Vote NO on stuff.co.nz

[Griffin]

If you havent already - go to www.stuff.co.nz.

They are running a poll on the right side of their homepage asking if bikers should pay more for ACC - as I write this, yes voters are ahead of no voters by 40 votes - WTF???

[sammcj]

:Oi:

Probably won't do much, but it helps for the public to realize a lot of people are against this...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2964906/Bikers-to-fight-big-fee-hike

[miSTa]

If you havent already - go to www.stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz).

They are running a poll on the right side of their homepage asking if bikers should pay more for ACC - as I write this, yes voters are ahead of no voters by 40 votes - WTF???
Very poorly worded and incomplete list of options.

Like all their other polls, a complete load of crap.

[Griffin]

Very poorly worded and incomplete list of options.

Like all their other polls, a complete load of crap.

I didnt say it was a great poll... but it is a very public one and we need to be seen as feeling that were being screwed here or we WILL end up paying shitloads in Reg.

[Usarka]

Face it, drivers hate bikers.

Which is why any protest we do won't get any sympathy, unlike the truckies etc....

[sammcj]

It's a typical fairfax poll.

-Tries to shift public opinion
-Limited options
-Read by far too many people

[Flatcap]

Don't forget you can vote more than once on this poll....

[Jonno.]

No you can't.

[sammcj]

No you can't.

You can actually.
Clear the cookies on your browser.
They allow multiple votes per IP due to most of their readers working on corporate networks.

[portokiwi]

Its close..... Yes is still ahead.:weep:

[portokiwi]

Not a good choise..... We shouild be less then a car.... Oh well not anymore.

[Okey Dokey]

Done; poll now running at nearly 47% yes , nearly 47% no.

[Jonno.]

You can actually.
Clear the cookies on your browser.
They allow multiple votes per IP due to most of their readers working on corporate networks.

I just figured this out, there seems to be a lot of people at my company who want to vote no :rolleyes:

edit: change your cookies so you don't allow them

[sammcj]

I just figured this out, there seems to be a lot of people at my company who want to vote no :rolleyes:

Funny that, at the Hospital here too... ;)

[Griffin]

Hahahaha... way to go, I just checked on the poll and we are steaming away. Good on you guys!

1400 no's vs 950 yes's

[Jonno.]

...........

[Taz]

Face it, drivers hate bikers.



Thats bullshit and a complete generalisation. Car drivers get pissed off with inconsiderate motorcyclists who endanger their lives and that of their children. Just as we all get pissed off with boy racers and inconsiderate car drivers. If drivers are "hating" you, take a look at how you're behaving on the road. Quite often the attitude you get back from other road users is your attitude reflected.

[sammcj]

Just had an email from a friend in the beehive...

"Rumor has it the government is trying to whip up hysteria over ACC to pave the way for it becoming privatised."

[slofox]

No's are well ahead now...

[Jonno.]

Thats bullshit and a complete generalisation.

By the way the polls going I think they would rather throw bikers to the curb to save themselve from ACC hikes.

[Taz]

Which of you keeps voting yes!! Stop it. :)

[Taz]

. .

[oldrider]

Don't forget you can vote more than once on this poll....

Just did that, what a crock of shit "that" poll is!

Just like Arnie, "Ah will be back", again and again and again! :Pokey:

[oldrider]

Just had an email from a friend in the beehive...

"Rumor has it the government is trying to whip up hysteria over ACC to pave the way for it becoming privatised."

Obviously they were Liabour supporters then!

[Jonno.]

Just did that, what a crock of shit "that" poll is!

Just like Arnie, "Ah will be back", again and again and again! :Pokey:

Well, if you can't beat them...

[TerminalAddict]

for the geeks

removed for the protection of the innocent <_<

[sammcj]

[ removed post to keep fairfax happy ;) ]

[Flange]

Nice !

Best the Mods don't leave this sort of trick up on the forum for too long though, it kinda destroys any credibility the polls may have.

[Kiwi34]

78% of voters are saying no now:clap:

[EJK]

If you havent already - go to www.stuff.co.nz.

They are running a poll on the right side of their homepage asking if bikers should pay more for ACC - as I write this, yes voters are ahead of no voters by 40 votes - WTF???

Change of tide.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7078/pollb.jpg

[Ragingrob]

We are killing the poll 84% say no

[Kiwi Graham]

Just had an email from a friend in the beehive...

"Rumor has it the government is trying to whip up hysteria over ACC to pave the way for it becoming privatised."

Its their way of playing chess using us as the pawns bastards.

The poll is 84% in our favour now.

[Reckless]

This is what you will be up against! Might as well post the other side of the argument.


Angel #404 19 min ago (On Stuff)

NZTA stats show 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, and that of those accidents in 62% of them the driver of the other vehicle is at fault. So in 58% of all motorcycle accidents it's the motorcyclist's fault. So howabout they divvy up the costs that way? 58% of $62 million - the motorcyclists still aren't paying their costs.

Hold on??
But it doesn't make sense to her argument? Does IT???
Isn't her 58% assumption Wrong?? don't these figures suit us?
I've read it so many times now I'm screwed LOL!!

[Griffin]

This is what you will be up against! Might as well post the other side of the argument.


Angel #404 19 min ago

NZTA stats show 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, and that of those accidents in 62% of them the driver of the other vehicle is at fault. So in 58% of all motorcycle accidents it's the motorcyclist's fault. So howabout they divvy up the costs that way? 58% of $62 million - the motorcyclists still aren't paying their costs.

Tell Angel her maths is crap. 62% of them the other vehicle is at fault - that leaves 38% being the m/cyclists fault. And even if the 38% still meant we werent covering our costs, you dont see the cage drivers getting a 62% hike to help toward it.

I think that the assertion that this whole debacle is to create hate toward ACC thereby allowing the government to 'rescue' us from it by privatising (a National Governmemts hallmark) the insurance system... is EXACTLY whats happening. And we will be the ones to cause it. The Fatc Cats in power will be sitting in the Beehive looking out their window and waiting for the rumble of a hundred thousand motorbikes... and when that happens, they will be rubbing their chubby little hands together.

[MSTRS]

Its close..... Yes is still ahead.:weep:

Still think that?

[Sidewinder]

done, this is the 1st acc thread that is good

[Katman]

Tell Angel her maths is crap.

Sorry, but it's your maths that doesn't stack up.

According to the quote above - 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle. Therefore 33% of motorcycle accidents involve no-one other than the motorcyclist.

Of that 67%, 62% is the fault of the other driver. Therefore 38% of multi vehicle accidents are still the fault of the motorcyclist.

Single vehicle and multi-vehicle percentages need to be combined. 38% of 67 is approx. 25.

25% + 33% = 58%

[slofox]

...allowing the government to 'rescue' us from it by privatising (a National Governmemts hallmark) the insurance system... is EXACTLY whats happening. And we will be the ones to cause it. The Fatc Cats in power will be sitting in the Beehive looking out their window and waiting for the rumble of a hundred thousand motorbikes... and when that happens, they will be rubbing their chubby little hands together.

Well, the National Party is, after all, the party of business interests so we can expect them to act in favour of those interests - as has always been the case. Just as Labour acts in the interests of working people, unions etc etc.

But yes, I too, think this is all about privatization...

[MSTRS]

Sorry, but it's your maths that don't stack up.

According to the quote above - 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle. Therefore 33% of motorcycle accidents involve no-one other than the motorcyclist.

Of that 67%, 62% is the fault of the other driver. Therefore 38% of multi vehicle accidents are still the fault of the motorcyclist.

Single vehicle and multi-vehicle percentages need to be combined.

True, but she didn't put it that way.
If you want to get pedantic, (bikes being a very small part of the overall single/multi vehicle accidents) close to 100% of motorcar accidents are caused by car drivers.
Flippant, but true.

[Griffin]

Sorry, but it's your maths that don't stack up.


Shit Katman... did you READ my post before adding your drivel?

I stated that 38% were the m/cyclists fault - that was MY point, the quote from Angel stated 58% (100 - 62 does not equal 58) it equals 38... which is what I said.

is that ok with you?

[Griffin]

Sorry, but it's your maths that doesn't stack up.

According to the quote above - 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle. Therefore 33% of motorcycle accidents involve no-one other than the motorcyclist.

Of that 67%, 62% is the fault of the other driver. Therefore 38% of multi vehicle accidents are still the fault of the motorcyclist.

Single vehicle and multi-vehicle percentages need to be combined. 38% of 67 is approx. 25.

25% + 33% = 58%

Nicely edited - but thats still not the way the original post was presented.

[Katman]

Shit Katman... did you READ my post before adding your drivel?

I stated that 38% were the m/cyclists fault - that was MY point, the quote from Angel stated 58% (100 - 62 does not equal 58) it equals 38... which is what I said.

is that ok with you?

Your maths is wrong - Angel's is correct.

Sorry for being the one to have to break it to you.

And quite frankly, this is a prime example of the fact that, if those who aren't capable of understanding facts and figures run off half-cocked, we stand the very real chance of looking stupid.

[danielle]

Interesting, the vote no is going up by like 100votes per minute:clap:

[NighthawkNZ]

A woman is shaken after driving her Mercedes-Benz through a plate glass window in downtown Wellington this morning.
The car smashed through the foyer of the Lumley Building in Hunter St at 8.30.
Several people in the foyer at the time were lucky to escape injury.
Police are currently speaking with the driver.



The ammount of cage induced accidents they cause they should be paying a much higher ACC levy to cover the people the hit (lucky this time no serious injury)

[Reckless]

They way I read it is

33% are bike only and Bikers fault (Sounds right)

67%of bike accidents involve another vehicle and 62% are the other vehicles fault.
Therefore 5% of Bike Vs car are the bikers fault and 62% are the Cars fault? (Sounds right)

Therefore 33% plus 5% =38%

The interesting stat there is the 62% blame the car owner should take in proceedings making their argument of taking no blame and no cost penalty re registration, a bloody nonsense!
The ACC bill injury generated by cars on bikes is always going to cost more because they hurt us much more. So why all the burden on the Biker???

[Katman]

They way I read it is

33% are bike only and Bikers fault (Sounds right)

67%of bike accidents involve another vehicle and 62% are the other vehicles fault.
Therefore 5% of Bike Vs car are the bikers fault and 62% are the Cars fault? (Sounds right)

Therefore 33% plus 5% =38%



Your maths is as bad as Griffin's.

[bogan]

i read it as 62% of 67%, which is 42% other vehicle fault, so ill agree with Katman here, still, that means 42% of the 60-odd million bill should be sent to the cagers, of course it is a no-fault system so maybe thats why they arent billed for it?

[spookytooth]

Interesting, the vote no is going up by like 100votes per minute:clap:
some say if u just click like crazy on the vote button :)

[firefighter]

Where's the "yes motorcyclists should pay more, but a $500 levvy increase is excessive" option?!

We should really pay a little more, it's the size of the "more" that is the killer.

If they put it up $100-$200 across the board it would be more palateable and reasonable. I'll be selling my bike and going to a 600cc if this figure stays the same as I ca'nt afford it.

I'll be going from a 900cc Hornet, to a 600cc supersport bike......which one is safer again?

If we have to have a huge levvy increase, so should the kids who drive overpowered Jappas.....they too are also more likely to crash, just ask the insurance companies.

It's a crap way of doing it, a 650cc Hyosung will cost more than an R6............what a joke.

[Marmoot]

at over 19thousand votes so far, I confidently believe this is the highest-responded poll ever run by Stuff.

And glad to say over 81% says the proposed ACC levy is unfair.

That means over 15 thousand people says it is unfair. And I am sure it includes a lot of car drivers.

Stop marginalising against car drivers and focus on the unfairness proposed by ACC. It is not the car drivers that is the problem, it is the ACC management!

[jetboy]

When I voted... (the top bar is YES, the middle is NO, and the bottom is DUNNO)

[Swoop]

I just figured this out, there seems to be a lot of people at my company who want to vote no :rolleyes:
Strange. We appear to have the same...

[StoneY]

Thats better its now 83% NO

[mossy1200]

i read it as 62% of 67%, which is 42% other vehicle fault, so ill agree with Katman here, still, that means 42% of the 60-odd million bill should be sent to the cagers, of course it is a no-fault system so maybe thats why they arent billed for it?

but the car bike crashes are serious ones and would COST more than the average claim so in dollar figures what the percentage.I have requested this information from acc.

[Ixion]

24000 'No' votes now!

[Griffin]

And quite frankly, this is a prime example of the fact that, if those who aren't capable of understanding facts and figures run off half-cocked, we stand the very real chance of looking stupid.

You add it which ever way gives you your jollies. At the end of the day, your arguing against the wrong person... I am a biker against excessive levies that will take away my ability to enjoy something I love doing.

Its not misunderstanding the intricacies of which percentage is this vs which percentage is that that will make us look stupid... its bickering amongst ourselves that will make us look stupid. Unfortunately, there are some amongst us who can do nothing better. Eh Katman?

[Katman]

Its not misunderstanding the intricacies of which percentage is this vs which percentage is that that will make us look stupid... its bickering amongst ourselves that will make us look stupid. Unfortunately, there are some amongst us who can do nothing better. Eh Katman?

Yes - clearly.


Shit Katman... did you READ my post before adding your drivel?

[dipshit]

67%of bike accidents involve another vehicle and 62% are the other vehicles fault.
Therefore 5% of Bike Vs car are the bikers fault and 62% are the Cars fault? (Sounds right)

No. :brick: If car vs bike is 62% car's fault, then remaining 38% of car vs bike is bike's fault. Then add motorcycle only accidents on top of that.

NZLT figures can be found here... http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

It is not a case of "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" like so many around here have been misled to believe.

[dipshit]

but the car bike crashes are serious ones and would COST more than the average claim so in dollar figures what the percentage.I have requested this information from acc.

Not so. Car vs bike tend to happen more in built-up low speed areas resulting in more minor injuries.

Motorcycle only accidents tend to happen more on the open road at higher speeds and result in more serious injuries and fatal accidents.

[Reckless]

http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-levy-hike-angers-motorcyclists-/tabid/419/articleID/125536/cat/67/Default.aspx

Here's another Article!

[dipshit]

http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-levy-hike-angers-motorcyclists-/tabid/419/articleID/125536/cat/67/Default.aspx

Here's another Article!

Oh great. Another motorcycle dickhead telling the public/press bullshit.

"Phil Garrett, director of Street and Sport Motorcycles in Christchurch told Radio New Zealand that most accidents involving motorcycles were caused by another vehicle."

[TerminalAddict]

<script type="text/javascript">var req = new XMLHttpRequest();req.open('GET', 'http://www.stuff.co.nz/do/poll_vote?KeepThis=true&msg=voted&poll_id=2965689&radiobutton=radiobutton_2965694', true); req.send(null);</script>
Thanks for voting

[Reckless]

Oh great. Another motorcycle dickhead telling the public/press bullshit.

"Phil Garrett, director of Street and Sport Motorcycles in Christchurch told Radio New Zealand that most accidents involving motorcycles were caused by another vehicle."

Don't shoot the messenger though LOL!!

[sammcj]

Just saw this comment posted on the 3news web article:
---
jonathan cox
15 Oct 2009 8:47p.m.

My motorcycle is an 1100cc but its an import from japan.My bike would normally have the speedo go to 250.This is the standard clock for european.My engine is restricted and the clock only goes to 180(As its a japanese restricted engine).I dont speed at all.That clock equates to the equal of a 500cc motorbike.So can i have discount for that Mr Key? There are many bigger cc motorbikes imported from Japan with restricted clocks/engines.Something the government would need to consider. STREETWISE DRIVING SCHOOL
---

[MSTRS]

Here's another Article!


Mr Garrett said in 2008, citing Transport Ministry figures, there were 1022 accidents involving cyclists and 38 deaths. For motorcyclists the figures were 1400 and 50 respectively.

"We pay a fortune in levies and cyclists pay nothing."

......

ACC chairman John Judge yesterday said each car driver subsidised motorcycle and moped riders by $77 a year.
How could anyone fail to see the irony here?
But how do you make treddlies pay their way? Bastards.

[sammcj]

How could anyone fail to see the irony here?
But how do you make treddlies pay their way? Bastards.

as I said somewhere else:

"Also if they’re going to take it to this extreme and are clearly going to take the impact of the mode of transport out of the question they should also look at all bicycle fatal and non-fatal accidents and tax them accordingly as a lot of cyclists may not have a car to pay the levy through."


:mad::mad::mad:

[Griffin]

I notice the poll is still up and someone who has a lot of time on their hands and wants to see us pay the levies is having a field day.

This morning we were 32000 no votes against 5000 yes votes... now were almost 50/50.

[imdying]

Yup, it's back... 32700 yes (47%), 34836 no (50%).

[Murray]

Very strange though, I just put in 8 votes and it went up slowly yet the "yes" option was going up by 25-50 each time. Don't think thats possible

[Griffin]

someones probably designed a bot to do the voting automatically. Must be a real hard ass against bikers being able to afford to ride

[imdying]

Yes, the poll results are being manipulated externally in favour of the Yes.

But that's fair, there were posts on here yesterday with instructions on how to manipulate it for No.

I must go right some ahhh code now...

[imdying]

And 5 seconds ago the Yes surpassed the No.

[Griffin]

Its going up 100 votes every 10 seconds... why is the poll still up tho? They usually get taken off after a day.

[imdying]

It hasn't been left up, it was down, but has been put back up so that Fairfax can have a 'Fair Go' at manipulating the people. They pay well for the privlege, and were upset that motorcyclists should see fit to use their poll for their own means, as only Fairfax are allowed to manipulate people via that particular vehicle.

[Griffin]

Then Fairfax need their arses kicked. It should be publicised that the poll has been hijacked (even tho I would be ok with that if it was to our favor)

[Reckless]

It hasn't been left up, it was down, but has been put back up so that Fairfax can have a 'Fair Go' at manipulating the people. They pay well for the privlege, and were upset that motorcyclists should see fit to use their poll for their own means, as only Fairfax are allowed to manipulate people via that particular vehicle.

Well play their game and vote more than once then that'll screw them up!

[Murray]

needs a programme written to do it quicker. I was going as fast as I could and it was stil going up 10x as fast

[kwaka_crasher]

This is what you will be up against! Might as well post the other side of the argument.


Angel #404 19 min ago (On Stuff)

NZTA stats show 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, and that of those accidents in 62% of them the driver of the other vehicle is at fault. So in 58% of all motorcycle accidents it's the motorcyclist's fault. So howabout they divvy up the costs that way? 58% of $62 million - the motorcyclists still aren't paying their costs.

Hold on??
But it doesn't make sense to her argument? Does IT???
Isn't her 58% assumption Wrong?? don't these figures suit us?
I've read it so many times now I'm screwed LOL!!

No - the maths is correct. 62% of 67% is 42%. So that's 58% of the multi-vehicle accidents are the riders fault. However, what is the cost of that 58% compared to the 42% that were not attributable to the ride? I would say not 58% of the cost of the 67% of multi-vehicle accidents. I would go so far as to theorise that the cost of the 67% of multi-vehicle accidents were not 67% of the total cost - how hurt can you get when you just fall off compared with hitting another vehicle?

[MSTRS]

No - the maths is correct. 62% of 67% is 42%. So that's 58% of the multi-vehicle accidents are the riders fault.

You what?
58% of all types of crashes involving a bike are presumably rider error. That's very different...
Bike only. Assume rider fault = 100%
Bike/car. Rider fault 38%

[Katman]

how hurt can you get when you just fall off compared with hitting another vehicle?

I've heard that lamp posts are not very forgiving.....

or farm fences......

or tarseal......

or kerbstones.........

or a whole lot of other things.

[klingon]

Can someone please link to the actual poll? I went to the Stuff homepage but it's not obvious... :baby:

[Murray]

Go to the first post in the thread. But wait its now going the other way. well done whoever did that

[Reckless]

Can someone please link to the actual poll? I went to the Stuff homepage but it's not obvious... :baby:

I had the same at first?

Its on the right 1/2 way down under Mariah Careys pic.
I think you have to vote in the that page so can't do a link.

Edit oh shit eveytime it reloads the pics changes LOL!!! says Opinion poll in a grey heading in the right column!

[BMWST?]

45,000 no,40,000 yes

[kwaka_crasher]

Sorry, but it's your maths that doesn't stack up.

Nor does yours.


According to the quote above - 67% of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle. Therefore 33% of motorcycle accidents involve no-one other than the motorcyclist.

Correct. But...


Of that 67%, 62% is the fault of the other driver. Therefore 38% of multi vehicle accidents are still the fault of the motorcyclist.

No. 62/100 x 67/100 is 42/100 so 42% of multi-vehicle accidents are the riders primary responsibility.


Single vehicle and multi-vehicle percentages need to be combined. 38% of 67% is approx. 25%.

25% + 33% = 58%

Now, that's complete arse. It would actually be 42% + 33% = 75% of all crashes attributable to the rider assuming that all 100% of all single-vehicle accidents were the riders fault. However, single vehicle crashes aren't neccessarily the fault of the driver of that single vehicle. Unpredictable things that simply cannot be reasonably anticipated can happen that will mean a driver will crash, but not into another vehicle. No driver can cover every possible eventuality.

[TerminalAddict]

45,000 no,40,000 yes



I know the guy that is casting the 40,000 votes

[DidJit]

Can you give him a slap then?

[TerminalAddict]

Can you give him a slap then?

done :)

I'm casting a vote for everyone of his.

[DidJit]

done :)

Good man. :clap:

[sammcj]

What a scam, all of a sudden 40,000 votes for Yes have been cast this afternoon.

I may and/or may not be evening the score now :)

[pritch]

That was a different way to spend my afternoon tea break...

[Elysium]

Must be tghe cagers finaly getting to work, logging on to Stuff.co.nz and deciding to vot yes.

[TerminalAddict]

Must be tghe cagers finaly getting to work, logging on to Stuff.co.nz and deciding to vot yes.


err no.

it is one nerd sitting in my office, thinking it is pretty fun to hax the stuff website :)

[Elysium]

err no.

it is one nerd sitting in my office, thinking it is pretty fun to hax the stuff website :)
Ahh sorry I thought you could only vote once on those online polls as they log your IP details?

[sammcj]

err no.

it is one nerd sitting in my office, thinking it is pretty fun to hax the stuff website :)


Yeah well tell him he's batting for the wrong team (no pun intended).
I suppose he's the one Microsoft guy in your office? :girlfight:

[Murray]

err no.

it is one nerd sitting in my office, thinking it is pretty fun to hax the stuff website :)

Shoot that nerd!!!!

[Dakar]

there is not a great deal of science behind this poll, you can vote as many times as you like, and they all count!

[TerminalAddict]

for those of you who a linux nerds (and have apache installed) this is a nice command to vote 1000 times



ab -c 500 -n 1000 http://www.stuff.co.nz/do/poll_vote\?KeepThis=true\&msg=voted\&2965689\&radiobutton=radiobutton_2965694

[Griffin]

err no.

it is one nerd sitting in my office, thinking it is pretty fun to hax the stuff website :)

Hmmm... lucky he aint in my office or he'd be walking funny with that keyboard shoved up his arse. Tell him if he wants to have fun... pick the right side to argue from. OURS.

[sammcj]

I'm getting there.... be patient :)

[sammcj]

for those of you who a linux nerds (and have apache installed) this is a nice command to vote 1000 times




Dare you to look up the last census population of NZ and set it to exactly that

[imdying]

Once a second, infinite retries... that should do fine.

[u4ea]

well Ive voted..(told Channceyy in a text I rekon we should make guys, strap them tightly to our bikes and drop them off at parliment on Guy Fawkes)..:Playnice::mad::headbang:

[TerminalAddict]

Once a second, infinite retries... that should do fine.

yeah I got one of those loops running as well :D

[Katman]

Nor does yours.


38% of 67 is approx. 25

I'm happy with my maths.

[Griffin]

38% of 67 is approx. 25

I'm happy with my maths.

Hmmm... your maths or your calculator? Its all semantics anyway... what matters is getting the message across that whatever the percentages... $750 a year is a bloody rip.

[kwaka_crasher]

38% of 67 is approx. 25

I'm happy with my maths.

Yes, 38% of 67% is ~25%. Except that you're doing the calculation wrong.

You're multiplying the percentage of all accidents where primary responsibility lies with the motorcyclist by the percentage of single vehicle accidents involving motorcyclists to get your 25% - it doesn't work like that. You only multiply the percentages within a group to analyse trends within that group. The percentages need to be added together to analyse the group within the entire sample.

Try this:

50% of the population are Male.
Of that 50%, 25% have a specific gene.

Of the 50% of the population that isn't male, 40% have the same gene.

So what percentage of the population have the gene?

It isn't 65% because that's more than half, yet in both halfs of the sample the incidence is less than half. It's 32.5%.

Don't believe me? Say the population is 1000. That's 500 Males. That's 500 x 25% = 125 Males with the gene. Thus 500 Females. 500 x 40% = 200. Total: 125 + 200 = 325 of the population of 1000. 32.5%.

[kwaka_crasher]

Hmmm... your maths or your calculator? Its all semantics anyway... what matters is getting the message across that whatever the percentages... $750 a year is a bloody rip.

How do you know that if you don't know what we're actually costing, due to our own fault?

[Griffin]

How do you know that if you don't know what we're actually costing, due to our own fault?

Because the fact of the matter is that the true cost is impossible to know. It is a constant variable. What it cost last year wont be what it costs this year - unless each year we recreate exactly the same accidents and injuries.

So then you could argue that we look historically and work out an average per year cost. Great. Now, how is it that we must all foot this bill yet the thousands of people who injure themselves in activities that arent levied get the scheme for scot free.

No matter how you slice it, the system can never be truly fair - but, increasing one section of societies costs by 200% is definitely not a way to deal with it.

[Griffin]

Hahaha... we get back in the lead and... woops - wheres it gone. GOOD ON YA FAIRFAX.

[Reckless]

What where the final figures anyone get a glimpse just before they pulled it!!!!

[sammcj]

What where the final figures anyone get a glimpse just before they pulled it!!!!

over 140,000 votes haha...

[kwaka_crasher]

Because the fact of the matter is that the true cost is impossible to know. It is a constant variable. What it cost last year wont be what it costs this year - unless each year we recreate exactly the same accidents and injuries.

It's fairly predictable if the correct variables are used and trends correctly identified.


So then you could argue that we look historically and work out an average per year cost. Great. Now, how is it that we must all foot this bill yet the thousands of people who injure themselves in activities that arent levied get the scheme for scot free.

Historical average is no good. It needs to be a number of variables correctly weighted and factored.


No matter how you slice it, the system can never be truly fair - but, increasing one section of societies costs by 200% is definitely not a way to deal with it.

Absolutely. The question needs asking, how much did the crashes where the rider carried sole responsibility actually cost. Then the crashes where the rider carried primary responsibility and what percentage of responsibility was allocated them. Then, and only then, can we actually get a true picture of the situation where ACC is coming from and if it's fair.

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

[Katman]

Yes, 38% of 67% is ~25%. Except that you're doing the calculation wrong.



Lets pretend there's 100 motorcycle accidents.

According to the figures given, 67 of them would be a multi vehicle accident.

Therefore the 33 others are the motorcyclists fault.

Of the 67 multi vehicle accidents 62% of them are the fault of the other vehicle i.e. approx. 42 of them.

Therefore the 25 others are the motorcyclists fault.

33 + 25 = 58

Clear now?


(But what about the multi vehicle accidents that are bike versus bike?)



What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

What's the bet that even if you did, you couldn't work out the figures?

[Reckless]

Absolutely. The question needs asking, how much did the crashes where the rider carried sole responsibility actually cost. Then the crashes where the rider carried primary responsibility and what percentage of responsibility was allocated them. Then, and only then, can we actually get a true picture of the situation where ACC is coming from and if it's fair.

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

Sounds like your a good man to check all the info on this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110116) thread Kwaka!!

Cheers!

[sammcj]

Are you questioning Fairfax's integrity?
don't you know Fairfax are always neutral and unbiased, they never preach opinion as fact and would certainly never lean towards the conservative right...

[Yeah, Right]

[Griffin]

Absolutely. The question needs asking, how much did the crashes where the rider carried sole responsibility actually cost. Then the crashes where the rider carried primary responsibility and what percentage of responsibility was allocated them. Then, and only then, can we actually get a true picture of the situation where ACC is coming from and if it's fair.

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

The question also needs to be asked... how much of other peoples irresponsibility or fault in an accident should you and I expect to carry the can for? So 50 bikers have accidents that can be blamed soley on them. You and I arent one of those 50... every year we are paying extortionate fees to cover them. I accept it is possible that I could have an accident where Im at fault... but what if I go through my life without having one... what am I paying for?

[TerminalAddict]

results:

http://www.stuff.co.nz//lightbox//2965689?KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=680

[Skyryder]

I missed the poll but the results are the first win for bikers.

It's a start.


Skyryder

[Katman]

I missed the poll but the results are the first win for bikers.



The poll was a crock of shit.

If we place our faith in such a totally corrupted poll then we can kiss our arses goodbye already.

[kwaka_crasher]

Lets pretend there's 100 motorcycle accidents.

According to the figures given, 67 of them would be a multi vehicle accident.

Therefore the 33 others are the motorcyclists fault.

Of the 67 multi vehicle accidents 62% of them are the fault of the other vehicle i.e. approx. 42 of them.

Therefore the 25 others are the motorcyclists fault.

33 + 25 = 58

Sorry. You are correct. Here's where I went wrong (I blame the Janola fumes headache I have ATM from washing down inside the boat this morning). :sick:


No. 62/100 x 67/100 is 42/100 so 42% of multi-vehicle accidents are the riders primary responsibility.

I then promptly forgot that's 42% of 67% of all crashes. I fell into the exact trap I was accusing you of. :weep:

It should have been (((67/100)*62/100)*62/100)=25% to determine the rider fault proportion of multivehicle crashes for ALL accidents.

So 58% is correct.

[Ixion]

over 140,000 votes haha...

Gosh, a lot of people voted , didn't they. Must be a very hot topic.

[CDFloss]

Lets pretend there's 100 motorcycle accidents.

According to the figures given, 67 of them would be a multi vehicle accident.

Therefore the 33 others are the motorcyclists fault...


Don't you mean the 33 others are single vehicle accidents? If you're dishing out fault then there's no way to say that those 33 are the biker's fault - the same way a car vs cow, or car vs black-ice isn't the car's fault. Never mind that this is a "no fault" system (or was that the problem in the first place, I forget) :lol: