Data from ACC

[sleemanj]

Mention was made by Les on CloseUp that data from the ACC was quoted to BRONZ at $10,000.

I can't immediately find a reference to this request or quote here at Kiwibiker, but as ACC is state owned, it strikes me that this information should be available under the OIA (Official Information Act).


The scope of the Act is extremely broad, and includes all information held by any Minister in their official capacity, or by any government department or organisation (as listed in the Act or the Ombudsmen Act 1975). This includes government ministries, hospitals, universities, schools, the Security Intelligence Service, and even state-owned enterprises.



Government organisations have 20 working days to respond, and if a request is refused in whole or in part, they must give reasons for the refusal. Decisions can be appealed to the Ombudsman. Organisations can charge for large requests, but this is very rare.

This is an intresting blog about such requests... http://officialinfo.wordpress.com/

[Hitcher]

The Official Information Act is about the release of information. Government agencies subject to the provisions of this Act are able to charge for information if it requires a considerable amount of collation or resources, such as copying.

$10,000 must be ACC's estimate of the necessary collation and copying costs.

Such a claim doesn't help their alleged postion of "transparancy".

Getting this concession tonight from ACC's CEO is a major win. Well done Les!

[sleemanj]

My expectation would be that if the ACC is quoting $10,000 for it, that the Ombudsman would have something to say to ACC about that.

It would be nonsensical for the ACC to claim that this data is not already in an electronic format and that it could be supplied on a hard disk drive for not much more than a hundred bucks.

[325rocket]

My expectation would be that if the ACC is quoting $10,000 for it, that the Ombudsman would have something to say to ACC about that.

It would be nonsensical for the ACC to claim that this data is not already in an electronic format and that it could be supplied on a hard disk drive for not much more than a hundred bucks.

good point.
if its not easily available how did ACC get their figures?

[merv]

good point.
if its not easily available how did ACC get their figures?

They've wasted your hard earned money on internal costs to do it.

[Blue TLS]

They've wasted your hard earned money on internal costs to do it.

At least they haven't wasted it on a foolish biker who's had an accident:lol:

[Ixion]

My expectation would be that if the ACC is quoting $10,000 for it, that the Ombudsman would have something to say to ACC about that.

It would be nonsensical for the ACC to claim that this data is not already in an electronic format and that it could be supplied on a hard disk drive for not much more than a hundred bucks.

Well, I had an unsolicited call early this morning from a David Barham of ACC to say he was organising it!

I emphasised we wanted raw data , not press release figures.

He *seemed* to understand. We shall see.

As to the original $10000 figure: I'm sure that ACC have it easily accessible. But , when they supply information to the public they have to be aware of privacy issues. For instance, obviously they can't include data that has personal details (name address phone number) etc in it. Less obviously, even if the data is depersonalised and summarised, it can still be non-anonymous. For instance, if you asked for costs of crashes by month and district, including a breakdown of how much was medical costs and how much income replacement (ERC). That would probably be OK in Auckland , the number of crashes each month would be great enough that individual amounts would be lost in the big total. But, in Eketahuna, in , say, June 2006, there may have been only one crash. So the totals would actually be the details for that one crash. And it would be fairly easy to find out who it was , especially if you lived in Ekatahuna. So now you know a lot of stuff about that person (including a good estimate of their income). Oh dear.

Cleaning that sort of stuff up is time consuming and laborious - I've had to do it in the past.

[k2w3]

In that case, $10k sounds like a bargain! :-)

[kwaka_crasher]

But, in Eketahuna, in , say, June 2006, there may have been only one crash. So the totals would actually be the details for that one crash.

But aren't you only requesting national not regional numbers?

[Ixion]

Sigh. As expected.

They came through with a nice pdf report .

"ACC Motor Vehicle Account
2010/11 Technical Report on
Levy Setting Methodology
For Consultation"

I've emailed them back



Hi David

Sorry, but although that's a very nice report, and I will read it with interest it is NOT what we asked for , nor what was agreed on 'Closeup'

What we asked for , and Mr McLea agreed to, was the raw data behind those numbers.

ie , that underlying figures that were used to produce those figures and conclusions . I'd expect this in the form of either a detached database file, or an XML dataset , or perhaps a csv file

If that sounds gibberish to you, your IT team will understand it.

Thanks Les


I imagine something very much more forceful will be required on Monday.

[Ixion]

But aren't you only requesting national not regional numbers?


I'm a DBA. I want data at the lowest possible level.

Ideally I'd like individual claims. However, that's probably not realistic given privacy requirements. So, at whatever level is the lowest possible.

But I don't want pre aggregated data, based on who knows what parameters .

There can't be all that much . 4 million population, say, last 10 years, maybe max 100 million records. I'll slice and dice it, or Charles Lamb will

Raw data FTW.

[NighthawkNZ]

Raw data FTW.

sad thing is, I don't think we will get it, even if they do... and it seems like the raw files, I and it looks offical and looks like the data, I would still be doubious about the data,

easy enough to make a back up and then tweak the backup files to say what they want it to say... not saying thats what is going to happen... but

[kwaka_crasher]

I imagine something very much more forceful will be required on Monday.

Tuesday...


I'm a DBA. I want data at the lowest possible level.

Ideally I'd like individual claims. However, that's probably not realistic given privacy requirements. So, at whatever level is the lowest possible.

But I don't want pre aggregated data, based on who knows what parameters.

There can't be all that much . 4 million population, say, last 10 years, maybe max 100 million records. I'll slice and dice it, or Charles Lamb will

Raw data FTW.

At least raw data minus locality...

Methinks they won't be forthcoming as even their presently avaiable data doesn't suport their justification of the current levy change proposal. Just imagine how damning the real data will be once it's collated into over-simplified statements (like "motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to be injured in a crash") only intentionally in SUPPORT of our position rather than AGAINST it...

Nice job on Close Up, BTW.

[Ixion]

sad thing is, I don't think we will get it, even if they do... and it seems like the raw files, I and it looks offical and looks like the data, I would still be doubious about the data,

easy enough to make a back up and then tweak the backup files to say what they want it to say... not saying thats what is going to happen... but

I done some auditing in my time. Doubt they'd go down that path though, it's not the way the bureaucratic mind works

More likely just "Oh, that's not what we meant"

[AllanB]

I'd expect them to try to bombard you with massive amounts of unorganized crap so that you'll just 'go away'.

Out of interest I'd like to see what the NZ Government has paid the Aussie company to compile their figures .........

[NighthawkNZ]

I'd expect them to try to bombard you with massive amounts of unorganized crap so that you'll just 'go away'.

Out of interest I'd like to see what the NZ Government has paid the Aussie company to compile their figures .........

I done a spread sheet just based on the numbers we have and welll interesting

[sleemanj]

Can I suggest that if not done already BRONZ make a written OIA request to ACC (specifically stating that the request is an OIA one), specifying exactly what data they want.

As with all things beaurocratic in my experience, get stuff in writing and be specific.

The OIA is there for a reason, make sure ACC knows it's getting employed here.

[Ixion]

I'd expect them to try to bombard you with massive amounts of unorganized crap so that you'll just 'go away'.

Out of interest I'd like to see what the NZ Government has paid the Aussie company to compile their figures .........

Organising unorganised crap into meaningful and logical relationships is what I do. I'll be happy with unorganised crap.

Yeah, aware of the OIA. Holding back on it, because (a) you need to specify what you want, and I'm hoping for more than I want; and (b) they have 20 working days to stuff around, which takes us beyond our immediate horizon.

So if I can get it on the Friendly Road , I'll try that first

[Ixion]

Sigh

Git a reply




Hi Les - sorry, thought this was the sort of thing you were after. I'll pass your request on - probably won't be able to get anything for you until after long weekend.



Regards



David


yeah. Right. Like, a pdf report is SO much like raw data.

[GOONR]

Sounds like they are A: stupid, B: wasting time, C: going over their own figures again to see if they do add up.

[Ixion]

Or D) Send him this and see if it shuts him up. Maybe he doesn't really know what he wants and is just making noises.

[NighthawkNZ]

Sigh

Git a reply

yeah. Right. Like, a pdf report is SO much like raw data.

Oh fuck that is the rawest kind of data :lol:


Actualy thats exactly the run around i thought you will while the try and cover anything (not that I am say that they are)

If anything they will be covering that not all the road and dirt bike accidents are truly seperated... 1336 for this years road accidednts that claimed ACC seem actually fairly high to me for some odd reason

[McJim]

Isn't the general public savvy enough in this day an age that we can gain popular support with the comment "we asked for raw data in order that we could perform meaningful statistical analysis of it to support ACC claims but all we got was this lousy .pdf"?

[Cloggy]

May just be possible ACC staff are reading these forums and have now realised Ixion is a DBA and may now have got them (ACC) worried?

Bloody good job on CloseUp Ixion. Got to work this morning and people at work (non-bikers) were talking and laughing about how much of drip the ACC guy was. Unprepared and fumbeling for answers.

[GOONR]

Isn't the general public savvy enough in this day an age that we can gain popular support with the comment "we asked for raw data in order that we could perform meaningful statistical analysis of it to support ACC claims but all we got was this lousy .pdf"?

And it's not like ACC can deny the data was asked for, how many people would have watched that on the old tellybox thingo.

[Ixion]

Isn't the general public savvy enough in this day an age that we can gain popular support with the comment "we asked for raw data in order that we could perform meaningful statistical analysis of it to support ACC claims but all we got was this lousy .pdf"?

Oh yes indeed. In fact it might be even better for us if they DON'T come through

"ACC undertook on nationwide television to provide data to back up their extravagant claims of how much motorcycles cost them. They have now admitted that they cannot fulfill this commitment. Clearly , the preposterous figure sthey have been quoted have no substance and cannot be proven"


And that's the end of ACC credibility. Which leaves the politicians right out on a limb.

[Mikkel]

Do we actually have any insight as to how ACC gathers and processes the raw data which has been used to support the proposed increases?

It is not exactly unthinkable that there is no such thing as "the raw data" to be handed on. I'm not trying to suggest that it would be ok if that was the case - merely saying that the incompetence may be reaching deeper than we could possibly imagine.

Also, even if that is somewhere within ACC - it is not unlikely that none of the hotshots would actually know where it is and what it contains. After all, they have a multitude of "peons" - including PWC in Sydney it would appear - to do all of this work for them. ACC is a large organisation and as such is bound to be wrapped in a very heavy layer of bureaucratic armour.


However, as Les pointed out on Close-up the numbers do not appear to add up. Unless they can address this issue in a credible manner their position is not exactly strong.

[Ixion]

It is not exactly unthinkable that there is no such thing as "the raw data" to be handed on. ..

Would not in the least surprise me. If so, so much the better.

They undertook, before the eyes of the world, to provide the data to back up their claims.

If they can't or won't, their credibility will be totally destroyed.

[Mikkel]

Would not in the least surprise me. If so, so much the better.

They undertook, before the eyes of the world, to provide the data to back up their claims.

If they can't or won't, their credibility will be totally destroyed.

Indeed, provided we can get someone - preferably yourself - back on the air during prime time to get this fact out and around to the masses. :yes:

[Pedrostt500]

Slightly off topic, how is BRONZ funded, do they have the funding to meet the costs of this battle.
IF not, is it time to pass the hat around for donations for BRONZ.

[Imbray]

[QUOTE=Mikkel;1129476822]Do we actually have any insight as to how ACC gathers and processes the raw data which has been used to support the proposed increases?


I work in a Emergency dept were acc claims are lodged via internet, a motorbike is a motorbike ( on road acc paying, off road non acc paying eg trail) they don't wont to know it's just a MOTORBIKE, we all get lumped together:stupid: Just as they don't collect data on if alcohol in involved with ANY claim :2guns:.

A few years back ???7ish, our doc's did collect the data for a year - 80% of motorbike accidents that came thru were :eek: off road!!

If they won't more money why not go for alcohol, it would feature in a very large portion of the claims I see from DIC, fell down steps ( esp if wearing high heels),fights, could go on. I drink only on very rare occ, but even I have had a small claim due it:stupid: ( should have cut the wood before the 2nd glass of wine:Punk:)

[Ixion]

[QUOTE=Mikkel;1129476822]..
A few years back ???7ish, our doc's did collect the data for a year - 80% of motorbike accidents that came thru were :eek: off road!!

I..

Are you able to share which hospital. By PM if you wish.

If we could obtain that "officially" it would be extremely useful.

[Genestho]

[QUOTE=Imbray;1129477456If they won't more money why not go for alcohol, it would feature in a very large portion of the claims I see from DIC, fell down steps ( esp if wearing high heels),fights, could go on. I drink only on very rare occ, but even I have had a small claim due it:stupid: ( should have cut the wood before the 2nd glass of wine:Punk:)[/QUOTE]



There is a proposal to cut entitlements for crims and drink driving associated crash claims.
Proposals addressing increasing levies for Motorcyclists suggests that clearly ACC has become a 'fault system', so on that note....

If we cut Funeral costs, lumps sums, 80% income supplements and some rehab, allowing for emergency service costs only.

Across regions in NZ - an average of 30% of all fatal and 19% of serious injury and 12% of minor injury vehicle crashes are alcohol related. (page 2) (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Alcohol-Drugs-Crash-Factsheet.pdf)

This could potentially save millions.:soon::jerry:
AND re-enforce personal responsibility and culpability.
Drink, Drive, crash and maim yourself, our ACC levies ain't paying you for the pleasure of doing so.

[jeffs]

Talk about ACC confusing the issue, the subject of the data that was promised to BRONZ now seems to have moved to a completely different thread on kiwibiker from the BRONZ link on the home page.

I just commute, I don't own a leather jacket, I am not an old biker, or a member of a club, and I only go on kiwibiker occasionally. But I do ride my bike every single day of the year, rain, sun or hail. The only way I and many like me will ever find out about any protest event planned is to watch these forums. You will need the maximum number of riders you can muster to make any point. So as info and data becomes available can you please post it on you master thread, then others can also see it. Remember there are 106,000 registers bikes, and we will all have to pay more.

[Jantar]

Sigh. As expected.

They came through with a nice pdf report .

"ACC Motor Vehicle Account
2010/11 Technical Report on
Levy Setting Methodology
For Consultation"

I've emailed them back



I imagine something very much more forceful will be required on Monday.
Les, Could you post that pdf report on here and lets see if there's any part we can use.

[Ixion]

This is it.

I alreayd identiifed one VERY possible hole : looks like thye MIGHT have based their whole analysis of cc ratings only on crashes where the bike was to blame! Working on that

[NighthawkNZ]

This is it.

I alreayd identiifed one VERY possible hole : looks like thye MIGHT have based their whole analysis of cc ratings only on crashes where the bike was to blame! Working on that


So it is already an At fault system ;)

good find I say

[kb_SF1]

Les, I watched both your interviews on TV 1 & 3 and very well done, the ACC guy on TV 1 was struggling to find an aqnswer, you were prepared he was not. His media team probably got a reaming.

Thanks for the work you have done and for the ongoing work work you are committed to doing.

I have made an OIAR for info for the past 3 years, changes and impact of any changes on the figures. As I read it there were 491 motorcycle claims in 07/08 yr costing $7.2m (acc figures) yet it ballooned out to $62m in 08/09, something must of changed in the reporting methology or its all smoke & mirrors that will cost us.

The other thing that grinds is that if you have more than 1 bike registered & warrented you pay the acc levy for each.

[Jantar]

...
I have made an OIAR for info for the past 3 years, changes and impact of any changes on the figures. As I read it there were 491 motorcycle claims in 07/08 yr costing $7.2m (acc figures) yet it ballooned out to $62m in 08/09, something must of changed in the reporting methology or its all smoke & mirrors that will cost us.......
That is the type of data we need, Can you post that data on here as well?

[Solly]

.....$10,000 must be ACC's estimate of the necessary collation and copying costs.

That figure is bloody inflated.....the same as the figure ACC arrived at regarding bike accident stats

[MarkH]

Do we actually have any insight as to how ACC gathers and processes the raw data which has been used to support the proposed increases?

My belief is that they have a member of staff who is able to read tea leaves.

[jeffs]

From the report: We believe the aggressive increase from 2005 to 2008 in average claim size was due to a number of rate increases to treatment providers with the introduction of Endorsed Provider Network (EPN) Physiotherapy contract.

So how much of the $62M is in Physiotherapy, which the ACC are now planning on not paying for anyway. This could be quite a bit of the money.

[Hitcher]

That figure is bloody inflated.....the same as the figure ACC arrived at regarding bike accident stats

Indeed. Most agencies generally only charge recidivist time wasters. We have a couple who routinely dog my current place of employ. It would greatly help if they asked for the stuff they actually wanted, rather than going on elaborate fishing expeditions.

[Pussy]

There is a proposal to cut entitlements for crims and drink driving associated crash claims.
Proposals addressing increasing levies for Motorcyclists suggests that clearly ACC has become a 'fault system', so on that note....

If we cut Funeral costs, lumps sums, 80% income supplements and some rehab, allowing for emergency service costs only.

Across regions in NZ - an average of 30% of all vehicle crashes are alcohol related.

This could potentially save millions.:soon::jerry:
AND re-enforce personal responsibility and culpability.
Drink, Drive, crash and maim yourself, our ACC levies ain't paying you for the pleasure of doing so.

And the sooner this happens, the better!

[Ixion]

Indeed. Most agencies generally only charge recidivist time wasters. We have a couple who routinely dog my current place of employ. It would greatly help if they asked for the stuff they actually wanted, rather than going on elaborate fishing expeditions.


but, but , but , the whole POINT is the fishing expedition. If I knew what I wanted, I wouldn't need to ask.

[Hitcher]

If I knew what I wanted, I wouldn't need to ask.
So long as when you didn't have your U2 moment, you didn't then presume that somebody was hiding something from you...

[Squiggles]

Of the pdf sent to Ixion, i found these interesting...(page 25 is where its at)


ACC does not collect information on the precise vehicle class associated with each Motor Vehicle Account claims. However, a recent collaborative effort with the Ministry of Transport (MoT) has allowed ACC to match its claims to records from the MoT Crash Analysis System (CAS).

Only a tad over a 1/2 those in the CAS database were matched... (108k vs 95k)


For motorcycles, 93% of recent matched CAS claims have a vehicle cc rating recorded.
Data on motorcycles without a cc rating cannot be ignored, as these help to calculate the overall relativity of Class 4 to Class 2. However, data without a cc rating cannot be used to gain information on subclass relativities within class 4.



Many Motor Vehicle Account claims are made to ACC by persons not travelling in a licensed vehicle, such as claims by pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians. Since such claims are not associated with a particular class, the costs associated with these claims are spread across the vehicle classes, weighted by exposure. This enables each vehicle to contribute evenly to this pool of claims.

Of course, the lack of actual numbers, particularly in regards to the cc breakdown is prevalent.

[sleemanj]

Sigh

Git a reply

Hi Les - sorry, thought this was the sort of thing you were after. I'll pass your request on - probably won't be able to get anything for you until after long weekend.
Regards
David

yeah. Right. Like, a pdf report is SO much like raw data.




Heard anything yet Ixion?

[Ronin]

I thought this was interesting.


The levy rate proposals developed by ACC are based on the best information and trends
known at this stage, however both ACC and the Minister for ACC appreciate that the
increasing levels of Scheme costs are resulting in unacceptably high levy rates for all
New Zealanders.

[Eddieb]

Just seen this article about how ACC claims are dropping generally.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3007283/ACC-claims-in-steady-decline

There's nothing bike specific in the article but if anyone knows where to get the data and there is something in their for bikes it could be useful.

or not, it could also show them going up...

[Ixion]

Nothing yet. resounding silence

I just sent a hurry up email and invoked the OIA.

[Ixion]

And a reply. "Hope to have something to you by Friday at the latest"

Reasonable , I suppose, it would take some time. What the "something" will be is the tricky bit.

[NighthawkNZ]

And a reply. "Hope to have something to you by Friday at the latest"

Reasonable , I suppose, it would take some time. What the "something" will be is the tricky bit.

crock of shit if you ask me

[kwaka_crasher]

What the "something" will be is the tricky bit.
I'm thinking you should be prepared for a flaming brown paper bag on your doorstep...

[Kwaka14]

Well, I had an unsolicited call early this morning from a David Barham of ACC to say he was organising it!

I emphasised we wanted raw data , not press release figures.

He *seemed* to understand. We shall see.

As to the original $10000 figure: I'm sure that ACC have it easily accessible. But , when they supply information to the public they have to be aware of privacy issues. For instance, obviously they can't include data that has personal details (name address phone number) etc in it. Less obviously, even if the data is depersonalised and summarised, it can still be non-anonymous. For instance, if you asked for costs of crashes by month and district, including a breakdown of how much was medical costs and how much income replacement (ERC). That would probably be OK in Auckland , the number of crashes each month would be great enough that individual amounts would be lost in the big total. But, in Eketahuna, in , say, June 2006, there may have been only one crash. So the totals would actually be the details for that one crash. And it would be fairly easy to find out who it was , especially if you lived in Ekatahuna. So now you know a lot of stuff about that person (including a good estimate of their income). Oh dear.

Cleaning that sort of stuff up is time consuming and laborious - I've had to do it in the past.

I could almost guarantee they have tool like business objects or crystal or something similar that is able to pull out only the information that is required, they must have a data warehouse of information for normal reporting purposes. You want numbers (not phone numbers) and stats, surely there shouldn't be much of an issue with that.

[Ixion]

OK. We can has data !

A letter. (attached).

And a 5MB spread sheet (uncompressed)

Groan. Why a spreadsheet. Still I can get it into a database easy enough.

Dunno what's is in it, but 5MB should be something.

I'll pass it onto charles lamb also

Even zipped the files to big as an attachment, PM me an email address if you wnat a copy

EDIT: Sigh. The mountains have laboured and produced a mouse.

But it is at least something. I suspect I see some holes in it already

And I'll go back and ask for more. Of course.

[NighthawkNZ]

And a 5MB spread sheet (uncompressed)

Its not really the core data you asked for now is it...

Spread sheet... ugggh

[Ixion]

Nope. But do I look surprised.

The letter BTW has a contact number, for someone who MIGHT be a tech type person.

Worth a try

[NighthawkNZ]

Nope. But do I look surprised.

The letter BTW has a contact number, for someone who MIGHT be a tech type person.

Worth a try


That letter is a crook of shit and is the same BS they have been trying to push since the proposal

[zx rider]

Aahh, but you have not factored in the running costs for, bad management, meetings, lunches, expense accounts, adviser fees, lunches, bussiness class air travel, hotels, motels, lunches, admin' charges, staff vehicles and even more lunches.

See how easy it is to overspend, then blame the system, throw ya hands in the air and get more money from the public to cover it.

Someone should lose their bloody job over this, but you'll see, there will be bonuses paid out when this shit is all over.:argh:

[NighthawkNZ]

Aahh, but you have not factored in the running costs for, bad management, meetings, lunches, expense accounts, adviser fees, lunches, bussiness class air travel, hotels, motels, lunches, admin' charges, staff vehicles and more lunches.


Apparently the running costs was 1/2 billion dollars last year

[Ixion]

That letter is a crook of shit and is the same BS they have been trying to push since the proposal

Ah you are not so old and cynical as me.

It is exactly what i expected.

But, now that they have committed to giving us something, they are admitting that they are REQUIRED to fulfill the original request.

And we get to determine what "fulfillment means"

Now I'll go back with specific demands. I want x, y z

[NighthawkNZ]

Ah you are not so old and cynical as me.

It is exactly what i expected.

To tell the honest truth... it was what I expected...:crazy:

[Ixion]

OK. Crap it is

But already i have enough to prove, on their own figures that their cc related claims are total bullshit

Here are the costs, numbers and averages for claims in year 2009 (they have other years, 2009 seems valid to me), order by avergae cost perclaim

Clearly, the costs must include some wild guess of future costs, because the figures would be absud for actual payments in one year

So, I ask for teh actual payout values , also the split between ERC and medical etc.

I have teh data for cars (obviously noit by cc) so I can compare that

And I'll include in MoT figures for number of bikes registered in each category (From the graph - jantar would it be possible to get actual numbers ?)

But immediately we can see that their claims that "Big bikes cost more" is total crap. The 601 - 750 cc group is second cheapest (only the very small 251 - 400 group is less , very few claims as one would expect)

And the dearest average is 401 to 600 (not really surprising)

Does someone with a calculator want to ad those together into their three categories?

Note that "unknown" is the most expensive by average - maybe because those are the bikes so mangled that the cop couldn't figure out the size ?

Anyway I suspect that they have conveniently lumped those into their "Over 600cc " category.

How dodgy does something have to be before we can call in the Auditor General ?


Sorry,vbulletin scrambles the formatting somewhat

ccrating...........cost .........numberofclaims .........avgperclaim
251-400.......193110.42............10 ......................19311.042
601-750.......1039516.43...........35................. ......29700.4694
0-50.............2520662.53..........84............. .........30007.8872
126-250.........2899501.65.........88................. .....32948.8823
1001-1340.....2866583.22..........44................... ...65149.6186
51-125..........1290834.84..........19............... .......67938.6757
1341+...........2729601.19...........26........... ...........104984.6611
901-1000.......6460741.68..........57................. .....113346.3452
751-900.........4137470.95..........36................ ......114929.7486
401-600.........974371.7.............16............... .......123398.2312
.Unknown........5981107.39..... 29.................. 206245.0824

[NighthawkNZ]

ummm am I reading that right???

hmmmm

I wonder if Jantars biker accident and claim is in Other since it happened in Aussie ;)

[Ixion]

OK. I think I see where they are coming from

if you group the figures by their classifications (0-125,126-600, 600+) the big bikes come out ahead on both total claims and average per claim

BUT - that doesn't include numbers of each registered.

I've alreay determined that big bikes have only about half the crashes per bike as smaller ones.
(I'll put in actual figures tomorrow)

class 1 4 million 103 claims avg 37K
class 2..5 million 114 claims avg 44K
class 3..17 million 198 claims avg 87K

Sort of figures, big bikes = experienced riders (well, sometimes!). Less likely to have a minor bin than a moped rider. But when they do, it's likely to be nasty

And although the big bikes are costing more per claim, since they only claim ahlf as often it comes to about the same. Fewer claims per machine registered, but bigger oens

Since ACC get twice as much levy , they can't complain at twice as much claims.

[Ixion]

ummm am I reading that right???

hmmmm

I wonder if Jantars biker accident and claim is in Other since it happened in Aussie ;)

Dunno. how are you reading it?

Could be. I'm ignoring 'other' , no valid data.

[Ixion]

Arggh .
whats going on here.

the total number of claims doesn't add up to anywhere near their figures for total claims (1337 or thereabouts)

Back to the data

yes it does . 444 records for type like '%motor%' and year = 2009

I'll have to inspect to see if there are bike claims with types not containing 'motor'

If it is only 444 for 2009, what's going on.

I'll validate it to 2008

2008 gives only 892 claims against acc figures of 1337

Dodgy data anyone?

I shall ask the question. Where is the rest

No records with a cc rating and type not containing motor.

They've left some out it looks like

[Ronin]

would someone in Auckland buy Ixion a beer? I think he deserves it.

[NighthawkNZ]

year = 2009

Ummm don't we won't 2008 where it is completed?

[Vern]

Hi Guys, My hand goes out to you all because I happen to be a dumb old bugger and it is all over my head, but I can ride a bike and will be in Wellington rain, hail or shine. Keep up the excellent work. Vern

[PhantasmNZ]

<snip>

class 1 4 million 103 claims avg 37K
class 2..5 million 114 claims avg 44K
class 3..17 million 198 claims avg 87K

</snip>

Hmm... the picture doesn't actually look much better when you overlay the vehicle fleet statistics (and I think Ixiom may had an error above - avg for class 2 comes out $ 35.6K)

This is a quick cut together of Ixiom's initial cut above (the more detailed data) with the vehicle fleet stats (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/NewZealandVehicleFleetStatistics/)from the MoT<table border = 1>
<b><tr><td>CC</td><td>Fleet</td><td> Cost </td><td>NumClaims</td><td> AvCostPerClaim </td><td> CostPerBike </td><td>ClaimsPerBike</td></tr></b>
<tr><td>0-125</td><td>35560</td><td> $3,811,497.37 </td><td>103</td><td> $37,004.83 </td><td> $107.18 </td><td>0.29%</td></tr>
<tr><td>126-600</td><td>27276</td><td> $4,066,983.77 </td><td>114</td><td> $35,675.30 </td><td> $149.10 </td><td>0.42%</td></tr>
<tr><td>600+</td><td>48454</td><td> $17,233,913.47 </td><td>198</td><td> $87,039.97 </td><td> $355.68 </td><td>0.41%</td></tr>
</table>

Of course - if this sample is missing data then it's anyone's guess as to what that shows. This data could have been chosen to show this precise picture. Even if valus are wrong here (eg 2009 vs 2008) the ratios of ownership should be the same...

One question though - not sure if this has been answered - where did ACC get the CC rating of the bikes - I'm pretty sure I've never seen this on an ACC claim form?

[PhantasmNZ]

the fuller breakdown (with a little leap of imagination at vehicle fleet stats have lowest category at <60cc not <50cc) show that my 1100cc should be cheaper than a 600-1000cc - lets have more categories :) :)

<table border =1><b><tr><td>CC</td><td>Fleet</td><td> Cost </td><td>NumClaims</td><td> AvCostPerClaim </td><td> CostPerBike </td><td>ClaimsPerBike</td></tr></b>
<tr><td>0-50</td><td>30826</td><td> $2,520,662.53 </td><td>84</td><td> $30,007.89 </td><td> $81.77 </td><td>0.27%</td></tr>
<tr><td>51-125</td><td>4734</td><td> $1,290,834.84 </td><td>19</td><td> $67,938.68 </td><td> $272.67 </td><td>0.40%</td></tr>
<tr><td>126-250</td><td>17336</td><td> $2,899,501.65 </td><td>88</td><td> $32,948.88 </td><td> $167.25 </td><td>0.51%</td></tr>
<tr><td>251-600</td><td>9940</td><td> $1,167,482.12 </td><td>26</td><td> $44,903.16 </td><td> $117.45 </td><td>0.26%</td></tr>
<tr><td>601-1000</td><td>28125</td><td> $11,637,729.06 </td><td>128</td><td> $90,919.76 </td><td> $413.79 </td><td>0.46%</td></tr>
<tr><td>1000+</td><td>20329</td><td> $5,596,184.41 </td><td>70</td><td> $79,945.49 </td><td> $275.28 </td><td>0.34%</td></tr></table>

[Ixion]

The main thing is not what any paricular category is, but rather that they are all over the place.

For instance 750s are cheaper than 600s.

We don't have to prove any relationship ourselves, or even disprove theirs, just show that it's not logical.

We can legitmately say that their model , bigger=costlier does not stack up.

I'll have a decnt go at the numbers tomorrow. And ask for more data. I want to know if the higher cost of big bikes is simply because people crashing them have well paying jobs and therefore cost more for ACC.

If it is, we can argue that expensive cars would show exactly the same result.

[Ocean1]

I want to know if the higher cost of big bikes is simply because people crashing them have well paying jobs and therefore cost more for ACC.

And then, of course, from a policy perspective, (and irrespective of supposed causal links) the better paid sort is more likely to be able to pay a higher tax. Not much point taxing them wot can't pay innit...

[Ixion]

But on the other hand, the better paid are not the people National want to alienate.

They don't much care if they piss off the poor, the latter don't vote national anyway.

[Ocean1]

Yes, inneresting eh? Tends to suggest a prime mover other than the political arm. And/or a disturbing lack of diligence on the party’s part wrt the crafting of ACC policy.

[Jantar]

......And I'll include in MoT figures for number of bikes registered in each category (From the graph - jantar would it be possible to get actual numbers ?).....

I have emailed Phil Read at the adress from whence then report was emailed to me. So far no response.

[The Stranger]

OK. I think I see where they are coming from

if you group the figures by their classifications (0-125,126-600, 600+) the big bikes come out ahead on both total claims and average per claim

BUT - that doesn't include numbers of each registered.

I've alreay determined that big bikes have only about half the crashes per bike as smaller ones.
(I'll put in actual figures tomorrow)

class 1 4 million 103 claims avg 37K
class 2..5 million 114 claims avg 44K
class 3..17 million 198 claims avg 87K

Sort of figures, big bikes = experienced riders (well, sometimes!). Less likely to have a minor bin than a moped rider. But when they do, it's likely to be nasty

And although the big bikes are costing more per claim, since they only claim ahlf as often it comes to about the same. Fewer claims per machine registered, but bigger oens

Since ACC get twice as much levy , they can't complain at twice as much claims.

It's largely moot anyway. Fighting them on costs is futile.
But I would suspect that the larger avgperclaim is as a result of those on larger bikes generally having larger incomes.
80% of a uni student income vs 80% of say a tradesman/nerd/bank manager etc etc. None of which makes the CC rating at fault. Were these same people to fall off 600s instead the "problem" would exist there.

[Reckless]

But on the other hand, the better paid are not the people National want to alienate.

They don't much care if they piss off the poor, the latter don't vote national anyway.

Exactly we have got to start referring to it as National ACC. And have a go at the Nats. Reinforce the point they are alienating middle NZ here IE their voters!

Btw: Are off road bikes included in those figures posted??I've read several times they don't separate the figures? If they are the 50-600cc brackets are greatly exaggerated. Take out the off road accident costs and you'd have a completely different set of figures! It would make the 600cc+ bracket look pretty bad though as most off road/MX bikes are 85-450cc.


I have emailed Phil Read at the address from whence then report was emailed to me. So far no response.
Would that able you to pull the off road bikers out and get a real figures for road registered bikes!

As an off roader and a road rider fuel levy is about the only way that at least a small portion of ACC could be attributed to me when I go enduro riding. Most off the rides are miles away and then there's fuel for the bikes. I'd put at least $60 bucks gas in the ute and $20 in the bikes just for a ride out the sandpit! More if its a ride in mercer etc. Towing a trailer would suck even more fuel.

Still reckon its undemocratic. Its either fault or no fault! They either levy fuel (or whatever) or they come out with a very long list of ACC costs to ALL sports charged through an ACC levy at purchase (off roaders and mountain bikes etc, second hand and new), Increased sport club fees, Rego levy, and various other methods of collection. Shit they could even levy running shoes or all shoes at $10 a pair at importation and get the pedestrians, joggers, runners etc as well!

Fault or no fault, everyone or no-one!! Its got to be fair, That's why I'll protest and not vote National for the first time in xxx years!

Good luck with trying to discredit their figures guys. Hope you are successful. At least it might win over some public support and also discredit the Nats enough to back down on this issue.

[MacD]

I want to know if the higher cost of big bikes is simply because people crashing them have well paying jobs and therefore cost more for ACC.


I suspect the difference may also lie in the type of accident associated with larger cc ratings, where larger capacity bikes are more likely to be ridden at open road speeds, and so an accident is likely to result in greater injury repair and rehabilitation costs.

On the other hand, looking at the 1340+ figures (the big cruisers mainly) you may be right!

[MacD]

It's largely moot anyway. Fighting them on costs is futile.

While I mostly agree with you, it is worth pointing out that the division by cc ratings is artificial and inconsistent. For example the 51-125cc group (~$68K) has about the same cost per claim as the 1001-1340cc group (~$65K).

CC rating is probably just a proxy for income (purchase cost of bike) or accident speed (open road vs city riding).

[MacD]

401-600.........974371.7.............16............... .......123398.2312


Hi Ixion

Something is not quite right here. Either the total cost is $1974371 or the cost per claim is only $60898.

Can you check which is right?

Thanks

[jeffs]

I understand finding the numbers and crunching them is real important, but after todays ride I took a deep breath and looked back on what is going on, what are we trying to achieve ?

Are we saying big bikes should not have to pay more, all bikes should be the same ? Because if we are we are condemning smaller bikes to pay even more. This will only out price the up and coming next biker generations riding 50-250cc bikes.

Surly the argument is "Why are we being asked to be completely self funding for ACC when other dangerous sports are free" ?

Just accept that if say 60% of crashes leading to ACC claims are Car on Bike. 40 % are not. So why are we now being asked to solely fund the 60% as well. This is the real important number we to find out.

62M X 40% = $25M ( just plain Bike only related ACC claims )

25M / 106,000 ( registered bikes over 50cc ) = $235

We already pay this and a bit more.

ACC is a no fault system, so the pool to cover the remainder should include the cars ( like it of not AA ).

62-25= $37M
$37 / 3million + cars and vans + 106,000 bikes = $11

Even if my figures are out and it's 50% cars on bikes. The shared costs should reflect the total vehicles involved.

Cars and Bikes. !!!!

Stop trying to find out which bike should pay less or more. Do we have real figures for Car on Bike ( through the CAS data ).

Or maybe I've got it wrong and I'm not on the same page.

[Marmoot]

Arggh .
whats going on here.
....
yes it does . 444 records for type like '%motor%' and year = 2009
...
If it is only 444 for 2009, what's going on.

I'll validate it to 2008

2008 gives only 892 claims against acc figures of 1337
...

444 + 892 = 1336
Close to 1337.

But let's sit back and look at our point though?
If you want to prove that levy charges should depend on the amount of cost involved per bike class, should the same logic be applied to "per activity class" which means ACC should start charging for cyclists, rugby players, and offroads?

ACC in one side maintains that just because motorcyclists cost too much for the levy collected from the section, they have to be levied more.
Yet on the other side ACC maintains that cyclists et al can not be levied regardless of their cost?

Who's subsidising them? Car drivers and wage earners? They are happy to subsidise these yet they complain about subsidising motorcyclists?

That's an angle you can work on.

[The Stranger]

Surly the argument is "Why are we being asked to be completely self funding for ACC when other dangerous sports are free" ?



Well that and since when did the concept of victim pays become vogue. Where else does the govt enshrine the principals of victim pays?
Cars hit us and we pay? They are looking for "fair" (or equitable) the cars should be subsidising us.

[MarkH]

should the same logic be applied to "per activity class" which means ACC should start charging for cyclists, rugby players, and offroads?

Most accidents happen around the home - how come I can buy a ladder without paying an ACC levy for it? ACC payouts for people that fall off ladders are huge! What about power tools and even hand tools? DIY costs ACC a lot of money, but it is motorcyclists that the ACC are gunning for!

Of course there is no guarantee that they aren't looking at how they can charge rugby players next and another group after that.

[Marmoot]

Quoted from my post
Most accidents happen around the home - how come I can buy a ladder without paying an ACC levy for it? ACC payouts for people that fall off ladders are huge! What about power tools and even hand tools? DIY costs ACC a lot of money, but it is motorcyclists that the ACC are gunning for!

Of course there is no guarantee that they aren't looking at how they can charge rugby players next and another group after that.

Sorry I may have missed it, but your post's point was....?
(not pulling your legs, mate :). This is a serious question).

[Pixie]

444 + 892 = 1336
Close to 1337.

But let's sit back and look at our point though?
If you want to prove that levy charges should depend on the amount of cost involved per bike class, should the same logic be applied to "per activity class" which means ACC should start charging for cyclists, rugby players, and offroads?

ACC in one side maintains that just because motorcyclists cost too much for the levy collected from the section, they have to be levied more.
Yet on the other side ACC maintains that cyclists et al can not be levied regardless of their cost?

Who's subsidising them? Car drivers and wage earners? They are happy to subsidise these yet they complain about subsidising motorcyclists?

That's an angle you can work on.
If ACC are so fucking dogmatic on who can and can't be levied,then we should be equally dogmatic and demand that there be no separate levy structure for any vehicle.And we will not register till this is put in place.
Screw the numbers!

[Ixion]

The important point about the numbers is that they are a political not insurance concept

We don't have to (or probably want to) come up with alternative numebrs to ACC.

What we DO want to do is find faults with their numbers so that we can sow the seeds of doubt in peoples minds

At present people like John key say "ACC tell us that really you guys should be paying $3700. So $750 sounds like you're getting a pretty good deal, why should other people subsidise you"

We need to make them uncertain about the figures ACC give them.

Which we can do by highlighting anomalies.

ACC are putting forward numbers that are technically correct but misleading and slanted. Cherrypicking the bad stuff.

We can do the same, cherrypicking the good stuff

We're trying to persuade the politicians and the public, not accountants or statisticians.

[MarkH]

Sorry I may have missed it, but your post's point was....?
(not pulling your legs, mate :). This is a serious question).

You mentioned rugby players, cyclists & offroads - my point was that there are also home DIYers to add to the list, they cost the ACC more than the 3 groups you mentioned combined and they also don't get charged a levy.

I am sure that there are many other groups as well, but accidents around the home are probably the biggest source of ACC payouts. If you think about it we are doing ACC a favour by going out on our bikes instead of staying at home where most accidents happen! :bleh:

[Ixion]

Help me here chasps.

According to this official ACC document there were 3456 NEW claims for car drivers/passengers in 2007.

And 1336 ditto motorcycle

But : if I total the claims in the spreadsheet for "Passenger car" I get 7216 claims for 2007 . And the heading says that year is the accident year. There might be a very small number where the accident occurred in one year and the claim lodged in the next year but it would be tiny.

So the number of claims in the spreadsheet is twice that in the web document

BUT with bikes it's reversed

Only 829 claims in the spreadsheet , versus 1336 in the document

This is the source of the claims that we cost more than cars

If you take the spreadsheet figures (remember, this isn't what they have paid out, this is what they have put aside for that year and subsequent years ), average cost per car = 19710. Versus bike = 61401

But if we take the figures in the document

Car = 41154
Bike = 38100 - we're cheaper.

Sure I can ask ACC. But I hate asking for information when I don't know what I'm going to get back .

Any ideas ??

[MSTRS]

You just use the figures that suit our purpose. You can truthfully claim, and prove, that those figures were given to you by ACC when pressed under the OIA.
As you and others have said, it's about making them look unreliable, if not downright deviously dishonest.

[Ixion]

I understand finding the numbers and crunching them is real important, but after todays ride I took a deep breath and looked back on what is going on, what are we trying to achieve ?

Are we saying big bikes should not have to pay more, all bikes should be the same ?..

Stop trying to find out which bike should pay less or more. Do we have real figures for Car on Bike ( through the CAS data ).

Or maybe I've got it wrong and I'm not on the same page.

The answer is "all of the above"

We want to push for a policy of "no-one pays more"

But we need to discredit ACC figures. because at present they are saying (and politicans are parroting" " Motorcyclists should really be paying #3700. Every car driver is subsidising motorcyclists by $77. Motorcycles are 16 times as dangerous as cars"

Now, with that going down, it's hard to get much traction Politicians will say, or think , "Well, sounds like you're getting off lightly".

We don't want to move the costs from one group of bikers to another.

What we want to do is to be able to say "ACC's figures are unreliable. Look here. And here . And here". You can't rely on their figures at all"

Then we have the ground clear to argue that the fair way (and the simplest since ACC figures are no longer trusted) is to make cars and bikes the same

Or, at least , put cars and ALL bikes up by the same amount . (that works for us, because they dare not have huge increases in car levies). "Just while the correct numbers are worked out, eh?"

This is really important.

We're attacking the numbers to discredit them. Not to move costs around .

[Ixion]

Incidentally has anyone noticed that SS is title "Relativity_Initial_Data".

I shall ask for the FINAL version. I wonder what has changed?

[Ixion]

You just use the figures that suit our purpose. You can truthfully claim, and prove, that those figures were given to you by ACC when pressed under the OIA.
As you and others have said, it's about making them look unreliable, if not downright deviously dishonest.

Oh, I shall. But I like to know (just in my own mind, like) , where there is a discrepancy, WHY that is. Then you know what areas to avoid.

[sleemanj]

The answer is "all of the above"

We want to push for a policy of "no-one pays more"

But we need to discredit ACC figures. because at present they are saying (and politicans are parroting" " Motorcyclists should really be paying #3700. Every car driver is subsidising motorcyclists by $77. Motorcycles are 16 times as dangerous as cars"


Can't we just cut to the chase and ask the ACC to show us how exactly they come to these figures, they seem to be quite certain about them, one would expect that some charlie there has the formula written down (possibly it looks something like "Step 1: pick a number, Step 2: ???, Step 3: profit!")

In the words of my high school math teachers, "please show working".

[MSTRS]

Pointless - if the originating data is a load of bollocks.
I know you get marks for correct workings at school, but this is the real world and the bottom line is "Is the answer right?"

[Ixion]

Not really. We are at a level under formul;as, we are looking at raw data here. If the fundamental data is wrong, doesn't matter what the formulas are (f'instance if a clerk copying accident data into the computer turns over two pages at once, and a page full doesn't get entered, the result will be wrong no matter how you work it out).

[PhantasmNZ]

I do wonder if the "smoking gun" of the CC rating nonsense is as was stated earlier that owners of higher capacity machines tend to earn more...

Can we confirm the payout figures include covering loss of wages as well as medical expenses - if they do then we have another strong case. ACC already deducts a % from our wages which is already linked to what we earn.

There's a strong possibility that some fresh out of school BA sat there with his "Analysis Toolset" (a copy of Excel), and just =SUM'ed all the little boxes with $ signs.

I would completely expect that, if the data anywhere gives car make/model, that the ACC risk profile of BMW/Merc/Lexus/HSV/FPV owners is significantly higher than the rest of us.

Incidently - one really good point to make - The ACC/National are planning to give a REDUCTION to owners of greener (IE BRAND NEW) cars - if the assertions above are true, then I would bet my dinner that cost per claim of new car owners is higher than those who drive 10+ yr old jap imports.... why do they get off so lightly - they should be stung with MORE LEVY

Hoping to have a deeper dig into those numbers as well - Les, please keep me on the list for more data if you get any - happy to help analyse.

[sleemanj]

Pointless - if the originating data is a load of bollocks.


Not really. We are at a level under formul;as, we are looking at raw data here. If the fundamental data is wrong, doesn't matter what the formulas are

You're both missing the point, if we find out HOW ACC has come to the conclusions they have, starting with (as you have) the base data and also including the workings they took to get to the result set, then we are in a stronger position to point out whatever the obvious flaw in thier working is.

As it stands we only have (some of) the base data, we don't (as far as I know) know how ACC got from that base data to the conclusions they are drawing, we are only guessing.

It's about the whole picture.

Otherwise we may wind up saying "look, the way we have worked all this out, you're wrong, and this is why" and they say "well that's not how we worked it out, and this is why" and we all get back to square one (well, square two) again.

[PhantasmNZ]

I think we're on the track though - the (admittedly bollocks) data does seem show the 'ACC' picture of the universe (big cost per claim, "bigger" for "big" bikes (when aggregated badly))- even though it's inconsistent and more than inconclusive...

[Ixion]

inconsistent and inconclusive is enough!. We only have to show that their model is defective. We don't have to come up with al alternate model

If we can say "There is no consistency in cost or crash figures across capacity ratings. Since the evidence is inconclusive a cc based schem cannot be justified"

Which it is

750s crash less and cost les sthan 600s yet they would charge them more.

etc etc

(But the point made earlier is a valid one : we don't want to just move pain around. Gaining a reduction for 600+ is meaningless if it's promptly shoved onto < 600. We need an across the board reproposal)

[The Stranger]

You're both missing the point, if we find out HOW ACC has come to the conclusions they have,

Why not ask them point blank?
Simply say, hey from the data you have provided we can't make the figure stack up, can you please show us how you got there?
Why wouldn't we?

[Ixion]

I want to go back to them on monday and demand more

I want

Breakdown into income replacement costs and other costs (to see if bigger bikes cost more because of higher income riders)
Breakdown into "paid this year" so we can see what they are actually paying each year
I want to know where the missing bieks are . MoT show about 10000 more registered than appear in the ACC totals

I want to knwo where the missing claims have gone to on bikes, and where the extra ones came from on cars.

What else do we want ?

make a list

[Reckless]

What else do we want ?

make a list

How many of those claims relate to road registered bikes.

[Ixion]

They will say all of them. By definition if they are in the MV accunt they BELIEV they are raod registered.

The road registered problem goes right back to source - we have no way of knowing if the data has been input correctly in the first place.

[Reckless]

They will say all of them. By definition if they are in the MV accunt they BELIEV they are raod registered.

The road registered problem goes right back to source - we have no way of knowing if the data has been input correctly in the first place.

And there is the very reason why we shouldn't have to pay any levy!!
USE their own argument on them:
If one group (according to National/ACC) ie cars should not pay for Road bikers why should we pay for off road accidents! Simple! I ride mostly off road so I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but fairs bloody fair!!

When National and ACC can come up with figures that single road riders out (and all other sports) we all pay! Until then levy everyone or Bugger off!!

We should go down and rip the freckin doors off Parliament until they can come up with a fair and democratic solution! Simple as that!
This is wrong so bloody wrong!!

[wingrider]

Not sure if these comments are relative here but!!

A very close friend is a senior officer with Highway patrol. He is often called upon to do the training of new recruits in respect of accidents.

Your registration papers and your registration stickers have the cc rating on them.

The Police are required to log the relevant info on the accident report form, make-model cc rating. This info is then cross referenced to the registration database to ensure that everything matches. Quite often they need to query details from a bike shop or car dealer to verify that the plates and the corresponding details actually match the vehicle in question. Many makes and models have different engine sizes and plates from one model have been found on the wrong vehicle.

It was always thought that these details were recorded in full on the database. Supposedly several agencies were then able to draw on the details to make up the statistics.

In a perfect world you could then tell the total number of accidents to make and model and cc rating.

He feels that this would be impossible as in doing investigations for court proceedings he regularly finds that the details are recorded as eg:- 2001 ford falcon. He is required to confirm all details are correct to positively identify the vehicle or the case may be lost on insufficient evidence.

His point is that if someone has been asked to analyze crash data to identify a specific group ( bikes over 600cc) how the hell would they know what it is if the bike has only been recorded as a honda CB. They would need to cross reference the registration database to the accident database to confirm the statistics.

As there are a shitload of accidents that happen where the bike is not registered and therefor has no details as to cc rating it is often just showing on the accident report as a honda quad or trailbike. Where are these bikes recorded in the stats? ( he says we would be startled to know how many of these accidents are on public roads.) There are many homebuilt bikes powered by lawmower engines used on beaches or paper roads that are also recorded as a motorcycle accident. No make or model let alone cc rating recorded.

It is his personal opinion that the stats are not able to be correctly reported, are not sound and have to many variables to reflect the actual figures.

It is also his personal opinion that this is a deliberate attempt to target a minority group because it is impossible to confirm either the accuracy or inaccuracy of the data provided.

He has been very helpful in passing on all details and flyers to many stations throughout NZ as he is a riding buddy with many other officers who are as pissed off about this as ourselves

[Reckless]

He has been very helpful in passing on all details and flyers to many stations throughout NZ as he is a riding buddy with many other officers who are as pissed off about this as ourselves

Trouble is can we get someone to front up and officially state these facts/opinions!
I don't think so but can't blame them for not risking their job.

Good work mate! You just tell him and his mates not to ticket us when we don't pay our rego as a protest because of all the reasons stated here!!

[wingrider]

Has commented that there is already talk about if they are going to be required to check rego's.

The response has been they will only check rego's if the rider has brought themselves to their attention because of other activities, They are required to do this as a normal part of their duties.

No way in hell are the going to be able to target every rider on the road and they dont want to be labeled as ACC Police.

[PhantasmNZ]

Slight aside... I rode through a police checkpoint the other day with my "Easy Taget - Who's Next" printed vest over my jacket. Bike cop looked, smiled, said "good on ya" and waved me on through...

Great to see support from the boys in blue :)

[PhantasmNZ]

Read THIS (http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/28/how-to-kick-motorcyclists/#more-378).

This is from the analyst guy who was at the protest this morning. It seems there is no actual link between cc class and cost - since (as we thought), ACC do not correlate individual claims/costs...


“…ACC does not collect information on the precise vehicle class associated with each Motor Vehicle Account claims. (p25)

“…The CAS information only allows the number of claims in each class to be identified, rather than the claim cost. (p25)

[PhantasmNZ]

Just wondering if there's been any more from the ACC Ixion?

By the way - anyone who missed the Close-up episode where ACC promised this elusive data is here: http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/angry-bikers-storm-capital-3089877/video

[Ixion]

Further data requested



Hi paul

The "covering letter" referred to , from keith McLea, asked me to contact you for any further requirements.

The data is the spreadsheet has gone some way toward answering our questions . but there are some gaps and some anomalies

I would therefore request:

1. A break down of the cost figure in the spreadsheet into ERC cost and other cost (or, medical cost and other if that is simpler)
2. The spreadsheet is entitled Relativity_initial_data. Initial implies there is a later version. is there ?
3. We are also using the data published in the 'Statiscs' section of your website , specifically the url http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020. It would be very useful if that data could be supplied in a spreadsheet 9or xml) format. Failing that can you please supply the ACC payout for each year/vehicle type for new claims that year. the web page has number of new claims for the year and total payout for all active claims, but not payout for new claims
4. Are you able to advise the inflation rates and interest rates assumed for the actuarial calculation of required reserves
5. can you please supply the number and cost , of residual MOTORCYCLE claims for, say, the last 5 years

We are puzzled by an anomaly between the data in the spreadsheet and the data on the cited web page.

We realise (or presume, anyway) that the web page shows only entitlement claims, whereas the spreadsheet shows ALL claims - Is this actually correct? If so it explains why the web page shows 3457 cars driver/passenger claims for 2007-8 , whereas the spreadsheet shows 7426 claims. Not all claims become entitlement claims - for cars the ratio being about 50%. that makes sense.

but when we look at motorcycles, the web page shows 1337 claims. Which agrees , more or less with MoT TOTAL crash figures (though this does imply that almost all motorcycle claims become entitlement claims, which seems rather improbable). but - the spreadsheet includes only 892 motorcycle claims. How can the entitlement claims be greater than the total claims? Even if the spreadsheet years and the web page years do not quite coincide , that would not explain such a large discrepancy/ Can you please explain this anomaly.

We are also puzzled by significant anomalies between the number of machines used in your capacity calculations , and MoT licensing figures for motorcycles. ACC seem to have "lost" over 10000 machines. Are the ACC numbers transformed to give some sort of "full year equivalent" ?

Thank you

Les Mason
BRONZ

[Ixion]

It gets dodgier and dodgier

reply from ACC to request for more info



Hi Paul. Thank you for the prompt reply.

I have added comments and responses below each of your points, below

thanks
Les


On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Paul Gimblett <Paul.Gimblett@acc.co.nz> wrote:


Hi Les,



Thanks for taking the time to develop a submission on the proposed levies. I have answered your questions below.



Questions

1) The individual elements of the estimated lifetime costs are not able to be identified as there is a capping applied to the overall cost of the claim. The capping is applied to the total estimated lifetime costs and therefore will affect different payment areas differently. ACC could provide the data requested by removing the capping applied but this reduces the use of the data for levy calculations. - it will also take 2 working days to do due to the current work loads in the actuarial team. Can you confirm you still require this data. Care should be taken when using estimated lifetime costs for individual claims as the estimate error is much higher at individual claim level than when the data is aggregated.


OK. Yes we do still need the data. But i will explain a little more what we are trying to do, and maybe you can suggest an alternative methodology. Looking at the different lifetime cost estimates between capacity calsses, what we are trying to do is determine what proportion of the difference is due to larger bikes being ridden by people with higher incomes, and what proportion is due to the riders of ;larger bikes incurring more serious injuries . And thus higher ERC costs in the event of a crash. Most 250s are ridden by students (or young people anyway). Students, and young people generally have very low incomes. Therefore low ERC costs. Whereas , someone riding an 1800cc machine has the income to pay perhaps $30000 for a machine which is essentially recreational . He will probably have a high(ish) income, and thus high ERC costs. In like manner if large capacity bikes show higher non-ERC costs , which would be mainly medical and rehabilitation expenses , we may deduce that the riders of large capacity machines are indeed more severely injured in a crash

That's what we are trying to derive. If there is a simpler way for your BI team to derive that, we would run with that. otherwise , yes we do need uncapped data




2) The 'initial' means the original data. All subsequent work are summaries from this data.


OK




3) I should be able to get this data in a suitable format for you. The cash spent on new claims is not routinely reported within ACC and as such will need a request for a one-off report to be created. This will take some time at present due to the high level of work being generated around the requests for information from people wanting to present ACC with a submission. The estimate is that the data could be available by the close of business on Tuesday next week. Please confirm you require this data and I will get the request underway.


Yes please. CoB Tuesday would be good




4) The information you are seeking is contained in the technical document you have received from ACC


Noted. I'll go search




5) This is not a standard report inside ACC. The data can be compiled but will take some time as a new one-off report will need to be created and there is currently a significant amount of work underway with other requests for information. The estimate is that the data could be available by the close of business on Tuesday next week. Please confirm you require this data and I will get the request underway.


Yes please. CoB Tuesday is good







Data anomalies.

I am a little concerned with how people are matching data. The injury statistics data reports the partial cash expenditure for the year on entitlement claims and includes claims for injuries from 2008 (in the case of the data you are quoting) back to 1974. While it is tempting to relate the cash costs to levies it is invalid as the cash costs in any one year are funded from a number of years of levy collected. The claim cost data used for levy rates has to reflect the life-time costs of claims which is always an estimate.. Also a component of the levy (around 51% of the motorcycle levy) is used to build up reserves for the cost of claims not funded in the past (prior to 1 July 1999 claims were paid for on a Pay As You Go basis).


Yes , we understand that.





You are correct that injury stats only counts the entitlements however the costs presented do not represent all the costs of those claims. The costs for medical fees and public hospital acute care are not reported.


That is understood. However public hospital acute care is bulk funded, we understand . can you tell us how the cost of the bulk funding is approportioned over the various accounts?





The other issue you raise with the number of claims not aligning across the two sources is not surprising as the data you have been sent is the matched claims between MOT and ACC data. All other claims are not included. As you correctly pointed out the MOT provided crash reports represent a small fraction of the 45,000 (approx) claims ACC received in the Motor Vehicle Account each year. Not all of the crash reports can be matched to ACC claims. Pages 25-27 of the technical document you received outline the results of the matching process.


OK. So you are saying that the remaining claims are not taken into consideration at all. Is there a data source that shows ALL motorcycle (in particular, though other vehicles being included would be fine) claims, whether matched or not. We are looking at the entirety of the motorcycle cost landscape not just that relating to different capacities





The matched data was used to determine relativities between groups of vehicles and not the levy. The levy was based on the calculation of the total funding required divided by the number of standard vehicles. The relativities then distribute this average levy across the groups of vehicles. For motorcycles ACC used a relativity of 150% (the same one used since the 2002/03 levy) to get an average levy of $585.84 for motorcycles (cars are paying $390.96). From here the average levy is distributed across the motorcycles based on the relative cost per vehicle. This mechanism means that if the levy for large motorcycles is decreased then small motorcycles must increase to ensure the average $585.84 is maintained..



The numbers provided for vehicle are "vehicle years" - that is the number of equivalent full year licensed vehicles (ie a motorcycle licensed for 6 months is counted as 0.5). I'm sorry for any confusion it was not clear to me at the time I forwarded them to our media area.



OK. Understood. That makes calculations simple




<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr> <td rowspan="6"> </td></tr> <tr style="min-height: 8px;"> <td style="border-right: 1pt solid rgb(0, 150, 219); padding: 0in; width: 6px; min-height: 10pt;" valign="top">
</td> <td style="border: medium none ; padding: 0in; width: 6px; min-height: 10pt;" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td><td rowspan="3" valign="top"> </td></tr> <tr> <td style="border: 2pt solid rgb(174, 4, 65); padding: 0in; font-size: 5pt;" colspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#ae0441" height="5" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="padding-left: 5pt; min-height: 82px;" rowspan="4" valign="top"> Paul Gimblett, Product & Scheme Manager, ACC
Tel +4 918 7554 / Fax +4 918 7351

</td></tr></tbody></table>

[PhantasmNZ]

The other issue you raise with the number of claims not aligning across the two sources is not surprising as the data you have been sent is the matched claims between MOT and ACC data. All other claims are not included. As you correctly pointed out the MOT provided crash reports represent a small fraction of the 45,000 (approx) claims ACC received in the Motor Vehicle Account each year. Not all of the crash reports can be matched to ACC claims. Pages 25-27 of the technical document you received outline the results of the matching process.

So... for motorcycles, we are ONLY looking at crashes serious enough for there to be a detailed crash report to match to. Theses more serious crashes are more likely to result in ERC claims (not much loss of earings with a grazed knee).

Since the "number of claims per bike" (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129486261&postcount=72) is fairly flat across the capacites (the highest ACC category has actually .01% less claims per bike than the middle one) - I think this implies reasonably clearly that the ERC costs are an important factor. Looking forward to the additional data on this split...

[pzkpfw]

The cash spent on new claims is not routinely reported within ACC...

How the fuck is this not something they report?!




Also a component of the levy (around 51% of the motorcycle levy) is used to build up reserves for the cost of claims not funded in the past...

So they claim they need more money off us to pay for our accidents, but over half of what they want is really just to cover the change in the way things are funded.

[riffer]

So they claim they need more money off us to pay for our accidents, but over half of what they want is really just to cover the change in the way things are funded.

Not quite. The claim they need more money off us to pay for how much they ASSUME it will cost for the amount of accidents they ASSUME we will have, and over half of what they want is really just to cover the change in the way things are funded.

[Reckless]

So... for motorcycles, we are ONLY looking at crashes serious enough for there to be a detailed crash report to match to. Theses more serious crashes are more likely to result in ERC claims (not much loss of earings with a grazed knee).
.

Also all off road injuries (as they are not recorded separately we are told) will have no Mot crash report done as they are not on the road, even though some of them could have very high ongoing costs attached. The costs for all these accidents need to be taken out of the figures for a start. Tha would reduce ACC costs and therefore the charges to us immensely. Otherwise this is just a exercise in futility.

Also Ixion a comment on your Larger capacity/Higher income theory! If the stats and costs for MX, Enduro & recreational X country accidents are included. Most MX bikes are 125-450, Income brackets would be from low to high so the no distinction can be made there Vs cc rating? So how does this work??

I cannot understand if the Off road stats are not excluded from the figures how ACC can even apply any rates to road bikes and CC ratings. It simply doesn't work! Its like asking pedestrians to pay for cyclists ACC. The base data is so wrong even without you guys doing any evaluation that it should be thrown out on that basis alone.
Thats probably one of the reasons the Mot and ACC data don't match road bikers are being charged for a HUGE amount of ACC claims that don't happen on the road and that should simply not be allocated to us!!! Wouldn't surprise me if Doctors put down Bike Accident even if its a push bike!

Ask ACC for the figures for road registered bikes. A Rego charged ACC levy should only be for Road registered bike accidents. If they can't supply tell them to bugger off with their levy till they can. Simple as that in my view!
If your plumber can't prove he did the work he was charging you for, there laws that apply to that prevent him from ripping you off right! So why do these same laws not apply to ACC!! There's another angle maybe??

I know I'm harping on over this, and I'm an off roader (I don't actually have a working road bike at the moment) but I cannot understand how even you guys can do your figures??

I'm not going to be ripped off! I simply won't pay my bike rego! Its very very wrong that National can let this happen.
After many years voting National I have lost all faith in National over this!

[Clockwork]

Does it strike anyone else that things would be fairer all round if Earnings Related Compensation for non-work related accidents were paid from the Employee account, then cyclists, pedestrians & passengers would be able to cover their own earnings related compo!! (which is only payable if they are in actually in work)


Does anyone think this is worth adding to the Manifesto?

[howdamnhard]

In the meantime ACC (see todays NZ Herald page A9) and the AA continue to spout their bullshit statistics as fact in order to garner public support against us( divide and conquer). Hopefully soon before it is to late ACC will provide Les with the necessary info to refute their stats (but as this is contary to their own interests I doubt it). Can hardly call the ACC inpartial on this can we? :angry2:

[howdamnhard]

After many years voting National I have lost all faith in National over this!

DITTO , I aint voting for them next time.

[MarkH]

DITTO , I aint voting for them next time.

Come time for them to decide on whether to accept the ACC proposal they will either keep some vote or lose them. I now consider myself a swing voter and the wrong decision on this will swing my vote to anyone but them.

[peasea]

DITTO , I aint voting for them next time.

I would have hoped that a vote was worth more than one issue or 750 bucks a year. Just a thought.

[Reckless]

I would have hoped that a vote was worth more than one issue or 750 bucks a year. Just a thought.

Only takes one to deflate our whole position of solidarity aye.

Na stuff em!
Any govt that picks on one group is undemocratic
Based upon dodgy/incomplete figures is incompetent
Doesn't come up with a complete plan across the board to charge everyone fairly all at once is prejudice
Even if we win? This has been such a balls up that it will leave a sour taste in my mouth long past next voting time! And I'm making sure all my National voting mates on and off bikes know how I feel!

[peasea]

Only takes one to deflate our whole position of solidarity aye.

Na stuff em!
Any govt that picks on one group is undemocratic
Based upon dodgy/incomplete figures is incompetent
Doesn't come up with a complete plan across the board to charge everyone fairly all at once is prejudice
Even if we win? This has been such a balls up that it will leave a sour taste in my mouth long past next voting time! And I'm making sure all my National voting mates on and off bikes know how I feel!

ACC isn't the National Party. Ok, they're in bed at the moment and I'm just as pissed off about this as thousands of others but let's not lose our heads, that would not only be counter-productive but it would also play into the 'enemy's' hands.

Focus on ACC and the Minister, not the Govt, you won't win fighting the Govt as a whole, I can assure you.

[BMWST?]

I would have hoped that a vote was worth more than one issue or 750 bucks a year. Just a thought.

you are joking....wasnt the last election fought over "tax cuts" of about $9 per week??

[Reckless]

ACC isn't the National Party. Ok, they're in bed at the moment and I'm just as pissed off about this as thousands of others but let's not lose our heads, that would not only be counter-productive but it would also play into the 'enemy's' hands.

Focus on ACC and the Minister, not the Govt, you won't win fighting the Govt as a whole, I can assure you.

Don't want to pick a scrap with you mate you often talk a lot of sense around here but I have to disagree on this one!

Threatening to not support the Government next election is the only way we are going to get any satisfaction in on this one.

In my mind it is the NATIONAL government backing this! The minister is only their spokes person voicing their policy and position. The ACC have said I want, and National have said OK based on flawed figures and a flawed (cc rated) cost regime. Sorry Peasea we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Its National I'm pissed off with simple as that!

[peasea]

you are joking....wasnt the last election fought over "tax cuts" of about $9 per week??

I wasn't actually; from where I stood the last election was about dissatisfaction with a corrupt govt. The number of stunts Helen pulled and got away with were inumerable. I saw right through the tax cut promises and smelled a rat, turns out they plan to get that 'tax cut' back in other devious ways. In fact, we'll probably all be worse off than before.

[peasea]

Don't want to pick a scrap with you mate you often talk a lot of sense around here but I have to disagree on this one!

Threatening to not support the Government next election is the only way we are going to get any satisfaction in on this one.

In my mind it is the NATIONAL government backing this! The minister is only their spokes person voicing their policy and position. The ACC have said I want, and National have said OK based on flawed figures and a flawed (cc rated) cost regime. Sorry Peasea we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Its National I'm pissed off with simple as that!

Oh by all means use your vote as a verbal weapon, I sure will. I've already had a bitch at my MP, the loveable Nick Smith but is it possible the Nat's have had their eyes opened in regard to ACC and their bogus figures? You (probably correctly) say "ACC have said I want and National have said OK" but now there's a real possibility there will be a backtrack thanks to so many bikers putting ACC's own figures in front of the Govt for them to look at harder.

Let's face it; MP's are often not the brightest button on the cardigan and for ACC's spin doctors to pull the wool over their eyes would not be too much of a challenge. The thing to do is put your arm around Govt's shoulder and get them onside with "c'mon buddy, I put you in power, let's put these liars back in their place".

Expressing dissatisfaction is one thing but trying to fight on two fronts just makes things harder. The Nat's will only say; "what the vote of a few smelly bikers over all these millions of dollars anyway?"

[Reckless]

Jeepers its a sad day when two people agree on KB !! LOL!!

You have a point and probably this argument with National ACC needs both views. One to say buddy this is how its wrong and why don't you back off (Your side) or there is going to be a shit load of people not voting for you next election (my side).
Together hopefully we will get a fair result! But I can't help thinking they only wanted $500 in the first place and its a fit up anyway. Its been such a bloody brainless shambles from people we are supposed to trust to run our country its very hard to have faith in them. That piss head (have you seen his nose) Nick Smith needs a right rogering along with Key for letting it all happen. Wankers LOL!!!

BTW: The only fair result in my view is charge everyone or no one- fault allocated system or no fault, simple as that!
Cheers!

[howdamnhard]

I would have hoped that a vote was worth more than one issue or 750 bucks a year. Just a thought.

Firstly $750 bucks is alot of money for some of us and secondly it's more than just one issue. I shall wait and see what they do and then make my decision.

[Ixion]

Inconsequentila update


Hi Paul

I am a bit puzzled by this

At this stage,a nyway, we are not looking at th validity 9or otherwise0 of the calculations of the lifetime costs.

But we are trying to get a clear picture of the over all landscape of motorcycles claims

Now, you say that you used the matched claims to establish relativites.

But the matched claims , expecially those which have a CC rating , form only a small proportion of the total - less than one thrid. And they are a selected subset, not a random selection. Only those crashes serious enough to come to official police attention will be included (and not all of them)

So I do not see how that data can give an undistorted view.

I am also puzzled by your comment that lifetime estimates are not performed on all claims. Is this because trivial claims it is not sensible to go the effort? if that is the I have no issue with it, but surely then the lifetime cost would simply be the actual cost in the year of occurrence, a very simple matter to determine.

If it is because lifetime estimates are done only for selected serious claims then that opens the question of how those claims are selected.

I am also still unclear why the provision of a full list of motorcycle crash claims should be difficult . It is quite obvious that the matched claims were generated by taking the recordset of all claims and joining to the recordset of police records. Those that matched, are the matched claims. In which case the original primary recordset is, by definition, the list of all motorcycle claims.

It is not a big deal to us, we can work around it . But as a BI analyst myself, I am puzzled at the poverty of data available within such a large organisation.

In passing , also, I fail to see how it is possible to establish a risk rating for a vehicle. The vehicle itself is neither risky or riskfree. It all depends on how it is ridden or driven. Leaving the driver/rider out of the equation seems to me to make the result meaningless.

Best regards

Les









On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Paul Gimblett <Paul.Gimblett@acc.co.nz> wrote:

Hi again Les,



I wanted to say a few words about this statement "OK. So you are saying that the remaining claims are not taken into consideration at all. Is there a data source that shows ALL motorcycle (in particular, though other vehicles being included would be fine) claims, whether matched or not. We are looking at the entirety of the motorcycle cost landscape not just that relating to different capacities"

If you review the technical document provided previously you will see that all claims experience to date has been used to build the estimate of life time costs for new claims lodged in 2010/11. As far as building the relativities which determine how the required levy is distributed across the various vehicle classes this year we used the matched claims. Previous levies have been based on one-off pieces of analysis using (often) external data to assess the risk profiles of different vehicles. The relativities are to produce an equitable distribution of the required levies rather than reflecting the true risk profile of the vehicles involved.

I have had a chat to the actuaries and there is no data set that will provide what you are after for two reasons: first lifetime estimates are not performed on all claims, and second the data collected by ACC at the time of claim lodgement is primarily targeted at providing case and claims management information rather than for use in risk rating or levy setting which is why we have started to use the MOT and vehicle registration data to enhance our data and allow it to be used to calculate relativities.




<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr> <td rowspan="6"> </td></tr> <tr style="min-height: 8px;"> <td style="border-right: 1pt solid rgb(0, 150, 219); padding: 0in; width: 6px; min-height: 10pt;" valign="top">
</td> <td style="border: medium none ; padding: 0in; width: 6px; min-height: 10pt;" valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> </td><td rowspan="3" valign="top"> </td></tr> <tr> <td style="border: 2pt solid rgb(174, 4, 65); padding: 0in; font-size: 5pt;" colspan="2" valign="bottom" align="middle" bgcolor="#ae0441" height="5"> </td> <td style="padding-left: 5pt; min-height: 82px;" rowspan="4" valign="top"> Paul Gimblett, Product & Scheme Manager, ACC
Tel +4 918 7554 / Fax +4 918 7351
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Supermac Jr]

It gets dodgier and dodgier

reply from ACC to request for more info

The numbers provided for vehicle are "vehicle years" - that is the number of equivalent full year licensed vehicles (ie a motorcycle licensed for 6 months is counted as 0.5).



Does this explain why the number of bikes used by ACC is so much lower than the MoT data? If so, it means (theoreticfally) that they have a breakdown of registration trends. Probably made that up as well...

[Ixion]

Yes. that's their explanation. it does make calculations much easier

[Reckless]

Hey Ixion just a thought that I had concerning the integrity of their data.

Here's another angle mate!

I read in the cyclist proposed levy thread ACC are maintaining cars are contributing to Cyclists by $78-00 per car rego. Well they say its $77-00 for us as well. To my way of thinking if you had the $78+$77= $155-00 plus the post office and actual licensing fees say $100ish that's $255-00ish dollars. That leaves $0 out of an average $247.86 per year per car to cover their ACC costs (if my guestimates are close).

I smell a rat here that can't be right cars cost no money what so ever in ACC when they say ours are costing $800+ per year!

So cars are susidising Cyclisits and bikes and paying no ACC what so ever! Yeh right the figures are bullshit.

Anyone got any other groups figures they have put forward that we can add the the above!

Lets let Ixion make Nick Smith and national look like real dorks!

[NighthawkNZ]

I smell a rat here that can't be right cars only cost $145 in ACC when they say ours are costing $800+ per year!

I thought cars were $168.46

[Reckless]

I thought cars were $168.46

Aww shit went to the wrong page here (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-ownership/registration.html) should have gone to here (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-ownership/licensing-fees.html) Its $247.86. Bugger I couldn't remember and it was too late to ring the post office! Give me a minute that changes things greatly I'll edit my post!!

Done re read the above! Now where is the document with the accused $78-00 on it ACC assert the cyclists are subsidized by cars.

[Ixion]

No, that's still wrong. That's the TOTAL licensing fee (including the government fee and GST). You want just the ACC levy. From memory, the raptorial gentleman is correct $168

[ZephyrMark2]

No, that's still wrong. That's the TOTAL licensing fee (including the government fee and GST). You want just the ACC levy. From memory, the raptorial gentleman is correct $168

Hey Ixion,

Just another place to look at would be the costs that ACC is claiming to have contributed to their overall requirement for more money.

In particular the new accounting standards (IFRS) were introduced to all govt depts in 2007. According to ACC this contributed a cost of $2.6b. Now I know the response will be in regards to how reporting has wiped off certain assets, but the fact remains, $2.6b is a huge contributing factor to ACC spiraling out of control....

I've attached a screenshot.

Mark

[NighthawkNZ]

ACC Levies only for 2008


Motorcyle: $252.69
Moped: $58.97
Car: $168.46

[Reckless]

ok I get it now?? DUH moment there!
But you get my drift. According to your input at $168.42. ACC are claiming that cars are subsidizing Bikers and cycilists nearly as much as ACC are claiming Cars are paying in total. $78( cyclists) + $77 (bikers)= $155-00 out of their $168.46. So who is paying Cars ACC if they aren't?? Simply doesn't make sense and puts a very bad light on all their other claims and assessments!

[MSTRS]

Am I behind the 8 ball? Isn't the 'cyclist levy thread' a pisstake?

[GOONR]

Am I behind the 8 ball? Isn't the 'cyclist levy thread' a pisstake?

Yup.

10 characters

[MSTRS]

But Reckless is happily tapping on his calculator, using figures from that thread...
Whilst I agree it was a great way to whip up sentiment and righteous indignation, it is dangerous to let anyone (at least, us) use figures from it as though it were real.

[Grahameeboy]

But Reckless is happily tapping on his calculator, using figures from that thread...
Whilst I agree it was a great way to whip up sentiment and righteous indignation, it is dangerous to let anyone (at least, us) use figures from it as though it were real.

...and there I was think he was using an abacus.....

[Reckless]

Am I behind the 8 ball? Isn't the 'cyclist levy thread' a pisstake?

Oh Fuck!! Really! I only read the first post! Well CHUMP of the week to me LOL!! Now you guys have quoted me I can't even erase my error. That'll teach me for posting after 11pm after a bloody 14 hour day drawing plans. So knackered I couldn't even get the wrong figures added up correctly for 3 posts! LOL!!!

Ixion and Nighthawk both lead me on as well! Buggers LOL!!!

Damn I thought I was doin my bit for the cause! LOL!! Now I dunno who to bloody well believe! LOL!!!
Bloody Kiwi biker damn time waster of an addiction I have LOL!!:bash:

oh well slink away to like my wounds CYA :rockon:

[MSTRS]

Oh Fuck!!

The other posters should have alerted you to that, before you got all excited.

[sleemanj]

So Ixion, now that the BIKOI is done, where are you at with attacking the data?

Specifically, I'm still hearing the $77 bandied about, has there been any explanation in the obvious problem with that number which you first pointed out on CloseUp?

Every time I hear somebody say "but $77" I want to go ahead and point out the obvious flaw, but worried that there has been some miraculous revelation from ACC as to how the number works...

[bogan]

So Ixion, now that the BIKOI is done, where are you at...

somewhere between welli and taupo would be my guess!




Specifically, I'm still hearing the $77 bandied about, has there been any explanation in the obvious problem with that number which you first pointed out on CloseUp?

Every time I hear somebody say "but $77" I want to go ahead and point out the obvious flaw, but worried that there has been some miraculous revelation from ACC as to how the number works...

the $77 figure is calculated from thier "true cost" of motorcycles, which in turn is based on a small sample which clearly does not reflect the whole. $77 for each of the 2.5mil (i think) car drivers comes to around 200mil which is more than what acc themselves say is required for the bike compensation.

[GOONR]

I'm confused.. (It doesn't take much)

Quoting from the harold (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609864&ref=rss).....

"He says there has also been a huge rise in motorbike accident claims; from 871 in 1998 to 5,044 last year."

But yet on the ACC stats (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020) site 2007-07/2008-06 claims = 1,337..

That's a big difference in numbers.

[sleemanj]

It's so frustrating that the poli's are spouting out these largely silly and incorrect numbers and there doesn't seem to be a SINGLE journalist out there who is remotely interested in actually digging a little, doing some basic fact checking, and asking some serious questions.

When did NZ journalism become such a spoonfed establishment, I'm sure it wasn't always like this.

[Mikkel]

In regards to the $77 levy subsidy from car drivers. It is important to clearly distinguish whether it's $77 per car registration ($177M) or $77 per motorcycle registration($4M).

The clarity of the information in this entire case must be considered a cause for great concern.

[Subike]

[/SIZE]I have heard this several times.
"where is the jounalist who will do the digging and get the real story"
and the common answer is that there is not one in NZ that will do it.
Maybe we need to employ an investgative jounalist ourselves.
An independant one who is known to the media.
We are all saying the truth should come out,
so why do we as a group pay for an investigative jornalist ?
If 5000+ bikers can turn up in wellington at their own cost.
surley if those same bikers gave $10 each to fund a jounalist
International jounalists would be fighting for a possibile $50.000 payout.
so why , for the price of a jug each, dont we do it?
Put an add on the internet for one.
Im sure the position will be filled quickly.
With the facts such a person would dig up, we could have real evidence either way to the truth of this matter from an independant person with media respectability.

[bogan]

In regards to the $77 levy subsidy from car drivers. It is important to clearly distinguish whether it's $77 per car registration ($177M) or $77 per motorcycle registration($4M).

The clarity of the information in this entire case must be considered a cause for great concern.

In the fact sheet showing some working on how they got this number, it is $77 per CAR (or other private passenger vehicle) registration.