Some figures that need checking

[davereid]

Can someone cast a critical eye over the figures I have assembled here, I was doing it late, and may have missed something, or made some stupid math errors.

Much of the data was referenced by others, credit to the original posters.

Tnks

[birdhandler]

The stats with the year and injuries trhere are generally more injuries than crashes an explanation would be helpful

The who is at fault pie chart its not immediately obvious how the 35% of rider responsibility was arrived at


I think the other thing that people are mjissing is that ACC reserves estimates the total cost of each claim in the year it happened someone who is srtiously injuered can cost ACC $250 K a year so our 20 year old rider with tetraplegia the total claim cost can be say 250k times 50 year ( expected additional life expectancy) $12.5 million this excludes medical inflation which is higher than the standard rate of inflation

Its an interesting presenation otherwise

[davereid]

The stats with the year and injuries trhere are generally more injuries than crashes an explanation would be helpful

The who is at fault pie chart its not immediately obvious how the 35% of rider responsibility was arrived at


I think the other thing that people are mjissing is that ACC reserves estimates the total cost of each claim in the year it happened someone who is srtiously injuered can cost ACC $250 K a year so our 20 year old rider with tetraplegia the total claim cost can be say 250k times 50 year ( expected additional life expectancy) $12.5 million this excludes medical inflation which is higher than the standard rate of inflation

Its an interesting presenation otherwise

The data is from ACC, who wont or at least haven't released raw data, so we dont know that stuff. Same with the pie chart, its theirs not mine, so I don't have access to source data.

I felt the most interesting conclusion was that we could pay ALL ACC with an 11.5c per litre fuel tax, and that the correct levy, on average is $82 per vehicle, much less than we are already rorted for !

[Jantar]

...I think the other thing that people are mjissing is that ACC reserves estimates the total cost of each claim in the year it happened someone who is srtiously injuered can cost ACC $250 K a year so our 20 year old rider with tetraplegia the total claim cost can be say 250k times 50 year ( expected additional life expectancy) $12.5 million this excludes medical inflation which is higher than the standard rate of inflation ....
Correct. But remember that the number of active claims this year includes those very claims for accidents that happened years ago. Also look at the injury accident stats and its obvious that there are fewer accidents today, both in real number and in accident rates, than there was 20 years ago. (The lowest real number was in 2000 and the lowest rate was 2001.) The amount paid out in claims this year includes many claims made since ACC moved to fully funded, so that amount is also a very good indication of the amount that needs to be recovered annually to continue to fully fund the accounts as from today, not as from 2014 or 2019 whichever the final date is.

[Naki Rat]

The data is from ACC, who wont or at least haven't released raw data, so we dont know that stuff. Same with the pie chart, its theirs not mine, so I don't have access to source data.

I felt the most interesting conclusion was that we could pay ALL ACC with an 11.5c per litre fuel tax, and that the correct levy, on average is $82 per vehicle, much less than we are already rorted for !

Good compilation and presentation of data. I see you are also lacking a recent annual nation petrol consumption figure, which I am still trying to source. Due to higher fuel prices I suspect that national useage could well have declined since 2,000 but it would be nice to know either way.

Another possibility is the introduction of a (small) ACC levy component into the pump price of diesel (or into RUCs) as currently there is none.

[Mikkel]

(Compare to Car/Truck/Van primarily responsible for almost 100% of car/truck/van
crashes)

This statistic is worthless and subtracts from the credibility of the document. In the majority of accidents one of the parties involved will be found at fault. If crash-rates were similar for cars and bikes and 96% of the combined car+bike pool was made up by cars - 92.16% of all crashes would be car+car. 0.16% would be bike+bike. And the last 7.68% would be bike+car accidents. Consider the entirety of accidents in which a car is involved (99.84%), 92.31% of these will be car+car (obviously a car driver must be a fault) and if the blame is split 50/50 between bikes and cars for the bike+car accidents we see that cars are to blame in another 3.85% of accidents involving cars. As such, a car will be at blame in 96.16% of all accidents that involves a car - and that is only due to the distribution of vehicles within the pool. There is no bias anywhere to suggest that cars or bikes are more or less likely to be involved in a crash or to be responsible.
If we consider motorcycles we see that 7.84% of all crashes involves a motorcycle. 2.04% of these accidents will be bike+bike accidents - bike is to blame of course. 97.96% are bike+car accidents and - if we again split the blame 50/50 - that means that bikes are at fault in another 48.98%. As such bikes are to blame for 51.02% of all accidents involving a bike.
Again, these numbers are without bias and represents a case where cars and bikes are equally likely to be involved in a crash and equally likely to be at fault. It just goes to show how the statistics work when considering populations that are uneven (i.e. much larger number of cars than bikes).

The quoted statement is worthless without a similar analysis considering the entire pool of registered vehicles.

Ultimately, the "who's at fault" arguments aren't going to help in regards to ACC.

[zjet]

I like the fact the from the table 32 from the MOT you can see some good stuff eg.

to say "In 2008 we have over doubled the number of bikes on the road in 1995 and yet we are still under the amount of crash's had in that year"


:P tell ya what you guys riding round in 1995 must have been a bunch of fall offs :whistle: