Stop bitching and use your brains...

[Sanx]

Whilst I haven't waded through the hundreds of pages of posts on this topic (I haven't got the time, energy or capacity for illiterate drivel), most of the posts I've seen seem to follow the same script.


"Waaah. Not fair. All car driver's fault. Not gonna register the bike and run from the cops. Waaah."

How fucken typical of the average kiwi; whinge, whine and threaten to (but don't actually follow through) 'fuck the Police'.

Rather than challenging the 'fairness' of the increases, whining louder than the Maori party on Waitangi Day and coming over as a bunch of outlaw rebels seeking to cause mayhem and destruction on NZ's roads, why not do some research and challenge the justification for the increases. Question the figures behind them. New Zealand actually makes it quite easy to get statistics as most NZ agencies are pretty good at compiling them and publishing them on websites.

I realise that expecting the average biker to actually exercise their brains for anything other than bitching might be a little too much, but in the vain hope of encouraging it, I'll even start you off...

It has been claimed (notably by ACC lawyer Philip Schmidt on TN1's Breakfast Show - http://tr.im/BV0p) that the motorcycle levy increase was justified because motorcyclists' claims were disproportionally expensive.

But the figures state the complete opposite. In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:

Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim

Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim

These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists (What is the collective term for cyclists? A 'pansy', perhaps.) crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree in Woodhill Forest.

Hmmm. So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Yeah - probably 'cos more of them get killed dead men don't requirement treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which I mean expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

Well, what about Nick Smith's headline grabbing claim that motorcylists are 16 times more likely to be involved in an accident? The figure was rolled out ad nauseum to justify the increases and then repeated verbatim by media outlets too lazy to check. Does it not strike anyone else as a rather high figure - possibly the sort of statistic invented by a politician to try to excuse an outrageous tax hike? No? Must be just cynical old me then. Let's see if the figures support it.

This is where things get a little tricky. Whilst the statistics available are comprehensive, sometimes the breakdown of them isn't entirely condusive to making direct comparisons.

In the Ministry of Transport's Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand report (http://tr.im/BV8c) the 2008 casualty rates for the whole vehicle fleet are given as:
- 1.1 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
- 47 injuries per 10,000 vehicles
- 34 injury crashes per 10,000 vehicles
- 8.6 deaths per 100,000 population
- 356 injuries per 100,000 population

Section 4 of the above report is dedicated to Motorcycle Casualties and Crashes and gives the 2008 motorcycle casualties as 1396 injured, 50 killed in 1378 seperate incidents. The total number of road-registered motorcycles (which includes mopeds) is given as 96952. So for motorcycles only, the statistics are:
- 5.2 deaths per 10,000 motorcycles
- 144 injuries per 10,000 motorcycles
- 142 crashes per 10,000 motorcycles

Hmm ... so deaths run at just under 5 times the average, injuries at just over 3 times the average and crashes at 4 and a bit times the average. Not 16 times though, and no way I've found to massage or selectively examine the figures can make bikers' accident rates 16 times the national average.

Perhaps they're using another measure of probability. By licence-holders, maybe. According to the Ministry of Transport's Driver Licence and Vehicle Fleet Statistics report (http://tr.im/BVoh) as of June 2008 there were 3150533 car licences in circulation and 483142 motorcycle licences in circulation. Remember that figure - that's half a million potential bikes and potential voters... Anyway - back to the statistics:

- Car injury crashes per 10,000 car licences: 24.2
- Bike injury crashes per 10,000 bike licences: 28.2

Oh ... and when looking at crashes by vehicle type, isn't it strange that cars and SUVs are listed seperately, but motorcycles and mopeds are lumped together.

I said earlier that the figures aren't 16 times the national average. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong ... perhaps I should be looking at another country's national average. Maybe it's the case in Greece, where 30.2% of all road deaths are motorcyclists. Incidentally, New Zealand has the third lowest percentage of the countries that report to the International Road Traffic and Accident Database; after Poland (at 4.9%) and Canada (at 7.3%) - both countries where there's snow on the ground for half the year).

I'm no statitician. But if I can spend an hour or so on Google and come up with this, then surely someone who's a) competent and b) is actually going to be affected by the levy increases can spend some actual time, do some proper research and publicly challenge the figures given by the government as justification.

[Pussy]

An intelligent piece of levity, Dan!

[DidJit]

Well done that man!

[Mully]

Egg Zachary.

Bling has been blung

[CookMySock]

Rather than challenging the 'fairness' of the increases, whining louder than the Maori party on Waitangi Day and coming over as a bunch of outlaw rebels seeking to cause mayhem and destruction on NZ's roads, why not do some research and challenge the justification for the increases.Oh PUH LEEEEEASE!
When has that ever worked with the government? Don't you think they don't know that already?




Cyclists: $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians: $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants: $24,434 per claim
Motorcyclists: $19,704 per claimWell that is an interesting statistic. But like I said, if they already know this, then how do we wave such a flag, and where do we wave it?

Steve

[Mully]

Well that is an interesting statistic. But like I said, if they already know this, then how do we wave such a flag, and where do we wave it?

Steve

Squeaky wheel bro. The powers that be are expecting all bikers to just bend over and take it (much like we did last time).

They are well aware of the unfairness of the increases proposed.

In answer to your question - we wave the damn flag everywhere. We (all) take part in protest rides (we all behave ourselves and act like responsible adults on the rides), we (all) write to the powers that be. We get the facts (not what the gummint wants everyone to think) out in the public's view. We present a solid view (i.e. we don't get caught up in the "Labour are cunts/National are liars" argument to the detriment of the focus argument)

The number of comments on the Stuff website that were along the lines of "I don't have a bike, but I don't think it's fair either" are a good sign. We need to keep the pressure on.

[DidJit]

Of course the government bureaucrats know it. The point is that they choose not to tell the general public — they only give the public one focus but nothing to compare it to. No balance, no perspective. That is why we have to point out these other figures to the general public. The way the politicians present their case forces the onus on us to prove that these proposed changes are grossly unfair.

[MSTRS]

You are right about figures being published on the net. BUT it can be very difficult to find what you are looking for, though. Thanks for your efforts.
I've taken the liberty of sending that info to TVNZ and TV3...

[Coldrider]

Yes Sanx that is pretty cool work,Young Nick is selling it with lies, however the bridge to cross is, $62,523,000 in claims supported by 96,952 registered MCs works out to an Ave of $644.88.

[Sanx]

Oh PUH LEEEEEASE!
When has that ever worked with the government? Don't you think they don't know that already?

I'm sure they know it. The point is, though, that most other people don't know it and are happy to believe the crap that the government feeds them.


Well that is an interesting statistic. But like I said, if they already know this, then how do we wave such a flag, and where do we wave it?

I don't know, but there have to be people on KB or in the wider biking community who have more media savvy and contacts then me. But here are a couple of ideas for starters:


Co-ordinate responses through a biking organisation. BRONZ, I guess, but try to keep that grumpy cunt of a chairman off the screen (Hi Ixion :hug:).
Letters help. Write in to the Letters to the Editor sections in NZ Herald, Dominion Post and whatever papers exist south of the Cook Strait. But for God's sake, try to make a point, make it concisely and clearly and - this might come as a shock - use a sodding spell-checker.
Demand a right of reply on TVNZ, TV3 and whatever other channels there are.
Phone up talkback ... they must have some listeners
Write to your MP, whether they're National or Labour or Other. There've been a few sample letters floating around here but the ones I've seen were badly-worded, illogical and just generally shit.
If your MP's having a public meeting, hijack it. Raise the issue there.
Push the environmental aspects:

For each bike off the road, there's one more car on the road. Might not be true, but you need to state it as absolute fact.
Motorbikes have a smaller carbon footprint and use less fuel than cars. Again, it's not true for most sports bikes (600s actually use more fuel than 1000s!) but most people don't know it. So state it as absolute fact. What is true is that motorbikes don't spend vast tracts of times with their engines idling in traffic, so carbon footprint may be lower even if the manufacturer's fuel consumption figures are higher.
You can park five or more bikes in the space it takes to park one car.

If anyone has a free lawyer with an eye for publicity, sue the government for compensation due to the drop in value of the bike, as the resale potential has dropped markedly.

[Laxi]

its funny I havn't heard this before but acording to the NZ transport agency web site
Common registration fees - from 1 July 2009

MR2A/2B Registration of motor vehicle (issued with standard plates) 6 months 12 months
Passenger car/van
Private passenger Petrol driven - 1301-2600 cc 267.91 388.06
Petrol driven - 2601-4000 cc 298.29 418.44
Non-petrol driven - 1301-2600 cc 330.15 512.52
Non-petrol driven - 2601-4000 cc 360.53 542.90
so this means the higher cc car is going to pay more too?
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-ownership/registration.html

[Coldrider]

What is the definition of an active claim, a new claim in any one year?

[Sanx]

Yes Sanx that is pretty cool work,Young Nick is selling it with lies, however the bridge to cross is, $62,523,000 in claims supported by 96,952 registered MCs works out to an Ave of $644.88.

$37,067,000 in claims by cyclists and pedestrians from the motor vehicle pool supported by zero levy-paying cyclists and pedestrians works out to an average of Error: Divide by zero.

There's the point to hammer home. Motorcyclists might not pay their own way, but cyclists and pedestrians pay absolutely nothing. Johnny Motorist supports them to the tune of $14 each.

Which reminds me of something. Remember the $70 each claim from Dr Smith and friends? Garbage. $62,523,000 in claims across 3764087 registered vehicles (total fee-paying vehicle fleet excluding motorbikes and mopeds) = $16.61 each.

Another blatant lie.

[MSTRS]

Yes Sanx that is pretty cool work,Young Nick is selling it with lies, however the bridge to cross is, $62,523,000 in claims supported by 96,952 registered MCs works out to an Ave of $644.88.

So?
We also pay earner levies, like cyclists do...

[ckai]

...

But the figures state the complete opposite. In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:



Good hunting mate, blunged also. I was gonna say that you bitch about others not doing anything and yet you haven't taken this sort of thing to the media BUT then I noticed where you are so I understand you not doing it.

So instead I commend you on the effort. I thought the justification figures were a little "interesting" especially the 16 times more likely to crash thing. Too much of a stupid biker to dig for the real facts though :) (or is that lazy - I just wanna ride my bike without losing my nuts).

So if the government forced ACC to use your figures to create ACC levies, bikers would in fact have cheaper levies than cars! Wouldn't that be a turn around? haha

Hooraa

[Coldrider]

So?
We also pay earner levies, like cyclists do...
Yes but my arguement is specific to MC costs is it not, I pay the other levies to, I might hurt myself doing my gardening or home repairs, pull a ham string running. I might crash any of my other cars, each levy on those vehicles pays for that. There is heaps of other threads with the I pay other....blah blah blah crap, and that will fix nothing.

[MSTRS]

Yes but my arguement is specific to MC costs is it not, I pay the other levies to, I might hurt myself doing my gardening or home repairs, pull a ham string running. I might crash any of my other cars, each levy on those vehicles pays for that. There is heaps of other threads with the I pay other....blah blah blah crap, and that will fix nothing.

The point is that cyclists hurt on the road are covered from road levies. WHICH THEY DO NOT PAY.

[dipshit]

- 1.1 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
- 47 injuries per 10,000 vehicles
- 34 injury crashes per 10,000 vehicles


- 5.2 deaths per 10,000 motorcycles
- 144 injuries per 10,000 motorcycles
- 142 crashes per 10,000 motorcycles

Hmm ... so deaths run at just under 5 times the average, injuries at just over 3 times the average and crashes at 4 and a bit times the average. Not 16 times though, and no way I've found to massage or selectively examine the figures can make bikers' accident rates 16 times the national average.

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Which makes it worse for motorcycles. A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend. Just look at how many 5 year-old bikes or so still have very low mileage. Surveys that monitor actual road use will show a very low percentage of motorcycles. Same if you look at kms travelled per accident.

[Coldrider]

Yes Sanx that is pretty cool work,Young Nick is selling it with lies, however the bridge to cross is, $62,523,000 in claims supported by 96,952 registered MCs works out to an Ave of $644.88.
Nick Smith is quoting $2700 has the full cost of ACC recovery but they have only the balls to put it up by $500.
So where does the $2,700 come from.
These numbers are cooked up by ACC and given to Mr Smith to sprout.

[MSTRS]

Not helpful, DS. They are using flawing figures in the media etc to hurt us, don't be giving them something real...

[Coldrider]

The point is that cyclists hurt on the road are covered from road levies. WHICH THEY DO NOT PAY.I didn't mention cyclists or any other group in the thread you are on about.
I don't give a shit about anything other than the proposed motorcycle ACC levy on motorcycle regos.

[Tony]

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Which makes it worse for motorcycles. A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend. Just look at how many 5 year-old bikes or so still have very low mileage. Surveys that monitor actual road use will show a very low percentage of motorcycles. Same if you look at kms travelled per accident.

What we need is a user pays levy that is based on mileage just like the Road User Charges I pay on my diesel. This way if you have multiple vehicles or do a low mileage you still pay according to your likely hood of needing a payout

[dipshit]

Not helpful, DS. They are using flawing figures in the media etc to hurt us, don't be giving them something real...

The longer motorcyclists live in fantasyland - the worse the problem will become.

[MSTRS]

I didn't mention cyclists or any other group in the thread you are on about.
I don't give a shit about anything other than the proposed motorcycle ACC levy on motorcycle regos.

As do I. Yet a chunk of what is being asked from me is going to injured cyclists. It's not equitable (if that is what ACC is trying to achieve)

[Genestho]

But if I can spend an hour or so on Google and come up with this, then surely someone who's a) competent and b) is actually going to be affected by the levy increases can spend some actual time, do some proper research and publicly challenge the figures given by the government as justification.

Thankyou!!! Nick Smith - "The claim that it is cars that cause the accidents does not negate the debate... the cost of other motorcycle accidents far exceeds the proposed levy." I realise it is an emotive issue

People need to stop reposting the same stuff over and over and over, and take that statement head on.

[Coldrider]

As do I. Yet a chunk of what is being asked from me is going to injured cyclists. It's not equitable (if that is what ACC is trying to achieve)
Are we not discussing the emballished figures on motorcycle ACC costs or are you responding to every other thread.

Is this just now a general ACC thread or are we going to stick to the subject matter of the motorcycle acc costs and stats.
Other user pays groups or non payers can be discussed on numerous other threads.
All I did was crunched the numbers given by SANX (his topic) and arrived at a number at which we are be given close enough to pay.

[Ixion]

Hmmm. So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Yeah - probably 'cos more of them get killed dead men don't requirement treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which I mean expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.


Correct. We have more injuries but less serious/costly.

Makes sense . Car and bike tangle at an intersection. Car driver usually uninjured. Bike rider maybe has bruises and grazes. Treated either by ambo or A&E, either way goes down in ACC as a motorcycle injury, but low cost. Whereas if a car driver ends up in hospital it's usually fairly serious.

I've passed that information on the MP Darien Fenton to use in the debate next week.

[Coldrider]

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Which makes it worse for motorcycles. A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend. Just look at how many 5 year-old bikes or so still have very low mileage. Surveys that monitor actual road use will show a very low percentage of motorcycles. Same if you look at kms travelled per accident.The problem motorcycles have is there is not enough of us to dilute the payment pool as cars do.

[MSTRS]

Are we not discussing the emballished figures on motorcycle ACC costs or are you responding to every other thread.



Fair enough. But I am limiting myself to appropriate comments in appropriate threads. Sanx included cyclists and pedestrians in his post, and because everything is linked, their drawing from the motor fund MUST be noted.

[k2w3]

Hold on. How can they calculate it using "miles travelled" (or "hours on the road", either way) AND lump into the equation injuries caused by non-registered bikes, such as farm bikes and dirt bikes? The mileage travelled by those is unknown and therefore left out of the equation.

Not that including them would make a huge amount of difference in our favour, but the point is that is a flawed calculation.

[MSTRS]

It's flawed now. Since that class don't pay anyway. Yet benefit from the resource.

[ready4whatever]

I dont know who's fault it is that ACC is fuct with the 13 billion dollar shortfall or whatever, but i sure wish they had it right in the first place. because now we all have to fix it at our own expence

[Coldrider]

Fair enough. But I am limiting myself to appropriate comments in appropriate threads. Sanx included cyclists and pedestrians in his post, and because everything is linked, their drawing from the motor fund MUST be noted.
Yes I know, it is just that SANX had a good line of inquirey going and most other ACC threads have gone to general bitch sessions and off the track.

[octanepwr]

Too bad the most of the public believe what they see on tv. We need more points of view like Sanx's out there on the news

[ready4whatever]

Someone said a few of the leaders at ACC get like half a mill a year? if (say 3 of them) they didnt get 500,000 bucks a year, and more like 100,000 that would cut the amount of 'large motorcycle' affected to 428 from 2142. im no good with numbers but you know what im trying to say

[Coldrider]

Too bad the most of the public believe what they see on tv. We need more points of view like Sanx's out there on the newsThat is where credible, researched and referenced numbers win the debate against politicians.
ACC have made their recommendations to the Minister, it is up to him to decide them (with very helpful debate he should crumble)

[Ixion]

Hmmm. So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Yeah - probably 'cos more of them get killed dead men don't requirement treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which I mean expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.


Correct. We have more injuries but less serious/costly.

Makes sense . Car and bike tangle at an intersection. Car driver usually uninjured. Bike rider maybe has bruises and grazes. Treated either by ambo or A&E, either way goes down in ACC as a motorcycle injury, but low cost. Whereas if a car driver ends up in hospital it's usually fairly serious.

I've passed that information on the MP Darien Fenton to use in the debate next week.

[dipshit]

Hold on. How can they calculate it using "miles travelled" (or "hours on the road", either way) AND lump into the equation injuries caused by non-registered bikes, such as farm bikes and dirt bikes? The mileage travelled by those is unknown and therefore left out of the equation .

First to do not get ACC statistics and NZLT statistics confused. They are two separate things. ACC may or may not lump off-road and farm motorcycle accidents under motorcycle accidents... but NZLT deals with road accidents. The ministers can still refer with NZLT for statistics.

Mileage gets recorded every time you get a WOF. Random surveys will also monitor and count vehicle types passing over sections of road. These give more accurate road usage figures.

[Sanx]

I was gonna say that you bitch about others not doing anything and yet you haven't taken this sort of thing to the media BUT then I noticed where you are so I understand you not doing it.

I might be a whinging Pom based in Australia, but I'm also a New Zealand citizen and therefore entitled to vote and have my say. I've written to the various involved members of the cabinet and written a couple of letters to Newspapers.


I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres is one of the normal metrics used for comparing road accident data. However, if it is even collated in NZ, it's certainly not published. If that's the basis of the government's 16 times claim, they should at least publish the figures and have them subjected to public scrutiny.


Hold on. How can they calculate it using "miles travelled" (or "hours on the road", either way) AND lump into the equation injuries caused by non-registered bikes, such as farm bikes and dirt bikes? The mileage travelled by those is unknown and therefore left out of the equation.

There's nothing to say farm and dirt bikes WERE included in his figures. Even with those figures they still don't add up.

[Coldrider]

One other way the figures could be bollstered is in statistical forcasting models.
The current growth (or decay) rate of injuries (pay outs) becomes circular in the algorithm over the specified future time period (currently to 2014 I believe). Treasury use this for GDP modelling.
That assumes growth rate remains static at that percentage increase, which of course it isn't.
And they would never implement it on a decline year would they.

[ckai]

I might be a whinging Pom based in Australia, but I'm also a New Zealand citizen and therefore entitled to vote and have my say. I've written to the various involved members of the cabinet and written a couple of letters to Newspapers.

Nice work mate. Unless you're thinking of heading back here in the next little while, it's good to see you getting stuck in to something that's not directly affecting you.

Maybe we need more whinging poms! :2thumbsup:

[Sanx]

First to do not get ACC statistics and NZLT statistics confused. they are two separate things. ACC may or may not lump off-road and farm motorcycle accidents under motorcycle accidents... but NZLT deals with road accidents. The ministers can still refer with NZLT for statistics.

ACC don't include off-road accidents in their motorcycle section within the Motor Vehicle Pool statistics. These were the figures I used. They only include accidents that include a road-registered vehicle on the road, so a bunch of cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist plowing into a pedestrian whilst running a red light or [insert-name-of-favourite-KB-racer] crashing yet again on the track don't get included.

ACC might have a motorbike-related accidents figure that includes off-road use, farm bikes etc. but it wouldn't be valid for calculation of ACC levy components for vehicle rego. And any attempt to say it was relevant could be shot down in flames very easily. NZ Transport Agency or Dept. of Transport figures could still be used, but they wouldn't take into account off-road usage either.


Mileage gets recorded every time you get a WOF. Random surveys will also monitor and count vehicle types passing over sections of road. These give more accurate road usage figures.

Again, if these are the figures being used, they need to publish them.

[dipshit]

Someone said a few of the leaders at ACC get like half a mill a year? if (say 3 of them) they didnt get 500,000 bucks a year, and more like 100,000

Yeah, government jobs are much lower paid than the private sector.

Can remember my first day starting work in the mining industry. Went to get a spare jacket from the locker room until my issued gear turned up. Someone told me later that the jacket i had on used to belong to someone that was on 1.2 million per year. :eek5:

People in the private sector laugh at the low paid government jobs.

(edit; Point is - don't bother trying the tall poppy syndrome attack)

[chanceyy]

a well thought out & researched thread, makes for interesting reading ..

bling sent :)

[dipshit]

I've written to the various involved members of the cabinet and written a couple of letters to Newspapers.

So this was you then I take it?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

[Sanx]

Off-road 'sport' accident statistics (so not farm bikes, but racing, motocross, etc) can be found here: http://tr.im/BWar

Motorcycling:
- <= 3 new claims
- 20 active claims
- $2,006,000

Trail-riding / Motocross:
- <= 3 new claims
- 13 active claims
- $1,876,000

Horse-riding:
- 0 (?) new claims
- 22 active claims
- $2,179,000

Cycling:
- <= 3 new claims
- 21 active claims
- $1,578,000

Rugby:
- <= 3 new claims
- 82 active claims
- $9,537,000

Rugby League:
- <= 3 new claims
- 20 active claims
- $2,123,000

Surfing:
- 0 (?) new claims
- 6 active claims
- $1,127,000

Swimming:
- <= 9 new claims
- 59 active claims
- $9,166,000

[Coldrider]

The problem motorcycles have is there is not enough of us to dilute the payment pool as cars do.Like talking to myself....average per motorcycle injury is cheaper than cars, then if there were as many motorcycles registered as cars, motorcycle levy would be cheaper than cars on a cost recovery model right ?

[fireliv]

Good Stuff Sanx

If you havent done already or it hasnt been suggested, I would suggest you put that in an email and send it to Nick Smith and other top heads. I have seen someone put there email addys up here somewhere

[Sanx]

So this was you then I take it?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2969254/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

No ... I'm not Professor Charles Lamb. But he does make some very interesting claims. Chief among them is that ACC claimed motorcycle riders were 16% more likely to have an accident, rather than 16 times as was reported in just about every media outlet. It's a slight difference, only two orders of magnitude.

[pzkpfw]

This is interesting:


Motorcycling:
- <= 3 new claims
- 20 active claims
- $2,006,000

Horse-riding:
- 0 (?) new claims
- 22 active claims
- $2,179,000

Do horse riders pay any special fee?

From what pool does ACC pay for them?

[Sanx]

Do horse riders pay any special fee?

Hahahahahahahaha *breathe* Hahahahahahahaha


From what pool does ACC pay for them?

They're classed as Sports Claims and can be claimed from a number of funds (http://tr.im/BWgh). Majority of claims are paid from the Earners' and Non-earners' accounts.

[pzkpfw]

Makes for a great counter-example as the number injured versus cost is so similar to bike riders.

[Sanx]

My take on a letter to send to politicians is attached. Replace the bits in yellow.

[mdnzz]

But are they not publicly elected officials representing the general population?
Are we in fact not their employers and as such have the rights to do something more that sit here bitchin on an internet site?
Hasn't anybody heard of referendum, shit didn't Sue Bradford use one of those and in return had one against her.

What about votes of no confidence in the government and their elected officials.

Instead of bitchin about the proposal, do what the rules of engagement allow us to do, attack the head of the snake then it has no bite nor venom.

Start a protest/referendum/petition to have the ACC minister removed from his office, have him publicly stocked and flogged by the very members of public that elected him in if it feels better.

But do something that removes him from office.

In third world country (which we are getting very close to being) he'd have been shot and any other idiot politician with him.
Although the idea is good, the workings not so good.

So shoot them down remind them who they work for,
If we are not happy with the performance then they either listen or get removed plain and simple really happens everyday in the workplace.

Just my 2cents worth, though with the new levies probably works out to be just under a cent :lol:

[Pampera]

In answer to your question - we wave the damn flag everywhere. We (all) take part in protest rides (we all behave ourselves and act like responsible adults on the rides), we (all) write to the powers that be. We get the facts (not what the gummint wants everyone to think) out in the public's view. We present a solid view (i.e. we don't get caught up in the "Labour are cunts/National are liars" argument to the detriment of the focus argument)




and to this I add - we don't use as our argument "it is the:

scooter riders
sports bike riders
Harley riders
new riders
old riders
old riders but have been away for a while
etc

that cause the problem and they should pay, not me" approach.

My view is that in the end the only people that most likely to fix this are politicians - bureaucracy has made its mind and will not be influenced by us (unless there are absolutely rock solid statistics - along the line of Sanx's post above - that absolutely cannot be evaded) . Even then it will be politicians who are persuaded by them who act.

The MORE people and groups who are inside the tent aggrieved and the more "middle New Zealanders" (whatever they are - but probably include a lot of scooter riding commuters) there are among them the greater the chance politicians will decide the heat needs to be taken out of the situation. Fighting amongst ourselves is what our enemy wants to see.

Yes - "Focus".

Michael

[dipshit]

Injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres is one of the normal metrics used for comparing road accident data. However, if it is even collated in NZ, it's certainly not published. If that's the basis of the government's 16 times claim, they should at least publish the figures and have them subjected to public scrutiny.


The figure that motorcyclists make up 2% of road users is bandied around quite often.

[howdamnhard]

Excellent Sanx now we need to get those figures out in the open (once they have been thoroughly checked over). If Joe Public is like me I get real pissed off when the government tries to pull the wool over my eyes.

[Sanx]

The figure that motorcyclists make up 2% of road users is bandied around quite often.

Total vehicle fleet is 3.8 million. Total number of bikes, including ones on exempt regos, is 120,000

That's 3.1%. The 2% statistic has been around for a few years and bike registration has grown much faster than other vehicle registration in the past couple of years.

[dipshit]

That's 3.1%. The 2% statistic has been around for a few years and bike registration has grown much faster than other vehicle registration in the past couple of years.

But like i said before... when you go from counting registered vehicles to actual vehicle use and miles travelled on the roads... the motorcycle percentage drops again.

[Clockwork]

Hold on. How can they calculate it using "miles travelled" (or "hours on the road", either way) AND lump into the equation injuries caused by non-registered bikes, such as farm bikes and dirt bikes? The mileage travelled by those is unknown and therefore left out of the equation.

Not that including them would make a huge amount of difference in our favour, but the point is that is a flawed calculation.

How could they justify calculating risk by K's travelled when they the charge on the basis of vehicles owned/time.

An earlier comment that I think stand further attention is the idea that the quote $62m may well include injuries still being paid for. I wonder how much of that money is accrued to riders who have payed a motorcycle levey in the past 12 months

[Sanx]

How could they justify calculating risk by K's travelled when they the charge on the basis of vehicles owned/time.

There's no proof that's how they do it. It's speculation. And measuring accidents per million vehicle kilometres is an accepted method.


An earlier comment that I think stand further attention is the idea that the quote $62m may well include injuries still being paid for. I wonder how much of that money is accrued to riders who have payed a motorcycle levey in the past 12 months

Irrelevant, as all other other costs as given by the ACC include ongoing payments.

[Clockwork]

It comes back to the logic that costs should lie where they fall, They're claming wer're a high risk/cost group but your research indicates that at this point in time we are not. If its valid to exclude other road users from subsidisings bike, why should today's riders be expected to subsidise earlier claimants?

[dipshit]

How could they justify calculating risk by K's travelled when they the charge on the basis of vehicles owned/time.

It's not calculating risk and charging on on k's travelled... it's noting how many accidents vs k's travelled.

[Clockwork]

It's not calculating risk and charging on on k's travelled... it's noting how many accidents vs k's travelled.

Sure.... Ok, but they're not proposing to levey on that basis! So, if they want to cite "fairness" as grounds for their levies then they need to stop misrepresenting the stats they use to justify them.

I've never claimed despite all the K's I do. (commuter) On that basis my levey should be really low! but now they want me to pay a share of all motorcylists costs based on the number of vehicles I have rather than risk I personally represent and tell me they need to do it this way becasue its fairer to the those non riders.

[sasfmj]

come on every one sign the petition !!!!!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/MRACCLPH

and spread the work about it lets fill it up !!!!!!!

[dipshit]

I've never claimed despite all the K's I do. (commuter) On that basis my levey should be really low! but now they want me to pay a share of all motorcylists costs based on the number of vehicles I have rather than risk I personally represent and tell me they need to do it this way becasue its fairer to the those non riders.

It's a state fund pool... not personal insurance. Of course they are not going to evaluate you personally to charge you your vehicle registration.

[BMWST?]

Sure.... Ok, but they're not proposing to levey on that basis! So, if they want to cite "fairness" as grounds for their levies then they need to stop misrepresenting the stats they use to justify them.

I've never claimed despite all the K's I do. (commuter) On that basis my levey should be really low! but now they want me to pay a share of all motorcylists costs based on the number of vehicles I have rather than risk I personally represent and tell me they need to do it this way becasue its fairer to the those non riders.

its because its the only way "they"(in actual fact they is also us) can do it.cost is x.didvide d by bike b = Z.If they did it by rider the total x remains the same,the number of riders is less so the levy would be even more......SUggest how else they can do it,and dont forget we get to pay the bill for that too.The only other way I can think is each motorcycle license holder gets to pay a portion of X.So maybe the ACC levy should be charged per license holder rather than per vehicle.

[StoneY]

There's no proof that's how they do it. It's speculation. And measuring accidents per million vehicle kilometres is an accepted method.


Irrelevant, as all other other costs as given by the ACC include ongoing payments.

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Please enlighten us

[Shiny side up]

here are my thoughts that I am sending through the local MP... if anyone can add some TRUE stats to it, it would help:

To load the cost of ACC levies on to motorcycle registration is a serious injustice as it fails to recognise 3 man points. The proportion of injuries sustained on unregistered off road bikes, the number of injuries cased to riders by other road users or poor road design and the tax contribution registered motorcycles already make compared to the roading resources they use.

Huge numbers of motorcycles are not registered, usually because they are use solely off road. There does not seem to be any differentiation, by ACC, between injuries on registered and unregistered motorcycles. The probability of getting injured in a weekends off road riding is probably higher than the probability of injury for a year of road riding. Putting the ACC cost of motorcycle related injuries onto those that have a registered and “Warrant of Fitness” compliant motorcycle, is grossly unjust.

In my years of riding most of the accidents and near misses I have had have been caused by others. Car drivers failing to look and giving abuse when they are tooted at to bring their attention to the situation. Poor and dangerous design of elements around roads like cheese grater crash barriers and large painted areas, or inconsiderate roading contractors like the one that left black sand on the road after changing the road markings.
The fact that it is the motorcyclist that gets hurt by these situations, is not justification for making the motorcyclists pay. No other group of people are expected to pay a higher ACC levy based on the probability that they are going to be a victim of someone else’s stupidity, aggression, carelessness or thoughtlessness. If this mentality of making a victim pay the ACC cost is carried through then low visibility coloured cars should be more expensive to register and trucks should be cheaper. Truck drivers are seldom injured in accidents unlike the drivers of the cars they collide with.
Motorcyclist that are not careful are not motorcyclists for long and I have yet to hear of a motorcyclist crashing in to a car while texting or taking out a group of police cars while making a U turn.

Motorcycles are taxed at the same rate as cars in fuel tax, the registrations cost are similar and some cars use less fuel some bikes. Motorcycles use less roading resources than cars. Any given roadway can allow the passage of more motorcycles than cars in a given time. Bikes require less parking room than cars. Bike cause less wear in road surfaces than other vehicles. Yet bikes contribute a similar amount in fuel tax and registration to cars. If the ACC levy is to be increased because of a perceived expense to ACC then the roading tax should be reduced to reflect the lower road requirements resulting in the registration cost being unchanged.

[Sanx]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Born in England. Lived in Auckland for eight years. Moved to Australia in 2008.

And your bright ideas are?

[Clockwork]

As you start to move away from the collective cost/responsibility model and start to target groups you just start introducing further inequity and the only point at which fainess can be achieved is by assesing risk at an individual level. Once you perfect that you may as well not bother with insurance! Until you perfect it you probably shouldn't start!

Don't quote statistics based on risk per km travelled if you're not able/willing to charge on that basis! Don't pick out one group and say they should be excluded from the collective because of undue costs, if you're not prepared to do the same for all/any other groups that are being in some fashion subsidised by others.

Hopefully I've made myself clear.

[MSTRS]

...*misguided prejudices*...

Please enlighten us

Yes, please do. Sanx has spent a lot of time researching and thinking about this subject. Can you say the same about yourself?

[Coldrider]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Please enlighten usWhat the...?
Gate crash SANXs thread, I notice out of app 83 ACC threads, as at 3pm, most have gone to custard and been abandoned.

[yungatart]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Please enlighten us

You obviously are a relative newby to this site. Sanx is an extremely well respected member of KB...has been for ages. The fact that he left these shores does not mean he doesn't care or have an opinion to voice.
I for one, am grateful for his wise posts. You would do well to emuulate him....

[Reckless]

Me to Sanx!
never meet you or even chatted with you on KB but thanx for the time you spent and important points you raised!!

Bugger off Stoney we will take help from wherever!
Aussies ain't so bad (unless your building a retaining wall that is!) LOL!!!

[McJim]

Tell me something...your so full of how this is or should or has been done, what the fuck does an Aussie know about our system?
Or were you part of the so called brain drain? (proving it was more of a asshole migration if you were tbh)

Wow! Living proof that brain amputation is not terminal!

[chanceyy]

Stoney sorry to say I find your post rather disappointing, among all the drivel posts re the acc I have found this thread most interesting & sanx has made some thought provoking posts, as bikers we should be presenting a united front but your post shows that there is no such thing ..

time to go back out doing your tag o rama I feel :bye:

[MSTRS]

Since this seems to be 'the serious thread' - I have a suggestion/question.
If this fee hike is all about covering costs, is there a collective will to reduce those costs?
I'm no KM, so I'm not suggesting that everyone stop riding like cocks (although some could take this advice)...no, rather I would suggest that we could do well to protect ourselves with the use of full gear. Helmets are compulsory, and there was a huge hue and cry when that came in, but it's not a biggie now, is it? Wouldn't it be better to be pro-active and voluntarily use the extra gear?
I'm not talking fluoro vests etc, just crash-appropriate clothing, gloves and footwear. We can't help crashing (well, often enough we can't) but we can mitigate injury, to an extent.
If the costs of crashing goes down, there's a big incentive to keep our levies at the same rate as other road users.

[monkeymcbean]

Since this seems to be 'the serious thread' - I have a suggestion/question.
If this fee hike is all about covering costs, is there a collective will to reduce those costs?
I'm no KM, so I'm not suggesting that everyone stop riding like cocks (although some could take this advice)...no, rather I would suggest that we could do well to protect ourselves with the use of full gear. Helmets are compulsory, and there was a huge hue and cry when that came in, but it's not a biggie now, is it? Wouldn't it be better to be pro-active and voluntarily use the extra gear?
I'm not talking fluoro vests etc, just crash-appropriate clothing, gloves and footwear. We can't help crashing (well, often enough we can't) but we can mitigate injury, to an extent.
If the costs of crashing goes down, there's a big incentive to keep our levies at the same rate as other road users.

Strange, if as motorcyclist we have clocked up such bad accident statistics, why has the Govt spent so much taxpayer money on safety campaigns targeting male car drivers, and absolutely zilch on safety campaigns for bikers?

[Coldrider]

Strange, if as motorcyclist we have clocked up such bad accident statistics, why has the Govt spent so much taxpayer money on safety campaigns targeting male car drivers, and absolutely zilch on safety campaigns for bikers?

We have, Moto GP and Superbike, apparently.....
Seriously, it has been made mention on current affair programmes, with the likes of Phill Goff appearing etc on Closeup, however motorcyclists are at an average (or mean, or skewed) age where we can't be told, and/or should know better.
But do we need ads to tell us what how we should be riding?

[monkeymcbean]

We have, Moto GP and Superbike, apparently.....
Seriously, it has been made mention on current affair programmes, with the likes of Phill Goff appearing etc on Closeup, however motorcyclists are at an average (or mean, or skewed) age where we can't be told, and/or should know better.
But do we need ads to tell us what how we should be riding?

Yes, I get lots of riding tips from Moto GP...:lol:

No 'I' and 'yourself' don't think we need ads to tell us how we should ride, but they sure think they need to tell 'Jo public' how to drive, not to drink etc, they don't know that we can ride, they sure lead to belief by the statistics were costing alot of money through accidents.
So you think they would spend some money of a TV safety campainge like they do for drivers.
At least spend some money on up skilling new riders/riders/riders returning to biking.

[Coldrider]

Yes, I get lots of riding tips from Moto GP...:lol:

No 'I' and 'yourself' don't think we need ads to tell us how we should ride, but they sure think they need to tell 'Jo public' how to drive, not to drink etc, they don't know that we can ride, they sure lead to belief by the statistics were costing alot of money through accidents.
So you think they would spend some money of a TV safety campainge like they do for drivers.
At least spend some money on up skilling new riders/riders/riders returning to biking.
Maybe there is an agenda here to make motorcycling a pastime of the rich & famous, suits me.
Trawl through a few threads of 'it is my right to speed', 'i did this an did a runna' etc to work out the mindset of some motorcyclists, passing their medicare costs onto the paying audience, it is alright man, shit on my brother, he will pay attitude.

[monkeymcbean]

Have gone slightly off subject from the thread, as they all have, but this was interesting reading this one. But back to what MSTRS:ME last posted.
Complusory wearing of specific motorcycle protective gear: I like the gear, i find its comfortable, it is cheap compared to what it was 25 years ago and so much better choice.
I witnessed it save lots of skin and bone last weekend...on a ACC subsidised! rider training weekend at Teratonga....I was impressed.

I think to wear it and think its the bees knees is delusionary as there are so many types of accidents on a motorbike that involves big impacts, it would not matter what you where wearing it would not help, i reckon.

Would it have helped in any accidents recorded, i don't know if anyone has done a survey. I think the Two wheels magazine or a ad in the magazine was trying to obtain figures from motorcyclist invovled in accidents whether the gear they were wearing helped in injury prevention.

[Coldrider]

Have gone slightly off subject from the thread, as they all have, but this was interesting reading this one. But back to what MSTRS:ME last posted.
Complusory wearing of specific motorcycle protective gear: I like the gear, i find its comfortable, it is cheap compared to what it was 25 years ago and so much better choice.
I witnessed it save lots of skin and bone last weekend...on a ACC subsidised! rider training weekend at Teratonga....I was impressed.

I think to wear it and think its the bees knees is delusionary as there are so many types of accidents on a motorbike that involves big impacts, it would not matter what you where wearing it would not help, i reckon.

Would it have helped in any accidents recorded, i don't know if anyone has done a survey. I think the Two wheels magazine or a ad in the magazine was trying to obtain figures from motorcyclist invovled in accidents whether the gear they were wearing helped in injury prevention.Yes off topic, this thread is on hard number crunching only. Dr Smith Stats vs KB's.

[dipshit]

Would it have helped in any accidents recorded, i don't know if anyone has done a survey.

From...

http://home1.gte.net/res0ak9f/bike.htm

"Because there is convincing evidence that helmets save lives and reduce society's burden of caring for injured riders, states should enact and retain universal helmet laws for those who want the 'right to choose'.

In Florida, for example, fatalities increased by 81% during a three-year period after the state repealed its law in 2000. Riders who ride without a helmet are required to carry $10,000 worth of insurance, but that $10,000 is often used up in the first 30 minutes of trauma care. Hospital costs for motorcycle-related injuries soared to $44 million in the 30 months after the law was reversed, versus $21 million over a similar span while the law was in effect. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care."

Just think how bad our statistics would be now if BRONZ got its way and overturned compulsory helmet use as well. :whistle:

On that US site they say in 2005 you were 37 times more likely to die on a motorcycle than a car. It was 14 times in 1997.

[kiwi cowboy]

Yes Sanx that is pretty cool work,Young Nick is selling it with lies, however the bridge to cross is, $62,523,000 in claims supported by 96,952 registered MCs works out to an Ave of $644.88.

Factor in that say 80% of bike owners also own a car/truck and it works out at 358.27

[NighthawkNZ]

On that US site they say in 2005 you were 37 times more likely to die on a motorcycle than a car. It was 14 times in 1997.

Yeah but they drive like idiots over there...


Oh wait...

[Fluffy Cat]

After reading your post SANX we should be asking Nick Smith for a public apology. Great research wish i was so savvy.
Thank you very much.

[Coldrider]

Factor in that say 80% of bike owners also own a car/truck and it works out at 358.27My crunch is on motorcycle acc income on motorcycle payouts, no more no less. That is on Nick Smiths terms.
Car /truck acc payments are irrelevant, they contribite to the car injuries.

Why do people persist in bring other acc payments into the equation.

Go back to post one of this thread and work it out.
Have your arguement on another thread that has gone to custard, there is a huge choice there bro, if the math is too hard for you.

I seriously believe that that there are people out there who want to winge about the levy, but secretly want to pay it, if that is their arguement, be happy with the $0.9G sticker man.

[kiwi cowboy]

My crunch is on motorcycle acc income on motorcycle payouts, no more no less. That is on Nick Smiths terms.
Car /truck acc payments are irrelevant, they contribite to the car injuries.

Why do people persist in bring other acc payments into the equation.

Go back to post one of this thread and work it out.
Have your arguement on another thread that has gone to custard, there is a huge choice there bro, if the math is too hard for you.

Yes but the fact is my car acc redgo payment IS a factor when im on my bike because i pay both and am ONLY DRIVING ONE [SIZE="3"]so it is relevant and the maths is not a problem for me so im stayin put.

[ThumperNut]

Given that the major portion of the annual rego is the ACC levy, I would be interested to know how much revenue ACC receive from fines for unregistered vehicles. I suspect they don't get what is arguably theirs.
If that is the case, it would then be interesting to know how much the government receives each year in fines from unregistered ( and maybe unwarranted?) drivers who are effectively not contributing their share to the ACC.

[Coldrider]

Yes but the fact is my car acc redgo payment IS a factor when im on my bike because i pay both and am ONLY DRIVING ONE [SIZE="3"]so it is relevant and the maths is not a problem for me so im stayin put.Fine, this point is covered on heaps of threads, is not the topic of this thread.
The point of dual ownership or more will not win any arguemnets in the face of politicians. Your post and various others should be moved to PD.

[kiwi cowboy]

Fine, this point is covered on heaps of threads, is not the topic of this thread.
The point of dual ownership or more will not win any arguemnets in the face of politicians. Your post and various others should be moved to PD.

Ok sorry i diddnt relise that your opinion is the only one that count and because iv'e got an opinion i should live in pd?:clap:

[Coldrider]

Ok sorry i diddnt relise that your opinion is the only one that count and because iv'e got an opinion i should live in pd?:clap:
No, it is because your arguement is not the topic of this thread.

[kiwi cowboy]

No, it is because your arguement is not the topic of this thread.

Well im sorry but i was comenting on a post made and that post was dividing the acc cost to mc's verses the income from mc's and i was only trying to point out that because i have a car as well and i can only drive one at a time but pay twice on redgo that that should be calculated in but maybe im just thinking a bit far outside the square.

[Coldrider]

Well im sorry but i was comenting on a post made and that post was dividing the acc cost to mc's verses the income from mc's and i was only trying to point out that because i have a car as well and i can only drive one at a time but pay twice on redgo that that should be calculated in but maybe im just thinking a bit far outside the square.Half of KB have more than one vehicle they are paying for.
But those sort of things have to be put aside and fact on fact argued, or we'll be divided and screwed.

[dipshit]

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

"In 1997, motorcyclists were 14 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash, per vehicle mile traveled."

http://home1.gte.net/res0ak9f/bike.htm


So in the US they got a similar figure to our alleged 16 times when based on "per vehicle mile traveled".

[kiwi cowboy]

Half of KB have more than one vehicle they are paying for.
But those sort of things have to be put aside and fact on fact argued, or we'll be divided and screwed.

Point 1-true.
Point 2-so the fact that we as motorcyclists are getting targeted and paying through the nose when horse riders ,cyclists,hunters,sports player's etc etc pay nothing cant be argued as fact on fact then?

[Coldrider]

Point 1-true.
Point 2-so the fact that we as motorcyclists are getting targeted and paying through the nose when horse riders ,cyclists,hunters,sports player's etc etc pay nothing cant be argued as fact on fact then?Point 2 true, but if you read through the posts we, (and I), weren't going there.
There is plenty of other threads to choice from for those arguements, but no actual hard facts deriving from them, other than huff & puff.
This thread was commended was it not, from a MOD for being on topic and thoughtful.
Why do you think out of app 85 ACC threads only a handful survive.
We wish to stick to tackling Nick Smiths claims with real numbers.

[NighthawkNZ]

Cyclists (adult that works) hunters, boaties sports etc, and including motorcycle and car are all covered by PAYE ACC...

motorcyclists are just being targeted because minority and a so called soft target, supposidly easy money in reality motorcyclists, (espeacially those with 2 or 3 vehicles) plus PAYE, and the fuel ACC pay more than their fair share over all...

The short fall only counts the rego income, your PAYE ACC covers any thing you do not matter what... no fault... no questions, no finger pointing... untill now...

[kiwi cowboy]

Point 2 true, but if you read through the posts we, (and I), weren't going there.
There is plenty of other threads to choice from for those arguements, but no actual hard facts deriving from them, other than huff & puff.
This thread was commended was it not, from a MOD for being on topic and thoughtful.
Why do you think out of app 85 ACC threads only a handful survive.
We wish to stick to tackling Nick Smiths claims with real numbers.

Well to me the fact that we as motorists pay acc leveis but sports etc etc people dont is a valid argument and a hard fact and not as you say huff and puff.
This is not just about real numbers its about numbers,equality,fairness and the fact that acc is supposed to be no fault cover

[kiwi cowboy]

Cyclists (adult that works) hunters, boaties sports etc, and including motorcycle and car are all covered by PAYE ACC...

motorcyclists are just being targeted because minority and a so called soft target, supposidly easy money in reality motorcyclists, (espeacially those with 2 or 3 vehicles) plus PAYE, and the fuel ACC pay more than their fair share over all...

The short fall only counts the rego income, your PAYE ACC covers any thing you do not matter what... no fault... no questions, no finger pointing... untill now...

I agree but be ready for cold rider to flame you cos were in th wrong thread with these type of coments:Pokey::dodge:

[Coldrider]

Well to me the fact that we as motorists pay acc leveis but sports etc etc people dont is a valid argument and a hard fact and not as you say huff and puff.
This is not just about real numbers its about numbers,equality,fairness and the fact that acc is supposed to be no fault coverFine, and I hope you have worked out how much rego is going to cost you from 2014 to 2019 should you loose, I'm posting on another forum now.

[sinfull]

Did you see Key on the news saying, awww crikey that Rodney hyde has some good ideas, yes we will think about opening ACC up to privatisation (competition) !
And you still think we can stop this by talking !!
How far is he up the Maori parties arse, awww wait, could it be that he gave in on the .... What was that he gave them not just a day or so ago ? Crikey He gave Maori TV the world cup !!!
Obvious he has Acts vote, where is he with the Maori party ?
Last nights parliment sitting was just a handshake come piss up !!
The legislation allowing them to change the ACC levies will pass !
I'm packing my slingshot !!!

I say once more Bulls, See ya's on the bridge on labour monday Arvo at 4pm !
Have ya banner saying " No to ACC Levy hikes, No to privatisation, or, Hello Americanisation !!!
T shirts and banners welcome !
I will see all you other Davids there, i'll bring My slingshot !!!
__________________

[Coldrider]

I agree but be ready for cold rider to flame you cos were in th wrong thread with these type of coments:Pokey::dodge:I think you will find Nighthawks and I are in agreement under the appropriate thread
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110053&page=2
What do you have to offer that is not contained in every other thread.

[StoneY]

POINT 1


I might be a whinging Pom based in Australia, but I'm also a New Zealand citizen and therefore entitled to vote and have my say. I've written to the various involved members of the cabinet and written a couple of letters to Newspapers.

There we have it


That this self confessed whinging POM living in OZ is being taken as 'THE SERIOUS' thread is ridiculous.
You might have brought citizenship here (it aint hard I know I was with Immigration for 4 years) but you are NOT HERE so what the hell is your opinion worth?
Flying over to join us camping in Parliament grounds are you?


There's nothing to say farm and dirt bikes WERE included in his figures. Even with those figures they still don't add up.

I have a mate at statistics NZ and he compiles the figures for the ACC reporting to be compared to, and you could not be more mistaken

The database used tags any mention of Motorcycle (including farm bikes and quads) to the dimensions of the reports run to pull the figures.
We have heaps of farm bike and quad accidents rolled into Nick Smiths stats!
It's a Lotus Notes DB btw

Run a separate query on accidents involving ROAD registered bikes the figure shrinks substantially, but those are figures they will lock away and you will never see, and we the public have no access to the Database at all
The only thing we have is the OIA, and even then we are at the mercy of the guy who runs your query as he sets the dimensions to be pulled from the data

POINT 2
Now you asked me what I was doing about it?

I done a lot more so far than you pal

I have had letters read on national TV Current event shows.
(52 blings for that cheers KBers)
I have a meeting set up with my local MP, in person by appointment and 7 other riders are coming with me so he can meet a 'cross section' of OUR community (not Brisbane's see) can you do this for us over there please? Oh...shit yeah your in AUSSIE oops

I have a spare bike to offer to another protest rider from out of town, and will partake in community agreed protest action (once the dust settles and its formalized)

In closing.

I have paid rego's in MY country for 24 years

I stand by my first post in this thread, and I don't care if you lived in Auckland for 8 years, you AINT a Kiwi your a POM

You fucked off to Brisbane to live, this is NOT your fight so I really don't care for your self inflated opinion based on flawed statistics the government have published for mugs like you to take as gospel because its on a dot_govt website. Nor do I care how many KBers flame me to say your an ex pat and a KBer yaself...to me your an ex pat POM and no way your one of my countrymen

I walked Parliaments halls for many a year attending select committee's and such and have more of a clue how this is going to go down than you do
I have far more experience in these issues than some, less than others, and NO thread in this forum is going to have any serious affect at all.

It is what we DO when we decide to get off our asses that counts

The 'SERIOUS THREAD' my ass

StoneY

[StoneY]

Well im sorry but i was comenting on a post made and that post was dividing the acc cost to mc's verses the income from mc's and i was only trying to point out that because i have a car as well and i can only drive one at a time but pay twice on redgo that that should be calculated in but maybe im just thinking a bit far outside the square.

Bloody well said dude

Too many self appointed thread monitors around here
You make a valid point that Sanx wee buddies don't like and get ripped up for it
Stick to ya guns buddy, and it was a good point to raise

[dipshit]

Run a separate query on accidents involving ROAD registered bikes the figure shrinks substantially,

Then how come we see motorcycles broken into two categories, road and sports..???

Road claim costs. Total $413,001,000

Driving Passenger car $208,343,000
Motorcycle $62,545,000
Pedestrian $28,472,000
Truck $15,639,000
Cycling $15,543,000
Bus driver/passenger $1,334,000
ATV $173,000



Sports claim costs. Total $220,152

Rugby Union and rugby league $50,689,000
Motorcycling & Trail biking & motorcross $15,397,000
Netball $11,496,000
Cycling $10,447,000
Swimming $10,055,000

[Malcolm]

POINT 1


*snip*

The 'SERIOUS THREAD' my ass

StoneY

I don't understand why you're attacking this guy as if he's somehow "the enemy"? Just because he doesn't live in NZ it certainly doesn't make his points any less valid. Shit like this is why groups struggle to get organised to make decent, intelligent protests - too much in fighting and arrogant folk who want everything to be done/said their way. Get over it mate.

[Malcolm]

Bloody well said dude

Too many self appointed thread monitors around here
You make a valid point that Sanx wee buddies don't like and get ripped up for it
Stick to ya guns buddy, and it was a good point to raise

I strongly disagree, you've had to pay separate registration fees and ACC levies for ages, why bring that in to the debate? All it does is dilutes the argument for the real issue, which is the ACC levy increase.

While paying multiple fees is equally ridiculous, trying to argue that right now is not going to get us anywhere as it's not the present issue and rather than trying to prevent or alter proposed law changes, you're also trying to take down existing laws/policy (which is a little harder).

[Sanx]

I have a mate at statistics NZ and he compiles the figures for the ACC reporting to be compared to, and you could not be more mistaken

The database used tags any mention of Motorcycle (including farm bikes and quads) to the dimensions of the reports run to pull the figures.
We have heaps of farm bike and quad accidents rolled into Nick Smiths stats!
It's a Lotus Notes DB btw

ACC's own statistics - the ones I quoted - do not include non-registered bikes. Read the ACC webpage referenced in the link I posted with the first post.

Of course though, if a mate down the pub told you differently, obviously that source of information is far more reliable than the official statements of the government departments themselves. As Nick Smith has never said where he got his figures from, your mate is also guessing as to their origin.

But thanks for letting me know it's a Lotus Notes DB. That piece of information was really useful. No, really.


Now you asked me what I was doing about it?

No, I asked you what your bright ideas were. But close enough I guess.


I done a lot more so far than you pal

Congratulations. I humbly admit defeat in this "who's done the most" dick-swinging competition.


I have had letters read on national TV Current event shows.
(52 blings for that cheers KBers)

Yes - I read that letter - full of factual errors, urban myths and diatribe.


I have a meeting set up with my local MP, in person by appointment and 7 other riders are coming with me so he can meet a 'cross section' of OUR community (not Brisbane's see) can you do this for us over there please? Oh...shit yeah your in AUSSIE oops

Your means belonging to you. You're means you are. When writing letters to the press, it might help if you apply the basic rules of English grammar so as you don't end up looking like an ill-educated twat spouting his half-baked opinions born of predjudice, ignorance and stupidity. But - as you said - I'm in Aussie.


I stand by my first post in this thread, and I don't care if you lived in Auckland for 8 years, you AINT a Kiwi your a POM

My passport says differently.


You fucked off to Brisbane to live, this is NOT your fight so I really don't care for your self inflated opinion based on flawed statistics the government have published for mugs like you to take as gospel because its on a dot_govt website. Nor do I care how many KBers flame me to say your an ex pat and a KBer yaself...to me your an ex pat POM and no way your one of my countrymen

If you don't care for my opinion, then don't listen to it. No-one, me included, begged you to read it or to take me seriously. Instead of acting like a petulent nationalistic twerp, either add something to the debate - preferably something with slightly more veracity than 'wot my mate said' - or ignore me.


I walked Parliaments halls for many a year attending select committee's and such and have more of a clue how this is going to go down than you do

Bully for you.


I have far more experience in these issues than some, less than others, and NO thread in this forum is going to have any serious affect at all.


Then why waste your time ranting like a xenophobic imbecile?

[Bonez]

Good effort Sanx. Cutting through the emotive bullshit buts things in perspective.

[Coldrider]

Bloody well said dude

Too many self appointed thread monitors around here
You make a valid point that Sanx wee buddies don't like and get ripped up for it
Stick to ya guns buddy, and it was a good point to raiseStoneY Do not think for one minute that KB and BRONZ are the governing body or voices of the countries motorcyclists, and what you have to say is all that matters.

[MSTRS]

Complusory wearing of specific motorcycle protective gear: I like the gear, i find its comfortable, it is cheap compared to what it was 25 years ago and so much better choice.
I witnessed it save lots of skin and bone last weekend...on a ACC subsidised! rider training weekend at Teratonga....I was impressed.

I think to wear it and think its the bees knees is delusionary as there are so many types of accidents on a motorbike that involves big impacts, it would not matter what you where wearing it would not help, i reckon.



Would you like to stop contradicting yourself? All the gear won't always save your bones etc - we know that - but think of all the painful (and expensive) skingrafts that good gear will render un-necessary, not to mention bone/spine injuries lessened by armour.
The only fact is...GEAR HELPS.

[peasea]

Would you like to stop contradicting yourself? All the gear won't always save your bones etc - we know that - but think of all the painful (and expensive) skingrafts that good gear will render un-necessary, not to mention bone/spine injuries lessened by armour.
The only fact is...GEAR HELPS.

Fourth gear helps, especially when over-taking.

[dpex]

Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim

Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim



Excellent report, but what I'd like to know is, how are the costs established? A mate of mine had a quadruple bypass, and that didn't cost $19K!

My guess that a huge proportion of the claim cost is bloody ACC admin.

[dpex]

Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim



Furthermore, it is quite clear to me that we are not, as a nation, busting the arses of enough of these pansy cyclists! They're a plague on road decency!

And what about the trauma they cause the sheep population, as they ride by, with every little bulge showing through their slick-wear, and their eyes on the look-out for a pretty sheep?

Farmers! Unite! Burn the Lycra Learers.

[Naki Rat]

Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim



Furthermore, it is quite clear to me that we are not, as a nation, busting the arses of enough of these pansy cyclists! They're a plague on road decency!

And what about the trauma they cause the sheep population, as they ride by, with every little bulge showing through their slick-wear, and their eyes on the look-out for a pretty sheep?

Farmers! Unite! Burn the Lycra Learers.

And when they do get their pansy arses busted it costs us in higher ACC levies :bash: :laugh:

[rick750f]

I hope every one is submitting there submission to acc here is the link if you havent.

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

Also let your mp know how you feel to.

for other links go to
http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz/whatcan.html

Come on poeple it only takes 1-2 minutes to have your say

[ArcAngellives]

An intelligent piece of levity, Dan!


alright has anyone heard of about 20 years ago they were gonna raise the rego to a grand a year per bike here in nz and the did the right thing thousends of motorcycle desended on parliment for a weekend from all over the country and sat there leaking oil and petrol into the grass (course bikes tended to leak alot more then compared to now :) ) but all the same.

so fuk this im 21 and iv been riding for 2 years ill be damed if im gonna lose it
so lets go sit on parliment ground people :) im bringin a bbq :)

[peasea]

alright has anyone heard of about 20 years ago they were gonna raise the rego to a grand a year per bike here in nz and the did the right thing thousends of motorcycle desended on parliment for a weekend from all over the country and sat there leaking oil and petrol into the grass (course bikes tended to leak alot more then compared to now :) ) but all the same.

so fuk this im 21 and iv been riding for 2 years ill be damed if im gonna lose it
so lets go sit on parliment ground people :) im bringin a bbq :)

Ooh, an occupation, my favourite.
Moutoa Gardens, Bastion Point.....Parliament?
Good luck with that.

[NighthawkNZ]

alright has anyone heard of about 20 years ago they were gonna raise the rego to a grand a year per bike here in nz and the did the right thing thousends of motorcycle desended on parliment for a weekend from all over the country and sat there leaking oil and petrol into the grass (course bikes tended to leak alot more then compared to now :) ) but all the same.

so fuk this im 21 and iv been riding for 2 years ill be damed if im gonna lose it
so lets go sit on parliment ground people :) im bringin a bbq :)

wouldn't say 20 years ago but it was back in 1993 that was what the large BRONZ protest was over... same thing and the figures seem familar... strange no inflations ??

[98tls]

alright has anyone heard of about 20 years ago they were gonna raise the rego to a grand a year per bike here in nz and the did the right thing thousends of motorcycle desended on parliment for a weekend from all over the country and sat there leaking oil and petrol into the grass (course bikes tended to leak alot more then compared to now :) ) but all the same.

so fuk this im 21 and iv been riding for 2 years ill be damed if im gonna lose it
so lets go sit on parliment ground people :) im bringin a bbq :) Good luck with that grasshopper,if ya get lucky you might get a late night visit from Rodney for a one on one.:2thumbsup

[Ixion]

wouldn't say 20 years ago but it was back in 1993 that was what the large BRONZ protest was over... same thing and the figures seem familar... strange no inflations ??

There was one before that, too. Must have been mid 70s , I remember hundreds of bikes lined up along Queen St outside the town hall. Don't think there was any ride on Wellington then though

Seems like every 16 years or so some collective insanity besets the ACC

[NighthawkNZ]

There was one before that, too. Must have been mid 70s , I remember hundreds of bikes lined up along Queen St outside the town hall. Don't think there was any ride on Wellington then though

Seems like every 16 years or so some collective insanity besets the ACC

there was in 1993 so I am assuming thats the one he was talking about?

[sharknet]

I think that these fees are for new registrations, not renewals...



its funny I havn't heard this before but acording to the NZ transport agency web site
Common registration fees - from 1 July 2009

MR2A/2B Registration of motor vehicle (issued with standard plates) 6 months 12 months
Passenger car/van
Private passenger Petrol driven - 1301-2600 cc 267.91 388.06
Petrol driven - 2601-4000 cc 298.29 418.44
Non-petrol driven - 1301-2600 cc 330.15 512.52
Non-petrol driven - 2601-4000 cc 360.53 542.90
so this means the higher cc car is going to pay more too?
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-ownership/registration.html

[kwaka_crasher]

there was in 1993 so I am assuming thats the one he was talking about?

Nope.


There was one before that, too.

[kwaka_crasher]

I think that these fees are for new registrations, not renewals...

They are for registrations. Not vehicle licences.

[Clockwork]

wouldn't say 20 years ago but it was back in 1993 that was what the large BRONZ protest was over... same thing and the figures seem familar... strange no inflations ??

No, the original poster is correct... don't recall the figures involved, actually I think it was when they first introduced the differential rate for bikes. I remember being in the protest ride through Wellington to Parliament. I think they ignored us (ie that was when the different rate for bike was first established.)