ACC ad rebuttal

[Azi Dahaka]

Here is what i have so far i will update this first posts with updates

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

it is true that motorcyclists are not being singled out but a increase of $30 for cars and $500 for motorcyclists is not fair because on adverage motorcyclists cost approximatally $5000 less per claim.

ACC is also running advertising marketing campaigns against motorcycles spending several thousand dollard to place adds in newspapers.

Also Motorcycles are the only vehicle group that has its levy set based on c.c rating.

Motorcycles are accounted for separately - this is not done with small cars, medium cars, large cars, forward control vans, or four wheel drive vehicles, all of which, if separated out would display different degree of crash vulnerability.

Accounting for motorcycles separately is the essence of "singling out"

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies the preciously paid weren’t enough to cover the cost of the injuries the suffered.

Will motorcyclists now be paying the full cost of their injuries?
No. even with the levy increase we are proposing they will only be meeting 21% of their claim costs

If motorcyclists weren’t paying enough, who’s been covering their costs?
Other motor vehicle owners. Even with the proposed changes, most other motor vehicle owners will still contribute $77 to cross subsidise motorcyclists

In 2008 the total number of Cars, Trucks, Vans and Utes was 3,308,930 if you multiply this by $77 this becomes $254,787,610 ($254 million)
The entire motor vehicle ACC account was $341 million
In 2008 the total number of motorcyclists was 130,213 multiplying this against the registering costs of approximately $250 is $32,553,250
If you add the $254,787,610 and the $32,553,250 you get $287,340,860 based on this acc claims that motorcyclists make up 84% of all claims where they only equate to 23% of all claims

Source http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motorvehicle-
account/IS0800157
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/MOT_Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%202008_Full%20versio n.pdf

But motorcyclists say the crashes aren’t their fault
Figures show that in almost 60% of cases motorcyclists bore some or all of the responsibility for the crash.

In 2008 71% of crashes involving motorcyclists were collisions
Motorcyclist primarily responsible for 35% or 1/3 of these collisions
i.e. 2/3rds of collisions are caused by the motorist not the motorcyclist
Of all crashes including non collision accidents, the motorcyclist was primarily
responsible for 51%.

Source http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-
Factsheet.pdf

How much more at risk are motorcyclists?
Motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to make an acc claim that other road users. And they’re more likely to seriously injured

Between 1951 and 2008 there has been a 220% decrease in the number of accidents involving motorbikes. In fact between 2007 and 2008 there was a 7% decrease in crashes.

Source http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/MOT_Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%202008_Full%20versio n.pdf

It is 16 times more likly to have an accident id motorcycles covered the same distance as cars. ACCs own figures show that they use an annual travel distance for bikes one quarter than that of cars. One quarter the distance travelled one quarter the risk.

How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
For $750 you can insure a big bike, perhaps worth $15,000 to replace. The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident.

ACC is not an insurance scheme. It is a compensation scheme. Insurance companies give no claims bonuses, and have to face comeptition.
IS THIS A ADD FOR PRIVITISATION?????????????

Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims, or bikes used on farms?
No. we're only asking motorcyclists to pay for injuries on public roads.

ACC may only be asking us to pay for injuries on public roads, but the costs they claim include off road injuries

Waikato Hospital did a study, and found that 80% of motorcycle injuries they treated came from offroad, but the claim form generally stated 'motorcycle accident' and not location.

Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more that one bike?
They can only ride one bike at a time.
Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes and ride them, whether or not they had paid an acc levy themselves. In fact, ACC needs to collect the same amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective of whether that amount is collected per bike or per rider.

That is to make motorcyclists pay for ACCs inability to levy people fairly. The reality is that a motorcyclist who has a bike and a car will only use one at a time. If ACC are concerned about hypothetical situations then they should change their collection method.

[Ixion]

Couple more points

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

No other group is going up by 400%. Car levies go up $30 , motorcycle levies go up $500. That's not being singled out?


Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies the preciously paid weren’t enough to cover the cost of the injuries the suffered.

Yes they are. ACC want to collect more, to pay for old claims going back to 1974 and to build up their reserves. Motorcyclists should not be singled out to singlehandedly make up for ACC's bad investment decisions.

(not quite true, they did better than most, but truth is the first casualty of war).

How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
For $750 you can insure a big bike, perhaps worth $15,000 to replace. The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident.

Firstly, ACC is not an insurance scheme. It is a compensation scheme. if it is an insurance scheme, give us back the right to sue. Secondly, insurance companies give no claims bonuses ,and have to face comeptition. ACC has a monopoly (which they are abusing) .

Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims, or bikes used on farms?
No. we're only asking motorcyclists to pay for injuries on public roads.

They may only be asking us to pay for injuries on public roads, but the costs they claim include off road injuries

Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more that one bike?
They can only ride one bike at a time.
Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes and ride them, whether or not they had paid an acc levy themselves. In fact, ACC needs to collect the same amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective of whether that amount is collected per bike or per rider.

That is to make motorcyclists pay for ACCs inability to levy people fairly. The reality is that a motorcyclist who has a bike and a car will only use one at a time. If ACC are concerned about hypothetical situations then they should change their collection method .

How much more at risk are motorcyclists?
Motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to make an acc claim that other road users. And they’re more likely to seriously injured


This statement is untrue. It is 16 times IF BIKES COVERED THE SAME ANNUAL DISTANCE AS CARS. they don't ACCs own figures show that they use an annual travel distance for bikes one quarter that of cars. One quarter the distance travelled one quarter the risk.

[Ixion]

Colelct this into a coherent form and I'll send it as a Letter to the Editor of each paper form BRONZ.

[Ozzie]

Mr Goff,

I am a biker and was at the Manukau protest last weekend when you indicated that Labour would be behind us in our fight for fair ACC across the board.<O:p

I understand that the figures stated are full of holes, and a complete misrepresentation of reality. This is further frustrated by the fact; as broke as ACC is, they can still afford to boost the Government's bottom line with it's "returns on investment" and fund 1/4 page adds in every major paper in NZ today, restating their propaganda. <O:p

I also note, although the impact in the public eye is singling out bikers, the reality is that it will impact everyone. If by bike numbers dropping, multiple rego's reducing, putting rego on hold for the wet months or whatever, this all will reduce their forcasted earnings without having the slightest impact on the km's travelled, or the accident rates. That being realised, what next? Joe public does not get this, nor the idea that an extra 75,000 cars on the road, as bikers and uni students opt for the cheaper way (car), will absolutely nail the already stretched transport system

I am wondering, given this battle also has political impacts, if the Labour party can assist us, or if we can work together to rebut the ACC and National's claims in the Herald at least.<O:p

Perhaps Labour put an add in pointing out the holes in ACC's (read National's) claims.<O:p

I for one am disappointed to say I did vote National at the last election, but their ignorance of public opinion and straight out fudging of figures is infuriating. Consequently I will not be voting National again, and I expect my opinion would be shared by a great number of New Zealanders if the full, real story could be told. Unfortunately, the bikers don't have the money or public image to do that alone.

I eagerly anticipate your reply

Your Sincerely,<O:p

[Mystic13]

If motorcyclists weren’t paying enough, who’s been covering their costs? Other motor vehicle owners. Even with the proposed changes, most other motor vehicle owners will still contribute $77 to cross subsidise motorcyclists



Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims.

ACC have used a figure for next years claims of $252 million. 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.).

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/...+for+motorists

Of course if the claims aren’t $252 million we can all expect a refund cheque in the mail.

So ACC are right... on the basis of these absolutely 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

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.

What I wonder is if ACC decided to use a claims figures for cars next year of four times what it was last year and then announce the new car levy would be $750 would motorists be upset. The AA would be the first to scream.

[Azi Dahaka]

i have made some changes thanks Ixion not 100% on the insurance comment as it sounds like an add for privitisation and personally i dont want to go down that track

[MSTRS]

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

Notice how quiet they are on that subject? Keep the country focussed on those nasty bikers and they'll never see what else is coming.

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies they previously paid weren’t enough to cover the cost of the injuries they suffered.

It's (supposed to be) a No Fault road fund. Do small cars pay/cost more because of their vulnerability?

Will motorcyclists now be paying the full cost of their injuries?
No. even with the levy increase we are proposing they will only be meeting 21% of their claim costs

There's that spurious $3700 that Key has bleated on about. In theory that would cover 20+ years worth of pay outs on long term active claims beginning in 2009. In real life, very few people would still be drawing large $ at anywhere near 20 years down the track. And accident/injury figures have been steadily dropping since the 80s.
It's worth noting here that in 2008, ACC paid out $38M in old active claims...those claims are from all years gone by (or at least prior to 1999) collectively. Not just a single year from the past. So, my above 20+ years is not really accurate at all.

How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
For $750 you can insure a big bike, perhaps worth $15,000 to replace. The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident.

What's insurance got to do with anything? Insurance is based on the individual primarily. And it's non-compulsory, however recommended it may be. ACC is not insurance.

Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims, or bikes used on farms?
No. we're only asking motorcyclists to pay for injuries on public roads.

This is rubbish. Waikato Hospital did a study, and found that 80% of m/c injuries they treated came from offroad, but the claim form generally stated 'm/c accident' not location.

Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more that one bike?
They can only ride one bike at a time.
Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes and ride them, whether or not they had paid an acc levy themselves. In fact, ACC needs to collect the same amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective of whether that amount is collected per bike or per rider.

Every single vehicle attracts a levy, so why even mention this? As though m/cs are somehow different in this respect.

I'm sure that someone can find the proof of what I say, if I haven't

[Mystic13]

But motorcyclists say the crashes aren’t their fault
Figures show that in almost 60% of cases motorcyclists bore some or all of the responsibility for the crash.

The figures they refer to are from the pie chart on page 4 here.

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

In reality 39% of the time it is the fault of the other motor vehicle solely and 7% of the time they are partially responsible.

I had used a general fuigure of 45% and argued that if ACC are wanting to attribute fault and they know that other motorvehilces are at fault 45% of the time then 45% of the cost should be paid from that source.

[Azi Dahaka]

i would like to add the

Waikato Hospital did a study, and found that 80% of m/c injuries they treated came from offroad, but the claim form generally stated 'm/c accident' not location.

is there a source for this

[Mystic13]

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

They are. ACC isn't running advertising marketing campaigns against any other group that are facing ACC levies increases. We get special treatment.

[Azi Dahaka]

just speaking to him about how we can get it out. he said one good way was twitter but he said you need to send the whole thing how i have set it up to every media group you can. this of course needs to come from a spokes person for this.

i am going to keep working on it

can i get peoples views on wording. he said there was two methods what i have done as in straight facts refuting it. or a smare campain type rebuttal. ie ACC is lying about the stats [add comment here]

personally i woudl like to raise above the smare thing and state facts. but i also see the value in the smare as well.

[Bald Eagle]

just speaking to him about how we can get it out. he said one good way was twitter but he said you need to send the whole thing how i have set it up to every media group you can. this of course needs to come from a spokes person for this.

i am going to keep working on it

can i get peoples views on wording. he said there was two methods what i have done as in straight facts refuting it. or a smare campain type rebuttal. ie ACC is lying about the stats [add comment here]

personally i woudl like to raise above the smare thing and state facts. but i also see the value in the smare as well.

We need to do both,

Lead with a bold statement that ACC is publishing dis-information to attempt to divide New Zealanders and hide the truth.
Then bullet point fact statements with relevant rebuttal:

ACC says .........

Fact :

Each fact to include direct source info from motor reg etc.

Finish with ACC is not in trouble return 7bilion profit to govt funds.

[davereid]

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

Motorcyclists are being singled out.

Motorcycles are the only vehicle group that has its levy set based on c.c rating.

Motorcycles are accounted for separately - this is not done with small cars, medium cars, large cars, forward control vans, or four wheel drive vehicles, all of which, if separated out would display different degree of crash vulnerability.

Accounting for motorcycles separately is the essence of "singling out"

[pzkpfw]

Motorcycles are accounted for separately - this is not done with small cars, medium cars, large cars, forward control vans, or four wheel drive vehicles, all of which, if separated out would display different degree of crash vulnerability.

...or even Black cars versus White cars.

[MSTRS]

And nobody has even mentioned convertibles. Yet.

[Ozzie]

And nobody has even mentioned convertibles. Yet.


Hmmm Cheese cutters love those too

[I GS 1]

They are not the only group ACC are targeting. Those who have needed to make "sensitive claims", those affected by suicide, those injured while committing a crime have also been in the firing line. It looks like any group where ACC believe that they can get the general public to condone their cost cutting discrimination will be targeted. However, ACC’s use of misleading figures and facts has already led to at least one commission of inquiry having to be appointed so far. Let's hope this ACC recommendation becomes a political issue and they don't get away with this one. The ACC Minister must already be starting to be an embarrassment to the party.

[Jantar]

I believe I have managed to shoot down the risk claim. This is an excerpt from my submission:


Perhaps the largest error is in the claim that “Motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to make an ACC claim than other road users, and they’re more likely to be seriously injured.” I managed to track this claim down to a comment derived from the New Zealand Ongoing Household Travel Survey http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/LatestResults/. It shows that motorcyclist only ride 2500 km per year. The claim is then made that if motorcyclists were to travel the same distance as car drivers then they would be 16 times more likely to be injured in an accident than car drivers. There are two fallacies here.

The first one is a hypothetical one that says: motorcycles do x km per year, cars do y km per year. If the km per year covered by bikes was raised to the same as that covered by cars then the number of crashes would increase accordingly. But if the data is correct then motorcycles do not cover the same distance as cars, so the risk does not increase.

The second fallacy is caused by the methodology of their survey. If they ask people about their travel habits over a two day period mid week then they have automatically excluded the long distance tourers, most adventure riders and those who use their bikes for weekend touring. It also claims that motorcycles are only 0.8% of the New Zealand vehicle fleet when MoT data shows it as 3%. There are two errors in using this claim: The first error is in the measurement of distance travelled by motorcyclists. They have not used Warrant of Fitness records which would under read because some bikes have hour meters rather than odometers, nor have they surveyed motorcyclists directly. Althouigh there do not appear to be any reliable statistics on the distances travelled by motorcyclists each year compared to car drivers the 2009 National report on New Zealand motorcycle riders (Read 2009) states:

“In terms of open road riding, 45% considered that a long distance to travel in one day meant a trip of 500kms or more. Another 38% said for them, a long distance meant 300-500kms, 12% saw it at about 200-300kms, and 5% indicated 100-200kms.”

A survey conducted by Kiwibiker www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=92027 gives an average distance per year travelled as around 13,000 km which is over 5 times the distance suggested in the Household Travel Survey. If the Kiwibiker survey is correct then this would put the relative risk of a motorcycle accident 3.2 times more likely.

The real determining factor is to look at actual crash statistics and see what proportion of accident crashes are experienced by motorcycles compared to other vehicles. There are two reliable sources of data which enable this risk to be evaluated more accurately. These are the ACC’s own claim data and the Ministry of Transport crash statistics.


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 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.

Thus, it doesn’t matter whether we use the MoT data, ACC’s own data, or the Household travel survey method corrected with the Kiwibiker data, the relative risk for motorcycles works out at just over 3 times that of a car.

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

What about a followup (round 2) on close up? Anybody thought of contacting them (Ixon)?

Good work on the replies - can't beleive that the ACC has money for this and to return profits to the government but says that premiums need to increase. This is all starting to get a bit wierd that they would even buy this advert (I think they need to fire their PR person).

Anybody aware of how to lay a complaint against ACC for abuse of funding? I for one am happy to lodge a complaint but just need a bit of direction.

Edit: Just found a link to the ASA complaint form in another thread about the ad. Apologies if posted in the wrong place. I still think Close up is a good idea.

[Bald Eagle]

What about a followup (round 2) on close up? Anybody thought of contacting them (Ixon)?

Good work on the replies - can't beleive that the ACC has money for this and to return profits to the government but says that premiums need to increase. This is all starting to get a bit wierd that they would even buy this advert (I think they need to fire their PR person).

Anybody aware of how to lay a complaint against ACC for abuse of funding? I for one am happy to lodge a complaint but just need a bit of direction.

There are already some activities on threads in here.

Two avenues of attack , first complain to advertising standards association about misleading advertising.
second complain to your mp. ministers and MP's are responsible for the information they send out being accurate. It's all in the Member of Parliaments handbook.

[Supermac Jr]

first complain to advertising standards association about misleading advertising.

Complaint laid...

[NONONO]

Here's my concern.
ACC and the Gooberment are managing this issue with some tried and tested media communications 101 techniques. The problem is they are proven to work.
1. Prepare your statement.
This is the same as choose your battle ground. High ground, easy to defend, leave an exit to retreat from.
ACC have done this well (despite the fact that it's all lies).
2. Find opportunities to state your case to the widest possible audience.
Again ACC and Nat are hitting this one at every opportunity.
It's volley fire, wide and often. Does not have to be accurate just loud and scary.
3. NEVER EVER rebut an argument. Simply restate your original case.
Always ensure the content of any reply refers to your argument, not the rebuttal.
Rapid fire, pins down the opposition, leave few opportunities for returning fire.
4. If your argument begins to fail, due to new evidence or the persuasive nature of the opposing argument, return to step 1.
Fighting retreat to safer ground, regroup and prepare a counter attack.
If ACC and the Nats continue with the above (and they will) we can't win the propaganda war, not even with the truth.
We need more AFFIRMATIVE action, protests as often and as many as we can. Keep it in the news, daily if possible.
Under these circumstances we can not rely on winning the "hearts and minds" of Joe Public, lets try another route. We need to go on the offensive now before it's too late.

[Ixion]

$77 subsidy from every car ? That's $220 million . Total cost is only $60 million. Geez, an eight year old can do the arithmetic. No wonder ACC claim to be broke, they can't do 8 year old arithmetic

Repeat, rinse , lather, repeat.

[Laxi]

Complaint laid...

+1 :2guns::2guns::2guns: fuckers

[StoneY]

What about a followup (round 2) on close up? Anybody thought of contacting them (Ixon)?

Good work on the replies - can't beleive that the ACC has money for this and to return profits to the government but says that premiums need to increase. This is all starting to get a bit wierd that they would even buy this advert (I think they need to fire their PR person).

Anybody aware of how to lay a complaint against ACC for abuse of funding? I for one am happy to lodge a complaint but just need a bit of direction.

Edit: Just found a link to the ASA complaint form in another thread about the ad. Apologies if posted in the wrong place. I still think Close up is a good idea.

I would say 60 minutes, get the full 20 minutes plug

[Mcycle]

ACC’s Press Ad’s of 5 November are a sign of desperation by ACC, and an attempt to ‘divide and rule’ by posing more spurious arguments.

My recommendation is to not be tempted into responding to the often irrelevant points raised in this advertisement.

Stick to the simple winning arguments so clearly detailed on the web site; www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz.

If anyone does respond, do it by letters to the Editor, to all papers up and down the country and simply pick out key points eg

“In it’s 5 November advertisement ACC say that Motorcyclists aren’t being singles out, yet in 2008 there were 1,475 motorcycle accidents and 50 deaths, and motorcyclists paid approximately $12.3 million in levies. At the same period there were 1,170 bicycle accidents and 36 deaths. Cyclists paid no ACC levies.

In targeting motorcyclists ACC is ignoring the key fact that ACC was established to ensure that ALL those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principles behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme that was set up to avoid fault.”

Keep up the good work folks, we are winning!!

[peasea]

I would say 60 minutes, get the full 20 minutes plug

Plus Sainsbury and Campbell are both cocks.

[Pedrostt500]

Here's my concern.
ACC and the Gooberment are managing this issue with some tried and tested media communications 101 techniques. The problem is they are proven to work.
1. Prepare your statement.
This is the same as choose your battle ground. High ground, easy to defend, leave an exit to retreat from.
ACC have done this well (despite the fact that it's all lies).
2. Find opportunities to state your case to the widest possible audience.
Again ACC and Nat are hitting this one at every opportunity.
It's volley fire, wide and often. Does not have to be accurate just loud and scary.
3. NEVER EVER rebut an argument. Simply restate your original case.
Always ensure the content of any reply refers to your argument, not the rebuttal.
Rapid fire, pins down the opposition, leave few opportunities for returning fire.
4. If your argument begins to fail, due to new evidence or the persuasive nature of the opposing argument, return to step 1.
Fighting retreat to safer ground, regroup and prepare a counter attack.
If ACC and the Nats continue with the above (and they will) we can't win the propaganda war, not even with the truth.
We need more AFFIRMATIVE action, protests as often and as many as we can. Keep it in the news, daily if possible.
Under these circumstances we can not rely on winning the "hearts and minds" of Joe Public, lets try another route. We need to go on the offensive now before it's too late.


A lie can run around the World, before the Truth can even get its Boots on.

[FastBikeGear]

My suggestion for ACC's next 1/4 page add in the Herald and Dominion.

I'd like to present an alternative view. Lets not refute their accident statistic figures and their points lets just present the correct ones. (OK let's just refute the $77 dollar one becasue that personal to every motorist). The key issue here for every voting New Zealander is the move from a no fault compensation model to an insurance business model for ACC. Most NZ'ers are not concerned about motorbike community specific grievances. Although I will grant that we all believe in fair play


ACC explains the scrapping of their traditional 'no fault' insurance model

Why are motorcyclists being singled out first?
We needed to start by targeting a smaller high risk group that we felt best demonstrated the need to scrap our no fault insurance model. This allows us establish two important precedents. First that ACC is moving away from a no fault claims model and secondly that groups that present greater risks should pay more in ACC 'insurance'

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
National wants to align our policies with established insurance company practices. The ACC's current funding models are not attractive to private insurance companies. The Australian insurance companies will pay more to acquire the business of ACC if they can maximise the profits.

Will every other motorists really have to pay an extra $77 even with the proposed levy hike as claimed by ACC ?
You do the math. Total ACC claims for motorcylists were 63 million last year. There were just over 3,308,930 cars, trucks, vans and utes registered in 2008. $77 x 3,308,930 = $254,78,7610. So after paying the 63 million dollars cost for motorcyclists ACC will have made a profit of over 191 million dollars from motorcyclists! That should be very attractive to all of the Australian insurance companies that we are courting.

Who's next?
You don't need us to tell you. Next up it's the cyclists. It's been estimated that in excess of $100 million dollars can be charged in ACC levies to cyclists. There are very conservatively about 200,000 cyclists in New Zealand. Using the same calculations for motorcyclists the levy cost per cycle should be in excess of $500.00. A Report just released by the Wellington regional council show that they are 30 times more likely to be injured in accidents than car drivers (compared to ACC statistics which show motorcyclists are 4 x more likely to be injured). From cyclists it's a logical step to rugby and rugby league players who account for $50,000,000 in ACC payouts. Due to soraing medical costs accident and loss of income insurance is one of the largest growth businesses on the planet.

But motorcyclists say that in more than 50% of accidents aren't their fault. What happens if National privaties ACC?
ACC has traditionally been a no fault insurer. Insurance companies can't support this business model. When a car driver injures a motorcyclist their insurance coverage will need to cover them for the cost of injuries to the motorcyclist. If ACC is privatised car drivers levies will need to increase many fold to cover the cost of injury to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.

How to make a submission?
For information on making a submission, visit www.acc.co.nz/consultation. Consultation closes on 5pm Tuesday 10th of November. Now because you probably don't expect ACC to respond by calling you up for a chin wag consultation.....

...Better still
Write to your local National MP and let them know how the the scrapping of the 'no fault' ACC insurance model will affect how you vote in the future.


From the press desk at
ACC alternative Media Relations

[Ixion]

Incidentally , 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
..

So, here , where they claim to be providing insurance


The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident




They openly admit to breaking the law, and acting ultra vires.

[I GS 1]

My suggestion for ACC's next 1/4 page add in the Herald and Dominion.

I'd like to present an alternative view. Lets not refute their accident statistic figures and their points lets just present the correct ones. (OK let's just refute the $77 dollar one becasue that personal to every motorist). The key issue here for every voting New Zealander is the move from a no fault compensation model to an insurance business model for ACC. Most NZ'ers are not concerned about motorbike community specific grievances. Although I will grant that we all believe in fair play


ACC explains the scrapping of their traditional 'no fault' insurance model

Why are motorcyclists being singled out first?
We needed to start by targeting a smaller high risk group that we felt best demonstrated the need to scrap our no fault insurance model. This allows us establish two important precedents. First that ACC is moving away from a no fault claims model and secondly that groups that present greater risks should pay more in ACC 'insurance'

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
National wants to align our policies with established insurance company practices. The ACC's current funding models are not attractive to private insurance companies. The Australian insurance companies will pay more to acquire the business of ACC if they can maximise the profits.

Will every other motorists really have to pay an extra $77 even with the proposed levy hike as claimed by ACC ?
You do the math. Total ACC claims for motorcylists were 63 million last year. There were just over 3,308,930 cars, trucks, vans and utes registered in 2008. $77 x 3,308,930 = $254,78,7610. So after paying the 63 million dollars cost for motorcyclists ACC will have made a profit of over 191 million dollars from motorcyclists! That should be very attractive to all of the Australian insurance companies that we are courting.

Who's next?
You don't need us to tell you. Next up it's the cyclists. It's been estimated that in excess of $100 million dollars can be charged in ACC levies to cyclists. There are very conservatively about 200,000 cyclists in New Zealand. Using the same calculations for motorcyclists the levy cost per cycle should be in excess of $500.00. A Report just released by the Wellington regional council show that they are 30 times more likely to be injured in accidents than car drivers (compared to ACC statistics which show motorcyclists are 4 x more likely to be injured). From cyclists it's a logical step to rugby and rugby league players who account for $50,000,000 in ACC payouts. Due to soraing medical costs accident and loss of income insurance is one of the largest growth businesses on the planet.

But motorcyclists say that in more than 50% of accidents aren't their fault. What happens if National privaties ACC?
ACC has traditionally been a no fault insurer. Insurance companies can't support this business model. When a car driver injures a motorcyclist their insurance coverage will need to cover them for the cost of injuries to the motorcyclist. If ACC is privatised car drivers levies will need to increase many fold to cover the cost of injury to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.

How to make a submission?
For information on making a submission, visit www.acc.co.nz/consultation. Consultation closes on 5pm Tuesday 10th of November. Now because you probably don't expect ACC to respond by calling you up for a chin wag consultation.....

...Better still
Write to your local National MP and let them know how the the scrapping of the 'no fault' ACC insurance model will affect how you vote in the future.


From the press desk at
ACC alternative Media Relations

Well Done!! - I like it
I will get it up and read by as many people at work as I can

[I GS 1]

My suggestion for ACC's next 1/4 page add in the Herald and Dominion.


Well Done!! - I like it
I will get it up and read by as many people at work as I can

[FastBikeGear]

Well Done!! - I like it
I will get it up and read by as many people at work as I can

Thansk mate their are some other excellent rebuttals in this thread. but I just wanted an option of something very simple. It's hard to hold peoples attention with more complex responses to issues that don't directly affect them.

[Skyryder]

My suggestion for ACC's next 1/4 page add in the Herald and Dominion.

I'd like to present an alternative view. Lets not refute their accident statistic figures and their points lets just present the correct ones. (OK let's just refute the $77 dollar one becasue that personal to every motorist). The key issue here for every voting New Zealander is the move from a no fault compensation model to an insurance business model for ACC. Most NZ'ers are not concerned about motorbike community specific grievances. Although I will grant that we all believe in fair play


ACC explains the scrapping of their traditional 'no fault' insurance model

Why are motorcyclists being singled out first?
We needed to start by targeting a smaller high risk group that we felt best demonstrated the need to scrap our no fault insurance model. This allows us establish two important precedents. First that ACC is moving away from a no fault claims model and secondly that groups that present greater risks should pay more in ACC 'insurance'

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
National wants to align our policies with established insurance company practices. The ACC's current funding models are not attractive to private insurance companies. The Australian insurance companies will pay more to acquire the business of ACC if they can maximise the profits.

Will every other motorists really have to pay an extra $77 even with the proposed levy hike as claimed by ACC ?
You do the math. Total ACC claims for motorcylists were 63 million last year. There were just over 3,308,930 cars, trucks, vans and utes registered in 2008. $77 x 3,308,930 = $254,78,7610. So after paying the 63 million dollars cost for motorcyclists ACC will have made a profit of over 191 million dollars from motorcyclists! That should be very attractive to all of the Australian insurance companies that we are courting.

Who's next?
You don't need us to tell you. Next up it's the cyclists. It's been estimated that in excess of $100 million dollars can be charged in ACC levies to cyclists. There are very conservatively about 200,000 cyclists in New Zealand. Using the same calculations for motorcyclists the levy cost per cycle should be in excess of $500.00. A Report just released by the Wellington regional council show that they are 30 times more likely to be injured in accidents than car drivers (compared to ACC statistics which show motorcyclists are 4 x more likely to be injured). From cyclists it's a logical step to rugby and rugby league players who account for $50,000,000 in ACC payouts. Due to soraing medical costs accident and loss of income insurance is one of the largest growth businesses on the planet.

But motorcyclists say that in more than 50% of accidents aren't their fault. What happens if National privaties ACC?
ACC has traditionally been a no fault insurer. Insurance companies can't support this business model. When a car driver injures a motorcyclist their insurance coverage will need to cover them for the cost of injuries to the motorcyclist. If ACC is privatised car drivers levies will need to increase many fold to cover the cost of injury to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.

How to make a submission?
For information on making a submission, visit www.acc.co.nz/consultation. Consultation closes on 5pm Tuesday 10th of November. Now because you probably don't expect ACC to respond by calling you up for a chin wag consultation.....

...Better still
Write to your local National MP and let them know how the the scrapping of the 'no fault' ACC insurance model will affect how you vote in the future.


From the press desk at
ACC alternative Media Relations

On a previous post I suggested not to engage in a rebuttal add. I don't usually change my mind but after reading the above from Wobblyas I do now.

If there is a serious rebuttal to ACC's add I suggest that the powers that be take a good hard look at this post. It's PERFECT.


Skyyrder

[riffer]

Okay, I've come up with something.

Here's a rebuttal ad. How about we pass this around?

[Ozzie]

Okay, I've come up with something.

Here's a rebuttal ad. How about we pass this around?


So have I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63yzgu6D9k

[FastBikeGear]

So have I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63yzgu6D9k

Brilliant sir very skilfully worded and crafted.

I applaud the way you don't get sucked into the argument of trying to justify how extra it would be fair for bikers to pay.

You have got it 100% right - it is supposed to be a no fault system. In all our messages we need to consistently state this.

The key issue is that it is a no fault compensation scheme where we shoudl all be contributing the same regardless of our risk. Accepting anything else is to accept the thin edge of the wedge.

P.S. Also love your call for other groups to join us. Hell yes lets show National that it's a lot more than bikers that are pissed off.

Ixion what about it?

Why not invite the cyclists, etc to join us at Parliament on the 17th?

[riffer]

so have i http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63yzgu6d9k


i like it!!!!!

[MSTRS]

Love it! Link sent to nonbikers in my address book

[taff1954]

Incidentally , the ACC Act , S262 says

So, here , where they claim to be providing insurance

They openly admit to breaking the law, and acting ultra vires.

I've just noticed the automated reply from ACC for my submission is signed "Keith McLea, General Manager, ACC Insurance"

Perhaps others have made note, and I missed it, but still...

[Grahameeboy]

And nobody has even mentioned convertibles. Yet.

Keep a lid on it you....:bash:

[Grahameeboy]

I've just noticed the automated reply from ACC for my submission is signed "Keith McLea, General Manager, ACC Insurance"

Perhaps others have made note, and I missed it, but still...

To me it is still an "Insurance"...you pay a sum of money based on statistics ie payments worked out my acturaries...you have an event which is covered and you claim.

ACC was founded when I suspect Insurance was not on people's lips..still is not to an extent now...so it was bound to end up being a monopoly..even now insurance is a pretty much closed shop with few real players with 2 insurer's being the biggest.

Is there much difference?

When workplace ACC was handled by Insurer's a few years ago, it ran better and in some case it was more competitive...

[MSTRS]

To me it is still an "Insurance"...you pay a sum of money based on statistics ie payments worked out my acturaries...you have an event which is covered and you claim.

----------------

Is there much difference?


Semantics, maybe. But insurance is different, in that any policy is tailored by an individual's age, history, experience, even where they live - within the subset of the risk group.
ACC does NOT work like that. Therefore it is not true insurance.

[Grahameeboy]

Semantics, maybe. But insurance is different, in that any policy is tailored by an individual's age, history, experience, even where they live - within the subset of the risk group.
ACC does NOT work like that. Therefore it is not true insurance.

Insurance was started as early as 2AD by the Chinese and Babylonian Traders with cargo....didn't have cars etc then...they didn't have statistics then...so I guess what is true Insurance....I reckon ACC can come under this guise too...car insurance etc is relatiively new and insurance as WE know it now only became important after the Great Fire of London in 1666

[MSTRS]

So? Over-weight, aging Poms used to be welcome here, too. Once.
:innocent:

[Pixie]

Okay, I've come up with something.

Here's a rebuttal ad. How about we pass this around?

Spell check it first -we don't want to look like a bunch of ignorami

[riffer]

Spell check it first -we don't want to look like a bunch of ignorami

True. I had, but maybe I've missed something. Have you spotted an error?

[hayd3n]

why cant we just put this forward to FAIR GO
http://tvnz.co.nz/fair-go

[mossy1200]

If 40% of the accidents involve cars I would say that these are more than likely the most expensive claims and may in dollar terms be 60% of the costs.
If they are 60% odd and off road is a decent percent what percentage in dollar terms are we costing for own fault accidents on the road?

[ManDownUnder]

why cant we just put this forward to FAIR GO
http://tvnz.co.nz/fair-go

I LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not sure it's in their breif to get involved in politicial debate but we can only try!