A question about the ACC "facts"

[FROSTY]

Folks as a precurser to This post I must say I'm not saying the gubbiment is right in any way i just feel I must ask the question.


Bikers nation wide are up in arms about the proposed hike in ACC levvies saying it is unfair.
There is one point I'd like to see cleared up though.
How certain are we that the ACC and gubbinment figures are actually not correct?
We are making a few statements that i'm not sure are correct.
1) the cost per bike injury and the number of them
2)that all offroad (including racetrack) bike accidents are cassified by ACC as bike accidents.
3)that cycle accidents cost as much as quoted
4) others i cant right now recall

Again folks please dont take this as negative Its just that hard data is vital if the case is being argued on that basis.

If the case is being argued that ACC needs to be a totally no fault system as it was intended then I guess the data is not an issue.

[MSTRS]

All the data we are using to contest the issue comes from published ACC and MOT statistics. And simple arithmetic applied using (their) published rego/accident/cost data.
Tell me, why would you believe what the pollies etc are saying, when their own reports state otherwise?

eg. Key has said "Bikes should be levied at $3700 each."
Really? 100,000 bikes @ $3700 each = $370M dollars. When the cost draw off is $62M. Including historical injuries still active, but paid for in previous years, not this year's levy. New claims (2008) cost about $24M.
They are wanting the ACC scheme to be fully funded. The motor account became that in 1999, anyway. But...Fully funded means that all new claims in any given year (and that means the ongoing costs for seriously injured, like years of reconstructive surgeries etc, as well) are paid for in THAT years levies. All good. BUT, assuming that the level of cost continues at a similar level to now ($24M pa new claims),
$370M pays for the next 15 years' worth of claims. And then again next year. But next year, the collection will be paying for claims not due to start for another 14 years. And so on. Am I making sense?

[Mully]

Frosty, I don't think the stats that the ACC are rolling out are incorrect, per se.

They are just announcing in loud voices the bits of their stats that suit them and ignoring the rest, which put into context they ones they are yelling about.

Lets call it misleading rather than outright lying to be diplomatic.

[pzkpfw]

eg. Bikes should be levied at $3700 each. Really? 100,000 bikes @ $3700 each = $370M dollars. When the cost draw off is $62M. Including historical injuries still active, but paid for in previous years, not this year's levy.

Something I'd like to see clarified is that $62 M thing.

Under the "fully funded" model, I believe they need to collect enough each year to cover accidents that year - including the (estimated) future costs resulting from those accidents (I'm ignoring here the "catch-up" from previous years where the funding model was different).

Now, does that $62 M include the future costs of the accidents that year?

[MSTRS]

Something I'd like to see clarified is that $62 M thing.

Under the "fully funded" model, I believe they need to collect enough each year to cover accidents that year - including the (estimated) future costs resulting from those accidents (I'm ignoring here the "catch-up" from previous years where the funding model was different).

Now, does that $62 M include the future costs of the accidents that year?

The $62M comes from their own reports, stating that was the amount paid out to injured motorcyclists in 2008. It includes the ongoing payments for those injured in previous years. New claims were about $24M of that $62M. So old, but still active, claims were $38M. BUT - they didn't come from 2008 levies. They come from levies paid in years past.

[Jantar]

...
Now, does that $62 M include the future costs of the accidents that year?
No, it obviously doesn't. But it does include costs relating to accidents in previous years as well as payments made so far on the current years (2008 - 2009) accidents. So overall it is still a close number to what would be required to just cover and future proof this years accidents.

[pzkpfw]

Thanks.


New claims were about $24M of that $62M.

Do they estimate how much those new claims will cost over time?

[NighthawkNZ]

So overall it is still a close number to what would be required to just cover and future proof this years accidents.

Since we are supposidly in a fully funded model... the previous claims are most likely pree 1999

[MSTRS]

Thanks.



Do they estimate how much those new claims will cost over time?

Of course, but they are not saying. That figure, of course, is the $64 question. Actuaries would be reqd to give a guesstimate. However, if $38M is historical injury payment, it could cover 1974 - 1999 or 1974 - present. ACC don't say. The 25year spread gives the largest annual figure ($1.52M) so it would be reasonable to have to cover that every year from now on. But how far ahead do you go? 10years? 20? 30? Who knows how long any recipient will live, or need assistance?
Of course, this is all assuming an even amount of compensation, yearly. It doesn't work like that. EG - Next year $10M, 2011 $7.2M, 2012 $5M etc. See?
Then there are the anomolies...I know a guy who sustained pelvic injuries that were surgically 'fixed' under ACC. But the surgeon fucked it up. The guy has had several more ops to correct that. But it's still on ACC...

[Jantar]

Since we are supposidly in a fully funded model... the previous claims are most likely pree 1999
Not neccessarily. The $62M paid is $24M on new claims, and $38M on historical claims. Some of that $38M will be pre 1999, but some of it will be post 1999 through to the present. That fact that rates were raised in 1999- 2000 to head towards fully funded doesn't affect what they payout this year. It just means that many of those funds had already been collected.

[FROSTY]

All the data we are using to contest the issue comes from published ACC and MOT statistics. And simple arithmetic applied using (their) published rego/accident/cost data.
Mate that is EXACTLY what has me worried.
The information we have is the stuff they have let become publicly available. Can anyone confirm that information is current and up to date.
mental image for example us quoting the classic example of the cow cocky claiming he had a bike accident whils on his farm when it should be really a farming accident-the ACC guy saying--ohh no we stopped that . Yea 3 weeks ago but ya see where Im coming from?

[Squiggles]

Mate that is EXACTLY what has me worried.
The information we have is the stuff they have let become publicly available. Can anyone confirm that information is current and up to date.
mental image for example us quoting the classic example of the cow cocky claiming he had a bike accident whils on his farm when it should be really a farming accident-the ACC guy saying--ohh no we stopped that . Yea 3 weeks ago but ya see where Im coming from?

If its so then they're as big-a-fools as us, Smith was going on about the 62 mill just the other day

[MSTRS]

Mate that is EXACTLY what has me worried.
The information we have is the stuff they have let become publicly available. Can anyone confirm that information is current and up to date.
mental image for example us quoting the classic example of the cow cocky claiming he had a bike accident whils on his farm when it should be really a farming accident-the ACC guy saying--ohh no we stopped that . Yea 3 weeks ago but ya see where Im coming from?

Individual cases are not id'able. We also don't know whether they lump all bike-related crashes or just the on-road ones. We do know that MOT release road crash figures. And those figures are at odds with what ACC says.
It could be fair to assume that ACC record all crashes, but compensation is split between road fund and earner fund, depending on where the crash happened.
If it is the case that all crashes are noted, then it isn't much of a stretch to see the 16x or 18x or whatever x it is today 'more likely to crash' thing. Of course, it is a totally bullshit claim, because of the offroad crashes padding the stats. Even though those crashes don't come out of the $24/38/62M paid out. Or do they?
I talked to someone last night who said the ACC claim form one fills out at Doc/Hospital has a section for how you got hurt and was a vehicle involved, BUT does not ask where.

[FROSTY]

something to think about. Mr cow cocky is a buisinessman and his worker falls off his trailbike herding the cows. Financially its in mr cow cockies best interests to put down that the worker had a vehicle accident otherwise his company ACC goes up.
The point about all motorbike accidents beeing lumped together. Its worth finding out again if that is currently the case surely.
A fairer way would be if event organisers perhaps needed to pay an ACC levvy for each event to cover accidents. ie every race meeting paid an ACC levvy

[JMemonic]

Keep in mind according to the way the law is structured, to allow full police investigation, anywhere you can drive a vehicle is classed as a road.

Could make for interesting statistics really.

[dpex]

Since we are supposidly in a fully funded model... the previous claims are most likely pree 1999

And the crowning point to the stats you have put up, NH, is that all car and bike crash claims represent just 0.0112% of all ACC claims. So why are there no other 'targeted' levies against any of the other 99.988% claimants?

[MSTRS]

And the crowning point to the stats you have put up, NH, is that all car and bike crash claims represent just 0.0112% of all ACC claims. So why are there no other 'targeted' levies against any of the other 99.988% claimants?
But there is. A forestry worker will pay (and his employer too) a higher rate than does an accountant. Presumably felling trees is more dangerous than shuffling paper and tapping on a calculator. For instance.

[FROSTY]

But there is. A forestry worker will pay (and his employer too) a higher rate than does an accountant. Presumably felling trees is more dangerous than shuffling paper and tapping on a calculator. For instance.
AHH-now yassee that depends dunnit?
has the accountant put in 20 claims this year for paper cuts to his staff and the forestry company put in none.?
acc has been quietly 'adjusting" employer acc levvies according to the industry and the company claim level

[Ixion]

I distinguish that , though. Because ALL employers are classified by risk Whereas ONLY motorcycles in the road account are classified by risk. If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)

And the process of determining each industry group risk rating is quite a consultative and transparent one, which the bike risk process certainly is not.

[Holy Roller]

and the forestry company put in none.?
l

Many small injuries like a wire strand through a finger are not claimed against as the paper work and proceedure let alone the increase in levies due to a claim are horendous and it is easier and cheaper to carry the workers time off work. From a mate (someone I know in passing) who runs a logging business.

[pzkpfw]

If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)

No and yes.

My point in the "sound bites" thread was that ACC want me to pay more for my "risky" motorcycle yet I pay the same for my 5-star-safety rated car as someone driving an old clunker [e.g. with (gasp) zero air bags and no ABS].

But I wouldn't actually want ACC fees differentiated by "safety rating" for cars. (I've read Nick Smith wants this!).

Although safety WAS one reason why I chose my car, another was budget - I could afford it.

"Safety" ratings tend to be about new technologies and designs; but you need to buy new cars to get these things.

A higher ACC fee would disadvantage people who simply can't afford a new "5-star-safety rated" car. It would unfairly disadvantage the "poor" - by making them "poorer"!

...and ACC is supposed to be a fair ("no fault") thing we all get.

(The current system, where new standards mean new cars get "better" is fine; todays new car is tommorrows second-hand car...)

[NighthawkNZ]

But I wouldn't actually want ACC fees differentiated by "safety rating" for cars. (I've read Nick Smith wants this

They are thinking of changing this too... which again I disagree with... it simply goes agains the princples of ACC


Article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=10605395)[/COLOR]
“To read Sir Owen is to understand how far we've strayed from many of the principles on which ACC was built. Like community responsibility, which goes against the idea that you should levy one section of the community more heavily than others, as proposed by the current government. Sir Owen held that as we all benefit from risky activities, we should all bear the cost equally.


Targeting motorcyclists with this hike goes against everything ACC stands for. Sir Owen Woodhouse one of the founders of ACC says it breaches the principles of the scheme.

for for those that don't know he came up with the idea of ACC

[FROSTY]

I distinguish that , though. Because ALL employers are classified by risk Whereas ONLY motorcycles in the road account are classified by risk. If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)

And the process of determining each industry group risk rating is quite a consultative and transparent one, which the bike risk process certainly is not.
Ya do see my point though.ACC has been changing from totally NO fault for quite some time. transparent or not acc levvies are adjusted by claim numbers by employers and the industry. so you could argue a precident has been set.

NOW STOP --before ya start slagging ME its Im not saying its right. I'm saying a real counter arguement to that needs to be available cos sure as eggs is eggs it WILL be raised in debate some time.
The same applies to the CURRENT and up to date facts.

[XP@]

ACC are presenting as fact the cost of motorcycle accidents is $X and this cost needs to be covered by registered motorcycles.
If this value is correct then we have nothing to argue with.

However if one accident off road is included in the stats then the $X becomes incorrect. Current collection methods do not provide adequate clarity in this split. Therefore neither us nor the ACC can determine the true cost until a statistically representative sample can be collected using a clear method which ascertains which group the accident falls in to. This may take 12+ months to obtain, given change to forms and changes to collection methods.

The line may be fuzzy in places e.g. an off road motorcycle on a public road like a beach or a registered motorcycle on an off road track.

Until we have correct data we can only guess that there is a substantial percentage of "off road" accidents. However from experience I have fallen off hundreds of times off road but, on the road, touch wood, only a few.

Quoting our own numbers is dangerous as they may be able to prove them wrong by providing more statistics. Whereas if we can undermine their collection methods all of their numbers become useless and their argument falls.

We should also remember that they have web browsers too...