ACC ad in Dominion Nov 5 (now with 100% more PDF)

[pzkpfw]

There was an ad in the Dominion this morning, from the ACC.

See post #4 of this thread.


Basically listing their claims (like the 16 x more likely to have an accident etc.).

They mentioned the submissions process - I wonder if they are trying to get some subs from drivers saying "yeah, go for it"?

Anyway, is it worth getting together some rebuttal for each of the points raised and submit a counter-advertisment?


(It's a quarter page, page A10. Wonder what it cost?)




It's Guy Fawkes day!

[FROSTY]

There was an ad in the Dominion this morning, from the ACC.

Basically listing their claims (like the 16 x more likely to have an accident etc.).

They mentioned the submissions process - I wonder if they are trying to get some subs from drivers saying "yeah, go for it"?

Anyway, is it worth getting together some rebuttal for each of the points raised and submit a counter-advertisment?

At lunch-time I'll get the ad details in here, if no-one beats me to it.

(It's a quarter page, page A10. Wonder what it cost?)




It's Guy Fawkes day!
Im sorry ol son this must be an oxymoron surely. They're broke so how can they possibly spend thousands on a paper advert?

[davereid]

Interestingly, the advert is full of the same old lies. Which actually shows they have no new ammo, and are resorting to "tell the lie over and over and over until people think its true."

[pzkpfw]

Here it is.

.

.

.

[yungatart]

Does this show that they are getting desperate?

I think they are definitely on the back foot, and know it!
Keep the pressure on folks!

[PrincessBandit]

Here it is.

"One way to reduce ACC fees will be to stop binning"

If only that were true. Somehow I think that even if every motorcyclist in NZ stayed completely accident free for a whole year, they would still stick with their claim that our "potential" for accidents remains their justification for bleeding us dry.

I just love the whip-up-a-anti-motorcyclist style of their propaganda. This just proves we have to work hard at ensuring that non-riding Joe Public sees that we aren't all hoons who deserve what the ACC are trying to do to us. If that ad is not a blatant attempt to get the motoring public on their side against us I don't know what is.

[vifferman]

It was also in The Harold this morning.
I'm glad they cleared things up for us - I'm not worried about the ACC increase any more.

[Big Dave]

List each statement and then our/your argument refute it.

[EgliHonda]

Actually that does appear to smack of desperation...

[DidJit]

The phrase ‘grasping at straws’ comes to mind...
Still, it has very selective copy and is written in an authorititave tone — non-thinking non-questioning Joe Public would swallow that. We have to keep up our efforts at informing the public of National/ACC's misinformation campaign.

[EgliHonda]

List each statement and then our/your argument refute it.

What he said... drafting it out now.

Particularly like this one, doesn't it just reinforce the theory of licencing riders rather than machines...?

[bogan]

Still much the same pack of BS, at least they have left the $77 cross subsidy in there, cos the intelligence needed to see through that is about year 7.

Still, I had hoped once the satistical errors were brought to thier attention they would have a rethink, guess they probably werent errors in the first place though<_< sigh, I had expected better from the leaders of a fucking country.

[Azi Dahaka]

this is just wrong on so many levels. but as it has been said same old lies, same old crap and several thousand dolars to post an add which they could be using on claims.

[davereid]

Whos knows anything about advertising ?

Arent adverts that make incorrect or unsubstantiated claims illegal ?

[Big Dave]

It's good - ammunition.

Why are motorcyclists being singled out:

So that a precedent for massive levy hikes is established. These Draconian measures can then be imposed at on other groups in the community at will. The answer ACC gives to this question is a clear message they will be targeting any group. Don't let them use motorcyclists to open the floodgates. YOU could be next.
It is in contravention of the Woodhouse principles upon which ACC is based and is a violation of basic Civil Rights.

Why are motorcyclist being asked to pay more.

Because ACC have decided to ignore the Woodhouse Principles and have adopted a policy of discrimination. There are many activities and pastimes in the community that cost taxpayers much more than motorcyclists - but these groups are NOT being subjected to huge levy increases.

Gotta do some work. More to come - or if someone has better.

[sunhuntin]

(It's a quarter page, page A10. Wonder what it cost?)
!

i looked at putting a quarter page ad in the local free evening rag. $150 for a black and white, and $500 for a full page black and white. prices did not include gst. i would imagine the dom would be a shit load dearer.

[Big Dave]

Whos knows anything about advertising ?

Arent adverts that make incorrect or unsubstantiated claims illegal ?

http://www.asa.co.nz

[scissorhands]

Whos knows anything about advertising ?

Arent adverts that make incorrect or unsubstantiated claims illegal ?

2+2=5 everyone knows that dont they

terrorists are out to get you

school and TV dont program young minds, they are educational

[Ocean1]

Since when did ACC become a loby group?

And where do we go for our share of the advertising budget? Oh yeah, it comes out of next years levy...

Seriously, they're a public service, where do they get off using an educational budget for political marketing?

[bogan]

http://www.asa.co.nz

cheers for that,

Advertising Code of Ethics:

Basic Principal #3

No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer.

Rules #2

Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading).

I shall begin to lodge a complaint on this basis

[ManDownUnder]

It'd be nice to have a counter ad....

Include all the content of this one, with a short, punchy corrective rebuttal

i.e.
Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
They're not, ACC's proposed levies are going up for a number of groups, not just for motorcyclists
Actually they are, along with a select few other groups. ACC is a no fault system so individual groups shouldn't be identified at all. If it's not a no fault system, where are the levies on rugby players, hang gliders, and horse riders

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies they paid weren't enough etc
[insert quick stats here - amount paid vs amount claimed - and sources]

...etc...

[retro asian]

I guess this shows they've been listening to us/reading submissions then...



But they need to be taken to court for pulling this kind of propaganda!
:2guns::2guns: Where are the lawyers at?

It makes me angry, because many people think that if something's in a paper (or on the news) it must be true.

[Mully]

i looked at putting a quarter page ad in the local free evening rag. $150 for a black and white, and $500 for a full page black and white. prices did not include gst. i would imagine the dom would be a shit load dearer.

Something in the vicinity of $3K - depending on which section and what day you want to run it.



I shall begin to lodge a complaint on this basis

You may want to drop the Dom Post (and anyone else running it) a line to that effect. Not threatening just "I saw this propoganda and am laying a complaint with the ASA for misleading advertising" - letter to the editor sort of thing.

That'll get their attention.

[Pixie]

What page was it on-I don't get the Dom.
I'm going to make a complaint to the ASA on the basis of the $77 bullshit..I suggest others do the same

[Azi Dahaka]

i spoke to our comms advisor about how much the two papers would have cost and he said about 2.5k for the dom and 5.5k for the herald.

and he then said when that acc makes sense.

I replied that it is all lies.

he replied that if this is so do you have a rebuttal if you can get me that by the end of the day he would show me how to get that information published without spending a penny

IMPORTANT CAN I ASK THE PEOPLE HERE TO COLLATE A REBUTTAL FOR EACH POINT THAT I CAN GIVE TO OUR COMMS ADVISOR

[bogan]

You may want to drop the Dom Post (and anyone else running it) a line to that effect. Not threatening just "I saw this propoganda and am laying a complaint with the ASA for misleading advertising" - letter to the editor sort of thing.

That'll get their attention.

done and done, just sent it to dom posts advertising department, I assume they'll forward it to the appropriate person. Will keep you informed of any progress.

[davereid]

he replied that if this is so do you have a rebuttal if you can get me that by the end of the day he would show me how to get that information published without spending a penny

I ahve already put some data together http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=149613&d=1257213087

Hope it helps.

[NighthawkNZ]

So they waste even more money trying to defend the misguided stats and levy hike...

what a load of shit, the sooner ACC goes back to its true orgins the better, as a full community funded (no matter what exercise you do) no longer have the seperate accounts that try to be self funded...

There are better ways of raising the money...
levy on all traffic fines for a start... how many millions would that raise. Probably more than the whole road claims combined.

[Mully]

Just thinking about it, the ASA will take FAR too long to do anything about this.

I suggest everybody e-mails the Dom Post about ACC's misleading statements and asking them to run a rebuttal from BRONZ for free.

[Mystic13]

If you're going to reply or write in can you post the facts up so others can either copy and or double check them as well. The $77 figure from ACC is covered within their written information so will be easy to refute.

I'll be sending a letter to the editor and also to ASA.

Thanks.

[MSTRS]

I've sent my complaint to the ASA. Off to send same to the Dom and Herald.

I have sent a complaint to ASA regarding the ad run in your paper 5.11.09 by ACC. I felt it only fair to let you know, and I include the body of that complaint for your info.

ACC has used a considerable amount of 'public' money to place an ad in the major dailies in an attempt to use propaganda on the reading public in order to justify their proposed huge levy hikes on motorcycle registrations.It refers to a 'cross-subsidy from car regos of $77' that has been proven wrong. It contains statistical claims that have been proven wrong. It attempts to draw parallels with vehicle insurance and uses that term, when their founding principle is that they 'compensate' in cases of personal injury. There is a direct lie in reference to m/c claims 'on public roads', when the claim form often (up to 80% of the time) only states accident 'was on a m/c' and not the location. And the last point in their ad attempts to portray motorcycles as somehow being different than cars when it comes to people owning more than one.
My biggest problem with this ad is the fact that there has been a lot of publicity around the issue of levy rises on m/cs, most of it being negative towards those rises and this ad is a thinly veiled attempt to sway public opinion in favour of ACC (and to court submissions based on that) by depicting motorcyclists as somehow deserving of being singled out of the general motoring public.

[Pixie]

My complaint to the ASA:

The advertisement is blatant false advertising.
The assertion that Motorcyclists will still require $77 cross subsidy from other vehicle registrations is obviously false.
Simple arithmetic shows that If each of the 2,584,509 registered light vehicles in New Zealand paid $77 the total amount collected by ACC in levy increases alone would equal $199,007,193 ($77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193) which means car and van drivers will be paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists.

This is presenting the public with false information



http://www.asa.co.nz/complaint_form.php

[Deano]

Which would be the best TV channel to give the heads up about the ACC ad and our complaints to the asa ?

[Pixie]

Just thinking about it, the ASA will take FAR too long to do anything about this.

I suggest everybody e-mails the Dom Post about ACC's misleading statements and asking them to run a rebuttal from BRONZ for free.

The idea is to attack ACC on all fronts.
ASA will let them know of the complaints- it may make them think twice about posting more ads.
I'm now going to ask my MP (Jonkey) to ask a question in the house about ACC spending money on anti-motorcycle advertising in the newspapers

My Email to my MP:

Dear Prime Minister

I am an elector in the Helensville Electorate.
This morning in the Dominion newspaper the Accident Compensation Corporation publish an anti-motocyclist advertisement containing obvious falsities.

I ask that you question the Minister of ACC if it is within the Obligations of Minister to allow an organisation that falls within his portfolio to place advertisments with such blatant misinformation.


I draw attention to section 2 under PURPOSE. and section 5 under PRESENTATION in the MP's handbook.

These rules govern both an MP and also heads of Govt Depts.

There is a ruling to state that the ONUS falls on the Minister to ensure that statements are true, factual and not misleading.


I have attached the advertisement from the Dominion.


The following is the content of my complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority:


"The advertisement is blatant false advertising.
The assertion that Motorcyclists will still require $77 cross subsidy from other vehicle registrations is obviously false.
Simple arithmetic shows that If each of the 2,584,509 registered light vehicles in New Zealand paid $77 the total amount collected by ACC in levy increases alone would equal $199,007,193 ($77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193) which means car and van drivers will be paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists.

This is presenting the public with false information"



Yours sincerely

[Dafe]

The biker's would be better off pooling some funding together and hiring the best legal representation available. Sue for court costs at the same time, that would pay for a victory BBQ in the main centres.

[wingrider]

I attach comments from a previous post.

Obligations of an MP.

I sought info from the beehive and was reffered to the handbook for MP's setting out their obligations. Statements or publications made available to the public come under the advertising section.

I attach the extract for you to read.

In particular I draw attention to section 2 under PURPOSE. and section 5 under PRESENTATION.

These rules govern both an MP and also heads of Govt Depts.

There is a ruling to state that the ONUS falls on the Minister to ensure that statements are true, factual and not misleading.

Any member can ask a written question of the speaker to have a ruling made on the validity of any statement made either in the house or outside of the house.
The speaker is obligated to act without bias and if he finds that the statements are not factual or are misleading can have the member appear before the priverlages committee.

Whilst a member may be covered by privelage within the house, if the same false statements are made outside he can face litigation. The committee can also rule against a head of department.

I hope this info may be of use to those that are helping us with this.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=148845&d=1256701400

These rules apply when public funds are used to advertise.
They are binding on both the minister and heads of department.

[The Pastor]

sent my complaint to the asa

[Mystic13]

Can one of you talented folks take the PDF and re-post it in jpeg form. I'm sorry I don't have the skill or programs (probably both) to do it.

I want to post it up on facebook with a rebuttal.

Cheers and thanks.

[jeffs]

you want facts for a rebuke.

Fact 1. According to the Ministry Of Transport statistics there are Approx 2.4M registered cars. ( FACT )

ACC's stated cross-subsidies to cars of $77 even after the levy increases would equate to $184M (FACT ). The ACC pay out in claims for motorbike accidents last year was only $62M (FACT ). ACC will be collecting 3 time the money they are paying out (FACT ).

Where is the money really going ?

I think you need to ask the ACC who funded these adverts.

Whoever organized for Phil Goff to be at the Auckland rally should contact Phil Goff and have the question asked in parliament. This will get you extra free advertising debunking the ACC claims.

Also get him to ask why they are placing such ads before the submission process is complete, because until this is done ACC do not have a balanced view ( the reason for the submission process ).

[pzkpfw]

Can one of you talented folks take the PDF and re-post it in jpeg form. I'm sorry I don't have the skill or programs (probably both) to do it.

I want to post it up on facebook with a rebuttal.

Cheers and thanks.

Your wish...


(A bit compressed, sorry.)

[MSTRS]

here ya go

[StoneY]

Tis ad was the last straw for my workmates (who were LARGELY anti-biker cyclyst crowd 3 weeks ago)

The 3 guys in my office who all supported the Levy hike against us as righteous and truly deserved, have just put down their calculators, appologised to all of us through me, and are signing my copy of our final petition

Whoever does the petition, I suggest a 'tick' collumn or box to indicate 'Motorcyclists, yes/no'

Back to the Ministers secretaries..... busy busy busy

[MSTRS]

They may well have truly fucked themselves now.
ASA will be bogged down for weeks. I suspect that every major paper will be flooded with letters to the editor, and may be forced to print a retraction, albeit buried on page 200.
Acc/s head is above the parapet...who's on the Barrets?

[NighthawkNZ]

I need a tui... and i don't like beer

[Mystic13]

Thanks guys and now this is where the $77 comes from.

Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims. And you've all been foolishly basing your numbers on that. You need to realise ACC haven't done that. They picked an arbitrary number for next years claims. They chose $252 million. And on this basis if these claims come to fruition then motorists would be cross subsidising us by $77.65. (This excludes all of the other mis-information.) So ACC are right... on the basis of these absolutelty sound figures produced with a large sprinkling of fairy dust. And no they're not out to get us just to justify the fee increase. Bastards.

If someone would like to do some bed time reading they can tell us how they got to $252 million. It'll be imbedded in earlier pages.

I refer you to page 29 of "Levy Consultation 2010/11" "Levy Rates for Motorists"

I decided not to post the PDF because of it's size but here's the link.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/index.htm?ssUserText=levy+rates+for+motorists

[riffer]

Emailed to Darren Hughes <Darren.Hughes@parliament.govt.nz>; phil@goff.org.nz; chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz

Good day gentlemen.

I note with interest that ACC is running an advert in today's DomPost and Herald which is continuing with their misleading and inaccurate information regarding motorcycling, a copy of which I have inclded with this email.

It contains statements such as motor vehicles are subsidising motorcyclists to the tune of $77 per year. According to LTSA's own statistics freely available here:

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf

there were 3,308,930 cars, trucks, vans or utes registered in 2008. This suggests a total of $254,787,610 subsidy of motorcyclists PER YEAR.

Information freely available from ACC here:

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

shows that in the 2008 year (the latest year we have the information available from) the following claims were made:

Cyclists
567 active claims
$12,573,000
$22,174 per claim

Pedestrians
1115 active claims
$24,494,000
$21,967 per claim

Car Occupants:
8525 active claims
$208,305,000
$24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
3173 active claims
$62,523,000
$19,704 per claim

which quite clearly indicates that only $62 million is being spent. Hardly $254,787,610 is it? This information is clearly false.


I would like to draw your attention to the MP's Handbook - In particular I draw attention to section 2 under PURPOSE. and section 5 under PRESENTATION.

These rules govern both an MP and also heads of Govt Departments.

There is a ruling to state that the ONUS falls on the Minister to ensure that statements are true, factual and not misleading.

Any member can ask a written question of the speaker to have a ruling made on the validity of any statement made either in the house or outside of the house.
The speaker is obligated to act without bias and if he finds that the statements are not factual or are misleading can have the member appear before the privileges committee.

Whilst a member may be covered by privilege within the house, if the same false statements are made outside he can face litigation. The committee can also rule against a head of department.

I shall also be making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding this.

In the meantime feel free to check my information and do what you like with it; after all, it's freely available and no secret to anyone; unlike the real agenda here, whatever that may be.

Yours faithfully
Simon Gotlieb

Rimutaka Electorate (a very marginal one for Labour).

===

reply from ASA:

Dear Simon Gotlieb,
Complaint submitted

Thank you. Your complaint form has submitted successfully and the Advertising Standards Authority will contact you regarding the complaints process.

This is an automated response, please do not reply to this email.

[Big Dave]

you want facts for a rebuke.

Fact 1. According to the Ministry Of Transport statistics there are Approx 2.4M registered cars. ( FACT )

ACC's stated cross-subsidies to cars of $77 even after the levy increases would equate to $184M (FACT ). The ACC pay out in claims for motorbike accidents last year was only $62M (FACT ). ACC will be collecting 3 time the money they are paying out (FACT ).

Where is the money really going ?

I think you need to ask the ACC who funded these adverts.

Whoever organized for Phil Goff to be at the Auckland rally should contact Phil Goff and have the question asked in parliament. This will get you extra free advertising debunking the ACC claims.

Also get him to ask why they are placing such ads before the submission process is complete, because until this is done ACC do not have a balanced view ( the reason for the submission process ).

Nice work. We're 100% on those facts?

[Pixie]

Tis ad was the last straw for my workmates (who were LARGELY anti-biker cyclyst crowd 3 weeks ago)

The 3 guys in my office who all supported the Levy hike against us as righteous and truly deserved, have just put down their calculators, appologised to all of us through me, and are signing my copy of our final petition

Whoever does the petition, I suggest a 'tick' collumn or box to indicate 'Motorcyclists, yes/no'

Back to the Ministers secretaries..... busy busy busy

Good Work!!

[Azi Dahaka]

i posted a new thread for the rebuttal please respond if you can

[wingrider]

I have written to Darren Hughes regarding this advert and asked for his reply to my request that they make a written submission to the speaker of the house as to the validity of this advert.

Heads of Govt Departments are bound by the same rules as a minister when using public funds to advertise.
Please read the attachment in my earlier post.

[Mystic13]

After the Bikeoi leaves parliament it should wander around to ACC. I think a mass visit from riders to Keiths office asking for an explanation might be in order.

This has gone personal. It's clear our submissions to ACC aren't worth a bean. they've already made up their mind. And they're becoming more resolute. My god they've adopted a them and us mentality. Scary. they want to make independant sound judgement but clearly that's not the case.

[Big Dave]

Emailed to Darren Hughes <darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz>; phil@goff.org.nz; chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz

Good day gentlemen.

I note with interest that ACC is running an advert in today's DomPost and Herald which is continuing with their misleading and inaccurate information regarding motorcycling, a copy of which I have inclded with this email.http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.com/2009/11/kr-reader-responds-to-acc-advertising.html

I know you are a reader cause I just sent you 3 mags.

http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.com/2009/11/kr-reader-responds-to-acc-advertising.html
</darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz>

[wingrider]

OOPPPSSSS, sorry guys and gals. wasnt updating the thread as I was busy typing to Darren.

Is it possible that someone pass this on to the persons at Chapman tripp who are working for us??

[riffer]

I know you are a reader cause I just sent you 3 mags.

http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.com/2009/11/kr-reader-responds-to-acc-advertising.html


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/picture.php?albumid=310&pictureid=33831

[ManDownUnder]

I respectfully submit that ACC should discount all submissions in support of the increased levies received from November 5 on as they are based on false information put forward by ACC themselves.

ACC also need to submit a retraction and full apology for the advertisement immediately, most certainly before the submission closeoff date of November 10

[NighthawkNZ]

ACC also need to submit a retraction and full apology for the advertisement immediately, most certainly before the submission closeoff date of November 10


As long as we don't have to pay for it... the head honcho on $500,000 can pay for it out of his own pocket

[ckai]

I agree this is bullshit but from a marketing point of view it's pretty well written to catch the fence sitters. It's written in a lovely and sincere way and pretty much polite.

A complete contrast to the likely "what utter crap!" that would come from those opposed.

I love the way everyone jumps on it and does something about it though :niceone: any marketing department would love that sort of get-up-and-go.

[Bald Eagle]

Have emailed by local member of parliament requesting she raise the appropriate question in the house.
Also just left a phone message with her electorate office.

[Azi Dahaka]

my works comms advisor informed me about it and his first words apart from it makes sence was it is designed in such a way to make people hate motorcycles.

i sit in my office with my bikoi advertising fluro jacket hanging over my chair and he said event if you go to parlament now without a rebuttal done before hand if you create any traffic jams motorists are going to get pissed off and support acc more.

[Kinje]

Thanks guys and now this is where the $77 comes from.

Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims. And you've all been foolishly basing your numbers on that. You need to realise ACC haven't done that. They picked an arbitrary number for next years claims. They chose $252 million. And on this basis if these claims come to fruition then motorists would be cross subsidising us by $77.65. (This excludes all of the other mis-information.) So ACC are right... on the basis of these absolutelty sound figures produced with a large sprinkling of fairy dust. And no they're not out to get us just to justify the fee increase. Bastards.

If someone would like to do some bed time reading they can tell us how they got to $252 million. It'll be imbedded in earlier pages.

I refer you to page 29 of "Levy Consultation 2010/11" "Levy Rates for Motorists"

I decided not to post the PDF because of it's size but here's the link.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/index.htm?ssUserText=levy+rates+for+motorists

ACCs own stats seem to contradict the 16 times more likely to claim (pg 28 of consultation doco). In fact, it seems more like the 3 times more likely that others on here have determined themselves.

[GOONR]

Emailed my local MP and made a complaint with asa, I don't know if it will do any good but at least it keeps the pressure up.

[Ixion]

Just a thought here. Is a flood of letters to the Editor just going to draw attention to the ads?

I actually read the harold paper copy this morning (there was one in the lunch room and I was bored) and didn't see it at all (yeah, I'm blind).

realisticallly how effective is advertsied in tree pieces media nowadays? Only old people will be likely to read it, since the on line papers don't have such ads.

[vtec]

Here's a copy of the letter I just forwarded the herald... sorry I poached quotes from some of you guys and used them as my own. There's some brains on this forum.

Will forward a copy to ACC too.


Dear news staff,

I see you've published an advertisement for ACC regarding the increased motorcycling levies. This advertisement includes mostly false claims by ACC.

Firstly, and most obviously is the claim that other motorvehicle drivers are subsidising motorcyclist by $77 per vehicle. Simple arithmetic shows that if each of the 2,584,509 registered light vehicles in New Zealand paid $77 the total amount collected by ACC in levy increases alone would equal $199,007,193 ($77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193) which means car and van drivers will be paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists.

Second most obvious flaw is the claim that motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to have a claim related accident, this is also blatantly false as shown in the "claim frequency.jpg" that I have attached and sourced from ACC themselves (page 28 of the consultation document). It shows in the worst bracket for claim related crashes (125-600cc) that they are only 4.4 times more likely to have a claim related crash.

Also, the claim that they are more likely to be seriously injured in the claim crashes is also false as shown by the data below, in the 2008 year (the latest year we have the information available from) the following claims were made:

Cyclists
567 active claims
$12,573,000
$22,174 per claim

Pedestrians
1115 active claims
$24,494,000
$21,967 per claim

Car Occupants:
8525 active claims
$208,305,000
$24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
3173 active claims
$62,523,000
$19,704 per claim

It shows that claims for individual motorcyling injuries are actually less than for car drivers, these stats also indicate, very clearly that only $62 million is being spent.

I could go on about the other points, but there is no hard evidence supplied by ACC in the advertisement for me to research. And access for the basis of their stats is not accessible either. But they are either misleading or blatantly false.

This is not acceptable for a media outlet of the NZHerald's standing to publish such misinformation designed at being divisive and discriminatory. I will be forwarding a copy of this email to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Regards


Jason McCamish

[Ixion]

Thanks guys and now this is where the $77 comes from.

Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims. And you've all been foolishly basing your numbers on that. You need to realise ACC haven't done that. They picked an arbitrary number for next years claims. They chose $252 million. ..

Actually, we do realise that. And, from an insurance actuary's point of view it is correct.

but

a) this is not a debate between actuaries or statisticians. This is a propaganda war. ACC are presenting information in a highly slanted fashion. We can (and should) do the same. ACC's figure is technically correct. So is ours. Ours is easier for Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker, to understand. Indeed , an eight year old can understand it. If ACC try to explain their number Joe's eyes will glaze over.
b) The actuarial basis of thenumbers is highly suspect and politicised. One could take a dartboard and get almost any number

[MSTRS]

Write to your MP, as well. Mine...

I am disgusted to see ACC, who are apparently broke, spending the public's money by placing ads in the major dailies. Ads which are full of the same old lies and inconsistancies and, at best, are little more than anti-motorcyclist propaganda aimed at the general public. Attempting to sway those people's opinions and encouraging them to put in submissions, when the readers have been influenced in this way, is so far beyond the pale as to be incomprehensible.
Obviously, motorcyclists are 'on the back foot' when it comes to resources of this magnitude, but our resistance to the levy increases is based on drawing attention to ACC's spurious statistics and cost claims. Not on disseminating lies and using publicly funded attempts to vilify a section of the public in the eyes of the rest.

Complaints have been sent to the papers involved and to the ASA, but I don't think that goes far enough. Questions need to be raised at the Parliamentary level over this issue.

[riffer]

Here's a copy of the letter I just forwarded the herald... sorry I poached quotes from some of you guys and used them as my own. There's some brains on this forum.

Will forward a copy to ACC too.

Don't apologise. It's a good spin technique to keep the same info coming in all your marketing.

It's called "Consistency of Communication".

[MSTRS]

Don't apologise. It's a good spin technique to keep the same info coming in all your marketing.

It's called "Consistency of Communication".

I note that ACC employ this technique. The claims might be bullshit, but that has little to do with it.

[riffer]

I note that ACC employ this technique. The claims might be bullshit, but that has little to do with it.

Exactly. It's one of the first rules of effective Propaganda.

I think they've totally underestimated us at first but now they've upped the ante we need to step up our game too.

They've definitely not counted on how many Comms professionals there are in the New Zealand motorcycling community though...

[98tls]

Wonder if we could rustle up enough cash via KBers to take out our own add,count me in for $50 or so.

[bogan]

we need to step up our game too.

I hear that, before this add campaign it seemed like it could be an honest mistake in being supplied with the wrong figures, now it is obvious that this is an attack leveled at the motorcycle community, and I will not stand for it.

[Azi Dahaka]

Thats very good D,wonder if we could rustle up enough cash via KBers to take out our own add,count me in for $50 or so.

ok note on how much it costed acc

our comms officer said it costed them about 2.5k for the dom and 5.5k for the herald that is alot of money to gather together

[MSTRS]

ok note on how much it costed acc

our comms officer said it costed them about 2.5k for the dom and 5.5k for the herald that is alot of money to gather together

It is. Don't forget, there are a few other dailies that are likely to have that ad too. HBToday is not out yet, don't know about the Chch Star/Press? or ODT.

[BiK3RChiK]

I've been talking to a heap of people around town since our photo got on the front page of the local paper and most of them (car drivers) don't swallow ACC's BS. Most of them seem to be on the side of motorcyclists. It's just getting them to vocalise it to the right people...

[Mully]

It is. Don't forget, there are a few other dailies that are likely to have that ad too. HBToday is not out yet, don't know about the Chch Star/Press? or ODT.

It's also highly unlikely that ACC will be paying "retail" for that space.

[Bounce001]

Just submitted my complaint to ASA.

ACC never cease to astound me to the depths they will sink to. :sick:

[Squiggles]

My letter to the editor (takes a different slant as plenty will have already pointed out the propaganda angle & numbers):


The several thousand dollars spent by ACC yesterday singling out Motorcyclists through advertisements in various national papers, spreading what can only be described as blatant propaganda, would have been far better spent sending several hundred motorcyclists to approved training courses. At such courses riders would learn to deal with the problems that will continue to exist for as long as politicians fail to grasp the real cause of road accidents, instead ordering another ambulance for the bottom of the cliff.

[madmal64]

It's also highly unlikely that ACC will be paying "retail" for that space.
Ha I doubt it very much. I advertise in the dom post once a week every week. Not 1/4 page though. My rate is very reasonable for full colour.

[Bounce001]

Have just seen this post

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=111834

[Spratt]

Has anyone else had a 1/4 page ACC ad in todays paper? The Dominion Post carried the attached ad, which apparently is ACC's attempt to head of the main arguments against the levy increases for motorcyclists.

I find it very diffitult to understand why/how ACC has been allowed to make these comments during the consultation process. They are trying to sway the general public to their view, and they are doing so by using what appear to be the most common themes from submissions, which I suspect they have all being reading down the ACC offices. Seems like dirty tactics to me!

[retro asian]

our comms officer said it costed them about 2.5k for the dom and 5.5k for the herald that is alot of money to gather together

<_< That's snack box change for ACC...

[Azi Dahaka]

<_< That's snack box change for ACC...

i know but the point is THEY HAVENT USED IT ON CLAIMS they will now need to tax us approximatally $100 each per motorbiker to cover the cost of this add and all other adds for the next 50 years they take out against us:done:

[MSTRS]

Has anyone else had a 1/4 page ACC ad............. Seems like dirty tactics to me!

One or two of us noticed it. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=111815
And yes, it is very underhanded tactics. Worse than leaving candidate hoardings up on election day

[peasea]

Thats very good D,wonder if we could rustle up enough cash via KBers to take out our own add,count me in for $50 or so.

That's a fuckin' huge ditto here. 100 kber's at 50 a head? There's your five k.

If someone will open an account just PM me the number and I'll slide a fifty in there pronto.

ACC are using OUR money in an effort to nail OUR collective arses to the wall. This is bollocks. Yes; bikers need to up the ante, sooner rather than later.

I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is. My fifty awaits a home for a rebuttal ad.

[Pixie]

I note that ACC employ this technique. The claims might be bullshit, but that has little to do with it.

Throw enough shit and some will stick -it works for us too

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Complaint submitted to ASA.

I would encourage all riders to complain. The ACC has slipped up with this ad. If we can get the ASA to force a retraction and/ or a published apology it will go a long way to our cause.

Also happy to donate $50 to the cause if someone can arrange a fighting fund.

[Drogen Omen]

seems to me that ACC needs to increas the acc levies for all cars over 600cc also to match the $740 that motorcyclists will have to pay.

equal costs on all fronts not just bikers.

[Big Dave]

Best I can suggest is there is a 'donate' button on the BRONZ web site now.


I also think my second answer is spurious now that I reread it with less steamed potatoes. Other groups do pay - just not as much.

You might delete the quote plese TL.

[riffer]

Reply from my letter to Phil Goff:

I am writing on behalf of the Hon Phil Goff to thank you for your email about the ACC ads in this morning's papers.
I am attaching a copy of the media statement which Labour's ACC spokepserson, Hon David Parker, has issued in response to the ad.
many thanks for writing


<table dir="ltr" border="1" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="1" width="633"> <tbody> <tr> <td height="5" width="66%"> 5 November 2009
</td> <td height="5" width="34%">
Media Statement
</td></tr></tbody></table> <table><tbody><tr> <td colspan="2" height="68"> Taxpayers can’t afford to pay for ACC’s political propaganda
</td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table> Taxpayer money is being scandalously wasted on newspaper ads that don't tell the real story about the reasons behind huge ACC fee rises, Labour’s ACC spokesperson David Parker says.
"The large display ads in major dailies today claims ‘motorcyclists weren’t paying enough’. The National Government should apologise for implying paying more is a matter of principle.
"ACC’s statement shows scandalous indifference to the cost of living. It’s arrogant and out of touch. Even if ACC thought fees had to rise, suggesting that motorcyclists don’t pay ‘enough’ shows the Government's agenda is to punish motorcycle owners. It shows the Government is wildly out of touch with the reality of stretched family budgets.
David Parker is calling on the Government to disclose the cost of the propaganda.
"ACC is paying out large sums of levy-payers’ money to promote an unpopular political decision which the Government is ostensibly still consulting the public on.
"The Government made the decision to change the way motorcycle levies are set and ACC is now trying to help sell it, instead of keeping to ACC’s founding principles.
"Wasting money on newspaper ads shows the National Government has its priorities wrong. It is developing a bad habit of using taxpayers’ money for its own advertising and propaganda.
"ACC and its minister have been claiming that the fee rise for motorcyclists is not decided yet, and it is going through a consultation. But these ads show it’s all a sham consultation and the outcome is already decided.
David Parker says the claims in the advertisement are political and misrepresent the purpose of the ACC scheme - and drew up a list of alternative answers to the fake ‘questions’ in the ad.
Straight answers to ACC’s proposed motorcycle levies
Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
What other groups will be unfairly targeted next? Cyclists? Drivers of older cars? Pedestrians? Older people who fall over in their homes more often than young people? Children playing sports?
All of these groups have accidents. Why is the Government targeting one section of the public - motorcyclists - and who is next?
Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the National Government is abandoning the idea of a no-fault accident compensation scheme to set it up for privatisation, which will benefit big foreign owned insurance companies.
If motorcyclists weren’t paying enough, who’s been covering their costs?
In a social insurance scheme, we all pay a share of the costs of accidents, so that we are all covered. If ACC introduces user pays for groups it claims face higher risks, then next on the list will be elderly New Zealanders who hurt themselves in falls, and people playing sport.
ACC has $12 billion in reserves. Last year New Zealanders paid in a billion dollars more than ACC paid out in claims. ACC is not broke!
But motorcyclists say the crashes aren’t their fault.
But that’s not the point. ACC wants to punish motorcyclists for their lifestyle. That’s why it says ‘motorcyclists weren’t paying enough.’
How much more at risk are motorcyclists?
Motorcyclists are at very high risk of continued steep fee rises because the consultation is a sham. The Government’s already made up its mind.
How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
That’s got nothing to do with it. Car owners don’t pay more in ACC for insuring more expensive cars. The cost of insuring the bike is about as relevant as the cost of buying a new exhaust system for it. The issue is not about the bike - it is about the fairness of a social insurance scheme. By the way, if private insurance companies charge $750 to insure a bike worth $15,000, and the Government plans to charge the same amount to cover an injury worth potentially millions, how much more do you think you will pay in levies when private insurers get their hands on the scheme? Privatisation will see New Zealanders left paying more for less to pay the bills of lawyers and foreign-owned corporates and to cover much higher administration costs
Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims?
Assuming the ACC is right, not yet. But as soon as the government can work out a way to hurt this group too, they will.
Why do motorcyclists pay over and over again if they own more than one bike?
There is reason for imposing a levy for each bike, but there is no reason for charging exorbitant levies which will force owners of several bikes to head to their bank managers. ACC’s real motive is to punish motorcyclists for their lifestyle.
How to make a submission
Not much point really. The National Government has already made up its mind. If you want to change the policy, go to
ACCworks.org (http://accworks.org//oblocked::http://accworks.org/).nz and help Labour stop National’s ACC rip-off.
Dinah Okeby
Private Secretary
Hon Phil Goff
Leader of the Opposition

[madmal64]

Riffer you legend! You Rock :Punk:

[Ixion]

woot. This is going international.

I think ACC may have made a tactical mistake.

And now Labour has brought in that the government really wants to "punish motorcyclists for their lifestyle" !

And saying that the consultation is a sham. They aren't pulling their punches

That's dynamite!

[riffer]

Riffer you legend! You Rock :Punk:

Mate, all I'm doing is just sending emails quoting information that a whole lot of people working harder than me are coming up with.

Full credit to those doing the number crunching. Any idiot can send an email.

[Ozzie]

Reply from my letter to Phil Goff:

I am writing on behalf of the Hon Phil Goff to thank you for your email about the ACC ads in this morning's papers.
I am attaching a copy of the media statement which Labour's ACC spokepserson, Hon David Parker, has issued in response to the ad.
many thanks for writing

Where's my reply?

[yungatart]

woot. This is going international.

I think ACC may have made a tactical mistake.

And now Labour has brought in that the government really wants to "punish motorcyclists for their lifestyle" !

And saying that the consultation is a sham. They aren't pulling their punches

That's dynamite!

Give them enough rope they might hang themselves!

[Str8 Jacket]

Mate, all I'm doing is just sending emails quoting information that a whole lot of people working harder than me are coming up with.

Full credit to those doing the number crunching. Any idiot can send an email.

When/where is it being released?

[Ixion]

I emailed Mr parker


Dear Mr Parker.

I am President of BRONZ Auckland,. We are strongly involved in the current protest action regarding the proposed ACC levies for motorcycles.

We are advised that , because ACC propose to introduce new levy classifications, for different sizes of motorcycle, the Minister is obliged to consult with appropriate persons or groups under S 330 of the Act.
This is a different matter to a simple increase in the dollar amount of levies, which only requires the ACC to consult with the public under S 331 of the Act.

To date to our knowledge , no significant representative group within the motorcycling community has been approached by the Minister for such consultation.

Are you able to confirm our understanding?

Thanks

Best regards

Les Mason
President
BRONZ Auckland



How would have dreamed that a simple "slug the bikies" tax grab would blow up so big.

[Ozzie]

Where's my reply?


Just came through, almost an exact copy, but gotta say, put a big smile on my face.

:Punk:

[PrincessBandit]

My thoughts:

Point 1 "Why are motorcyclists being singled out?" Answer: They're not.....

I would like to know the extent which other ACC user groups are being screwed like we are.

Point 2 "Why are m'cyclists being asked to pay more?" Answer: Because the levies they previously paid weren't enough to cover the cost of the injuries they suffered.
Ummm, how many other user groups would fall into the same category?

Point 3 "Will m'cyclists now be paying the full cost...." Answer : No, even with the increase they will only be meeting 21% of their claim costs.
Again, how many other user groups fully cover their claim costs?

Point 4: "Who's been covering their costs?" Answer: Other road users, and they will still be cross subsidising m'cyclists.
Most of us own cars too, therefore cross subsidise ourselves! Not to mention that WE"RE subsidising cyclists, pedestrians who are hit on the road, bloody hell who knows who else.

Point 6: Risk factor. - Where is the same increase for cyclists, horse riders, hang gliders, skaters etc.

Point 7: I love their "millions of dollars in rehab" - what blatant hyperbole. It's as if every motorcyclist who has an accident is going to cost "millions" What bs - lots who have accidents don't ever bother getting medical treatment let alone ACC.

Point 8: Why should only "road users on public roads" be singled out? In fact, more to the point why should only motorcyclists on public roads be singled out?

Point 9: I love this one. Yeah, how many of us let every Tom Dick and Harry ride our bikes? The fact that someone could steal our bike and cause an accident makes us responsible? Tui.....

[riffer]

Who would have dreamed that a simple "slug the bikies" tax grab would blow up so big.

Yes again a perfect case of underestimating your target. Nice to know we are still so "underground". I kind of like that. :laugh:

[GOONR]

Just came through, almost an exact copy, but gotta say, put a big smile on my face.

:Punk:

Just got my reply from his office too. I sent mine to Keith Locke as well, seems he is the Greens transport spokesperson for Auckland. Wonder if I will get an answer from him.

[wingrider]

My Email to Nathan Guy, My local MP
Entitled Misuse of Public Funds.

Sir,

I am a very angry Motorcyclist.

I was deeply offended by the advertisement that appeared in both this morning's issues of the Dominion Post and the Herald, relating to ACC entitled ACC explains proposed Motorcycle Levies.

This advert is so full of the continued inaccuracies published by both ACC and your Minister.

I regard this as a clear breach of the guidelines set out in the ministerial handbook relating to advertising. I am advised that these rules cover both Heads of Gov, Departments and the Minister himself, with the onus on the Minister to ensure that all advertising is presented as Accurate, Factual and Truthful.

As a constituent, taxpayer and also payer of ACC levies I demand that you publicly disassociate yourself from these comments and publicly make your Minister aware of the situation.
To do less I will consider as a dereliction of your duties as my elected representative.
I also expect your Minister to apologise to the Public of NZ for allowing such misrepresentation of the facts to be published. He also needs to hold the authors of this advert accountable for their actions publicly.

In the last election I voted for you and your party in "Good Faith" believing that you were listening to your supporters.

Sir, no longer will I trust one comment made by yourself or your party from now on. I can also assure you that you have lost my vote and that of as many others as I can persuade.

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

I've finally got round to looking at the ad in the Dom post.

Don't know if anyone else has noticed it but well done to whoever planned the page layout. If you look at page A10 you will notice that the article at the top of the page is about the sculpture of Nick Smith made from manure.

So the article at the top of the page actually has a title in it of "Nick Smith in the shit" and below that you have a advert from the ACC desperately trying to justify his stance.

Well done that person in the Dom Post!

[Ozzie]

My Email to Nathan Guy, My local MP
Entitled Misuse of Public Funds.


Mind if I copy and paste to Judith Collins?

[Hailwood]

Just emailed Dom Post and ASA with my complaint as well

[Eddieb]

Emailed the ASA, THe Herald & Trevor Mallard as my local MP.

[k2w3]

None of this would be possible (or at least it would be extremely difficult) without the 'net. What a wonderful contraption. You can see why less open regimes around the world are so afraid of it (and probably open ones as well!).

[wingrider]

Mind if I copy and paste to Judith Collins?

Go for it. The more the better.

[Hailwood]

and also emailed Chris Finlayson National MP responsible for my electorate...

[Ixion]

None of this would be possible (or at least it would be extremely difficult) without the 'net. What a wonderful contraption. You can see why less open regimes around the world are so afraid of it (and probably open ones as well!).

The Net IS the world .

[FastBikeGear]

Guys I think National directing ACC's to run a newpaper campaign is both clever and dangerously effective. (I am speculating that National is directing the ACC)

I propose that we aslo place an add in the two biggest papers, The Herald and the dominion post and advise the other smaller papers what we are doing by sending them a free pre press release of our add.

I am happy to make a financial contribution to do this.

[ckai]

Reply from my letter to Phil Goff:

...

That's bloody gold. They obviously know a possible election turn when they see one.



How would have dreamed that a simple "slug the bikies" tax grab would blow up so big.

Definitely. This is getting bigger than even I thought it would be. Really dumb move from ACC. I do like what someone said early (sorry dunno who it was) "if motorcyclists aren't singled out, why is there an ad?"

I love it when shit bites people in the ass.

[Ixion]

You know, it occurs to me that there is something REALLY wierd about this.

Why is ACC , a government department , reduced to buying media space to rebutt us.

I mean, obviously they are pissed off that we are getting a lot of media coverage, and apart from that one train wreck interview on Closeup, they haven't had a single word or line in the media. But, WHY is that?

Usually a government department like ACC, in a matter that is in the news, has no trouble getting media space for a spokesman. But either the media are cold shouldering them , or they are too scared to front up?

Why?

(Sure ACC have bought advertising space in the past. But that's been for public anouncement type stuff , not controversial. As far as I can recall this is the first time ACC - or any government department? has been reduced to paying to try to get their argument across. )

[Mully]

Probably because we've had significant public support since this broke.

And several parties (your good self included) have maintained the foot on the throat and not let themselves get sidetracked.

Gummint policy - divide and conquer. Get the parties fighting amongst themselves and slip the policy change in.

Which is why I've been trying to remind people not to play the National/Labour game amongst ourselves

ACC have simply not been able to get any traction to make their case.

[Ixion]

Yes, but WHY can they not get traction?

They are a government department. comminications specialists, spin doctors in every broom closet.

And normally the media are very happy to give government spokesspokes time to "explain" things.

The media have been approaching us, we haven't gone to them hardly at all.

I don't understand why ACC are reduced to paying for space. It's sort of demeaning, degrading.

Either the ACC refuse to approach the media for time? Or the media won't have them, at any cost? or the media say OK but set conditions that ACC won't accept.

Or - actually i maybe just thought of it . The advantage of buying space is that you can say exact;y what you want, and don't have to worry about anyone asking questions.

So, is buying adverts because ACC dare to front up in a debate (either with a biker spokesspokes or just with a media host) in case they get asked questions they cannot or dare not answer?

If so WHAT ARE THOSE QUESTIONS ?

[Mully]

Or - actually i maybe just thought of it . The advantage of buying space is that you can say exact;y what you want, and don't have to worry about anyone asking questions.

So, is buying adverts because ACC dare to front up in a debate (either with a biker spokesspokes or just with a media host) in case they get asked questions they cannot or dare not answer?

If so WHAT ARE THOSE QUESTIONS ?

Probably this one, if any.

"why are you misleading the public with inaccurate numbers?"
"why won't you extend the deadline for fully funding ACC - which Labour has promised to support?"
"what is your response to XYZ?"

Squirmy squirm.

Can you imagine John Campbell having Nick Smith (or the ACC CEO) on the show without having someone to rebut their lies? It's media GOLD

[Skyryder]

Guys I think National directing ACC's to run a newpaper campaign is both clever and dangerously effective. (I am speculating that National is directing the ACC)

I propose that we aslo place an add in the two biggest papers, The Herald and the dominion post and advise the other smaller papers what we are doing by sending them a free pre press release of our add.

I am happy to make a financial contribution to do this.

Nope ignore this or it will become a sideshow.

Word is that the Nats are pissed off. Smith has gone to some pains to point out that the levies are across the board. The add has re-focused the issue back onto the bikers. Smith does not want to focus on this and it is only due to media exposure from protest rides that bikers are at the forefront of the protest movement.


The add was carefully written and the questions asked in such a manner that it can only be open to one kind of interpretation: that is an attempt to expose the weakness of the biker’s argument to the general and 'motoring' public.

ACC haa deliberately tried to promote a public backlash against us and in doing so have upped the anti in ‘political arena.’ They are now fair game for all and sundry in that they now have their own political agenda where as before this was much harder to define let alone prove. Not any more. The add was a mistake and there are some senior Nat politico’s fuming at Smith for not controlling John Judge. It’s a serious mistake that Smith will have some difficulty in justifying. ACC has weakened him.

Skyryder

[xgnr]

The biker's would be better off pooling some funding together and hiring the best legal representation available. Sue for court costs at the same time, that would pay for a victory BBQ in the main centres.

I would put in $100 for a starter.

[Pedrostt500]

Ok I'm a Born again Synical Bastard, if I was running this from their side of the fence, this is how to start, the next move would be Radio and T.V, ACC has an advertising budget much bigger than we can afford, my geuss would be to get one of the T.V channels to play a Nasty Bikie movie on the weekend of the 14th 15th, and any motor cycle crash that happens for any reason between the 14th and the 17th will have more Media coverage than the second comming of Jesus.

[pete376403]

Don't know if anyone, even a Govt dept, could attempt to influence programming in that manner. Advertising, yes, 'cos they would have to pay for it, nut I think the broadcasters would like to imagine their programming remains independant. Possibly only because of what the competing channels would have to say about it.

[Fluffy Cat]

you want facts for a rebuke.

Fact 1. According to the Ministry Of Transport statistics there are Approx 2.4M registered cars. ( FACT )

ACC's stated cross-subsidies to cars of $77 even after the levy increases would equate to $184M (FACT ). The ACC pay out in claims for motorbike accidents last year was only $62M (FACT ). ACC will be collecting 3 time the money they are paying out (FACT ).

Where is the money really going ?

I think you need to ask the ACC who funded these adverts.

Whoever organized for Phil Goff to be at the Auckland rally should contact Phil Goff and have the question asked in parliament. This will get you extra free advertising debunking the ACC claims.

Also get him to ask why they are placing such ads before the submission process is complete, because until this is done ACC do not have a balanced view ( the reason for the submission process ).

Sorry for the large quote, but you are so right. Why the hell did this advert ever get printed?. Yes this should be brought up in parliament. Pure prejudice. This sort of thing should never come out of a govt agency.

[nrc]

Ok I'm a Born again Synical Bastard, if I was running this from their side of the fence, this is how to start, the next move would be Radio and T.V, ACC has an advertising budget much bigger than we can afford, my geuss would be to get one of the T.V channels to play a Nasty Bikie movie on the weekend of the 14th 15th, and any motor cycle crash that happens for any reason between the 14th and the 17th will have more Media coverage than the second comming of Jesus.

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

[Conquiztador]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

And that is what we are up against.

But none of the ppl I know buy any of those shock adds. Ppl change channels or get another beer. And their comment is normally: "I hate that add so I don't watch it". And the hate is not because it hits a raw nerve, it is because it is such BS.

[Pedrostt500]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

Depends how much money they want to spend.

[Fluffy Cat]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

No you are not just persecuted. The money should have been spent on a properly thought out safety advert. Something along the lines of watch out for bikes at junctions. Instead of this snivelling pointless, drivel.
The ad shows the quality of the moronically dopey fools that are running this farce of an ACC campaign.
If we lose this one we lose to morons. Now there's a thought....

[jeffs]

Well well well ! If you can be cynical so can I :)

This is not about motorbikes, it has never been about motorbikes. This is and has always been about money.

ACC are planning on raising levies on cars as well ( Fact ).

What better way to deflect the reasons than find a scapegoat.

You can see the next ad.

" ACC raises car levies by $77 to pay for motorbike claims"

Bingo, nearly $200M more money and a scapegoat.

Cars now start bumping into bikes more often, because they now hate us for being the cause of their increase, and ACC projected increase in accident rates to justify their increases, is proven.

Basically bikers are f**ed


Welcome to the world of the spin doctor.

Ps. Sorry for the over use of the word ( FACT ).

[Mystic13]

Originally Posted by Mystic13
Thanks guys and now this is where the $77 comes from.

Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims. And you've all been foolishly basing your numbers on that. lol. You need to realise ACC haven't done that. They picked an arbitrary number for next years claims. They chose $252 million. ..


Actually, we do realise that. And, from an insurance actuary's point of view it is correct.

but

a) this is not a debate between actuaries or statisticians. This is a propaganda war. ACC are presenting information in a highly slanted fashion. We can (and should) do the same. ACC's figure is technically correct. So is ours. Ours is easier for Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker, to understand. Indeed , an eight year old can understand it. If ACC try to explain their number Joe's eyes will glaze over.
b) The actuarial basis of the numbers is highly suspect and politicised. One could take a dartboard and get almost any number

Sorry Ixion I was being facitious in the post and maybe that didn't come through.

I'd like to know how ACC think motorcyclists next year are going to cost 4 times more than last year?

That's the whole crux of their raising the fees and this $77 figure. It's rubbish.

[Conquiztador]

Sorry Ixion I was being facitious in the post and maybe that didn't come through.

I'd like to know how ACC think motorcyclists next year are going to cost 4 times more than last year?

That's the whole crux of their raising the fees and this $77 figure. It's rubbish.

If we all buy 4 bikes for 2010 there is your answer... Hang on... then we all pay 4 x ACC levy and there is 4 x as much money for ACC. That then would mean that we could buy more bikes and...

[jeffs]

ACC are modeling on the future cost of running a fully funded scheme. This is not real money they need to pay out now, but what they think they will need to put away to pay for accidents in the future. If they stayed with the same model as now ( pay year on year ), or pushed the fully funded date out to 2019 we would not be having such a big hike.

Ie ( very simplistic view ) It may cost $1 dollar to pay for something now , but in 2014 it could cost $4. So ACC starts collecting $4 now to make sure they have the money. Since bike levies don't cover the cost now, ACC think they will require to take $77 from the car levies to be fully funded by 2014.

Don't you love projected numbers :(

[jeffs]

Sorry forgot the " I'ts BULL" because its a guess.

What if the cost per year does not increase at the projected rate. ie Moterbikes cost $62m this year, but come 2014 only cost $100m, all the extra money that was collected by cross-charging cars by $77 will just go to some other claim cost, like pushbikes, skiiers, fishermen...
Because by 2014 the government ( which ever one in in power at the time ) will no longer require to put money into ACC because it's Fully-self funded by levies.

[jeffs]

Remember today if the ACC figures are correct and they only collected $12m in motorbike levies, then cars are already subsidizing motorbikes by around $20 a car. AS THEY SHOULD BE in a no fault system, were cars hit bikes over 50% of the time.

These figures are just to show the logic,

ACC payed out $62M, collected $12M so fell short by $50M

$50 / 2.4M cars ( not including vars ... ) = $20

But they are also subsidizing the whole of ACC.

What I still don't get is if there are 100,000 + bikes how did they only collect 12M not the 25M they should have.

[Ixion]

Remember today if the ACC figures are correct and they only collected $12 in motorbike levies, then cars are already subsidizing motorbikes by around $20 a car. AS THEY SHOULD BE in a no fault system, where cars hit bikes over 50% of the time.

These figures are just to show the logic,

ACC payed out $62M, collected $12M so fell short by $50M

$50 / 2.4M cars ( not including vars ... ) = $20

But they are also subsidizing the whole of ACC.

What I still don't get is if there are 100,000 + bikes how did they only collect 12M not the 25M they should have.

About 90000 full year equivalents . Some bikes are not licensed for the full year . So a six month licence counts as 0.5 of a bike. That's ACCs own figures. And buggered if I know where the extra went. Allowing for the cheaper rate on scooters and the part year licences it should be about 19 M

[jeffs]

I know Axion ( and good on you ) As you know problem is, a lot of us are just honest genuine people, just trying to scrape through life.

$252.69 ( ACC levy for over 50cc ) x 90,000 ( taking your number taking into account the mix of full and part regos ) = $22.2m
( in the MOT stats report there were 106,000 registered bikes over 50cc)

No matter what argument of logic we put forward, they will just spin it for their own purposes.

Ie todays newpaper adds.

How do you win.

You have the right answer ( make your voices heard in Wellington).

But make up flyers for your ride that rebuke every claim on those adds. One at a time, and distribute them when you get to parliament. Because if you do not put the facts in their hands, it will just turn into another.

"6000 leather clad smelly bikes ground the capital to a standstill "

NOT " 6000 law abiding tax paying public, put their well balances view to parliament today"

In my case I ride a bike to commute not to be a biker.

[sunhuntin]

And that is what we are up against.

But none of the ppl I know buy any of those shock adds. Ppl change channels or get another beer. And their comment is normally: "I hate that add so I don't watch it". And the hate is not because it hits a raw nerve, it is because it is such BS.

they lost a lot of credibility when it was uncovered that the mentally disabled woman from the curtain airbags ad was an actor. a lot of people now assume they are all actors, including adrian from the quit smoking ones.

[Big Dave]

Ok I'm a Born again Cynical Bastard, if I was running this from their side of the fence, this is how to start, the next move would be Radio and T.V, ACC has an advertising budget much bigger than we can afford,

We have tens of thousands of advocates with new technology for sharing relevant and current information.

[Ozzie]

Or - actually i maybe just thought of it . The advantage of buying space is that you can say exact;y what you want, and don't have to worry about anyone asking questions.

So, is buying adverts because ACC dare to front up in a debate (either with a biker spokesspokes or just with a media host) in case they get asked questions they cannot or dare not answer?

If so WHAT ARE THOSE QUESTIONS ?

Fancy challenging Dr McKlea (sp?) to a debate on Campbel live Ixion? You nailed him last time, and this would have John on side, as long as you were ready for his (Johns) comments pointed at us.

You're about the only one I've come accross that would put the good Dr in his place and keep John on side.

:rockon:

[Mully]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Stop giving the bastard ideas..... :bash:

However,
Firstly - probably not quickly enough for this year (they'll be back though)
Secondly - After the uproar about this print ad, they'd be pretty silly to air it if they do have one.

[pzkpfw]

ACC are modeling on the future cost of running a fully funded scheme. This is not real money they need to pay out now, but what they think they will need to put away to pay for accidents in the future. If they stayed with the same model as now ( pay year on year ), or pushed the fully funded date out to 2019 we would not be having such a big hike.

Yes and no.

They've already gone "fully funded" so you mean the same model as it used to be, not as it is now.

We of the now are actually being screwed for money four ways:

1. We pay each year for that years accidents.
2. We pay extra each year for the future costs of those accidents ("fully funded").
3. We pay extra each year for the residual fund (to pay the ongoing costs of accidents that occured in the past (pre 1999), before "full funding", i.e. to "catch up" on the "full funding").
4. AND we pay extra each year because they didn't collect enough for "full funding" in the years since 1999.

Over half of the money they "need" is in classes 3. and 4. above.

Apparently page 15 of the consultation document shows that our ACC fees will go back down after the "fully funded" "catch up" is complete, because they'll stop having to collect that extra money.

I'd believe that (dropping fees) when I saw it.


Since the "catch up" is simply the result of a change in policy, it'd be way "fairer" for that to come from general ACC collection, rather than lumping it all on the singled-out group (us) seemingly all at once.

[wingrider]

Political parties release proposals of what they want to change IF they get into power.

National said all along it wants to privatize some if not all of ACC.

It elects a Leader who has public appeal, not by what he does but simply because he is so indoctrinated in party philosophy. National has always been and will always continue to be politically influenced by Business Round table and Chamber of Commerce.

It gets elected to Govern.

It removes boards from those departments that it wants to change and replaces them with its own elected people, not the best for the job, but those that will obey the commands given. It rewards them with massive salaries to ensure they will continue to tow the party line and not bow to public discontent. (if I earn more than you, I must be better).

The Ministers become the Majors in the army But it needs a general to lead it.

Muldoon and Shipley were generals who wanted to lead from the front, wanted the limelight and it was to hell with what the public thought of them.
Look what happened.

Key is not Stupid ( well his thoughts perhaps). He puts his Majors up front, with his back to them telling the masses what good boys and girls they are.

The Ministers command the board to carry out the agenda by whatever means required. Rape and pillage the peasants. Dont care if you are broke cause I earn more than you and get paid regardless.

But the peasants fight back and there are more of them than the army.

The majors run behind the General for protection but he pushes them to the front sayin, "you got me into this shit now get me out of it". "I cant afford to lose face".

WHERE IS KEY IN ALL OF THIS?

ABSENT BY HIS SILENCE!

He will send his major's to the slaughter. In the blink of an eye.

We need to drag him into this battle kicking and screaming. He is their chosen leader and why should he escape our wrath?

Nick Smith and others are only pawns in a game being played out by those who will benefit financially for personal gain.

take out the generals and the army will fold.

[vifferman]

In my case I ride a bike to commute not to be a biker.
What does that mean? :confused:
I understand the words, but I can't comprehend anyone (apart from maybe a scroterist) saying that.
Or anyone who says that bothering to subscribe to a biker forum.

[NighthawkNZ]

Since the "catch up" is simply the result of a change in policy, it'd be way "fairer" for that to come from general ACC collection, rather than lumping it all on the singled-out group (us) seemingly all at once.

and that should be our arguement for that is the way ACC was setup to run not having the seperate accounts, and the soon it goes back to this the better it will be for all

[Pixie]

Yes, but WHY can they not get traction?

They are a government department. comminications specialists, spin doctors in every broom closet.

And normally the media are very happy to give government spokesspokes time to "explain" things.

The media have been approaching us, we haven't gone to them hardly at all.

I don't understand why ACC are reduced to paying for space. It's sort of demeaning, degrading.

Either the ACC refuse to approach the media for time? Or the media won't have them, at any cost? or the media say OK but set conditions that ACC won't accept.

Or - actually i maybe just thought of it . The advantage of buying space is that you can say exact;y what you want, and don't have to worry about anyone asking questions.

So, is buying adverts because ACC dare to front up in a debate (either with a biker spokesspokes or just with a media host) in case they get asked questions they cannot or dare not answer?

If so WHAT ARE THOSE QUESTIONS ?

The Nats have had a long honeymoon,Labour has been quiet (I won't say ineffective) -it's been a slow news year.The media are itching for some controversy.What could be better than a classic David versus Goliath story?

That gives me an idea for a graphic.
Who can do a picture of David on a motorcycle,whirling a sling at a huge ACC monolith?

[Pixie]

If we all buy 4 bikes for 2010 there is your answer... Hang on... then we all pay 4 x ACC levy and there is 4 x as much money for ACC. That then would mean that we could buy more bikes and...

We would still need to clone ourselves 4x

[Big Dave]

What does that mean? :confused:
I understand the words, but I can't comprehend anyone (apart from maybe a scroterist) saying that.
Or anyone who says that bothering to subscribe to a biker forum.

It means that not everyone rides as a lifestyle option.
They are equally as effected.

Broaden your outlook.

[Ixion]

The Nats have had a long honeymoon,Labour has been quiet (I won't say ineffective) -it's been a slow news year.The media are itching for some controversy.What could be better than a classic David versus Goliath story?

That gives me an idea for a graphic.
Who can do a picture of David on a motorcycle,whirling a sling at a huge ACC monolith?

We already got it.

I handed some hard copies out at the Ulysses meeting

I think Mr Martybabe dun it (? not sure)

[Ixion]

and that should be our arguement for that is the way ACC was setup to run not having the seperate accounts, and the soon it goes back to this the better it will be for all
Actually I have found that there is not a separate account. The accounts are prescribed by law. There is only a "motor vehicle account". The split into car/bike is an internal ACC one

[Mystic13]

We already got it.

I handed some hard copies out at the Ulysses meeting

I think Mr Martybabe dun it (? not sure)

Can you re-do that drawing with ACC in black or dark clothing and the rider in light colours. (Swap them around) At a subconscious level we assoicate the small darker figure with evil.

Cheers

Once it's dobne I'd like to copy and past it else where.

[Clockwork]

Actually I have found that there is not a separate account. The accounts are prescribed by law. There is only a "motor vehicle account". The split into car/bike is an internal ACC one

Hmmm when they origianlly increassed the motorcyle levy above that of cars..... I wonder if they consulted?

[MSTRS]

http://www.toonpool.com/user/156/files/monster_business_lunch_10445.jpg
I'd like to see something like this. 2 monsters (ACC + National) eating bikers and truckers. With a cowering public to the side and one of the monsters saying "You're next"

[Ixion]

Can you re-do that drawing with ACC in black or dark clothing and the rider in light colours. (Swap them around) At a subconscious level we assoicate the small darker figure with evil.

Cheers

Once it's dobne I'd like to copy and past it else where.

I can't . I'm crap with graphics and have the aesthetic sensibility of a shark. maybe Mr Martybabe from whom I pinched it can.

[Mystic13]

Yep. I know what you mean I'm crap at it too. And here's what it looks like drawn badly but you get the idea.


I also think it would look better if he held his helmet in his other hand and you could see his face. Or was swinging the helmet. And a black sword and holder for ACC.

[kwaka_crasher]

But none of the ppl I know buy any of those shock adds. Ppl change channels or get another beer. And their comment is normally: "I hate that add so I don't watch it". And the hate is not because it hits a raw nerve, it is because it is such BS.

Have you seen the new one for speed with the silver car parked on a fairly tight left hand corner and the door opens and somehow the driver coming around the corner at 60km/h in the dry loses control and slides across the road? It's a totally fucked message on every level. 50km/h would be too fast for this tight, off-camber slightly uphill left hand corner especially with some fucktard parking his car halfway around, yet they say that had he been doing 50km/h he would have stopped just before hitting the power pole ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD and somehow that would be ACCeptable. Makes my blood boil it does. Lucky I rarely see ads.


Yes, but WHY can they not get traction?

Because the predominantly left-wing media are happy to have this fiasco ticking over to portray National in a bad light so it can be regirgitated at the next election even though nothing is actually set in stone yet.

[MSTRS]

What about a list of targets along the lines of...

[jeffs]

What does that mean? :confused:
I understand the words, but I can't comprehend anyone (apart from maybe a scroterist) saying that.
Or anyone who says that bothering to subscribe to a biker forum.

This is off point in this thread but I had to answer :)

Get over it, I used to ride a scooter and would own another one in a second :)

As a matter of fact, when my bike is being service, the bike shop gives me a scooter while its in the shop.

The point I am making is, I don't own any leather gear and I ride my bike every single day to get to work ( over 12,000km a year ) , because it saves me 1/2h each way in time. Yes I love my bike, so last time I looked that allowed be to join KB :)

Every media article starts of with the smart ass comment " Leather-clad.... "

[Jantar]

Here's my complaint to the ACA.

This ad contravenes the advertising code of ethics in the following areas:
Basic principal #3 (No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer. )
Rule #2 (Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading). )

There are a number of areas where this ad is designed to blatantly mislead the public, but I would like to concentrate on just 3.

The first one is the claim that even with the proposed levies, that most other motor vehicles will still subsidise motorcyclists by $77 each. 2.6 million light vehicles each paying $77 equates to an annual subsidy of around $200 million. However the total amount paid out by ACC last year for current and historical claims was $62.5 million. http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/IS0800157 So even if motorcyclist paid nothing this claim would still be incorrect.

The claim that motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to make a claim than other road users is a further distortion.
The Ministry of Transport YEARLY REPORT 2009 shows that there are 47.8 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles compared the motorcycle crash rate of 147.2 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles. This gives a relative risk for motorcycles of 3.1 compared to passenger vehicles.
Even the ACC's own data is at odds with this claim. The table of Claim frequency on page 28 of the ACC consultation document shows that with passenger vehicles as a base case, motorcycles are between 2.85 and 4.43 times more likely to have an injury accident than a passenger vehicle. Interesting to note that the mode of accidents includes the 250 cc size which of course is the size learners and inexperienced riders are limited to.

The third point is where they claim that ACC's proposed levy will "insure" the rider. The ACC Act , S262 says "2) To avoid doubt, it is not a function of the Corporation or any Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation to provide insurance."
In making this statement they openly admit to breaking the law, and acting ultra vires.
They are not permitted by law to provide insurance.

[FastBikeGear]

WHERE IS KEY IN ALL OF THIS?

ABSENT BY HIS SILENCE!

He will send his major's to the slaughter. In the blink of an eye.

We need to drag him into this battle kicking and screaming. He is their chosen leader and why should he escape our wrath?

Nick Smith and others are only pawns in a game being played out by those who will benefit financially for personal gain.

take out the generals and the army will fold.

+1
Very well put we need to draw John Key into this. I guess he is sitting on the side line waiting to see the public reaction before he commits himself.

[FastBikeGear]

Can anyone advise if this ad was placed in any other papers than the Hearld or the Dominion Post please?

[NighthawkNZ]

Can anyone advise if this ad was placed in any other papers than the Hearld or the Dominion Post please?

I heard there was one in most major papers over that week... the ODT was the following day I think

[flyingcrocodile46]

The claim that motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to make a claim than other road users is a further distortion.
The Ministry of Transport YEARLY REPORT 2009 shows that there are 47.8 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles compared the motorcycle crash rate of 147.2 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles. This gives a relative risk for motorcycles of 3.1 compared to passenger vehicles.
Even the ACC's own data is at odds with this claim. The table of Claim frequency on page 28 of the ACC consultation document shows that with passenger vehicles as a base case, motorcycles are between 2.85 and 4.43 times more likely to have an injury accident than a passenger vehicle. Interesting to note that the mode of accidents includes the 250 cc size which of course is the size learners and inexperienced riders are limited to.


Excellent stuff. Using their own data to show their lies is pure gold



Yes and no.
Since the "catch up" is simply the result of a change in policy, it'd be way "fairer" for that to come from general ACC collection, rather than lumping it all on the singled-out group (us) seemingly all at once.

Even the pay forward argument can't explain the amount they are asking

The sum total spent by ACC on motorcycle accident claims last year was $62,523,000. That figure includes all ongoing claim costs relating to historic accidents that occurred last year, the year before and all other previous years dating back to the inception of ACC. The total ACC levies collected last year was as follows; Mopeds 19960 x $59 and motorcycle 55180 x $253 totals $15,138,180. NOT THE $12,500,000 that Mr Smith Claims. If we were to accept that under the abandoned no fault system Motorcyclists should pay for the 40% of claims that other vehicles cause, that would leave a shortfall of $47,384,820.

MR Smith has attempted to vilify motorcyclists by scaring other vehicle users with the prospect that if we don’t pay the shortfall then they will have to cough up another $77 for each vehicle to cover our claim costs. That is quite simply a lie, as demonstrated by basic maths. $47,384,820 divided by NZ’s 2,287,697 registered light passenger vehicles equals $20.71 NOT the $77 claimed by Nick Smith.

As for the argument that the extra cost relates to the need to pay forward to cover the costs of this year’s accidents in years to come... well as the $62.5 million spent last year already includes paying backward for over 30 years of historical claims, just how much extra is really required to pay forward a few years? Mr Smith would have us believe that it must be the balance of the $77 that he talks about. After deducting the motorcyclist shortfall amount of $20.71 from the $77 that he claims other motorists would have to pay, that leaves $56.29 to be multiplied by 2,287,697 for a total of $128,774,464.

That is more than double the amount that ACC has spent on motorcycle claims for last year (which includes the paying backward of ongoing costs for over 30 years of historical claims). Just how stupid does Mr Smith think we are? I suspect that a fairer estimate of the pay forward extra would be around $20 million ($8.74), which would bring the car total to $29.45 NOT $77.


Mr Smith is a lying cock sucker

[caseye]

Here here! Nice work guys, now lwts get it out tothe bloody General Public.
Where it'll do some good.

[Laxi]

has any one recieved a response from the ACA apart from the standard, we are looking into it,?

[FastBikeGear]

has any one recieved a response from the ACA apart from the standard, we are looking into it,?

Not yet, but I accompanied my official complaint with some very interesting stuff I obtained using the Official Information Act, I am consequently hopeful that the shit will hit the fan.

[Laxi]

just got the reply in the post

RE: Accident Compensation Corporation Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint
I am writing to advise that the complaints board considered the above complaint at its meeting on 9 December 2009. After carefully considering the information from all parties the board decided that the complaint be Not Upheld as there had not been a breach of the relevent code.

the letter carries on to say they basicaly took ACCs word for the figures:angry2:

[bogan]

just got the reply in the post

RE: Accident Compensation Corporation Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint
I am writing to advise that the complaints board considered the above complaint at its meeting on 9 December 2009. After carefully considering the information from all parties the board decided that the complaint be Not Upheld as there had not been a breach of the relevent code.

the letter carries on to say they basicaly took ACCs word for the figures:angry2:

fuckers, so they basically said there was no misleading info cos they checked it against the misleading info and they matched?

then again, can't say I'm surprised, seems everyone takes ACC's bullshit as truth and our proof as bullshit :oi-grr:

[StoneY]

just got the reply in the post

RE: Accident Compensation Corporation Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint
I am writing to advise that the complaints board considered the above complaint at its meeting on 9 December 2009. After carefully considering the information from all parties the board decided that the complaint be Not Upheld as there had not been a breach of the relevent code.

the letter carries on to say they basicaly took ACCs word for the figures:angry2:

Righty ho, Ombudsman, when a govt dept is caught lying, its an ombudsman issue
Get the Ombudsman to agree the figures are wrong, and the advertising complaints authority will have to back up and take action

[riffer]

Righty ho, Ombudsman, when a govt dept is caught lying, its an ombudsman issue
Get the Ombudsman to agree the figures are wrong, and the advertising complaints authority will have to back up and take action

Hang on a minute.

I've just finished reading the judgement. It's been by no means cut and dried.

It's a MAJORITY decision; a minority of board members upheld our complaint.

However, the majority of members didn't.

I'll post the entire judgement as a PDF when I can scan it tomorrow.

[Hailwood]

Got the same letter...it definitely was a majority decision only but a decision none the less...I did laugh reading the part where it said do not release this to the media as we will do it.......wankers!!!!

Will the Ombudsman look at this in all honesty?

[Mom]

Got the same letter...it definitely was a majority decision only but a decision none the less...I did laugh reading the part where it said do not release this to the media as we will do it.......wankers!!!!

Will the Ombudsman look at this in all honesty?

Yes he will. It is his job.

[bogan]

Got the same letter...it definitely was a majority decision only but a decision none the less...I did laugh reading the part where it said do not release this to the media as we will do it.......wankers!!!!


So by inference, if they don't release it, that means we can :yes:

[Hailwood]

Yes he will. It is his job.

So he will look at the figures and base them on the ACC stuff and then................................?:buggerd:

[avgas]

Good thing its a safety net system

[riffer]

Got the same letter...it definitely was a majority decision only but a decision none the less...I did laugh reading the part where it said do not release this to the media as we will do it.......wankers!!!!

Will the Ombudsman look at this in all honesty?


Who knows?

Here it is for all those who wish to read it: (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1129575263#post1129575263)

[bogan]

just had a read of the article riffer uploaded.

the bulk of it seems to hinge upon the 320mil figure that they beleive we owe, the other points ARE misleading as well, but they CAN be interpreted in such a way that makes them truthful so I dont think we will get anywhere there.

Will try and find a hole in there 320mil figure, as it seems like its BS.

[bogan]

so the average bike accident costs 320/3,173 = 100k per accident
car accident costs; levies =2,584,509*312.91=808mil .... 808/8525=95k per accident. (all figures obtained using the ASA response letter)

So a car now costs 95k per accident, and a bike 100k per accident, so not too much difference.

I dont understand why they publised the cost per year figures first, if they wanted future funding though. Or maybe the first figure were for future funding and the 320mil ones are pure BS.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused: