Invitation to Mr McLea

[Ixion]

ACC are unhappy, it seems, about "misinformation being spread by certain biker groups".

So I've invited Dr McLea to publicly debate the changes. With us and other "affected stakeholders"

Copied to the Dom Post reported.



Dear Mr McLea

I note your comments in the Dominion Post this morning, regarding what you consider "misinformation" from biker groups, regarding proposed changes to ACC.

It is important that the general public have a clear idea of the changes envisaged to ACC (I note that ACC has already effectively turned itself into an insurance company).

BRONZ and the motorcycling community, together with other stakeholders likely to be affected by the changes, would be happy to debate these with you. I am sure that one of the television stations would be keen to give air time for such a debate.

Please let me know you response.

Best regards

Les Mason

[GOONR]

I'd hate to go to battle against you Ixion, your like a bulldog with a bone. Just won't let it go.

Good on ya and thank you for fronting up on our behalf.

[Azi Dahaka]

i completly agree with this he has made a statement and it needs to be countered. the statement clearly stated we have done something wrong and if we have we should fix it BUT if we havent then he needs to widthdraw said statement

[yachtie10]

Well done Les and thanks for your efforts

I would like to point out (I am sure you are aware anyway) that there has been misinformation been put about by bikers. This I blame on ACC anyway for not being forthcoming on how and why they calculate the information they have presented.

What I am trying to say is be careful you don't get blind-sided by ACC showing some of the calculations we have presented are incorrect.

I am happy to assist where I can
I am good at critiquing other peoples work (not so good at coming up with my own)

[Ixion]

Ah, but in any debate we would NOT be focusing on numbers. "Misinformation" covers a lot more ground than numbers. Like, "misinformation" about ACC truning itself into an insurance company by stealth!

It would be a fatal startegic mistake for bikers to get hung up on numbers and statistics.

We can ridicule their $77 number, because the basis of it is too complex for Joe Q to easily understand.

And we cAN pull their capacity distinctions apart - they're just wrong. But,as they say, if one biker pays less then another pays more - IF the basic numebrs be accepted.

We need to focus on principle.

ACC was not intended to be a user pays system.

[Ixion]

..showing some of the calculations we have presented are incorrect.

..

Far as I'm aware, they're not actually incorrect. Just looking at the numbers differently. Of course ACC will say their take is correct (which technically it probably is). But ours is also "sorrect" .

eg the $77.

ACCs calculation is based on complex acturial principles. Which may be right or wrong, but I'm certainly not going to get into an acturial argument about it. But, Joe Q is a simple soul , and struggles to understand why ACC want to charge $220million when they only pay out $62 million. Which is also correct.

[ManDownUnder]

Keep it simple as you say Les.

How much is spent each year?
How many motorcycles
Divide one by the other and voila... the ACC component of the license

I don't think it needs to get any more complex than that to be honest. Have ACC confirm the figures you quote (expenditure, number of motorcycles...) then do the maths for him there and then.

Take the position that they are using complexity to hide the simple truth, which you have laid out for every one at home to calculate for themselves.

I agree with fighting them on principle too. I won't add my 2 cents worth because I'll only be repeating what others have said. But take it to them on both fronts, keep it simple, and feed them enough rope...

By the way I took the liberty of contacting TV3 asking for aa public forum due to the ACC having huge amounts of funds available to them, while motorcyclists don't. Hope that was ok

[Mully]

Woo Hoo. Good luck.

If you get a reply (and that's a big "if") - it'll be "thanks but no thanks"

[riffer]

And we should publish his response too.

[StoneY]

Just sent Les the actuall total registration numbers as at 31st Oct 2009, courtesay of NZTA senior statician

Normally a 200$ fee for this query, she waved it :niceone:

However its in SNP format, and I tried opening it with Access and failed...Les may need a cleverer IT geek than me to access the table provided (im a coordinator, been off the tools for ages now)

Its just ammunition, but has been given to us by a Govt Agency, and they broke their own rules giving it free...smack of 'clandestine support' to me
;)

NZTA must like bikers!!!!!

[StoneY]

By the way I took the liberty of contacting TV3 asking for aa public forum due to the ACC having huge amounts of funds available to them, while motorcyclists don't. Hope that was ok

Been onto 20/20 regarding a post 'BIKEOI' segment.....have not been told no yet and a senior editor is having a chew on my proposed story

[mikeey01]

So I've invited Dr McLea to publicly debate the changes. With us and other "affected stakeholders" Copied to the Dom Post reported.

Your a good Barstard Les and there should be more like you in todays society.

[The Stranger]

However its in SNP format, and I tried opening it with Access and failed...Les may need a cleverer IT geek than me to access the table provided

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNP_File_Format) may help

[Big Dave]

"misinformation being spread by certain biker groups".


OK - who said 'ACC is fair and reasonable', c'mon - who said it?

[StoneY]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNP_File_Format) may help

It sure did
Would have thought this would be incorparated into my 2007 suite, full professional version blahdyblah

Friggin MS (gotta be carefull there works a platimum partner and im off to Seattle next year to certify)

Toys toys toys

Yes, I agree with you all Les is a bloody good bloke

[The Stranger]

gotta be carefull there works a platimum partner

I'm so sorry for you.

[Naki Rat]

I agree that the best approach is to keep it simple and easily digested by Joe Citizen. We have the advantage of having increasing numbers of the general public siding with us as the real story emerges. Keep the "who's next" thrust going as it gains us support by way of both sympathy and fear.

This campaign has so many parallels with the one that was waged against genetic engineering it's scarey, and can be used as something of a template for us now. ACC/National have and will introduce complex principals that both scare and confuse the public into agreeing with their actions but unlike the GE thing this time we can make our claims of threats that include a downside to Joe Citizen and that's where our strength lies. We also have a much wider support base that is spread throughout the population on all demographic levels than the Greens et al could muster against GE.

Unfortunately one major hangover of the GE battle was a huge loss of energy and vitality in the organic sector. I'm not sure if or how that phase will portray itself as this battle plays out, especially if we have a mediocre victory, or worse :(

Awesome effort Les, and many others. My feeling is that ACC and the government are finding far more resistance than they ever expected and we are now starting to see them on the back foot at times. Here's hoping :yes:

[StoneY]

Thanks Stranger, the plug in worked a treat


See attached

Issue is there has been a figure of 116,000 shown in crash report figures as total motorcycle/moped fleet, this doc shows Nicks version is closer to the real figure....somehtings not right between these govt agencies, none give the same figure, none even close to each other numbrrs wise
On phone when I asked for this they verbally quoted 116,000 bikes, this doc says otherwise...wtf?

[Jantar]

Keep it simple as you say Les.

How much is spent each year?
How many motorcycles
Divide one by the other and voila... the ACC component of the license...
But what about the component we pay on fuels as well?

[ManDownUnder]

Les - ... any chance of an open debate on the issue?

I.e. BRONZ, ACC... each states it's position then opens the floor to... an interviewer and/or the public?

[ManDownUnder]

But what about the component we pay on fuels as well?

That's already factored into the status quo.

We're talking about the amount charged as part of registration to 'top up" the shortfall. Meaning the number calculated above (payments/motorcycle regos) would be the highest possible numbner that could be charged... and that's only if ACC component was removed from fuels.

... I'm guessing that was your point?

[Mully]

Les - ... any chance of an open debate on the issue?

I.e. BRONZ, ACC... each states it's position then opens the floor to... an interviewer and/or the public?

Could we get Campbo to host it; that'd be maaaaaaaarvelous..

[Azi Dahaka]

Keep it simple as you say Les.
How much is spent each year?
How many motorcycles
Divide one by the other and voila... the ACC component of the license


well that works out to 4 or 5 hundred as our levies only covered 30 odd million of the 64 million though i do supose that dosnt cover the fule we used and the acc tax on the fule but how do you calculate that

[Marmoot]

If you do go into a public debate with Mr. McLea, you'd be right to assume he would have absorped any information discussed in KB and developed angle of attacks on every weak points presented here.

Well that's most likely what I would have done if I were him anyway.

[steve_t]

I may just be blind but what are the specifics of the "misinformation" propagated by bikers?

[Azi Dahaka]

If you do go into a public debate with Mr. McLea, you'd be right to assume he would have absorped any information discussed in KB and developed angle of attacks on every weak points presented here.

Well that's most likely what I would have done if I were him anyway.

yes but that would denote that he has some level of intelligance

[klingon]

If you do go into a public debate with Mr. McLea, you'd be right to assume he would have absorped any information discussed in KB and developed angle of attacks on every weak points presented here.

Well that's most likely what I would have done if I were him anyway.

LOL he would have had to employ three new staff members just to keep up with all the stuff currently on KB about ACC! :woohoo:

Poor Mr McLea... he really didn't know what he was letting himself in for when he picked on this bunch of Neanderthals. :D

[Azi Dahaka]

LOL he would have had to employ three new staff members just to keep up with all the stuff currently on KB about ACC! :woohoo:

Poor Mr McLea... he really didn't know what he was letting himself in for when he picked on this bunch of Neanderthals. :D

i am sorry but i woudl rather know myself as a Clapperdudgeon

[pzkpfw]

One of the basic "facts" from the ACC is the trio of:

$63 M spent on bikes, $12 M collected, $77 per car goes to bikes.

This is of course way more complex than ACC imply; as we all know $77 per car is way more than $63 M minus $12 M. There are factors such as that the $63 M spent includes money collected in previous years, and that the money they still need to collect includes future payments, residual fund etc.

But, keeping it at that "simple level" - for the purpose of an Apples with Apples comparison; what would the equivalent numbers be for cars?

[i.e. this is not about the validity of the numbers, but looking for comparable numbers for the other side of the fence.]

That is, take the money paid by cars and subtract the $77 that ACC claim is for bikes. How does that number then compare with the $X M they paid out for car related claims and the $Y M they claim to have collected from cars.

?

[Big Dave]

LOL he would have had to employ three new staff members just to keep up with all the stuff currently on KB about ACC!

Or 1 search engine.

[bogan]

just a thought I had to aid in keeping it simple. The ACC stats have been gathered in a roundabout way using samples, instead of getting into how thier figures have been generated, point out that if the figures from the totals dont match those gathered from samples, there is probly something wrong with the sampling technique, basic stats.

[NighthawkNZ]

[i.e. this is not about the validity of the numbers, but looking for comparable numbers for the other side of the fence.]

That is, take the money paid by cars and subtract the $77 that ACC claim is for bikes. How does that number then compare with the $X M they paid out for car related claims and the $Y M they claim to have collected from cars.

?
Using 2008 figures
$168.46 - $77 = $91.46 (new levy not subsiding bikes)
2,584,509 (vehicles) x $91.46 = $236,379,193.14

2008 Car Claims $208,305,000.00

Leving $28,074,193.14 to add to the future claims of the fully funded model

[Ixion]

If you do go into a public debate with Mr. McLea, you'd be right to assume he would have absorped any information discussed in KB and developed angle of attacks on every weak points presented here.

Well that's most likely what I would have done if I were him anyway.


of course. But our approach has also been refined.

[Ixion]

well that works out to 4 or 5 hundred as our levies only covered 30 odd million of the 64 million though i do supose that dosnt cover the fule we used and the acc tax on the fule but how do you calculate that

ACC work it out at about 432 per bike (from memory, but it's around that thirty something. Cars they calculate about $120 )

We actually get penalised for being fuel efficient.

ACC work out how much they want in total from each vehicle type and then deduct their fuel calculation . The result is the license levy. because they reckon we use less fuel than cars we pay an even higher licence levy. If they use dthe same fuel figure as cars, we'd be $90 better off.

So much for saving the planet. Admittedly they may have heard about my two strokes.

[Ixion]

Thanks Stranger, the plug in worked a treat


See attached

Issue is there has been a figure of 116,000 shown in crash report figures as total motorcycle/moped fleet, this doc shows Nicks version is closer to the real figure....somehtings not right between these govt agencies, none give the same figure, none even close to each other numbrrs wise
On phone when I asked for this they verbally quoted 116,000 bikes, this doc says otherwise...wtf?

Nick's figure is full year equivalents - ie a 6 month license counts as 0.5 bikes.

The reports hows 12 month regos and six month. What about 3 month or other .

[retro asian]

Could we get Campbo to host it; that'd be maaaaaaaarvelous..

Bad thing about Campbo is that he loves to do all the talking, and constantly interrupts his guests... :angry:

[Marmoot]

yes but that would denote that he has some level of intelligance

You're right. I forgot that I'm actually quite smart. :sunny:

[pzkpfw]

Using 2008 figures...

Thanks.

So far I get:


From Car Rego: $77 "to bikes" $91 to cars

Claims spend 2008: $63 M on bikes $208 M on cars

So ACC claim 46% of the ACC fees they collect off cars is needed for bikes, yet the 2008 spend on bike claims was only 30% of the size of the spend on car claims. (And of course ignores that bikes did pay $12 M, etc.).

Either they are planning for some unexplained huge rise in bike rleated claims, or the maths is seriously weird.

(The stuff Ixion notes in post #34 makes this more complicated than I've allowed for. But it still seems a good comparison.)

[Ixion]

Could we get Campbo to host it; that'd be maaaaaaaarvelous..

Actualy, I thinking for an old fashioned public debate. With a live audience !

[Jantar]

Actualy, I thinking for an old fashioned public debate. With a live audience !

On the evening of the 17th November perhaps? :rockon:

[NighthawkNZ]

Thanks.

So far I get:


From Car Rego: $77 "to bikes" $91 to cars

Claims spend 2008: $63 M on bikes $208 M on carsSo ACC claim 46% of the ACC fees they collect off cars is needed for bikes, yet the 2008 spend on bike claims was only 30% of the size of the spend on car claims. (And of course ignores that bikes did pay $12 M, etc.).

Either they are planning for some unexplained huge rise in bike rleated claims, or the maths is seriously weird.

(The stuff Ixion notes in post #34 makes this more complicated than I've allowed for. But it still seems a good comparison.)

the 12m is only rego not fuel and it is esitmated that in 2008 7 - 8 million was bikes fuel acc.

the 63m as you said is also for pre 1999 claims and present claims and forcast future claims

[ManDownUnder]

Actualy, I thinking for an old fashioned public debate. With a live audience !

Love it, but making the points to Mr McLea is one thing... being seen to make them, by the masses, quite another.

Or are you taking about doing it and inviting TV along? If so I'm sure we could find a school hall or public facility to use? We have a few on here that are skilled with a movie type camerarara!

Edit it... and Youtube it

[Ixion]

Yes. Public debate, Auckland Town Hall (could we fill it ?), TV cameras televise it.

[GOONR]

Yes. Public debate, Auckland Town Hall (could we fill it ?), TV cameras televise it.

Tickets offered here first? ;)

[Ixion]

Good thought. We could raise some funds.

[McJim]

Misinformation? Statistics extrapolated from their own published data for the most part. When Bronz requested data to analyse ACC supplied media soundbites with no substantiation or supporting information. THAT is misinformation.

[paturoa]

If it does happen - Make up some "queue cards" or graphics showing the calculations and give them to the telly boyz so they can dispaly them as you talk to them.

There are lots of people out there in telly land who could listen to you talk numbers but be none the wiser.

eg a mega simple graphics that could look like the following:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The $77 Myth ....

xxxxxx cars x $77 = $200m
ACC states total payments = $64 M
Where did the $136 Million dissappear to?

Note: ACC Paid to the Government a dividend of $700M this year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Mom]

Good thought. We could raise some funds.

We have places to spend them :yes:

[SARGE]

of course. But our approach has also been refined.

mine too .. now all i need is a widemouth jar and a rag ...

[Conquiztador]

Or 1 search engine.

A chinese 50cc one I hope...

[Ozzie]

Note: ACC Paid to the Government a dividend of $700M this year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's a good point.

I get the whole fully funded thing, and in theory why there has to be a cut in spending and an increase in revenue, not so much to cover the here and now, but to cover all the costs from now into eternitty, and backwards.

BUT

That being the case, should any surplus not be put back into the system? To assist in the self funding rather than line the Govt pockets?

The whole notion of this fairly shoots down the statement that once fully funded, levies will drop to the floor.

What Eva!

[James Deuce]

That's a good point.

I get the whole fully funded thing, and in theory why there has to be a cut in spending and an increase in revenue, not so much to cover the here and now, but to cover all the costs from now into eternitty, and backwards.

BUT

That being the case, should any surplus not be put back into the system? To assist in the self funding rather than line the Govt pockets?

The whole notion of this fairly shoots down the statement that once fully funded, levies will drop to the floor.

What Eva!

You might "get it", but like most Kiwis you appear to have fallen for the ACC as Insurance argument. It isn't. It never was. A fully funded Insurance model is unnecessary unless the Government is trying to make ACC look good to potential "investors".

[Pixie]

That's a good point.

I get the whole fully funded thing, and in theory why there has to be a cut in spending and an increase in revenue, not so much to cover the here and now, but to cover all the costs from now into eternitty, and backwards.
!

I suppose we are lucky the levies aren't required to approach infinity

[davereid]

you appear to have fallen for the ACC as Insurance argument. It isn't. It never was.

If ACC was an insurance company, motorcycles may be cheaper than cars.

The problem with ACC is that it looks at only account cost.

Insurers look at account liability.

So when you insure for personal and third party injury, a motorcycle is bad because it has a high personal liability for the insurer.

But its great, because it has a low third party risk, and in 66% of collisions your insurer will send the bill to the car driver anyway.

On the other hand, when he insures a van, it may well fill up with teenagers on a couch, who crash into another car injuring them as well. So the insurer has to allow for that when issuing cover.

Its only in the ACC "No fault" system that bikes get a bad rap.

[pzkpfw]

You might "get it", but like most Kiwis you appear to have fallen for the ACC as Insurance argument. It isn't. It never was. A fully funded Insurance model is unnecessary unless the Government is trying to make ACC look good to potential "investors".

That's one of the bits that burns me most.

They go fully funded, costing me more, so they can look like a normal insurance company.

Now fast-forward to when ACC is sold off to someone who buys its' assets. (Those assets built up by all that "fully funded" money they got of us).

Government walks away with a big pile of loot - and that pile of loot is essentially money taken off me (and you, and you ...).

[Ozzie]

You might "get it

To get it isnt to agree with it.

I haven't fallen for anything.

I fully understand and support the cause, am purely attempting to draw Les's attention to yet another possible point of attack on the learned Dr M, not that I especially think Les needs any assistance in that regard, he has a very good grip on things.

Why do car drivers have to "subsidise us" at all, when the government could leave the surplus where it belongs? It highlights the governments pure intention to shag as many people as possible in order to gain profit and structure the scheme such to attract the best sale price.

[James Deuce]

Its only in the ACC "No fault" system that bikes get a bad rap.

Talk to every European country's insurers and you'll find a very different picture. Big bikes are for successful upper middle class fat bastardsand it isn't until you're over-40 that bike insurance starts to look affordable for an "average" Joe.

Having said that, most teenage drivers can't afford the insurance for anything more than a 5 year old 1400cc hatchback in the UK and without insurance your car gets crushed. Boy racers can't outrun a Police Astra either.

Bike insurance for the under-25s is amazingly high, in the 1000s of pounds per year for a 600cc or more bike.

[ckai]

Yes. Public debate, Auckland Town Hall (could we fill it ?), TV cameras televise it.


Tickets offered here first? ;)


Good thought. We could raise some funds.

Wicked, can you imagine 4000 bikes parked around the town hall with helmets lining the aisles and leather clad yobbo's yahooing and cheering?

And, in a tiny corner at the front right, immaculate suits and ties getting skittles and tangy fruits thrown at them.

Fucken oath I'm in! :woohoo:

[k2w3]

That's partly b/c theft is so high in the UK and a lot of people don't have garages in which to store their bikes. Bloody chavs.

[PhantasmNZ]

That's partly b/c theft is so high in the UK and a lot of people don't have garages in which to store their bikes. Bloody chavs.

Not really - theft of cars is only part of it - one of the big things is that young drivers are often at fault, and compensation payouts are high - an (imagined!) sore neck after a minor fender bender will net the complainant at least UKP1500 - and there are ambulance chasing lawyers everywhere promising to screw the insurance company of the at fault driver to the tune of 1000s for "no win no fee"

Seriously - the ACC system here is fantastic - all that crap goes away and insurance policies are realistic - and none of this money goes to low rate legal bloodsuckers.

I'd hate to see the system turn into a real insurance system - but even more I don't see why it's screw-the-bikers season...

Maybe we should all pogo-stick to work - that'd screw the system when we all fell off regularly...

[pete376403]

A politician I was talking to recently said that a delegation from the USA was in awe of Pharmac and ACC - in the USA it is the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that are forcing health costs so high. Pharmac and ACC in this country are keeping a real lid on those costs (well, up till now, anyway)
National and ACT, being such "business friendly" parties, would like to see the profits go where they rightly belong, even if it means screwing the consumer