Stats: questioning the ACC claims

[motorbyclist]

ACC reckons a motorcyclist is 16 times as likely to be in an accident as a car driver etc etc.

How do they find this? Divide claims by number of rego'd bikes?

what about all riders with more than one bike?

what about all the farm/dirtbike stats?

[SARGE]

The cost of treating sporting injuries has skyrocketed over the past three years, with taxpayers forking out nearly $70 million in the last year alone.

In its last financial year, the Accident Compensation Corporation paid out $69 million - up 58 per cent from two years ago - to treat people who hurt themselves taking part in New Zealand's top 10 sports.

Concussion, shoulder injuries, hamstring, knee and ankle strains were the most common injuries ACC funded treatment for.

While hard impact and frequent collision sports dominate the ACC's top-10 list of sports injuries, each year the taxpayer subsidises the treatment of people who hurt themselves in supposedly more sedate pursuits, such as lawn bowls or yoga.

The national game, rugby, comfortably dominates its rivals in the injury stakes, with more than 49,000 rugby players injured last year.

Soccer and netball, two of New Zealand's biggest sports in terms of playing numbers, have consistently filled second and third in ACC's injury stats. Cycling and basketball round out the top five.

The number of claims per year and their cost to the taxpayer have ballooned in the past three years. Claims for rugby injuries have increased by almost 10,000, and the cost of treating them has risen from $13 million to more than $20 million.


from Stuff.co.nz

[Ixion]

ACC reckons a motorcyclist is 16 times as likely to be in an accident as a car driver etc etc.

How do they find this? Divide claims by number of rego'd bikes?

what about all riders with more than one bike?

what about all the farm/dirtbike stats?

If you divide registered bikes by crahses and compare with cars you get about three to one.

I';m told ACC use some shonky figures they've gotten from somehwere (and I'm thinking AA) that are based on a vehicle kilometre basis (no of vehicles times kilometres travelled each year). But noone is forthcoming about how this figure was calculated. It can only be a guesstimate, especially for bikes , given the small size of the fleet. The standard deviation would be huge.

[Squiggles]

The 16x claim is similar to the MoT claim (18) and is per km... so 16x more likely to be involved in an accident per kilometer travelled (or for the equivalent distance, same diff). The numbers wont be easy to calculate for such a statement as you're comparing two rather different groups with many different factors as well as a few common ones... And that's where the statement begins to fail... It is a guesstimate, based on what someone else considers to be important factors as well as a series of assumptions etc

[bogan]

The 16x claim is similar to the MoT claim (18) and is per km... so 16x more likely to be involved in an accident per kilometer travelled (or for the equivalent distance, same diff). The numbers wont be easy to calculate for such a statement as you're comparing two rather different groups with many different factors as well as a few common ones... And that's where the statement begins to fail... It is a guesstimate, based on what someone else considers to be important factors as well as a series of assumptions etc

ahhh, now I see. Yet the accident rate is between 5x and 3x (per registered vehicle), so bikers must do less km's which the gubbermint haven't factored in obviously.

[zahria]

The 16x claim is similar to the MoT claim (18) and is per km... so 16x more likely to be involved in an accident per kilometer travelled (or for the equivalent distance, same diff). The numbers wont be easy to calculate for such a statement as you're comparing two rather different groups with many different factors as well as a few common ones... And that's where the statement begins to fail... It is a guesstimate, based on what someone else considers to be important factors as well as a series of assumptions etc

from what I can see, everyone has their own figures, and that makes the whole thing pretty dammed cloudy. How the hell are you supposed to know?

[bogan]

from what I can see, everyone has their own figures, and that makes the whole thing pretty dammed cloudy. How the hell are you supposed to know?

tis statistics, standard practice is to work out the ones most favourable to you, then tell everybody :2thumbsup

[dipshit]

ahhh, now I see. Yet the accident rate is between 5x and 3x (per registered vehicle), so bikers must do less km's which the gubbermint haven't factored in obviously.

It is factored in if they use accident rates per km travelled. This is why it would look worse for motorcycles than just going by what is registered.

A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage for a blat on the occasional sunny weekend. Look at how many five year old or so bikes still have very low mileage compared to an equivalent aged car.

It is more of a gauge of actual road use. There figure of 16x is quite probable.

[Ixion]

ahhh, now I see. Yet the accident rate is between 5x and 3x (per registered vehicle), so bikers must do less km's which the gubbermint haven't factored in obviously.

Or, they do their kilometers on roads where there are no survey teams?

Or at times when there is no surveying going on. For instance if the surevys were done during the week they would understate biker mileage .

I am trying to find out how the average kilometers travelled per vehicle is worked out.

[dipshit]

I am trying to find out how the average kilometers travelled per vehicle is worked out.

Well mileage of every vehicle is noted when getting a WoF.

It wouldn't be too hard to work out that all cars in NZ have done xxxx amount of km... and all motorcycles in NZ have done xxxx km and divide reported accidents against those.

[Ixion]

Hardly robust. Have you ever noted how error prone that is.

[Grahameeboy]

ACC reckons a motorcyclist is 16 times as likely to be in an accident as a car driver etc etc.

How do they find this? Divide claims by number of rego'd bikes?

what about all riders with more than one bike?

what about all the farm/dirtbike stats?

You know I wondered why I could walk through walls and seemed invisible....

[Grahameeboy]

It is factored in if they use accident rates per km travelled. This is why it would look worse for motorcycles than just going by what is registered.

A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage for a blat on the occasional sunny weekend. Look at how many five year old or so bikes still have very low mileage compared to an equivalent aged car.

It is more of a gauge of actual road use. There figure of 16x is quite probable.

Have done 62,000k's in 4 years....still alive

[Ixion]

I think it may come form here (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Pages/199798travelsurveyhighlights-motorcyclists.aspx)

A travel survey done by MoT . Back in 1997 !

And a couple of quotes show how shonky this is



1997/98 Travel Survey Highlights - Motorcyclists

<!-- Information about who created this content --> Last updated on 11/12/2008 10:50 a.m.

<!--the actual page content--> Over the last decade there has been a marked decrease in the popularity of motorcycling. Between 1989/90 and 1997/98 motorcycle ownership fell by 40% and total distance ridden fell by almost as much.



In particular, motorcycle use has fallen among the high-risk 15-24 age group, who rode 120 million km in 1989/90 but less than 30 million km in 1997/98.
The overall decrease in motorcycle ownership is almost entirely the result of a decrease in ownership of smaller motorcycles and scooters, especially those under 125cc, which compete with cheaper cars as practical urban transport. The increased availability of cheaper used cars from overseas has brought car ownership within reach of many, especially younger, people.
Between 1989/90 and 1997/98 there has been some increase in ownership of larger, more expensive motorcycles (over 750cc) but the total distance travelled on motorcycles of this size has almost halved.





Travel by motorcycle is vastly more dangerous than by any other travel mode. It is about 18 times more risky than travel by cars (including vans and utes) and four times as dangerous as cycling. Of course, a mode of transport may appear more dangerous if it is used in more risky circumstances - or by more risky drivers. Traditionally, motorcycle riding has been dominated by the most risky driving group - young males. However, the inherent danger of this mode of transport is indicated by the high risk for riders aged 40 and over, one of the safest driving groups as car drivers. For every million hours riding a motorcycle, they have approximately 190 injuries, almost 30 times the risk they have as car drivers.

How does this translate to a risk for an average car driver? The average driver spends about 280 hours driving per year*. On average, one in 380 drivers can expect to be injured (including fatal injury) in a road crash during a year's driving. If each motorcyclist rode as much as car drivers drive, one in 35 would be injured per year. In fact, motorcyclists ride for only 44 hours per year (on average) and one in 130 is injured (or killed) in a crash per year.


And that the figures are crap can be seen at a glance by the "motorcyclist ride for only 44 hours per year".

It MIGHT be appropraite to assess car drivers on the basis on ten year old data. But certainly not motorcycles because of the very great change in the demographic

" Over the last decade there has been a marked decrease in the popularity of motorcycling. Between 1989/90 and 1997/98 motorcycle ownership fell by 40% and total distance ridden fell by almost as much."

True the, But now it's reversed.

Anyone want to go through that site in more detail and pull it apart?

At the least , being able to respond that the data is 10 years out of date is a start.

[bogan]

It is factored in if they use accident rates per km travelled. This is why it would look worse for motorcycles than just going by what is registered.

A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage for a blat on the occasional sunny weekend. Look at how many five year old or so bikes still have very low mileage compared to an equivalent aged car.

It is more of a gauge of actual road use. There figure of 16x is quite probable.


yeh, after re-reading it seem i worded that very poorly. What i meant was that your average motorcyclist does less km's than your average car driver, thus lowering the risk per vehicle/person. Because the levys are paid per vehicle, not km, the per vehicle figures seem more relevant to the issue at hand.

[Ixion]

More detail here (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/travel-survey-results-2006.pdf).

It appears that the figure is based on a survey of 354 motorcylists in 1998 !

Moreover at that time the fleet was estimated at 58000. Now it is nearly three times that size. But crashes (ACC figures) have only gone up 27% . So that halves the figure immediately!

I suspect the rest of it is just as shonky.

[bogan]

More detail here (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/travel-survey-results-2006.pdf).

It appears that the figure is based on a survey of 354 motorcylists in 1998 !

Moreover at that time the fleet was estimated at 58000. Now it is nearly three times that size. But crashes (ACC figures) have only gone up 27% . So that halves the figure immediately!

I suspect the rest of it is just as shonky.

Hmm, very interesting information, I wonder if we can confirm whether these are the actual stats they are basing their figures from. Would leave them wide open to a good thrashing:

National, using statistics from last time we were in government, they're still current right? ... TUI

[Ixion]

Bloody hell

They included car passengers.

So if a car with four passgeners travelled 100km, that was considered as 400 km !

No wonder it made bikes look bad.

[dipshit]

And that the figures are crap can be seen at a glance by the "motorcyclist ride for only 44 hours per year".

Average.

It isn't that surprising. There must be a lot of bikes that don't get ridden much when you go looking at the age of the bike and mileage.

Compare this page's year and mileage http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Motorbikes/Motorbikes/Sports/mcat-0001-0026-1255-2509-.htm

against this page... http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Toyota/mcat-0001-0268-0334-.htm

[motorbyclist]

:doh: hadn't considered they might do it per kilometer travelled - you'd think that was a bit shonky if we don't to as many k's then on an annual basis (on which the rego levy is based) that 16 times would come down wouldn't it?

ie using numbers out of the air, bike rider is 16x/km more likely to crash, but only does 1/8 of the k's in a year, making him only twice as likely to crash in that year he pays his levies?

good ol' statistics eh?

[dipshit]

ie using numbers out of the air, bike rider is 16x/km more likely to crash, but only does 1/8 of the k's in a year, making him only twice as likely to crash in that year he pays his levies?

Nope, say your average bike only does 1/8 of the mileage your average car does in a year. This and the fact bikes only make up 3.5% of registered vehicles in NZ... makes it all the more worse that a third of road injurie claims are from motorcyclists.

[Mystic13]

Nope, say your average bike only does 1/8 of the mileage your average car does in a year. This and the fact bikes only make up 3.5% of registered vehicles in NZ... makes it all the more worse that a third of road injurie claims are from motorcyclists.

It doesn't help when we misquote facts. We're not 1/3rd from what I read. We are 1/3rd compared to cars. "Other vehicles", "bus", "truck" etc are excluded. In another set of stats the SUV's and vans were separated out and I have to wonder if they are the "other vehicles". But when you see these at about the same as cars it means effectively the motorcycle cost is halved.

