Comments from Resource and final info threads [Archive]

rustic101

14th October 2009, 20:37

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

I think there are some logical arguments in here and certainly some valid points. I will over the next few days researching the entire threads on this topic and compiling a logical rather than emotional reply to ACC and the Minister.

Brian d marge

15th October 2009, 03:54

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

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

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.
well my wife , before I married her , was in 2 accidents ( not her fault ,,,but it should have been !!)
and she paid the full amount
seven hundred for a one night hospital stay and nearly the same amount for the dentist

I know I paid

Stephen

ps she was not a kiwi

steve74

15th October 2009, 08:41

forgive me if im wrong but i was under the impression that every rescue chopper and ambulance that attends a motorcross, trail ride and farm bike / quad accident, including that riders hospital and rehabilitation cost is paid for by the minority road bike registration levy.

Genestho

15th October 2009, 08:46

pssst, I don't mean to be rude but this is a resource thread, please take the opinions and comments elsewhere?

Keep this clutterfree so the factual resources are easy to find? If you have a legitimate argument it's best to cite it with fact and link the resource for other users IMO Thanks :)

Ixion

19th October 2009, 17:13

MSTRS

19th October 2009, 18:00

It's shonky alright. Actually refers to the likelihood of injury compared to car occupants, I believe.

rustic101

19th October 2009, 18:26

That actually makes interesting reading, but unfortunatly looks like a very similar reply to the one received by Reckless over on this thread, apart from the introduction to the information. so it looks like the AA are prepared to use a type of Form letter in reply to any inquires we make to them.

The wankers. Good by AA insurance(s) anyone know a good package deal; Bike is with Vero Go Lightly as AA would not insure me with my left nut as a deposit.....:mad:

shrub

19th October 2009, 20:01

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

The AA haven't put any thought into this and if they're not careful this will turn into a PR nightmare

rustic101

19th October 2009, 20:06

Some of you might like this.

I know the web site (which looks great) is targetting ACC. However have you or the administrator considered posting the AA response (on my blog thingy), and or addressing the National Govt angle as they are the architechs of the plan??? Ken

Mom

19th October 2009, 20:32

Make up your own mind where they stand.

Already had that opinion of them :yes:

wingrider

21st October 2009, 09:39

The wankers. Good by AA insurance(s) anyone know a good package deal; Bike is with Vero Go Lightly as AA would not insure me with my left nut as a deposit.....:mad:

Try Swann insurance
www.swanninsurance.co.nz

Do the online calculation but ring them as your personal history details in many cases can significantly reduce the premium.

MSTRS

21st October 2009, 14:24

What a two faced bastard...
Actually, no, he's not. It was ACC that made the announcement of fee hikes, not the Govt. And it wasn't announced as a fait accompli...8 months notice isn't bad, all things considered.

The only way to fight this is to do the same thing the truckies did, fill the Auckland motorway with bikes, at rush hour.Taking it to the streets is good, but still not the 'only way' to fight this. We'll do what we need to get this onerous levy hike reversed (or spread more fairly)

benfan

21st October 2009, 18:00

I've just been told that on TV 7 tonight, just after 9pm, Gareth Morgan will be speaking on the issue. (I think you may need Sky to see TV 7)

Pixie

22nd October 2009, 12:02

Is there a list of all the National MP's email Addresses?

ooze

22nd October 2009, 21:14

I hear tonight that cars currently subsidise us to the sum of $77.00 per year.
I register 2 cars a year (so according to ACC I'm subsidising myself $144 a year) as well as my XJR which has a current ACC levy of $253 per year. Seems like I'm already paying out pretty close to $400 in M/C levies to ACC.
I'm thinking there may be the odd 1 or 2 motorcyclists (probably most of us actually) out there who may also own a car or 2.
I'm also thinking that the $77 those riders who just happen to own a car (or 2) might add up to a tidy sum. Nice of us to subsidise ourselves isn't it.
As called for by others - levy cyclists and also the "sportspeople" who clog the A&E departments each weekend, that might just add up to a tidy sum as well, don't you think?

StoneY

25th October 2009, 08:11

Nice to have free ambulance support. I'm concerned at the look of it though if it means a visible St Johns vehicle is following the riders as it sort of indicates that when a bunch of bikers get together we expect someone to get hurt

Ill say this just once (even though its in 3 other threads)

WE HAVE TO MITIGATE THE RISKS
This is part of our risk mitigation and culpability management

Over 3000 are expected, some saying 6000, many have never ridden in a pack before

The image we are portraying is 'sensible motorcycle protest organizers planned for everything'

Thank you

Admins, please LOCK this thread its NOT a Q&A its the final announcement, and it needs to remain as such
Additional information can be found in the stickies, and CRITICAL information will be added to the main post as it is confirmed and finalised

Right now the DATES, TIMES and GATHERING points in Wellington Region are SET IN STONE and will not alter at all

Thanks for the Maps Toto and Gremlin, I was sooo tired as I posted up the notice O forgot them, much appreciated

Starky307

27th October 2009, 19:47

I wish everyone a safe journey to Wellington, ride safe and sensibly and make our point known without being foolish.

I wish I could be a part of this but will be returning from OZ the evening of the 17th so hopefully will be able to see it on the news.

Thanks to all that have put time and effort into organizing this event.

Bald Eagle

27th October 2009, 20:50

Here is the bill as per the first reading ( it past ,,)

Stephen

PLEASE TAKE A MIN TO READ IT

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

That's some heavy reading. The first thing I notice is that experience rating and risk rating are enable for the Work Account,... but only risk rating in the Motor vehicle account. Interesting ommission in the 2nd part.
Also notice the potential added to the bill to link "safety behavoir to levy payments" but again only in the Work account.

Ixion

27th October 2009, 21:19

Fuck me. Did anyone notice S 24B(2)

The regulations may also classify all or any of the following, or categories of the following, into classes that most accurately describe their risk rating and may impose levies at different rates in relation to those classes in accordance with the system of differential levies referred to in subsection (1):

“(a) motor vehicles:

“(b) registered owners of motor vehicles:

Ixion

27th October 2009, 21:20

This Bill, i think it's got to go to Select Committee. ANd that means (I think) public can make submissions? Does anyone know this? Klingon? I see opportunity.

Bald Eagle

27th October 2009, 21:39

Fuck me. Did anyone notice S 24B(2)

and the worst bit it says all or any --- meaning they can do both

NighthawkNZ

27th October 2009, 21:44

This Bill, i think it's got to go to Select Committee. ANd that means (I think) public can make submissions? Does anyone know this? Klingon? I see opportunity.

I believe that is correct, and is why the Maori Party supported to get it to select committe and public debate and submissions etc..

or its they also got some of the world cup on the Maori TV

Ixion

27th October 2009, 22:19

and the worst bit it says all or any --- meaning they can do both

No . It's GOOD.

Brian d marge

27th October 2009, 22:46

Fuck me. Did anyone notice S 24B(2)

yes and a lot of other shyte , there as well such as reduce payment to all and esp the young .. there is A LOT of hidden stuff in that there report [

NOT JUST MO BIKES

Stephen

NighthawkNZ

28th October 2009, 18:10

So, big bikes crash LESS proportionately.

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

ANOTHER ACC LIE.

Another bullet for our gun

R-Soul

29th October 2009, 16:16

This "bikes are 16 times more dangerous than cars" figure keeps being quoted.

On MoT figures for number of car crashes versus number of bike crashes, it's wrong, the correct number is about 3 x.

But ACC claim the figure is based on a "survey of kilometres travelled". But can provide no further backing

Have you any indication of provenance for this 16 x figure? And of the methodology used to determine the kilometres travelled? (which I suspect will be decidedly shonky)

This sounds like absolute hogwash as they have no figures for their accidents to base it on - They dont ask questions like "How many kilometres has it been since your last crash?" FAIL!

And where would they get the figures for the no of km's bikes ride in a year compared to cars? (maybe from the WOF readings?)

toxteth_ogrady

29th October 2009, 16:18

I will be there come rain, rain or even rain. We need to show them how many people are outraged by their idiot plans.

MSTRS

29th October 2009, 17:26

And where would they get the figures for the no of km's bikes ride in a year compared to cars? (maybe from the WOF readings?)

Possibly. But more likely to have come from a highly accurate :oi-grr: survey they did in 1998 or 1999 of 300 people.

Ixion

29th October 2009, 17:48

I have some stats form ACC. Very limited, but I'll get more

Already we can PROVE that their "big bikes cost more " is total bullshit

See the ACC data thread for breakdown

Ms Piggy

29th October 2009, 19:59

Miss P, looks like your designated photographer, thanks for the offer
Ooooo rightio then!

CherryB

30th October 2009, 22:27

The facts on Motorcycle crashes can be found here (assuming that ACC used these for their policy):

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

A problem is that a lot of these don't mean much in isolation. The graph showing % of bikes involved in crashes on page 3 doesn't show it in relation to how many bikes are in those categories.

Death and injury rates likewise should be relative to past trends and numbers riding in each year...

wingrider

30th October 2009, 23:01

Not sure if some of the info I just posted on the thread below is of any help

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129488005&postcount=109

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 10:04

I also think that the statute forming the ACC should be more clearly reviewed to see what the terms and conditions are for the citizens of a country losing their rights to sue.

Who knows - Perhaps the proposed ACC levies are illegal?

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 10:06

Now there is an opportunity for a barrister to make a name for himself by representing 110 000 bikers (who may or may not be rich buggers with many bikes and cars) in taking the ACC down a peg or two.

Any takers?

MSTRS

2nd November 2009, 10:11

... I think they would rather subsidise us by $77 a year ...

But they aren't. It is a complete fabrication. And we have proved that.

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 10:19

But they aren't. It is a complete fabrication. And we have proved that.

Actually no you have not.

Sure if you take $77 and multiply it by the no of cages then you get more money than the $62 mill they said they paid out for us last year. BUT remember that they are moving to the "fully paid" version, which means that they don't just collect what they will need to pay out in a particular year (like they did before). Now they collect what they will pay out that year, as well as what they will pay out in for the entire term of the payouts for those injuries sustained in that particyular years (i.e. they collect the initial costs as well as ALL the future payouts such as physio, loss of income, etc for the life of those injuries in the year that the injuries were sustained). They collect additional money and then estimated what the value of this money (when invested) will be and whether that money will be enough to pay for ALL the costs.

Which is where they got the $77 from. Hate to burst your bubble, but I think if we are going to bitch about things, we need to know the truth and understand where they are coming from.

MSTRS

2nd November 2009, 10:29

NighthawkNZ

2nd November 2009, 10:45

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

Only those cars that make an ACC claim guy at work as had three accidents (no ACC claim yet) but I am sure the insurance companies would give a different figure

of course beinga biker you a more likely to make an ACC claim

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 10:46

Partially right. You forget that if $77 pays for future costs, that means approx $240M is collected each year to cover those future costs. Then again next year. And the year after that. Etc.
Don't tell me that future costs from injuries in any given year are $240M. Each and every year.

Actually if teh inital costs are $62m, then the final tally for accidents in that year could be $240m. Think: income replacement (the really big one), physios, family support, medical support, disability support. this ongoing support could keep going for the next 10 or 20 years.

$180 million divided by the number of bike accidents (758 in the last year) is (cant remember how many) and by 10 years is 23 000 dollars a year per accident. Probably not that unrereasonable when you take administrtaion charges into account as well (maybe up to a third?).

Ixion

2nd November 2009, 11:05

According to ACCs own figures (that data they sent me), the total FULLY FUNDED cost for bike claims in 2009 was $49,211,466.85 (love the precision).

So, the cost of crashes that happened in 2008 was 49 million odd, to pay ALL the costs of those crashes forever.

Then there needs to some added for the costs of crashes prior to full funding (? 1999?) , which will be the balance of the 62 million.

And they want to add some extra to build up the fund to fully fund those old crashes.

But no way does the present and future cost of a years crashes come to $200 M +

MSTRS

2nd November 2009, 12:02

Nor is the initial cost in 2008, $62M. $38M of it is historical.

Ixion

2nd November 2009, 12:25

Yes. The 62M is the amount they actually paid out that year.

That would be PART of the 49M (cos the 49M covers future years also), plus payments for people who crashed between 1999 and 2008 , which should NOT be set aginst that years income because they are already paid for, plus payments for people who crashed before 1999.

That's one of the things I'm going to go back to the ACC on - how much of the 62M is historic, how much previous years funded, and how much current year.

The ACC are incredibly secretive about how much they pay out each year for that years new claims. Which makes me suspect it's a number that doesn't fit their theories.

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 13:25

Nor is the initial cost in 2008, $62M. $38M of it is historical.

Thats true. So if the total amounts paid out during 2008 is $62m and the "fully funded cost" is $49m, does that get added to the 62? Total of $111m - still doesn't make up $240m...

Although as you say, there is part ($38m) of the $62m that is histrocal payouts and should have been fuully funded in the past, so its not $111m, but closer to $69m.

I think this is where the problem is. Additional cash needs to be collected to pay for crashes in the past that were not fully funded.

However, I understand that the initial deadline for collecting all of this expected present and future funding for all current and past bike crashes was suposed to be 2012 (or something like that?). Labour proposed pushing this deadline back to 2019, and even reducing ACC levies before the last election by just pushing the deadline back.

This is why the ACC is not really "in the red". Its in teh red to collect all teh required cash by the arbitrary deadline of 2012. If teh deadline is pushed back, then its no longer in the red, and ifact is waay in the black.

There is another question:

Say the deadline stays the same, and we all get hammered by ACC levies until 2012 to meet this stupid deadline. Once the deadline and cash savings goal has been reached, and we no longer have to save additional cash to pay for past accidents which have not been fully funded, do they drop the levies again?

Not likely...

m

Ixion

2nd November 2009, 13:35

No. the 49M fully finded cost is a CALCULATION of how much the claims that years will cost altogether

So I crash in 2008. In 2008 they pay out $30000 for my crash (ERC, medical etc)

Then in 2009 I ned a further operation, so that's another $15000
Then in 2010 another fixup - say $5000

Totally cost to fully fund = $50000. But they only PAY OUT $3000 in 2008.

Of course ACC don't know how much any individual claim will cost in future years. But they can take some educated guesses based on experience and so on.

So, the total payout in 2008 was $62M . Current claims 24M (leaving 25 M of the 49M for future years claims aginst this years crashes) . Plus 38M actually paid out this year (2008) for PREVIOUS years crashes.

But most of that 38M will already have been "tucked away" in previous years. Just as we tucked away the 25 M this year for future payouts.

When they come to pay out the $15000 for my operation NEXT year (2009) , they can't say that has to be paid for by 2009 income. They already have that money in the kitty (they put aside 50000 remmeber and only paid out 30000 of it in 2008) - part of the 25 M left over from the $49M.

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 13:53

So what you are saying is that they are not just beavering a little excess cash away every year to pay for past accidents that were not previously fully funded - they are hoovering up all the excess cash that they can get their grubby little paws on? If the fully funded cost for 2008 is $49m all up, and they pulled in $240m based on the $77 per car numbers (if this is a true statement), that is a hell of a lot of savings every year already!! And they have said they want more because their own investments went belly up....

Look I suppose its good to get the stuff all fully funded ASAP, since I agree with that principle (as why should new riders pay for past rider's problems?).

But not when it means that the ACC levies go up so much that most riders will be subject to finanical hardships because of it!! And especially not if part of that reason is because their own investments were crappy. In light of the current recession, and financial hardships already being suffered, the LEAST they could do was push the deadline out a few more years.

And again: Will these damn levies ever come down again? Even if we meet the savings target? I will put money on the fact that they wont.

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 14:08

In fact, if we are pulling in $240m a year now to pay for future costs of present and past bike accidents, and the savings are all fully funded by 2012 (is this the right year?), then we should expect the levies to come down to a more reasonable 49/240 of the proposed levy changes.

So 49/240*750 = 20% = $153 is what it should be if we did not have pay for past accidents. Any bets?

MSTRS

2nd November 2009, 14:21

Ixion

2nd November 2009, 14:30

Nope. motorvehciles fund must cover ALL costs associated with a motorvehicle. ERC (except first week/fortnight); medical, rehabilitation etc.

Excpet acute hospital treatent (which is bulk funded by ACC) and (I think ) an initial medical cost)

The money taken out of your pay packet each week pays for work accidents (whicha re about 100 times as costly as motor vehicle ones).

We don't want to get into a debate with them/Minister about what the numbers SHOULD be 9or will be if balh balh). Just to be able to say "ACC numbers are wrong, you can't rely on them, look , see )

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 14:31

It is easy to get bogged down in detail. That is a lovely trap.
Shouldn't we be stating that the Motor Pool is what all motorists contribute to, in expectation of being 'looked after' if it turns to custard AND was vehicle related? Regardless of actual $ or numbers, the truth is that it has always been, and always will, that the majority pay for the relative few who get hurt.
And to Rsole...we don't know, but suspect that earnings-related compensation comes from that fund - which is why we all pay a little something out of our taxable income. The motorpool/fund is for medical etc.

Detail is boring and actuarial, but pays to understand it so that you can nail those stupid political soundbytes dead where they stand...

And if our payments are going to other compensation funds, then the cage drivers can cough as much as us and spread the misery around a bit. Dammit!!

MSTRS

2nd November 2009, 14:35

Nope. motorvehciles fund must cover ALL costs associated with a motorvehicle. ERC (except first week/fortnight); medical, rehabilitation etc.

Good to know. Will have to remember that.
I guess the detail side of things is important, in so far as we can see the bullshit. It is the endless calcs and recalcs that get overwhelming.

Ixion

2nd November 2009, 14:37

I hope , after much calc and recalc , to boil it down into half a dozen "THAT'S WRONG" statements.

ACC claim we should be paying $3500. THAT'S WRONG

ACC Claim cars are subsidising us $77 each . THAT'S WRONG

ACC claim that big bikes crash more and cost more . THAT'S WRONG

Got those ones so far.

R-Soul

2nd November 2009, 14:52

Good to know. Will have to remember that.
I guess the detail side of things is important, in so far as we can see the bullshit. It is the endless calcs and recalcs that get overwhelming.

I still think my original point of opening that whole can of worms about the right to sue may be a wake up call to government. We can't be expected to pay group risk-related premiums (with no mods for responsible behaviour) without being able to sue to reduce our payouts when we are not at fault.

Did you notice how fast Goff wanted to move teh cobversation away from the "right to sue" issue at the Ulysses rally? It definitely raised his temperature.

This issue is something that could swing car drivers to prefer to subsidise us on a group basis than as individuals (if we can sue them).

We have been cuddling up to car drivers to get them on our side, but we should also arm ourselves with some nasty teeth to spur them into action.

wharfy

2nd November 2009, 16:14

in the mean time here is a report about ACC

Stephen

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

Sorry cant load it up too big

Web site

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

This is a must read for everyone - I had been working 2 years when ACC was introduced but I never REALLY knew who the architects of the scheme were.

hippycrippy

2nd November 2009, 20:01

I Urge all bikers to make their own submission on ACC levies.
Do it on line using the site as detailed in Kiwi Biker info.
The important thing in your submission is to ask "To be heard".
Give your phone no and ask for a conferenmce call or video conference call to be set up.
It does not matter what the substance of your submission is but make it relevant. If everyone does it, by the time they organise all those conference calls the message will surely be sinking in.
Submissions close on 10 November :whocares:

Oxy

2nd November 2009, 20:15

I wonder what they would do if all bikers refused to pay registration.

Bald Eagle

2nd November 2009, 22:29

It is easy to get bogged down in detail. That is a lovely trap.
Shouldn't we be stating that the Motor Pool is what all motorists contribute to, in expectation of being 'looked after' if it turns to custard AND was vehicle related? Regardless of actual $ or numbers, the truth is that it has always been, and always will, that the majority pay for the relative few who get hurt.
And to Rsole...we don't know, but suspect that earnings-related compensation comes from that fund - which is why we all pay a little something out of our taxable income. The motorpool/fund is for medical etc.

Absolutely I'm not concerned about the numbers other than the fact that they are so demonstrably wrong. This is a COMPENSATION scheme not an INSURANCE scheme and it's every NZ'ers right for compensation when the excrement hits the rotating air conditioner.

MSTRS

3rd November 2009, 10:46

Nope. motorvehciles fund must cover ALL costs associated with a motorvehicle. ERC (except first week/fortnight); medical, rehabilitation etc.

Excpet acute hospital treatent (which is bulk funded by ACC) and (I think ) an initial medical cost)

On the back of an orange form, section 4.2 states...

The ACC Levy is collected on behalf of the ACC and provides personal injury insurance cover for those injured in motor vehicle accidents on public roads. It covers entitlements such as medical and hospital costs, weekly compensation and rehabilitation care.

Ixion

3rd November 2009, 10:49

On the back of a relicencing form, section 4.2 states...

Yes, the rego levy covers hospital costs. but they are not broken out into cars, trucks, bikes etc. That would require the hospitals to invoice ACC for each person treated. They are not set up for that

So ACC pay the hospitals a lump sum, in bulk. Blah million dollars per year. That comes form the total levies, i don't know how it is (possibly) broken down beyond that

May be interesting to find out

NighthawkNZ

3rd November 2009, 10:50

Actually no you have not.

Sure if you take $77 and multiply it by the no of cages then you get more money than the $62 mill they said they paid out for us last year. BUT remember that they are moving to the "fully paid" version, which means that they don't just collect what they will need to pay out in a particular year (like they did before). Now they collect what they will pay out that year, as well as what they will pay out in for the entire term of the payouts for those injuries sustained in that particyular years (i.e. they collect the initial costs as well as ALL the future payouts such as physio, loss of income, etc for the life of those injuries in the year that the injuries were sustained). They collect additional money and then estimated what the value of this money (when invested) will be and whether that money will be enough to pay for ALL the costs.

Which is where they got the $77 from. Hate to burst your bubble, but I think if we are going to bitch about things, we need to know the truth and understand where they are coming from.

the 62 million is not last years or the years before... it is pre-1999

R-Soul

3rd November 2009, 11:12

the 62 million is not last years or the years before... it is pre-1999

No its 2007-2008

See this link:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/IS0800157

R-Soul

3rd November 2009, 11:16

I Urge all bikers to make their own submission on ACC levies.
:whocares:

heres my second:

Dear Sirs

I object to the planned levy increases for motorbikes.

The ACC has lost sight of the fact that it is a COMPENSATION scheme, and not an INSURANCE scheme. An insurance scheme allows people at high risk to sue for their money back from those at fault if they are injured, where the injury was not due to fault of their own. In this way, their own costs are reduced.

But the existence of ACC as a compensation scheme has negated the availability of these cost reduction measures for motorcycle riders. In effect motorcycle riders are being penalised financially for the fault of others, and are not being left any recourse to the courts.

This surely goes against the rule of law and against the bill of rights, where recourse to the courts is typically a major foundation of a strong functioning democracy where a minority group are being unfairly targeted. If bike riders are going to be selectively penalised, then we would want our right to sue back to reduce our payouts.

The question is: Does the ACC really want to open this can of worms?

As I have mentioned in a previous submission, it would make more sense for the ACC to focus on penalising those groups to which injuries can be directly attributable, such as drunk drivers, drug users and speeders. This can be done by generally applicable laws that don’t target a minority. The dividing line for increased ACC levies should be between irresponsible and responsible motorists (and I mean all motorists in general). This could be linked to the current point system in use for vehicles.

Other options would be constructive advancements in actively reducing injuries in the first place like compulsory use of high visibility vests, zero limits on alcohol, and compulsory regular refresher advanced driver /rider training.

Please feel free to call me on blah balh if you have any questions.

Your sincerely,

Ixion

3rd November 2009, 11:21

No its 2007-2008

See this link:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/IS0800157

Sigh. The 62M is the amount PAID in 2007-8 for claims ORIGINATING in all PREVIOUS years.

In 2008 the ACC (maybe) paid out for an operation for a biker who was still suffering effects form a crash in 2005. That cost , because it was PAID in 2007-8 , comes into the 62M even though the CRASH happened in 2005

Clear?

MSTRS

3rd November 2009, 11:21

No its 2007-2008

You still seem to be missing the point. There is a difference in New Claims and Active Claims (ongoing treatment from injuries sustained in years past). The total paid out in 2008 was $62M. About $38M of that came from Active Claims.
The fully funded model was begun in 1999, so it is reasonable to assume that the majority of those Active Claims were covered by levies paid in the years 2000-2008. It is also reasonable to assume that some of the current Active Claims are from injuries sustained prior to 1999, but realistically that number would be fairly small.
This implies that ACC are trying to double-dip, by using the figure $62M.

NighthawkNZ

3rd November 2009, 11:31

No its 2007-2008

Its a misconception that ACC is using against us...

active claims... new claims and current claims

If you are still on ACC from an accident that happened from 1999 then these are not covered by the "fully funded" model and are still "Pay as you go" which we are still paying for.

Accidents after 1999 which is when we changed to the fully funded model are covered

the number of accidents and active claims don't match showing that the active claims are previous years we are still paying for under pay as you go.

ACC have bundled it all together to make it look worse that it is... ie

new claims 1,336
active claims 3,173

we know the 62 million figure and we know the average claim is $19g
the new claims for 2008 1336 x 19,000 = $25,384,000

The other remaining active claims 1837 are previous years which is still being paid for under the pay as you go which is pre-1999

R-Soul

3rd November 2009, 12:21

the 62 million is not last years or the years before... it is pre-1999

You did not say "part of the 62 m payout was due to accidents pre-2008" (which I fully understand). You said the 62 m payout was pre 1999. Which it clearly is not since the actual payout of 62 m was paid out in 2007-2008.

But we are talking semantics here.

R-Soul

3rd November 2009, 12:28

The fully funded model was begun in 1999, so it is reasonable to assume that the majority of those Active Claims were covered by levies paid in the years 2000-2008. It is also reasonable to assume that some of the current Active Claims are from injuries sustained prior to 1999, but realistically that number would be fairly small.
This implies that ACC are trying to double-dip, by using the figure $62M.

Actually the accidents from 1999- 2008 that are still active would be included as part of the 62m payout in 2008- but they would have been pre-financed from 1999-2008.

So the 62m payout includes:
1) New claims from 2007-2008
2) Previously financed claims from 1999-2008
3) Previously unfinanced claims pre-1999

The money they are collecting in must be enough for
1) New claims 2007-2008
2) Future costs of new claims 2007-2008
3) Future costs of unfinanced claims pre 1999

Was it the $49m number that was to pay for future costs of new claims and pre-1999 claims?

MSTRS

3rd November 2009, 12:42

Actually the accidents from 1999- 2008 that are still active would be included as part of the 62m payout in 2008- but they would have been pre-financed from 1999-2008.

Yep. But ACC neglect to mention that.
Based on (a guess at actual $ and number of bikes) ACC Levy being $166pa and 75,000 registered bikes, they collected something like $110M from bike levies over the years 2000-2008. That went a long way towards paying those Active Claims that begun during that time.

So the 62m payout includes:
1) New claims from 2007-2008
2) Previously financed claims from 1999-2008
3) Previously unfinanced claims pre-1999

The money they are collecting in must be enough for
1) New claims 2007-2008
2) Future costs of new claims 2007-2008
3) Future costs of unfinanced claims pre 1999

Yep

Was it the $49m number that was to pay for future costs of new claims and pre-1999 claims?
Forgive me, but where did that figure come from?
We can only guess that $24M (New Claims 2008) would be indicative of each year's new claims into the future. As far as old Active Claims from pre-1999...the figure would be fairly insubstantial as far as medical etc goes. The majority would be in earnings compensation. Any guesses as to how much?

Ixion

3rd November 2009, 12:45

Yep. But ACC neglect to mention that.
Based on (a guess at actual $ and number of bikes) ACC Levy being $166pa and 75,000 registered bikes, they collected something like $110M from bike levies over the years 2000-2008. That went a long way towards paying those Active Claims that begun during that time.
Yep

Forgive me, but where did that figure come from?
We can only guess that $24M (New Claims 2008) would be indicative of each year's new claims into the future. As far as old Active Claims from pre-1999...the figure would be fairly insubstantial as far as medical etc goes. The majority would be in earnings compensation. Any guesses as to how much?

$49M is theFULLY FUNDED (not paid out) cost of 2007-8 bike claims. From the data they sent me

brendonjw

3rd November 2009, 12:49

Hey Ixion, did the ACC front up with those figures they promised to you on TV? (I havent seen them put up anywhere but i may have been looking in the wrong place again :bash:

MSTRS

3rd November 2009, 12:54

$49M is theFULLY FUNDED (not paid out) cost of 2007-8 bike claims. From the data they sent me

So, they collect $49M, pay out immediately some $24M, and the balance of $25M covers all future payments for injuries sustained in 2008? And bearing in mind inflation-adjustment, $49M each year going forward?

NighthawkNZ

3rd November 2009, 12:56

But we are talking semantics here.

Okay I meant to say 62m a good chunk of it is for the pre-1999 claims :innocent::blink:

Ixion

3rd November 2009, 13:03

No the 49M is the cost of the claims, over their expected life.. That's the number ACC say they need to collect each year (49M divided by 100000 bikes = $490 = about the average levy they are demanding). However the VALIDITY of the $49M is debateable.

They know exactly what they ACTUALLY pay out. What they MAY have to pay, perhaps 10 years hence, is a guess. Based on a whole lot of debateable arguments.

Essentially they take a look at the claim, say "Oh well, claims like this , they are usually off work for x years/months, cost about $Y for operations etc etc). Note the guesswork here.

Then adjust that for an expected rate of inflation over the expected (guessed) life of the claim. The work out how much money (in 2009 dollars) they need to put into the reserves to cover that (inflated) cost. Based on earning z% on their investments in the future (d' y' see another guess there).

Extend that guesswork across all claims and you have the basis of the ACCs claim of being broke. They have worked out their future liabilities using VERY VERY pessimistic figures for inflation and interest (they admit this) . If inflation is going to be 20% a year,and we'll only get 2% on investments, we need to put a LOT of money aside now.

But if inflation is 2% and investments get 7% then the "lot of money" becomes " a lot LESS money"

The whole ACC deficit/broke/financial crisis is just a rort.

Do all that guesswork on the bike claims lodged in 2008 and you come up with $49 million. I'm told ACC buy their dart boards in truckload lots.