
601+ 369%

The variation between the three I can understand . Big bikes cost more, probably will be ridden by people with higher incomes than small bike riders, and higher incomes means more ERC costs when they crash.

BUT - this (familiar) document, (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/IS0800143) also ACC's own issue shows as as costing , on average , 20% or so LESS than cars.

Since all the size categories are showing as higher than cars, the two are irreconcilable.

Since the latter doc actually gives numbers (our well known 62million) whereas the first document just plucks a percentage out of this air, I think we are entitled to claim that the one in our favour should be sued.

But I don't see where the anomaly comes from.

Anyone ?

R-Soul
2nd November 2009, 10:01
when the ACC was first mooted, the principle of "No fault, no sueing" was used to get our support for it.

A noble cause that frees up our court systems for more useful endeavours.

In effect, the government said, "we will take away your right to sue, and in return, we will makes ure that you are looked after - and no fault applies". the no fault principle is important. Let me explain what happens in a normal privatised insurance system.

Individuals pay premiums according to group risk. The group risk can be affected by individual factors such as safety record (no claims bonuses etc), age, disabilities, and others. In an insurance contract, you hand over (called "abrogating") your right to sue to the insurer. In the event of another's fault, they will be able to sue on your behalf to reclaim at least part of the costs that paid to you. This abrogation allows them to reduce premiums because they will make less of a loss (on average) when claims happen.

BUT now the government has taken away our right to sue, which means it cannot be abrogated to the insurers. and the ACC now wants to make us pay what are in effect insurance premiums to them, taking our risk as a group into account. BUT fault is not dealt with as it is a "no fault" scheme. That means that they have taken away our rights to be able to reduce our final payout (by sueing), while still holding us liable and making us pay as a group for the risk. They cannot have both.

I really think this legal aspect could be against human rights, and is clearly unfair. If the government wants to go ahead with this, we as a group should insist on having the right to sue back - which will open up a bigger can of worms than the government may be ready to deal with.

Most importantly, the cage drivers will be wary of this as well, since any one of the accidents caused by them will now be a potential massive liability for them. If this is the altrernative, I think they would rather subsidise us by $77 a year than face a massive payout if they hit a scooter in the morning traffic.

Of course, there may be dfferences between the way that insurance contracts and medical insurance contracts work (which may operate very differently) where abrogation may not come into it.

But the same principle applies, we lost our rights in order to gain from the broad general principles of the ACC as a trade off. If those broad general principles of the ACC are now being violated, then we want our right to sue back.

Howie
2nd November 2009, 20:51
I got sent an e-mail today from an organisation calling themselves ACC Futures Coalition. They attached a newsletter explaining who they are, and why they set the organisation up. Which was originally to fight the privatisation of the ACC work account. In this newsletter they are now asking for all sporting, recreation, and other interested groups to join them. Quote from newsletter below.

"We need all Organisations who may be affected by this privatisation agenda, including sports groups, recreation groups, tourism groups, small businesses etc. to join the coalition. Circulate this newsletter and encourage interested organisations to contact us on info@accfutures.org.nz "

The web site has some interesting links, and resources on it as well although I think we have found most of them already.

The website for those interested is http://www.accfutures.org.nz/index.html

I have attached a word copy of the e-mail. if anybody would like the full newsletter forwarded to them please pm a e-mail address to me.

Cheers

Paul

Ixion
2nd November 2009, 20:57
Hm.

NZCTU. And Hazel Armstrong. They've got some big guns there. Ms Armstrong is a very highly respected ACC lawyer. She was on the ACC board until the recent purge.

Interesting.

mashman
18th November 2009, 19:47
There is a massive anomaly

But I don't see where the anomaly comes from.

Anyone ?

Yeah, i'll have a go. ACC tell you about how to read their statistics here http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00066. If they use these reporting parameters then you have your answer. I paid particular attention to the points:

"For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims".

and

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’.

Do some sums with those variances and see what you get. I think it's your anomaly

NighthawkNZ
19th November 2009, 21:13
Do some sums with those variances and see what you get. I think it's your anomaly

may be part of it but means they can't get accurate stats and even then still doesn't add up

Ixion
19th November 2009, 21:20
I found the reason for the anomaly , after discussion with an ACC dude.

The figures used in the capacity calculations are a (non random) subset.

They are only serious crashes! No wonder they are higher.

The selection bias is because, for the capacity calculations , they linked to the Police CAS system , which is the only place they can get the capcity figures.

Then tried to match up the ACC crash record with the police record. Only a quarter matched.

Since Police attend serious crashes but (usually) not minor ones, the police recorded crashes will be those where there are serious injuries .

For teh cars they just took the total number of crashes.

mashman
19th November 2009, 21:53
may be part of it but means they can't get accurate stats and even then still doesn't add up

That's the whole point. They're making policy decisions based on the wrong figures. How distorted you'll never know unless ya get in there and start hammering the numbers. But hey, they have their excuses so it's alright, business as usual, move along...

mashman
19th November 2009, 21:55
I found the reason for the anomaly , after discussion with an ACC dude.

The figures used in the capacity calculations are a (non random) subset.

They are only serious crashes! No wonder they are higher.

The selection bias is because, for the capacity calculations , they linked to the Police CAS system , which is the only place they can get the capcity figures.

Then tried to match up the ACC crash record with the police record. Only a quarter matched.

Since Police attend serious crashes but (usually) not minor ones, the police recorded crashes will be those where there are serious injuries .

For teh cars they just took the total number of crashes.

I'm not surprised their reports are wrong if they calculate figures using their user guide in the link above. You can make some fantastic numbers calculating statistics this way. What's more they told you that they're doing it, so its legal?

Hanne
20th November 2009, 21:37
(Mods please move if wrong place)

Flyer to print two per page and use at events

NighthawkNZ
24th November 2009, 18:19
Ideas of ACC Funding

GST to Save ACC
Recombine all the accounts, as ACC was not designed to have these seperate accounts and the more cross subisiding the better it works. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC we have at present, so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE.

Put ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved... its on petrol, booze every thing you buy and sell, covers yah paper cuts, it covers your tourists and covers cyclists and bikers as you are paying it on every thing you buy for you bike. It covers those that are working, even kids when will be paying ACC out of there pocket money (all the business have to is up GST) the IRD goons do the rest.

A 2.5% increase in GST, to 15%, would then easily raise around $10 - 15 billion which is what ACC requires.
If only 1% was added to GST ACC would be fully funded in 2 or three years. If GST went to 15% ACC would be fully funded in one year and could then be dropped back back to 1% to carry it on.

There have been many ideas running about to ease the pain of the transistion, a few more if GST is not raised.


Levy Drivers license - Maybe $50 a per year.



We could put flat fee ACC levy on all vehicles bought including boats, trailers and caravans. Even if it is only $50. This is done on change of registration and ownership.



Make all farm vehicles warrantable considering they are carry people about the farm.



Levy on traffic infrigement which must be paid even if the actual infringement is dropped. (if 100% would generate 650million the entire traffic account in 2008 was 635 million.)



Flat fee on WOF's (say $5 or $10) on all warrantable vehicles and trailers. ie 2,919,151 vehicles (again not not counting trucks or the extra above etc and assuming that all these are once a year, but there will be a good percentage that are every 6 months.) 2,919,151 x $5 = $14,595,755 or $29,191,510 if it was $10. If using the whole fleet and trailers and caravans etc this would be $49 million.



Increase levy on fuel. Not much even if only 5c a litre.

Adding these up would generate 1.4 billion dollars twice as much as the traffic account is now.

The above suggestions targets the arguements and means the victim isn't paying. Targeting those that cause the problems on our roads. ie; drunk drivers that we do catch.

RobP
2nd December 2009, 16:50
Hi all,

I’m sure most us would have read David Hough's book “Proficient Motorcycling”, which makes frequent references to the Hurt Report. To the best of my knowledge, this is still one of the only comprehensive studies into motorcycle accidents, and although dated, still might have some relevant today?

Now, it’s been a while since I read the book, but I do vaguely recall that the Hurt Report found that:

1) Most motorcycle accidents were actually caused by the other vehicle not seeing the bike; and
2) That larger bikes actually had less accidents

Given that we know that ACC’s statistics are not stacking up (and that a lot of the time the police don’t actually record the cc rating of a bike involved in an accident), perhaps a proper scientific report like the Hurt Report could be used to bolster our case?

For anyone who’s interested, you can download the Hurt Report here:

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf

It’s quite long (435 pages) and I haven’t finished reading it yet, but it seems to have some useful info in there…

Hope this helps!

Rob

Mom
18th December 2009, 19:19
Hm.

NZCTU. And Hazel Armstrong. They've got some big guns there. Ms Armstrong is a very highly respected ACC lawyer. She was on the ACC board until the recent purge.

Interesting.


I just talked to her.

jonnyk5614
22nd June 2015, 12:06
Can anyone verify if we still have to pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident. I believe the costs involved in this are horrendous and if they want to save money, knock that on the head for a start! Hell, we have to get insurance when we travel overseas.

I heard a case where an overseas skier broke his leg and the total cost before he arrived at his home in Canada, was $80,000. I also believe that because the accident happened here that all the after care is still being paid by NZ'ers???!!!@@#$##@!!

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.

Yeah - but they've paid their ACC premium like the rest of us. Even on a temporary import, you have to pay ACC levy.

RDJ
22nd June 2015, 12:28
Can anyone verify if we still have to pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident. I believe the costs involved in this are horrendous and if they want to save money, knock that on the head for a start! Hell, we have to get insurance when we travel overseas.

I heard a case where an overseas skier broke his leg and the total cost before he arrived at his home in Canada, was $80,000. I also believe that because the accident happened here that all the after care is still being paid by NZ'ers???!!!@@#$##@!!

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.

acknowledging this is a thread dredge...

Yes, we pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident, we pay for their loved ones to fly out to New Zealand, we pay for their accommodation and rehabilitation in many (not all) cases - ACC is deliberately vague about this saying it will "cover a wide range of other services"): in short = all treatment of an accident in the public hospital system is "free" to the victim as inpatient treatment (and then many outpatient costs) are paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer.

This is done because it's not possible to sue in New Zealand for exemplary damages if other people injure you. And you can't be sued if you injure other people. So the government of the day decided that we would pay for injured foreign tourists' medical expenses because we had removed their right to claim damages from the people who injured them.

Riding in the US without significant six-figure insurance coverage for injuries to others resulting from my actions, or the actions of uninsured or underinsured other parties injuring me, would be foolish in the extreme. But travelling uninsured in New Zealand primarily hurts the pocket of only the New Zealand taxpayer as injured overseas tourists generally claim all the way up to what the legislation and ACC rules allow.* (I and others have observed that injured overseas tourists are frequently better informed about ACC entitlements than are many New Zealand taxpayers).

ACC support may be available to you as a visitor if you are:

injured in an accident within New Zealand
in certain circumstances suffering from a health problem related to working in New Zealand
injured as a result of medical treatment while you are in New Zealand
dealing with the mental effects of a sexual assault or abuse suffered in New Zealand.
The injury must have happened in New Zealand. You are considered outside New Zealand, and so not covered:

if you are injured while aboard the boat or plane on which you travelled to New Zealand, or in getting on or off that boat or plane
if you are injured while travelling around the country in the craft you arrived in, such as a yacht or cruise ship. You are not covered whenever you are on board or on the gangway
if you take an excursion during your visit that takes you 300 nautical miles or more from New Zealand.

If you’re injured during your visit to New Zealand, ACC may be able to help with the cost of treatment and support you need while you’re here. However, it is important to be aware that you cannot sue for damages arising from your personal injury – ACC cover removes that right.

ACC only covers treatment and rehabilitation costs while you are in New Zealand; it is not a replacement for travel insurance and does not cover illness, disrupted travel plans or emergency travel to get you back home. We strongly recommend you arrange travel insurance before visiting New Zealand.


Most tourists being not stupid, and with many advocates telling them their entitlements, many injured tourists & families stay on in New Zealand for months or even in a few cases years to get follow-up treatment, because without any or sufficient travel insurance, they wouldn't have coverage for injuries sustained in NZ once they are back in their home country.

jonnyk5614
23rd June 2015, 20:12
Did anyone read the review a few weeks back in the newspaper that the new 3 wheel Yamaha scooter qualifies for a car registration which makes a nonsense of the ACC claim that bikes are charged more because of the less protection they offer than cars when all is needed is an extra wheel.

The owner will make up the ACC cost difference when an eagle eyed traffic warden fines him for being in a motorcycle parking bay :)

rastuscat
7th April 2018, 10:33
The owner will make up the ACC cost difference when an eagle eyed traffic warden fines him for being in a motorcycle parking bay :)

That's an issue that hasn't escaped my attention. I'll let you know how it goes.

rastuscat
7th April 2018, 10:34
Did anyone read the review a few weeks back in the newspaper that the new 3 wheel Yamaha scooter qualifies for a car registration which makes a nonsense of the ACC claim that bikes are charged more because of the less protection they offer than cars when all is needed is an extra wheel.

Yamaha Tri City.

Moi
7th April 2018, 11:41
That's an issue that hasn't escaped my attention. I'll let you know how it goes.

As they are registered as a car, will the "rider" be fined for going in a bus lane?

russd7
12th April 2018, 19:15
Yamaha Tri City.

actually that would be a good one to try in wellington and see if an unobservant parking warden would ticket it for parking in a car park

KezzaCFC
4th May 2018, 16:42
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/103531713/unsafe-overtaking-accounts-for-half-of-motorcyclist-lives-lost

'The Ministry of Transport said 13 of those killed last year involved riding Harley Davidson bikes, seven deaths involved Yamaha bikes.'

'Keilty said male riders aged 40 and above show statistically they are more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.'

To me, boomers on Harley's need to pat their fair share. Statically more likely, pay up

RDJ
4th May 2018, 21:20
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/103531713/unsafe-overtaking-accounts-for-half-of-motorcyclist-lives-lost

'The Ministry of Transport said 13 of those killed last year involved riding Harley Davidson bikes, seven deaths involved Yamaha bikes.'

'Keilty said male riders aged 40 and above show statistically they are more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.'

To me, boomers on Harley's need to pat their fair share. Statically more likely, pay up

Troll level; F. Somewhere underneath a bridge, your hovel needs sweeping out.

russd7
6th May 2018, 20:54
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/103531713/unsafe-overtaking-accounts-for-half-of-motorcyclist-lives-lost

'The Ministry of Transport said 13 of those killed last year involved riding Harley Davidson bikes, seven deaths involved Yamaha bikes.'

'Keilty said male riders aged 40 and above show statistically they are more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.'

To me, boomers on Harley's need to pat their fair share. Statically more likely, pay up

rather ironic making a statement like that really given that statistically those that is dead is dead and cost ACC fuck all, now off back to kindy with you

husaberg
6th May 2018, 22:54
The statisticians need to also compile how many deaths occur on group rides as the most dangerous overtaking I have seen is from guys on group rides under pressure to keep up or impress one another.
https://media.giphy.com/media/26n6K26HIxCRp7KHC/source.gif (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizoPmE9vDaAhUBsJQKHS6iD1UQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgiphy.com%2Fgifs%2Fifc-american-pie-this-one-time-at-band-camp-26n6K26HIxCRp7KHC&psig=AOvVaw02AJLAU6X-vJaXpvpdbx9K&ust=1525690450055006)

Berries
6th May 2018, 23:39
The statisticians need to also compile how many deaths occur on group rides as the most dangerous overtaking I have seen is from guys on group rides under pressure to keep up or impress one another.
It has been done, it has been posted on KB. What you repeatedly tell us every chance you get even when it is not even relevant to the thread is not backed up by the data. You have been told this and yet you continue to ignore it.

KezzaCFC
7th May 2018, 10:44
rather ironic making a statement like that really given that statistically those that is dead is dead and cost ACC fuck all, now off back to kindy with you

AND INJURIES, there you go. Irony averted

Source: https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Motorcycles-2017.pdf

And who pays for the emergency services picking up the pieces in a fatality? Genuinely curious, if you can shed some light.

Scubbo
7th May 2018, 15:16
So what is the percentage of riders dying on group rides then as I must have missed reading the post that stated the number? (http://gnear.net/WHAT.jpg)

wonder what percentage of cars were on the road when something bad happened to a car on the road

Moi
7th May 2018, 15:40
So what is the percentage of riders dying on group rides then as I must have missed reading the post that stated the number?

Jeez Wayne! Get over your obsession with group rides and other people being at fault...

Does it really matter how many died on a group ride or how many died when riding by them self or how many died because someone made an error of judgement? NO!

What does matter is that someone died! Someone who was part of a family, a community, a workplace, a sports team...

The flow on from that person's death is huge, it's like throwing a large boulder into a small pond - the splash goes everywhere and covers a large area.

What does matter is that we, as riders and drivers, do whatever we can to be the best rider or driver we can be at all times so that we never have to say that someone died because of our actions.

Woodman
7th May 2018, 16:27
So what is the percentage of riders dying on group rides then as I must have missed reading the post that stated the number?

You are a fuckwit.

granstar
7th May 2018, 20:03
AND INJURIES, there you go. Irony averted

Source: https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Motorcycles-2017.pdf

And who pays for the emergency services picking up the pieces in a fatality? Genuinely curious, if you can shed some light.

Been riding since 1972 and don't remember the peak in the 80's but then a lot of people were riding bikes back then. The graph highlights that in 40 year olds being up there statistically could be due to being the only ones out riding ( and can afford to) these days so it isn't a true picture, or am I just a thick crunt like cassina and got it all wrong.

Murray
7th May 2018, 20:57
The statisticians need to also compile how many deaths occur on group rides as the most dangerous overtaking I have seen is from guys on group rides under pressure to keep up or impress one another.

I read somewhere, or someone told me, or it might have been in a thread that its between 4 & 6% and of those 45% were a cars fault.

russd7
7th May 2018, 22:06
And who pays for the emergency services picking up the pieces in a fatality? Genuinely curious, if you can shed some light.

depends on the time of day, if it happens to be between 7am and 6.00pm mon to fri for me then my employer does, they are good like that, but if its outside work hours i do it for love ya might say, and there are a lot around like that.
by the way i am over that magical 40 mark as are most of the volunteers in both of the fire brigades i turn out for and as such i have paid ACC levies both as an employer, as an employee and as a consumer so i do believe i have paid more than my fair share over the years given that ACC is rather flush with funds.
Question for you and it is genuine, how much do you give back to your community, do you volunteer for your local fire brigade or as an ambo.

russd7
7th May 2018, 22:10
I read somewhere, or someone told me, or it might have been in a thread that its between 4 & 6% and of those 45% were a cars fault.

it actually works out very close to a third rider only, a third rider and another vehicle at fault and a third other party at fault.

KezzaCFC
7th May 2018, 22:14
depends on the time of day, if it happens to be between 7am and 6.00pm mon to fri for me then my employer does, they are good like that, but if its outside work hours i do it for love ya might say, and there are a lot around like that.
by the way i am over that magical 40 mark as are most of the volunteers in both of the fire brigades i turn out for and as such i have paid ACC levies both as an employer, as an employee and as a consumer so i do believe i have paid more than my fair share over the years given that ACC is rather flush with funds.
Question for you and it is genuine, how much do you give back to your community, do you volunteer for your local fire brigade or as an ambo.

Right of course. Sorry don't know much about the funding etc of things like the fire brigade. Understand its volunteers and you guys do a great job!!

As for giving back, a lot less than I should!!

russd7
7th May 2018, 22:18
AND INJURIES, there you go. Irony averted

Source: https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Motorcycles-2017.pdf

And who pays for the emergency services picking up the pieces in a fatality? Genuinely curious, if you can shed some light.

if ya actually took that graph and adjusted it for the numbers of riders in each age group going back to the 80's and the adjusted it to percentages i think you would find it getting turned around, if you want a user pays system then all of a sudden all those sports and passtimes that at present don't pay levies would suddenly have to start paying.

russd7
7th May 2018, 22:20
Right of course. Sorry don't know much about the funding etc of things like the fire brigade. Understand its volunteers and you guys do a great job!!

As for giving back, a lot less than I should!!

the fire service is funded through the fire service levy on insurance but as volunteers we don't get paid, but we do get abused, that's always fun.

granstar
8th May 2018, 19:51
if ya actually took that graph and adjusted it for the numbers of riders in each age group going back to the 80's and the adjusted it to percentages i think you would find it getting turned around, if you want a user pays system then all of a sudden all those sports and passtimes that at present don't pay levies would suddenly have to start paying.

As well as for being an unselfish volunteer, that comment deserves a medal too :Punk:

Not giving back, I be as guilty as everyone else there. A few wee toy and Eggs runs are charities I've supported but a pittance to the lifelines provided by Fire and Ambulance services. Should they be an actual Department like the Popo? They certainly all do a wonderful job, some unrewarding and rewarding circumstances. I've attended many of the Fire volunteer ceremonies over the years ( in capacity as a band member) and the loyalty and dedication shown among the men and women in those organisations is amazing.

KezzaCFC
9th May 2018, 13:32
if ya actually took that graph and adjusted it for the numbers of riders in each age group going back to the 80's and the adjusted it to percentages i think you would find it getting turned around, if you want a user pays system then all of a sudden all those sports and passtimes that at present don't pay levies would suddenly have to start paying.

You would, but its also the same generation carried through. i.e riders in their 20's in the 1980's are now in their 50's.
Anyway, those %'s are irrelevant.

FlangMasterJ
9th May 2018, 13:40
The statisticians need to also compile how many deaths occur on group rides as the most dangerous overtaking I have seen is from guys on group rides under pressure to keep up or impress one another.

Does this vagina copy and paste this from all of his threads? You're one strange dude.