What is the SUV only rate?

Moving on if the 16 or 18 x is a kilometre thing it's completely irrelevant. The fact is a rider using their bike compared to a driver in theirs. The ACC stats clearly show a much reduced figure.

Again this is still only a car and motorcycle comparison with SUV's and van's left out of the discussion.

ACC is being mischevious with their manipulation of stats.

[maxf]

OK guys, newbie here, but has anyone checked the ACC 2010/2011 full year, please officially submit on me, consultation PDF?... this one here: http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/papers_plans/prd_ctrb118085.pdf

Go to Pg28 - its got the relative risks & costs ACC has calculated vs a car - their "relativity" baselines. What boils my brake fluid is that the WORST rating for a bike (their 126-600cc band) is only 443% more likely than a car - eg 4 TIMES, not this crappy-math "16 times"... The only figure that approaches that is the 1222% relative likely cost (relative chance of accident x relative likely cost of injury) for the 600+cc class... and that's still not 1600%, even if they were quoting comparable numbers!

OK - EVEN BIGGER KICKER. Go to the table on Pg 29 - the "culpability factor" calculations for motorcyclists only being at fault 58% of the time (lets not debate the correctness of that yet!)... so they take the relativity factors from Pg 28 and mutliply by 0.58 - SO the figures they're quoting in all the press packs are EVEN MORE ERRONEOUS.

Now - remember this is the official consultation document for however many billion in levy income? Have a look at the incendiary little second table on Pg29 - the one that gives the cross-subsidy conclusions... ITS CALCULATED WRONG. They use the full figures, not the culpability adjustment figures - they're all 42% out (for the 600cc+, the $3770 quoted / car cost @ $312 = 1205%, not the 708% under the culpability corrections). This carries thru into the totals too ... the recalculated-from-their-stats cross-subsidy is around $100-115M, and the cost-per bike gets lower as the on-road stats increase - which they also seem to have under-quoted... see the second worksheet in the spreadsheet with MOT 2008 rego figures from http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf, around pg 59 from memory...

I've put this in the attched spreadsheet - please check if you can see if I'm wrong anywhere. I've emailed Smith, Key & Brownlee (local MP) to raise the issue that they're glibly spouting incorrect facts, but have only had replies referring me to the consultation docs and/or Smiths' PR releases... Getting a definite impression of a do-not-care agenda here! :argh:

Max

Personal position: Christchurch, 25yrs & no ACC claims, getting more pissed off with the lying than the proposed charge now :mad: Wouldn't mind if their insurance premiums reflected some reality...!!

[maxf]

It's play-time analysis by the looks - playing with datasets on a computer and then drawing semi-connected but usually politically acceptable conclusions, without questioning the base data classifications - but they do quote it a lot - it seems to be the one with the stupid paragraph of

"Motorcyclists are considerably over-represented in both fatal and serious injry accidents in proportion to the distance travelled. The degree of this over-representation is confirmed by the latest LTSA travel survey [LTSA 2000a] which shows that injury risk per time travelled for motorcyclists including pillions is 18 times that for car van or ute occupants and four times that for cyclists. Motorcyclists in fact ride for far fewer hours than car drivers drive, on average about 44hrs per year compared to 280 hours for a car driver. Indeed, motorcyclists covered only 0.7% of the annual distance travelled by cars, vans & utes in 1997/98...." (pg 53)

Spot the errors?
- they're quoting stats 9 years old - by their own MOT stats, the average bike is 15yrs old, so we're getting back to covering 1985 era bikes with cable drum brakes & cross-plys here...
- they start off with throw-away comment re accidents per distance and then quote accidents per riding hours to justify it?
- would love to see where they get the 44hrs/yr figure, eg maybe one hour a weekend, not even every weekend? Even on a 5min commute (each way) you should be around 60hrs/yr
- they again use subjective comparisions - 0.7% of car travel distances, instead of comparing distance per vehicle on-road, 2.5M cars can rack up a heck more kms than 50000 bikes ...

Also quite depressing how the same people seemed to have carried some "street cred" from the DSIR and taken it private - they do credit an awful lot of their own prior reporting, also paid for by ACC!

Personal hate - on pg 56, "Motorcyclists are gregarious creatures and seem often to ride in groups."
Even sadder - some of your money went to pay for it.

Joy.

[motorbyclist]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110116

that there is the actual stats ACC should be using.

I'm told that Ixion found the study that ACC is basing their claims on: it's from 1998 and the sample size is only 365 bikes, out of 50k bikes rego'd at the time. Ignoring the insignificance of such a small sample, a decade has passed since then and rego'd bikes almost doubled

[Supermac Jr]

[url]sample size is only 365 bikes, out of 50k bikes rego'd at the time.
That sample is not too bad - 50k bikes, 5% margin of error and 95%confidence interval -> required sample size = 382

[Ixion]

It's play-time analysis by the looks - playing with datasets on a computer and then drawing semi-connected but usually politically acceptable conclusions, without questioning the base data classifications - but they do quote it a lot - it seems to be the one with the stupid paragraph of

"Motorcyclists are considerably over-represented in both fatal and serious injry accidents in proportion to the distance travelled. The degree of this over-representation is confirmed by the latest LTSA travel survey [LTSA 2000a] which shows that injury risk per time travelled for motorcyclists including pillions is 18 times that for car van or ute occupants and four times that for cyclists. Motorcyclists in fact ride for far fewer hours than car drivers drive, on average about 44hrs per year compared to 280 hours for a car driver. Indeed, motorcyclists covered only 0.7% of the annual distance travelled by cars, vans & utes in 1997/98...." (pg 53)

Spot the errors?
- they're quoting stats 9 years old - by their own MOT stats, the average bike is 15yrs old, so we're getting back to covering 1985 era bikes with cable drum brakes & cross-plys here...
- they start off with throw-away comment re accidents per distance and then quote accidents per riding hours to justify it?
- would love to see where they get the 44hrs/yr figure, eg maybe one hour a weekend, not even every weekend? Even on a 5min commute (each way) you should be around 60hrs/yr
- they again use subjective comparisions - 0.7% of car travel distances, instead of comparing distance per vehicle on-road, 2.5M cars can rack up a heck more kms than 50000 bikes ...

Also quite depressing how the same people seemed to have carried some "street cred" from the DSIR and taken it private - they do credit an awful lot of their own prior reporting, also paid for by ACC!

Personal hate - on pg 56, "Motorcyclists are gregarious creatures and seem often to ride in groups."
Even sadder - some of your money went to pay for it.

Joy.

The reason for the 44 hours is that the 354 bikes included ALL motorcycles owned by the sample group. Even if they weren't in use or were used by a different family member. They asked the respondents "list all vehicles in the household". So, Dad, who was filling the thing out, and recording HIS travel, dutifully entered his sons motorbike. Even though said motorbike wasn't in use . How many garages and sheds have an unused bike in them, even today. There were a lot more in 1998.

I'd like to get hold of the number of people who actaully recorded motorcycle journeys. I bet it was a LOT less than 354.

Their figure for average annual travel for motorcycles comes to about 800km per bike.

The Bailey report would be interesting.

[Ixion]

Does anyone (trade maybe ?) know of a data source that shows the average annual mileage of motorcycles.

The MoT survey, they one that produced the "bikes 18 x as dangerous" works out the average travel to be 800km per bike!

I'm thinking they must be including a lot of "back of the shed" unused bikes.

[Squiggles]

I dont fully remember but Phil Read who wrote "The New Zealand National Survey of Road Riders" may have some data on that

[sinfull]

Were all forgetting the fact that all off road motorcycles, quads etc are included in the figures they use !

Does anyone know where the stats are that can have them taken out of the equation ?
Bet that would make things look bloody good for an argument !

[bogan]

Were all forgetting the fact that all off road motorcycles, quads etc are included in the figures they use !

Does anyone know where the stats are that can have them taken out of the equation ?
Bet that would make things look bloody good for an argument !

I'm not so sure they are in the equation currently, some misrecorded ones will surely be in there, but i think the majority of off road accidents can/are filtered out by the location of the incident.

[dpex]

ACC reckons a motorcyclist is 16 times as likely to be in an accident as a car driver etc etc.

How do they find this? Divide claims by number of rego'd bikes?

what about all riders with more than one bike?

what about all the farm/dirtbike stats?

If you look at ACC's own stats you see that 98% plus of all claims had absolutely nothing to do with road-users! So why are we being penalised?

[maxf]

The Bailey report would be interesting.

I'll try to see if I can get the copier to scan it in for me - it's 73 pages, so I guess it'll be an email... PM me with your address and I'll try to pass it on.

Max

[motorbyclist]

I'm not so sure they are in the equation currently, some misrecorded ones will surely be in there, but i think the majority of off road accidents can/are filtered out by the location of the incident.

no.

just no.

having filled out several dirtbike related ACC forms while a mate is getting stitches, it's considered a motorcycle accident with no further investigation as to capacity or type

[awayatc]

Roads kill
The more time you spend on the road the bigger the risk of getting involved in an accident.....

The average driver spends 280 hrs per year driving...
the average biker spends only 44 hrs per year riding....

Therefor cagers are 6x as long in the dangerzone,
and therefor are 6x as much at risk
Thus our ACC levy should only be 1/6th of car levy....

10 out of 1 that i'm right....

Actualy you should be able to get a discount for getting out of the dangerzone even faster.....
bit of speeding would decrease exposure.......

[NighthawkNZ]

Roads kill
The more time you spend on the road the bigger the risk of getting involved in an accident.....

The average driver spends 280 hrs per year driving...
the average biker spends only 44 hrs per year riding....

Therefor cagers are 6x as long in the dangerzone,
and therefor are 6x as much at risk
Thus our ACC levy should only be 1/6th of car levy....

10 out of 1 that i'm right....

Don't you just love statistics ;)

[bogan]

no.

just no.

having filled out several dirtbike related ACC forms while a mate is getting stitches, it's considered a motorcycle accident with no further investigation as to capacity or type

hmmm, all my dirtbike accidents I've had to put down the location (farm, road etc), I just assumed they would be able to weed them out that way. Then again, being able to does not mean that they bother to do so.

[motorbyclist]

hmmm, all my dirtbike accidents I've had to put down the location (farm, road etc), I just assumed they would be able to weed them out that way. Then again, being able to does not mean that they bother to do so.

really? police ask for location....

maybe it's a regional thing (21 DHBs and all...)

[bogan]

really? police ask for location....

maybe it's a regional thing (21 DHBs and all...)

nah not the po-po, its a little field on the acc form, least im pretty sure it was the acc form and not a local doctors one. Though i did have a concussion last time i went so cud be wrong.

[kwaka_crasher]

nah not the po-po, its a little field on the acc form, least im pretty sure it was the acc form and not a local doctors one. Though i did have a concussion last time i went so cud be wrong.

IIRC the last ACC form I filled out specifically asked if the accident occured with a road registered vehicle on a public road.

[MarkH]

Roads kill

Not true - most ACC claims are for accidents around the home. I think we should all threaten to stay home and use power tools and climb ladders if we don't go out for a ride on a motorbike!

Has anyone noticed that it already costs $250 per year in ACC levies to have a registered motorcycle, but nothing for a ladder? You don't have to wear a helmet on a ladder either! When you buy a circular saw there is no ACC levy either - you don't pay based on risk, you pay based on whether you have a motorcycle or not! :angry: