Has anyone actually done an analytical report yet? If not I need stats, STAT!

[motorbyclist]

In short, after my maths exam wednesday arvo I'll finally have a moment to prepare my submission.

It's going to be in a report format, assessing the actual claim costs of motorcycling and other means of transport, and their relative revenues.

From there I'll calculate the fair cost for us and other road users to be paying. This will be based on current costs we "owe" and the latest land transport/MoT data without accounting for future growth, UNLESS information is supplied to allow me to do that.

I'll make a few assumptions you guys won't like, like that we pay for all our costs irrespective of cause, but that will be applied to ALL road users... UNLESS I can find statistics to allow an accurate calculation of costs incurred to motorcyclists from car drivers etc. asfaik this information do not exist.

Likewise, I'll be calling all capacities equal, unless there is statistically valid and significant evidence otherwise.

Cyclists, currently unlevied, will also receive a costing and various ways to apply it - most likely at point of sale and/or the current method of "cross subsidising" (spreading it across the other 2.5million road vehicles) - in order to provide a context and relativity of user costs.


Hopefully I'll come out with a number lower than the ACC proposal, but I think this is the very first thing that we should have done; accountants don't much listen to principle when there's 7 figure budgets (and 6 figure salaries) at stake.


I only ask for info as I have more exams after this one and time isn't a luxury I can afford right now.... ACC cost stats and LTSA/MoT vehicle fleet and driver licensing information are totally necessary and I've seen them before linked in this forum....


Final report will be up here for all to see. I'll be sending it where possible with requests for a response, and posting it to the wiki.


As a final section, time allowing, I may also propose a few amendments to the land transport act with regards to driver training and licencing and the ACC levy model ..... probably a waste of time but I've had several good ideas that I've floated for a while now and there's a few of them that are yet to receive a logical and/or reasonable rebuttal - my thinking it that if I'm coherent enough and well reasoned an MP (or the media) might actually do something about it.


of course, I'm assuming someone will actually read it...

[motorbyclist]

and please don't ruin this thread.

[MSTRS]

...
The biggest issue is that it'll all get lost in the sea of half-arsed, illogical and ill-thought replies that these poor MPs have been barraged with lately.....


and please don't ruin this thread.

You just did. Stats are one thing, sentiment (anger) is quite another. Dissing people who have an opinion is not gonna win you support.

[Ragingrob]

You just did. Stats are one thing, sentiment (anger) is quite another. Dissing people who have an opinion is not gonna win you support.

Stats seem to be very easily swayed by sentiment from what I've seen/heard some media/politicians quote :yes:

[NighthawkNZ]

Stats seem to be very easily swayed by sentiment from what I've seen/heard some media/politicians quote :yes:

The trick with Stats is you start with the figure you want and work your calculations to fit the figure

[Ixion]

That's how ACC work !

[motorbyclist]

You just did. Stats are one thing, sentiment (anger) is quite another. Dissing people who have an opinion is not gonna win you support.

my apologies - I didn't mean to offend, just to point out I'm being realistic (or cynical) in the likelyhood of anyone important even taking the time to read and then care about a several page report.


On that note, KB has entertained some seriously flawed reasoning on this issue lately - and I've always been a bit iffy about politicians receiving several thousand of the same email. It's no surprise that national is giving copy/paste replies.... there's just so much volume and much of it boils down to "I don't wanna pay more" without any sound justification despite the fact that the proposals are clearly unfair.

I've edited it to be a bit less snarky....

[MSTRS]

But not everyone has an understanding of how numbers work. They do, however, understand how someone else's numbers will impact on their pocket. They have a right to vent at those causing the angst. Their submissions are just as important as yours or mine is, with all the numbers 'analysed' from our perspective.

[motorbyclist]

But not everyone has an understanding of how numbers work. They do, however, understand how someone else's numbers will impact on their pocket. They have a right to vent at those causing the angst. Their submissions are just as important as yours or mine is, with all the numbers 'analysed' from our perspective.

very good point - I would bling ya but I seem to have exhausted my rep for the day already....

[ratfink]

Stats seem to be very easily swayed by sentiment from what I've seen/heard some media/politicians quote :yes:

Winston Churchill said there are three types of lies. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

[davereid]

10charsminimum

[MSTRS]

Last line, Section 5 needs to read 'a little more than'

[davereid]

Last line, Section 5 needs to read 'a little more than'

We both bad. You mean last line section 6 lol..

But I cant change it, KB wont let me re-up the file.

[MSTRS]

Doh! Read as one section per page...

[bogan]

We both bad. You mean last line section 6 lol..

But I cant change it, KB wont let me re-up the file.

go advanced edit post, manage attachments, and remove the original, then upload the new one in its place. From doing the flyer I know this process well!

[PhantasmNZ]

The missing part of the puzzle though - as Ixion was on the hunt for - is the raw and unaggregated data (and methodology) used by ACC to engineer their stats/lies/damn-lies.

It's all very well us trawling every data source we can find publically available - but few of these figures add up either. If ACC's figures are accurate, independently audited by PWC (not forgetting personally checked by the head honcho of ACC - ooooooh!) - then it should be straightforward for anyone to see the point their making.

In the end if the data is the data then we have to accept it. It might still not be fair (or what the ACC is supposed to be) and that's another issue - but currently, we have what looks like poorly engineered statistics that contradict each other to anyone with over an 8 or so year-olds grasp of maths

[StoneY]

Heres a screenshot of the Fleet Numbers in NZ as at 30 June 2009
I have asked NZTA directly for these 3 figures to be extracted and e-mailed to me

1: How many registered Private Motor vehicles are in New Zealand as at 31st October 2009
2: How many registered Motorcycles (or any class 6 classified vehicle) are registered in New Zealand as at 31st Oct 2009
3: How many Commercial light vehicles (eg not class 2 or above) are registered in New Zealand as at 31st October 2009


please look closely at the screenshot here fo NZTA stats
Note the registered ATV's
Lady on the phone before told me these class as a Motorcycle in the overall tally

Total REGISTRERED vehicles (including ATV and Mopeds) within the Motorcycle account at NZTA adds up to 134,973 as at 30 June 2009

Motorcycles specific, 101,457

Thats a shitload more than 12 million in ACC levys collected

[MacD]

It's going to be in a report format, assessing the actual claim costs of motorcycling and other means of transport, and their relative revenues.

From there I'll calculate the fair cost for us and other road users to be paying. This will be based on current costs we "owe" and the latest land transport/MoT data without accounting for future growth, UNLESS information is supplied to allow me to do that.

I'll make a few assumptions you guys won't like, like that we pay for all our costs irrespective of cause, but that will be applied to ALL road users... UNLESS I can find statistics to allow an accurate calculation of costs incurred to motorcyclists from car drivers etc. asfaik this information do not exist.


You do realise that this is effectively the analysis ACC has already undertaken? Personally I'm not of the opinion that the ACC figures are wildly inaccurate based on the assumptions they have made in producing them.

Our best argument is that the allocation of costs on this basis undermines the fundamental principles of ACC as a no-fault compensation scheme with the community sharing the costs of injuries in order to assure that all members of the community receive adequate care. Applying the strict rules of insurance-based risk and cost assessment will result in the the type of outcome we already have seen from ACC. The figures for injury liability insurance for motorcycles in Australia are about comparable with the ACC proposals.

[Jantar]

... Personally I'm not of the opinion that the ACC figures are wildly inaccurate based on the assumptions they have made in producing them......
Possibly. But we already know that those assumptions are incorrect.

[motorbyclist]

Possibly. But we already know that those assumptions are incorrect.

well hopefully I'll be able to verify that...

cheers for the data guys - here's hoping that public organisations keep their figures/data readily available to the public online

[motorbyclist]

10charsminimum

that pdf there you posted basically sums up a lot of what I've set out to do - why haven't I heard that conclusion brandied about yet?! $82 per vehicle (per year I assume) sounds almost too good to be true!

Of course I'll be checking all of that, just in case :)


I've reattached it for those that didn't read it....

[motorbyclist]

Progress report: still going through the ACC financial statements - in 2008 alone they lost $429 million on the motor account.

All up, 2008 saw a loss of $2.4 billion, rather than the budgeted loss of $0.6 billion

From what I can tell, the guys who made the 2008 budget totally got it wrong - future costs of claims went up while investments lost us $1.6million rather than earning $766million, probably thanks to the recession etc etc


interesting that this isn't mentioned in the "ACC at a glance" part at the start of the 2008 annual report.... but sure enough the 2009 statement of intent opens by saying they're screwed....

*makes coffee*

[motorbyclist]

right, maybe this shoudl have been conveyed by the media/Smith before announcing the new levies:

If the recent trends continue, the Scheme may well become non-viable in the long-term future.
At the very least, significant increases in levies will be required to fund the increases in costs and
liability.



Based on the most recent valuation, at 31 March 2009, the projected liability as at 30 June 2009
is estimated to be $21.2 billion inclusive of risk margins.


and the act requires the bills from pre-1999 to be paid by 2014. Without a payout from the currently national govt I'd say they're pretty clearly stuffed... I do wonder what things look like today though, rather than the forecast from the start of the year...

[Danae]

Nice work...:)

[jeffs]

This was the tail part of my submission. ( not the whole thing ).

One possible reason for ACC only collecting $12m is there are a shit load of bikes only doing 3 and 6 month rego's.

So as part of my submission I asked the question.

------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.

Can ACC please clarify two statements on your web site.

http://www.acc.co.nz/news/PRD_CTRB118214

1) "In 2008/09 ACC paid more than $62 million for motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies from them."

According to the MOT statistics there are Approx 100,000 registered motorbikes over 50cc in New Zealand.
The ACC levy for motorbikes over 50cc is $252.69.

This should have meant you collected $25M. Why did you collect only $12M ?

2) "Even with the significant proposed increases in the rates payable by motorcycle and moped drivers to redress this imbalance, car drivers will still continue to subsidise motorcycle and moped drivers by $77 a year for the 2010/2011 year."

According to the MOT statistics there are Approx 2.4M registered cars ( not including light vans ).

At your stated $77 subsidy, this would equate to $184M, but your pay out in claims was only $62M. Are you saying by next year 2010/2011 you are projecting an increase in claims of 300% ?

Where is the money going, non of these figures make sense ?

You are claiming that these rates of subsidies would continue even after increasing the levy on bike by up to 300%.

Again where is the money going ?

It does not seem to be paying for claims, as you already claim that cars are paying 300% of the total cost.


Please explain.

[motorbyclist]

righto, I've gotten started on the 2009 annual report and the entire opening basically says they're totally fucked. lovely.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/index.htm?ssUserText=2009+annual+report

read it.

[jeffs]

no your not fucked until the fat lady sings.

Two lines of though about submissions.

1. Only put in a submissions if you think you have a valid point that should be considered.

2. Every person put in a submission, no matter how emotive the reason you think ACC should not increase levies.

Both of these options are valid, because if you faff around and do not put in anything, you achieved nothing. ACC will see no ( or few ) submission as an acceptance of their increase.


" The increases are not fare, I have 3 bikes and its going to cost me over $2400 in rego's and I can only ride one at a time" Is a perfectly valid reason to complain.

Get you submissions in !!!!! and in the next 5 days.

It's about money not accidents, let no one fool you.

If it was about accidents, they would be collecting money to educate people to reduce the accident rates, not just collecting money to pay for claims.

[motorbyclist]

It does not seem to be paying for claims, as you already claim that cars are paying 300% of the total cost.

Please explain.

yep those numbers make zero sense, and I'm not up to that yet, but:

read the into of the 2009 report.

What is increasingly evident to me is that while they can pay for current claims, they can't pay for the increase in the future costs of the claims.

the growing future costs of claims, to paraphrase Nick Smith, is a result of ACC becoming a welfare provider and falling rehabilitation rates, much more than any effects the recession has had.

[motorbyclist]

Both of these options are valid, because if you faff around and do not put in anything, you achieved nothing. ACC will see no ( or few ) submission as an acceptance of their increase.

very true, as I've also come to understand.

[jeffs]

To be honest there is no point in debating their claims of future costs ( its a guesstimate ). The numbers they have provided and public statements they have made, almost seem to be deliberately misleading in an attempt to confuse and divide their opposition.

You must look at the data you have, and make you own decisions about how to write you submissions, but don't be disheartened when you get to the end of your reading and you are still scratching your head ( you are not the only one )

Over the last 2 weeks, I have read nearly every report, gone through every web site and tried every method to crunched the numbers. and frankly non of it makes any sense.

Welcome to statistics

[motorbyclist]

SO, who's actually looked at ACC's financial documents? since at least 2007 the Motor Account budgeted to make a profit. 2007/08 saw a loss of $430 million and 2008/09 lost $1.5 billion, predominantly due to increase in costs.

In fact, all their accounts are performing under budget.


The overall change in ACC net position over 2008/09 was $4.6 billion (56.6%) worse than the budgeted loss.

yet somehow they've forecast a profit for this 1009/10 period exceeding their budget. wtf.

[motorbyclist]

Oh, and who actually read the proposal document? they did account for car divers causing half of our accidents

[Squiggles]

Oh, and who actually read the proposal document? they did account for car divers causing half of our accidents

Briefly, again without backing, and they then didn't follow through the calculations until the end. Read the whole thing...
They've also said how they matched some of it up since then, they tried to match their claims with the cas database and "matched" about half of them... what they did with the matched data they're so far keeping secret :mellow:

How about you just turn up to the chiller early tomorrow? :laugh:

[Ixion]

SO, who's actually looked at ACC's financial documents? since at least 2007 the Motor Account budgeted to make a profit. 2007/08 saw a loss of $430 million and 2008/09 lost $1.5 billion, predominantly due to increase in costs.

In fact, all their accounts are performing under budget.


The overall change in ACC net position over 2008/09 was $4.6 billion (56.6%) worse than the budgeted loss.

yet somehow they've forecast a profit for this 1009/10 period exceeding their budget. wtf.

So. Most businesses that rely for a significant part of their income on investment values have reported huge losses. Its caused by this recession thing.

Remember, ACC don't work like you or I. We put money in the bank and regard the interest as income.

They put money in the sharemarkets (huge amount of money) and then, if the shares go up, they count the increase as income (even though they haven't sold the shares). Then of course next year the shares go down and they have to report a loss.

But in fact they never made either a profit or loss

Say I put 10 billion dollars in the share market. It's a bull market (as it was untilt he crash). At the end of the year my 10 Bn is VALUED at 15 Bn dollars.

So I report a 5 Bn dollar profit collect a big bonus. I don't sell the shares of course just sit tight and wait for them to go up another 5 next year.

But next year , things go bad. Sub prime and all that shit. The price of the shares I've invested in goes down . Heavily. To 12 Bn dollars. So I have to report a 3 Bn dollar loss.

But - I still have exactly those same shares. And even now they are worth 2 Bn more than I paid for them. Am I really in the shit?

Look at the cash flow. That's the real measure of the viability of a business. Money in, money out.

EDIT : And note taht this scenario is only possible since they went to full funding. before that they didn't have billions of dollars lying around to speculate with. I suspect taht many of the senior managers at ACC don't actually understand investment banking .

It is also fair to note that ACC managed their investment portfolio a lot better than most large investment companies.

[motorbyclist]

Briefly, again without backing, and they then didn't follow through the calculations until the end. Read the whole thing...
They've also said how they matched some of it up since then, they tried to match their claims with the cas database and "matched" about half of them... what they did with the matched data they're so far keeping secret :mellow:

How about you just turn up to the chiller early tomorrow? :laugh:

I did read the whole thing, and i'm still looking for the data behind their relativity claims.


So. Most businesses that rely for a significant part of their income on investment values have reported huge losses. Its caused by this recession thing.


According to Motor account, most of the money lost was due to a several times increase in costs for ongoing claims - the recession hit to their investments was only minor and they didn't do too badly.

take 2008/09 for example - "increase in outstanding claims liability" was $1.7bn

that's how much the future costs of claims moved, due to a number of reasons outlined throughout all their reports.

investment wise they're doing pretty well.

Either way that's irrelevant as any levy I work out will have to total the budgeted amount anyway.

[Ixion]

According to Motor account, most of the money lost was due to a several times increase in costs for ongoing claims - the recession hit to their investments was only minor and they didn't do too badly.

..

Yes, bu tremeber they now use a fully funded model. SO the "cost" of claims isn't the money they paid out. It's the cost of the money they transfer to reserves to cover future costs.

And that cost went up because of the recession

If Biker Bill crashes this year , ACC may reckon (ie guess) that , he's going to be still on ERC in 10 years time , and probably need two or three operatsions (poor bugger, eh) . The estimate (ie guess) that the cost of this in 2009 dollars is $500000 ie 10 * the ERC he gets now, plus the cost of those operations if he had them now.

But, they say, we are not paying this money out now. We will be paying most of it out several years hence. And by then inflation will mean things will be dearer . We will have to pay Biker Bill more ERC each year. And those operations will cost more in 2015 than they would today.

So, they try to guess what the inflation rate will be in the future. Prior to the crash they were assuming a lowish rate . Now thay are assuming a much higher rate (John judge is quite open about this in the preamble).

If they assume say 10% that means that the actual cost will be something like 750000 (not right but about that I can't be arsed with working it out exactly).

So they have to squirrel away 750000 not 500000.

Before the crash they might have assumed 2% . That would only have "cost" them 550000. So Biker Bills claim has gone up by 200000. Almost overnight!

Then they say "well we don't actually need QUITE that much up front, because what we do squirrel away will be earning some interest while Biker Bill is waiting to claim it. So that will help"..


Now, before the crash they were getting something like 10 or 12 % interest. Now they'll be assuming maybe 2%. So that puts the costs up again.

But of course the actual cost is exactly what it was before. They've just juggled the numbers.

And this year they are juggling them to make ACC look as bad and as broke s possible. So that whoever buys it gets it real cheap. Its the NZ Railways sell off all over again. Some crony of the National party will make billions out of this.

Look at the cash flow. That's the only reliable measure.

[Jantar]

righto, I've gotten started on the 2009 annual report and the entire opening basically says they're totally fucked. lovely.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/index.htm?ssUserText=2009+annual+report

read it.

Not true

ACC’s motor vehicle account data shows that in the 2007 – 2008 year a total of $341m was paid out, and had a nett levy revenue of $634m.

This doesn't look like "fucked" to me. What is does mean is that they are moving towards fully funded, just not as fast as they would like. Surely if they are already taking in almost 200% of what they are paying out then they are doing bloody well?

[NighthawkNZ]

Flat fee on W.O.F's (say $5 or $10) on all warrantable vehicles and trailers. i.e; 4,125,932 vehicles 4,125,932 x $5 = $20,629,660 or $41,259,320 if it was $10.

An ACC Levy on all traffic infringements. (except car parking) I have no idea how much that would generate. But since they are breaking the law on the road then a higher ACC levy should be added as it possible they could cause an accident. Including drunk driving speeding and not wearing seat belt. (It is no different asking the crims to pay a $50 levy which you are not going to get, but speeding ticket with a levy on it a better chance it is going to be paid. However the principle is the same.)

We could put flat fee ACC levy on all vehicles bought including boats, trailers and caravans, including farm machinery. Even if it is only $50. This levy can be put on the changing of ownership papers.

Between that and the fuel levy, you would make more than the $634m mainly from the traffic infringments and you could just about droup the rego levy

[bogan]

I did read the whole thing, and i'm still looking for the data behind their relativity claims.

same here, the claims frequency sounds about right, we got between 3-5x using the MOT data (3x crashes, 5x fatalities, from memory). And they have taken the rider fault into account, though it doesnt look like they have analysed the cost difference between rider fault accidents, and non rider fault ones.

The bit that I cannot understand is the cost per claim, I have no idea where that could have come from, if we substitute the relative costing (80%) someone on here calculated from the MOT data, we get:

0-150cc: 132.24%
150-600cc: 205.55%
600+cc: 153.58%

Now we couldnt calculate the relative costs for each cc rating because there is no data available for it, be interesting to see how acc did that as its not recorded in most cases.

So it is probably more fair to take an average of all three and use that, 164% (probly plus/minus 15% as we dont know cc distribution).

Applying this relative to the current car levy ($136.44 from rego i have lying around) we get $223, funny that, we pay slightly more than that as it is.

Now something I shall do, which the gubbermint/acc have not, is put this calculated value up against last years claims cost. Approximately 100k registered bikes shall generated $22.3 million, to pay the claimed $62million needed, $36million of that attributed to rider fault. So with those calculation we pay 62% of what is needed. But how are they calculating the required funds, it is my understanding that the $62million is needed for 5 years only until the system is fully funded, I wonder how much would be required if they were not moving towards a future funded scheme.

As always, hope Ive made sense and not cocked up the maths

[bogan]

and another thing, ACC has the raw claims data, how hard is it to total add the claim cost (projected itd have to be i spose), and count the number of accidents for each cc group. Sounds easier and more reliable than doing multi step calculations... You want an average, use Sum/Count, pretty sure that was taught in primary school.

[Ixion]

Now we couldnt calculate the relative costs for each cc rating because there is no data available for it, be interesting to see how acc did that as its not recorded in most cases.

So it is probably more fair to take an average of all three and use that, 164% (probly plus/minus 15% as we dont know cc distribution).


They just used the ones they had. About one quarte rof the total. And assumed the rest followed the same pattern.

Ignoring the fact that the crashes that end up in the police computer are always going to be the bad nasty ones.


They use 150%. But base it on the worst (most expensive) quarter of crashes (as above)

[motorbyclist]

And this year they are juggling them to make ACC look as bad and as broke s possible. So that whoever buys it gets it real cheap. Its the NZ Railways sell off all over again. Some crony of the National party will make billions out of this.


yes entirely possible... the proposal (and media) seem to give entire focus to motorcycles and nothing to the car increase - although to be fair a car driver isn't going to get anywhere near the same sting in the wallet as their levy is mostly petrol.

although I did unearth a rather handy source..... link (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=37241&dDocName=PRD_CTRB118230&allowInterrupt=1)

it appears to be the document that the proposal document is based on.

How much have costs been rising?
The table below provides some examples of cost increases over the last five years.

Physiotherapy $71 m 97%
Elective surgery $112 m 87%
X-rays/MRI/CT scans $53 m 120%
Counselling $4 m 25%
Public hospital costs $91 m 31%
Personal support $126 m 79%
Income replacement $311 m 47%
Hearing loss assessment and aids and appliances $17 m 37%
Suicides & self-inflicted $12 m 590%

[motorbyclist]

Not true

ACC’s motor vehicle account data shows that in the 2007 – 2008 year a total of $341m was paid out, and had a nett levy revenue of $634m.

This doesn't look like "fucked" to me. What is does mean is that they are moving towards fully funded, just not as fast as they would like. Surely if they are already taking in almost 200% of what they are paying out then they are doing bloody well?

the problem is, as Ixion said it, that those $341m in claims have another $500m in long term costs that ACC has to squirrel away.

And as ACC says, the inflation of medical costs is causing them to re-evalutate that $500m to $750m.

and then on top we have to squirrel away enough funds to cover all long term claims from a decade ago, within 5 years time - and those long term costs just went from $500m to $750m also.

suddenly the motor account loses $1500m in just one year (2008/09)

and according to ACC, while economic factors were at play, things like increased nurse and doctor wages had a far greater effect.

[motorbyclist]

The bit that I cannot understand is the cost per claim, I have no idea where that could have come from, if we substitute the relative costing (80%) someone on here calculated from the MOT data, we get:

0-150cc: 132.24%
150-600cc: 205.55%
600+cc: 153.58%


I calculated it three ways, but the pure MoT way wasn't too good, and the other two are the ACC way:

go here (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020) and extract a few numbers.

if we take the new claims and/or costs things look worse, so use the total cost of claims and total number of claims for passengers and motorcyclists. Now take the numbers of registered bikes and cars from the proposal pg34.

if we divide total cost by bikes and compare to total cost by cars, then multiply by 58% "at fault factor", we get a relativity of 522% to share amongst our capacities.
($62523000/85902bikes)/($208305000/2575165cars)*0.58 = 522%

yes, i do realise the ACC count of bikes is lower than MoT, because MoT includes bikes under exemption or some other such excuse.

if we divide total claims by bikes, total costs by claims, multiply them together to get cost per bike, do the same with cars, see how many times bikes cost more than cars, and then multiply by 58% as per the proposal, we get 522%. this to me shows they aren't too bright at maths doing it such a redundant way - or it hints they use different numbers somehow...

now if we use the MoT fleet data excel spreadsheet, we can extract:
0-125cc = 32% of fleet
125-600 = 25% of fleet
600-up = 44% of fleet

if we multiply these by ACC's corresponding relativities and sum the products, we get...
(32*241)+(25*481)+(708*44) = 509%


Is it possible that ACC has applied relativity on a perceived accident rate that is purely a reflection of the motorcycle capacity demographic? As I said earlier, considering that the MoT has not recorded capacity in as much as 15% of accidents while 125 to 600cc bikes make up only 25% of the fleet one would expect some considerable uncertainty in any statistic. Unfortunately the data in the motorcycle fact sheet uses different capacities to ACC, but the graph they did show (percentage of accidents by capacity) did not account for the uneven spread of capacity in the fleet. If ACC has fallen for this error and/or cannot produce statistically significant evidence for the chosen capacities, the proposal to split motorcycles by capacity should be dropped immediately.
I also think it would be wise for ACC to front up with the full working for that problem, with all the relevant data shown, rather than blast out more of what many see as propaganda. Especially troubling is ACC’s claim (excuse the pun) that motorcyclists are 16 times as likely to make an ACC claim than other road users – would that not put the claim per motorcycle relativity somewhere near 1600%?

[The Stranger]

But, they say, we are not paying this money out now. We will be paying most of it out several years hence. And by then inflation will mean things will be dearer . We will have to pay Biker Bill more ERC each year. And those operations will cost more in 2015 than they would today.

So, they try to guess what the inflation rate will be in the future. Prior to the crash they were assuming a lowish rate . Now thay are assuming a much higher rate (John judge is quite open about this in the preamble).

If they assume say 10% that means that the actual cost will be something like 750000 (not right but about that I can't be arsed with working it out exactly).

So they have to squirrel away 750000 not 500000.

Before the crash they might have assumed 2% . That would only have "cost" them 550000. So Biker Bills claim has gone up by 200000. Almost overnight!



Is ERC inflation adjusted?
I can see where that would be necessary for some but I can also see where adjusting for inflation could well be a disincentive for others to return to work.
I knew a guy who had been off work for over 5yrs with a bad back. He was as fit as I, did all the stuff we did, except go to work.

[The Stranger]

They just used the ones they had. About one quarte rof the total. And assumed the rest followed the same pattern.


Perhaps one reason it was only a quarter was because there is no registration to check against for off road accidents?

[motorbyclist]

I don't like my conclusions - even if I argue against relativity I end up paying more as I ride a 400, so my levy is actually lower than it would be if I pay the 150% we always have been to compensate for risk and petrol.

Either I'm very confused or we're genuinely screwed.

draft attached, probably send it off tonight.

[bogan]

I calculated it three ways, but the pure MoT way wasn't too good, and the other two are the ACC way:

go here (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020) and extract a few numbers.

if we take the new claims and/or costs things look worse, so use the total cost of claims and total number of claims for passengers and motorcyclists. Now take the numbers of registered bikes and cars from the proposal pg34.

if we divide total cost by bikes and compare to total cost by cars, then multiply by 58% "at fault factor", we get a relativity of 522% to share amongst our capacities.
($62523000/85902bikes)/($208305000/2575165cars)*0.58 = 522%

yes, i do realise the ACC count of bikes is lower than MoT, because MoT includes bikes under exemption or some other such excuse.

if we divide total claims by bikes, total costs by claims, multiply them together to get cost per bike, do the same with cars, see how many times bikes cost more than cars, and then multiply by 58% as per the proposal, we get 522%. this to me shows they aren't too bright at maths doing it such a redundant way - or it hints they use different numbers somehow...

now if we use the MoT fleet data excel spreadsheet, we can extract:
0-125cc = 32% of fleet
125-600 = 25% of fleet
600-up = 44% of fleet

if we multiply these by ACC's corresponding relativities and sum the products, we get...
(32*241)+(25*481)+(708*44) = 509%

hmm, stats! I can fault the logic here, but it seems a roundabout way of doing it (my analysis must have been too). The initial relativity uses a bikeer cost of $727 (before no rider fault is taken into account) and a car cost of $81, propgating that through gives a relative of 509% but this will be applied to a car cost of $160 (current rego+$33 increase), not $81, almost doubling the bikes cost.

The Relative % way you get $814.40
The basic sum/count (*fault) way you get $421

And this is all using the 62mil, which (I think) is used to fund the future scheme, would be good to know what percentage of the 62m the future part is. Then we cud say heres what we would pay under the old scheme (the True cost) and heres what we would pay for a few years under the new scheme.

[Jantar]

.... would be good to know what percentage of the 62m the future part is. Then we cud say heres what we would pay under the old scheme (the True cost) and heres what we would pay for a few years under the new scheme.
The $62 m is the cost under the pay as you go way. That is the actual amount paid out for all motorcycle claims that were active in 2008. It is made up of 1336 new claims that year, and 1837 claims relating to previous years giving a total of 3173 active claims.

A fully funded scheme would rerquire this same amount plus the rate of inflation for one year only. The extra money would be invested and would earn an income aproximately equal to future inflation. By asking that the total inflation adjusted amount be paid up front ACC are effectively saying that their investments will earn nothing in the future.

[bogan]

The $62 m is the cost under the pay as you go way. That is the actual amount paid out for all motorcycle claims that were active in 2008. It is made up of 1336 new claims that year, and 1837 claims relating to previous years giving a total of 3173 active claims.

A fully funded scheme would rerquire this same amount plus the rate of inflation for one year only. The extra money would be invested and would earn an income aproximately equal to future inflation. By asking that the total inflation adjusted amount be paid up front ACC are effectively saying that their investments will earn nothing in the future.

arent they trying to accumulate all the funds needed for the life of the claim from the year of that accident though? meaning they have to put heaps of money in their coffers, which Im assuming comes from us, or is that in the 62mil as well?

EDIT: PZKPFW explains it pretty good here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129499187&postcount=136)

[MSTRS]

The $62 m is the cost under the pay as you go way. That is the actual amount paid out for all motorcycle claims that were active in 2008. It is made up of 1336 new claims that year, and 1837 claims relating to previous years giving a total of 3173 active claims.


This $62M is an interesting figure. It consists of $24M NEW claims and $38M OLD ACTIVE claims...
BUT...actually...BUT it does not itemise the years these claims started in. And levies paid from 1999 covered future payments too.
So. $38M is in fact a red herring, because we don't know what % of it covers unfunded pre-1999 active claims.

[Jantar]

This $62M is an interesting figure. It consists of $24M NEW claims and $38M OLD ACTIVE claims...
BUT...actually...BUT it does not itemise the years these claims started in. And levies paid from 1999 covered future payments too.
So. $38M is in fact a red herring, because we don't know what % of it covers unfunded pre-1999 active claims.
Exactly. That is why $62m plus inflation is a good figure to forward on. it covers the current years claims plus an inflation adjusted allowance for all future claims relating to that year.

[MSTRS]

But, looking back, proportionately there were more accidents than there is now (forgetting the low numbers of bikes/claims in the mid-90s). The trend for accidents is downwards as a % of bikes on the road. Projecting forwards on that basis, any figure for yearly future claims for any year's accidents is very dangerous if using today's old claim figure of $38M. Is there a crack in their crystal ball?

[riffer]

But, looking back, proportionately there were more accidents than there is now (forgetting the low numbers of bikes/claims in the mid-90s). The trend for accidents is downwards as a % of bikes on the road. Projecting forwards on that basis, any figure for yearly future claims for any year's accidents is very dangerous if using today's old claim figure of $38M. Is there a crack in their crystal ball?

Maybe. But page 19 of the Annual Report under Injury Prevention Programmes states:


<img src=http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=150031&stc=1&d=1257476001>


so even they are stating they are seeing a decrease in claims.

[Ixion]

Perhaps one reason it was only a quarter was because there is no registration to check against for off road accidents?

or for many road accidents. The figures are basedon 415 caims out of 1336. There are another 29 that had a police amtch but the police had not recorded the cc. Of course those 415 are a selected subset. Only serious claims (normally) make it into the police CAS system.


This $62M is an interesting figure. It consists of $24M NEW claims and $38M OLD ACTIVE claims...
BUT...actually...BUT it does not itemise the years these claims started in. And levies paid from 1999 covered future payments too.
So. $38M is in fact a red herring, because we don't know what % of it covers unfunded pre-1999 active claims.

I MAY have those numbers on Wednesday.

[jeffs]

ACC have just sent a response to my submission's. Please find attached.

I have not had time to go through their response so I will let other look before I do.

Please ALL read and comment .

[Ixion]

Sorry, the letter is just waffle. Nothing there that is not in the docs on their website.

The second link is the pdf they tried to fob me off with initially.

And the third is "duh" stuff.

Edit. I bet others get back exactly the same letter. form response

[jeffs]

One number that does jump out is they say they are only collecting from a total of 62104 registered motorbike ( all classes ). This is some 50,000 short of the MOT figures. WHY ???

[Ixion]

balance will be mopeds. The 62104 is actually full year equivalents. A bike registered for 6 months of the year (as folk do) counts as 0.5.

[jeffs]

Ixion it does not matter one bit if the numbers are regurgitated crap. The issue is ACC believe what they are saying and are able to respond.

Remember they do not have to please us with their response, they just need to be able to justify it to them selfs that they are right, so they can ignore us and do it anyway. Right or wrong make no difference in politics.

[jeffs]

balance will be mopeds. The 62104 is actually full year equivalents. A bike registered for 6 months of the year (as folk do) counts as 0.5.

NO the document says 62104.This includes 0-125cc ie mopeds. It also says "number of licensed vehicles" It does not say equivalents based on part rego's. You are interpreting the number :)

[Ixion]

No. communication to me from Paul Gimblett at ACC



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.

[jeffs]

Ixion I am no longer interested in the money and submissions

I will have to think hard about being on any more rallies as well.

The game for me changed today.

This is out of my league. Its one thing fighting the ACC another fighting 2.4M car drivers.

Why you ask. Well read on.

This is the email I have just sent to keith mclea of the ACC.

=======================================

To Keith McLea

Up until now I had been following the legal fare processes of submitting my questions, and views to the consultation process, playing by the rules as I thought they were, but today things changed.

I thought I was arguing against what I see as unfair levy increases, but I now literally find myself possibly risking my life every day I ride my bike. A higher level of risk than I had yesterday.

ACC what have you done ?

Why am I so upset ?

Today I overheard a conversation between some people who must have read your advert or have been told about it
and it scared me.

Quote as I remember it.

"If ACC charge me more because of bikes, lets start knocking them off to get our moneys worth ."

"If I have to find more money because of bikes i'll stop feeling sorry for them when they get hit by cars."

Ill informed as the statements may be, ACC you have to accept some of the blame and responsibility for what you have started.
You have gone from a caregiver to inciting hate.

We are in a time of financial depression were people are finding it hard to make ends meat.
People need every last cent they earn, and you have gone to a National Paper and pointed a massive finger at a bikers and said
" When we make you pay more to drive your car, blame bikers!"

After hearing what I did today, this is nothing short of unwittingly staring up hatred. Yes I have chosen my words carefully.

The people I overheard were not low life's but looked to be professionals. I do not know if they were joking or not, but what will now happen when you do up the car levy, and the real anger starts amongst the 2.4m car driver

You have just painted a $77 death target on every bikes back

Thanks for nothing ACC and make me pay an extra $500 for the privilege.

[bogan]

exactly, this acc campaign isnt just about revenue, its about getting bikers off the roads. They create a divide between us and the biggest road user group, with the hopes they they will A) not support us in getting the increase scrapped and B) convince bikers not to ride, i doubt they want bikers to be run off the road, but it would surprise me if they cared.

[motorbyclist]

exactly, this acc campaign isnt just about revenue, its about getting bikers off the roads. .

yep - was just reading the ACCworks website and they have really hit the nailn on the head

[motorbyclist]

http://accworks.org.nz/facts

make your submissions! I have just finished my final version. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129505643&postcount=2)