Remind me – what is everyone protesting against? [Archive]

Reflex

24th November 2009, 11:13

This post will be major flame-bait, but I have to ask: What is it bikers are actually (honestly) upset about??

If anyone feels a need to post abusive mind-numbing answers, don't bother wasting the pixels. If you're not even going to read the whole post, you're not qualified to post an opinion on it. But if you can provide intelligent, reasoned information I would like to hear it.

I don't have access to original data and sources, but from what I have observed / heard, it seems that motorcyclists are upset at the increase in levies they have to pay.

Summarising the information coming through the media so far
* a disproportionate amount of ACC payments go to motorcycle riders, due to more serious injuries – and possibly more frequent injury accidents
* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists
* even with the proposed increases, motorcycle owners will still be contributing less to the ACC fund than they will be receiving in payments
* the levies have to be increased in order to be able to cover projected payments

Have I left anything out?

On the assumption that the above statements are true, it would imply that the protests are actually about bikers having the attitude that being carried by the system is the natural order, and don't want to have to pay their own way.

I see lots of mention on this site of how bikers are being unfairly targeted or even "victimised" (NB incorrectly spelt with a 'z' – a la American – on the web page), but this comes across as a spoilt child stamping its feet and crying that it doesn't want to do its chores.

If you want to appeal to the thinking public, I'd suggest coming up with reasons why you believe bikers are being unfairly treated. Provide some information. Give some statistics. And the note about ACC reserves being higher now than ever has little significance. It's not about how high they are in comparison with history, but how they compare to projected expenses.

Here is what I would like to find out if anyone has a source of information:
* the average annual ACC payment to people injured in motorcycle accidents vs car accidents
* some statistics relating payouts to engine rating – I imagine moped riders can be hurt as easily as big bike riders
* information on the proportion of accidents involving motorcycles where the fault was with the rider (premiums should be charged to those responsible for the accidents, rather than the victims).

It makes sense that the highest levy should be paid by the people who are most likely to cause a claim. As an alternative option, perhaps the levy should be not on vehicles but on the drivers. Perhaps the levy could take into consideration the level of demerit points the owner has at time of vehicle licensing. After all, there should be some relationship between the risks a driver / rider takes and the number of times they have been caught.

If you want to put a good case to government, do it by providing something that the public can agree with – and not by trying to inconvenience as many people as you can just because you're not getting your way. Remember: riding a motorcycle is a choice you made. It's not a right and it's not something which was forced upon you.

In case it makes any difference to the validity of my opinion, I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and bicycle. My training is as an actuary, I pay my taxes, don't pirate music or software, and even though I've never made an ACC claim, I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount.

And from personal observation, many (not all) people I've observed who ride big bikes ride like idiots. They dress themselves up in leather to feel safe, but split lanes on the motorway, overtake on blind corners, speed like the law doesn't apply to them, and just act as though they are above the laws of physics. I can understand why the government would be wanting that whole category to contribute more to the system that will likely be supporting them in the future.

So, flame away if you must. But try to justify your comments with a sign that you've put some thought into it and appear to be more than an upset child.

James Deuce

24th November 2009, 11:18

The work's been done, a great deal of information has been posted, and I think that angry little men with a login to KB might want to do some research before they start a flame war if they want a respectful reply.

Most of us aren't "angry" either. We're challenging the assertions that ACC is broke and that motorcyclists are all that you say they are. 4 Motorcyclists you saw one weekend do not make for a vast fleet of "idiots", just as 2 boy racers in Nissan Cefiros doesn't necessarily mean all Nissan Cefiro drivers are diesel spreading midnight drift cowboys.

Would you like a copy of Dr Lamb's speech with tabulated analysis gleaned from ACC's 2008 dataset?

Or have you already made your mind up and you're simply spoiling for a fight? If it is a fight then you've come to the wrong place.

Bald Eagle

24th November 2009, 11:23

If you had taken the time to peruse some of the excellent posts in this and other forums you would have already answered all your own questions and would have joined us at Parliament on the 17th.

If however you just came looking to make sport .. don't waste our time where busy.

Ragingrob

24th November 2009, 11:24

k2w3

24th November 2009, 11:25

Reflex? Is that you, Nick?

R6_kid

24th November 2009, 11:26

As JD has said... do some reading. This has been covered over and over so much so that it's almost laughable that you haven't realised that you aren't raising any new questions.

The bottom line is that ACC is meant to be no-fault accident compensation. That means that the road-user levie is actually supposed to be the same for everyone who uses a vehicle on the road in private use. It is different for commercial vehicles etc though. The changes the Government is intending to make will move away from no-fault accident compensation and more towards a user-pays scheme like you have with insurance. Also, it is unfair that motorcyclists have to pay more than car drivers do - especially when cyclists, rugby players, gardeners, et al don't pay anything and yet still make a large proportion of ACC claims.

ACCs data is in many ways supportive of our argument, it's just the way they've played the media to make us look like some huge cost on the system when in fact we aren't.

ManDownUnder

24th November 2009, 11:27

It's an extremely well written first post don't you guys think?

No typos, correct use of grammar, beautifully structured... almost professional ... lean a little closer - I can almost smell Bellamy's Steak Pie on your breath. I wonder if anyone's out to gather responses... flying another kite like the first one proposing a huge hike in fees...?

Spank - of interest... what was the IP address of the person posting it... any chance of a reverse lookup??

Tank

24th November 2009, 11:29

I see lots of mention on this site of how bikers are being unfairly targeted or even "victimised"...

Gee for someone with a single post to your name - you know a lot about the site.

If you cant work it out then fuck off - you are obviously not smart enough and not worth arguing with.

P.S. Hope you dont drive a car, play rugby, ski, or get out of bed in the morning.

If you do - remember you could be next. Perhaps then you will understand.

firefighter

24th November 2009, 11:30

Just taking one point quickly:

* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists

.

More importantly, motorcyclists are subsidising rugby players and cyclists by 100%.

No-one seems to be beying at them to contribute anything at all.

We already pay a higher ACC insurance premium than car drivers, how about asking them to match what we are paying?

scissorhands

24th November 2009, 11:36

In case it makes any difference to the validity of my opinion, I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and bicycle. My training is as an actuary, I pay my taxes, don't pirate music or software, and even though I've never made an ACC claim, I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount.

as for a fair amount....you have not been reading the facts, figures and arguments

your first post is telling everyone here you are happy to pay what we are protesting about

does anyone have a light for Mr Popular?

Bald Eagle

24th November 2009, 11:38

Where have you been since October 2007

jetboy

24th November 2009, 11:39

:corn::jerry::corn:

..........

wingnutt

24th November 2009, 11:39

Well, you couldn’t have looked too far, there is irrefutable evidence,/ data right here on this forum, that Nick Smiths and acc’s information, is nothing but a pack of crude lies.

That information, was also in speeches made by reputable people, on the steps of parliament, so I don’t know where you have been, but perhaps you should look around, before blundering around, with silly statements.

gwigs

24th November 2009, 11:44

Hello Nick...the answer is still BULLSHIT,BULLSHIT,BULLSHIT..:finger:

Kiwi Graham

24th November 2009, 11:46

Mikkel

24th November 2009, 11:47

I'm not entirely sure that the OP should be taken, out of hand, as an attempt to denigrate the protesting - maybe, rather, it should be considered a hint as how to be taken serious by those without a vested interest in the current affairs.

Don't let me stop your happy flaming - but how seriously do you usually take grown ups that throw their toys out of the cot?

just as 2 boy racers in Nissan Cefiros doesn't necessarily mean all Nissan Cefiro drivers are diesel spreading midnight drift cowboys.

"Some people call me the diesel spreading midnight drift cowboy - yeah
some call me the gangster of love..."

vtec

24th November 2009, 11:49

Hi Reflex,

Thanks for your interest in our plight. All of your answers have been covered so many times on these here forums.

It's just that we don't have an advertising budget paid with road user levies at our disposal to get some facts out there as opposed to the propaganda that has been realeased by National / "ACC Insurance". Currently we are awaiting resolution from the Advertising Standards Authority Complaints on a lot of the data that was false and then released in further misleading fashion. Hopefully this will be a very public explanation of why we are "stamping our feet" and you will get your answers clearly.

Somehow I have a feeling that the resolution will be delayed until after submissions are closed and then largely swept under the rug. Unless you go and listen to one of Les Masons or Chris Lambs speeches or do some further reading on this forum or maybe some cross checking of the numbers yourself you will understand our annoyance at being villified.

I'll try and do as simple and clear list as possible into some of the details that I know of.
*Individual motorcycle claims are actually less per claim than car crash claims by $5000 per claim, so we aren't hurt more (in dollar terms) in our crashes as has so often been stated.
*Off road motorcyclists are included in the stats attributed to road motorcyclists and push up our claim numbers per registered bike substantially
*The costs released by ACC are complete fabrications, massive percentages of the funds are unaccounted for that I can see, and I assume they have been swallowed up by the bureaucracies.
*ACC took in one billion dollars more than they paid out last year (more than $200 per person in this country)
*Motorcyclists pay levies not only through their registration but also on the fuel they use as do all other fuel users, and this is not included in data showing how much motorcyclists pay towards ACC.
*Every motorcycle user I know also has a car, and I've noticed that these people are still human and are unfortunately only capable of using one vehicle at a time.
*Statistics show that actually over half of motorcycle injury accidents on the road are caused by car users, I promise you that motorcyclists do not cause half of car crash injuries, so some cross subsidisation would be fair if it was actually happening.
*By driving a motorcycle you are putting all other road users at less risk than you would if you were in a car. A motorcycle is approximately 1/10th the mass of a car, and therefore, much less likely to injure someone in a car than if you crashed into them when driving your car, so we are doing car drivers a big favour.
* My father has 3 over 600cc motorcycles, a Landcruiser and a Hiace. He can only use one at a time and it would cost him close to $3000 per annum to maintain those registrations and he hasn't crashed anything in the last 30 years let alone ever injured himself in a vehicle.
* Another point that I find has been understated is how much more aware motorcycle riders/cyclists are than car drivers, so when they get back behind the wheel of their cars they see hazards far sooner than the average car user, more statistical analysis needs to be performed to find out what motorcyclists REALLY cost ACC and because they are trying to make it an insurance system they need to include fault into their analysis also or else it is blatantly UNFAIR.
*ACC have been squandering funds like you wouldn't believe, all their subsidy costs have gone through the roof, people are working the system like crazy, and suppliers of things like fake limbs/ leg supports are charging 1000% markups... because they can. It beggars belief how inefficient ACC has become in such a short space of time. It's coming across like it was intentional so as to make the reason for privatisation.
* Is anyone else uncomfortable with ACC being run like a hedge fund aswell? WTF have they got investments for?

I recently heard of a $350,000 RSI settlement that was in the High Court, for a woman who was typing too much or something. I hate to think what the court costs were. ACC is being run by retards but with an agenda. I used to vote National, but they have been far too one eyed recently. I'm glad I abstained at the last election as I don't like Labour either. I thought about voting for the Bill and Ben party, but I was too lazy. I will next time, or maybe I'll go Labour, Phil Goff has actually impressed me somewhat although he needs to get his hands out of his pockets when he does public speeches more often.

I drive a car, I ride a bicycle and I ride a motorcycle, all in relatively even spread of km's. I paid a crap load of ACC working as a bicycle courier, but I could at least see where some of that money was going even if it wasn't to me. I know plenty of runners who go to Physio very regularly because of overuse injuries, it seems to me that sportspeople are the biggest drain on ACC, do I know what to do about that? No, but that's why I'm not paid the big bucks, it's definitely not car or motorcycle users place to pay for that, or is it in your opinion?

Also, I don't think it costs that much for ACC when a motorcyclist is killed, admittedly motorcyclists do get killed far easier than car users, half of these deaths are caused by car users, how many car users have been killed by motorcyclists.

Ixion

24th November 2009, 11:52

Hm. Perhas not a plant, as I at first thought

Join Date: 6th October 2007 .

never posted , though. Odd.

As an actuary, you will be committed to the idea of ACC being turned into an insurance company . Probably work for either ACC , or for one of the insurance companies that are looking to feast on the carcase of the Woodhouse scheme.

You work in the insurance industry, you will naturally think that turning ACC into an insurance company is a good idea. Or, better still, selling it off (cheap) to Australian insurance companies.

Not every body agrees.

Not sure why the message is so hard to grasp . We (bikers, and the people of NZ) DON'T WANT ACC TO BE AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

That's what we're protesting against. Simple enough?

FastBikeGear

24th November 2009, 11:53

This post will be major flame-bait, but I have to ask: What is it bikers are actually (honestly) upset about??

Welcome to the Kiwi Biker Forum. You raise some great questions!

I think all of your questions will be resolved when you complete page 3 of this document. http://www.salesfish.co.nz/www-ACC-Insurance-co-nz/ACC_Premium_Calculator.pdf

If you have any questions left after you have done the 3 step exercise please feel welcome to contact me.

Please remember that the ACC levys that you calculate in this exercise replace only the ACC levies you pay as part of your motorvehicle registration. You still pay all the other ACC levies.

Let us know what figure you come up with?

Oh and let us know what bike you decide to purchase.

merv

24th November 2009, 11:56

To me in simple terms the ACC system is meant to be a no blame help the accident victims type system. Why ACC even want to break it into risk categories kind of goes across that philosophy.

If they want it as a user pays type risk system then it should be about individual insurance and we should pay once each individually based on our own accident history.

If that was the case then myself and Mrs merv would get a huge discount from what we are paying now because of how many vehicles we own, the fact we pay the employee levy etc, yet we have had no accidents to speak of.

Personally I don't mind that we are paying to help others that have had accidents as that should be what society does to help itelf, and we can be thankful we haven't had to use the system as I am sure major accidents are no fun.

So why expect bikers to pay more, they are just citizens like any one else and a true fair system would be we all pay the same each.

So Reflex, can you understand that approach? If so, then you can understand why bikers are upset at having to pay far more than an equal share (without even taking into account the fact that most of us own more than one bike, plus cars, trailers etc and pay a wage related levy for ACC.)

ManDownUnder

24th November 2009, 11:56

This post will be major flame-bait, but I have to say: I can see why rugby players are happy with Bikers being picked on.

My apologies for a first post so full mind-numbing drivvel but I am trying to use enough slang to portray I'm hip and one of the gang, rather than just someone here to gather information. Please read the whole post too, that way you can see all the things I want responses too, nested among enough pleasantries to convince you that I am actually an all right guy. I really want intelligent, reasoned information so I can best prepare rebuttals to it all.

I'm pretending I don't have access to the same public data and sources everyone else using the internet does, so I'll pretend I am seeing that motorcyclists are upset at the increase in levies they have to pay.

I'm up to speed with what the media is saying because it's actually my job, and these seem to be the lines of argument I'd like to put back to you, yet again, so I can both develop my rebuttals, and use the age old technique of saying anything often enough... until it becomes the truth.
* a disproportionate amount of ACC payments go to motorcycle riders, due to more serious injuries – and possibly more frequent injury accidents
* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists
* even with the proposed increases, motorcycle owners will still be contributing less to the ACC fund than they will be receiving in payments
* the levies have to be increased in order to be able to cover projected payments

I know I left a bunch of other stuff out, but Woodhouse is so 1960's, and the other facts don't really suit my agenda here.

If I say something like "Let's assume the above statements are true", then it encourages you all to just accept and run with it, that way I can insult you en masse by implying you think that bikers should be carried by the system, that you also think it is the natural order, and that you're a bunch of cheap bastards that don't want to have to pay their own way.

I see lots of mention on this site of how bikers are being unfairly targeted or even "victimised" (NB incorrectly spelt with a 'z' – a la American – on the web page), but I haven't noticed the answer to my questions above anywhere. Am I the only one that finds this odd? I'll further insult you by implying you are a bunch of spoilt children stamping your feet and crying that you don't want to do your chores to again provoke you into reponding .

Would you mind providing me with a concise, and of the minute list of your arguments? It makes it so much easier for me to refute them and prepare my next campaign. Provide me with all the informationand statistics you intend to use.

Here are a few baubles I want to include to garner your sympathy and support - we're getting toward the end of my message so I'd like you to start thinking of me as a good guy and support me... so :
* the average annual ACC payment to people injured in motorcycle accidents vs car accidents
* some statistics relating payouts to engine rating – I imagine moped riders can be hurt as easily as big bike riders
* information on the proportion of accidents involving motorcycles where the fault was with the rider (premiums should be charged to those responsible for the accidents, rather than the victims).

It makes sense that the highest levy should be paid by the people who are most likely to cause a claim. As an alternative option, perhaps the levy should be not on vehicles but on the drivers. Perhaps the levy could take into consideration the level of demerit points the owner has at time of vehicle licensing. After all, there should be some relationship between the risks a driver / rider takes and the number of times they have been caught.

If you want to put a good case to government, do it by providing something that the public can agree with – and not by trying to inconvenience as many people as you can just because you're not getting your way. Remember: riding a motorcycle is a choice you made. It's not a right and it's not something which was forced upon you.

Just in case you are still not convinced I am one of you, and to add credibility to my requests, I'll tell you I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and bicycle and am I GLAD THERE's NO ACC ON THE BICYCLE!. My training is as an actuary, I pay my taxes, don't pirate music or software, and even though I've never made an ACC claim, I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount becaue I'm not too far from the seat of Jesus, and in fact I want to be his replacement if He ever gets sick of the job.

I can't resist having a last dig (although it easily shows I don't a tually ride a bike). Many (not all) people I've observed who ride big bikes ride like idiots. They dress themselves up in leather to feel safe, but split lanes on the motorway, overtake on blind corners, speed like the law doesn't apply to them, and just act as though they are above the laws of physics. I can understand why the government would be wanting that whole category to contribute more to the system that will likely be supporting them in the future.

So, flame away if you must. But try to justify your comments with a sign that you've put some thought into it and appear to be more than an upset child.

Thanks for that.

kave

24th November 2009, 11:57

People are protesting because we gave up the right to sue for a no fault compensation scheme. If we retained the right to sue, and had instead gone down the path of insurance and lawyers for motorvehicle claims then levies based on risk would be palatable (but we would all be a lot worse off).

The fact is, that where third party health and liability insurance are managed privately as opposed to being run by the state, motorcyclists pay less than cars because we are less likely to injure other people. What is being proposed in these levy hikes is that those at risk should pay more, and most of us feel that this is inherently unfair.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 11:59

We're challenging the assertions that ACC is broke and that motorcyclists are all that you say they are. 4 Motorcyclists you saw one weekend do not make for a vast fleet of "idiots", just as 2 boy racers in Nissan Cefiros doesn't necessarily mean all Nissan Cefiro drivers are diesel spreading midnight drift cowboys.

I apologise if my words did not come through very clearly to you. I hoped my original post was worded clearly enough for people to see that I'm not saying all bikers are like that. But we are talking about statistics (i.e. generalisations). Are my observations wrong that there seem to be more bikers driving recklessly than car drivers? Perhaps I travel a different motorway to everyone else :-\

Would you like a copy of Dr Lamb's speech with tabulated analysis gleaned from ACC's 2008 dataset?

Actually, I would be grateful if someone could post a link to the data. I guess I'm not very good at searching, but all I've been able to find is information interpreting the data, and not the raw data itself. Dr Lamb says he acquired the data by a request to the ACC. It would be helpful to see what they provided so I can understand more.

ManDownUnder

24th November 2009, 11:59

One question reflex - who do you work for?

k2w3

24th November 2009, 12:05

I see far more reckless drivers than riders. A rider doing, say, 120 on the motorway is breaking the law and is therefore technically "reckless". However I would argue that they are inherently safer than, say, the hundreds of drivers I see (especially here in retirement-central Orewa) that are just about comatose behind the wheel, concentrating on the 3 feet in front of them doing 20 under the posted limit. There's more than one definition of "reckless".

Jantar

24th November 2009, 12:09

OK, I'm prepared to give Reflex the benefit of the doubt.

I don't have access to original data and sources, but from what I have observed / heard, it seems that motorcyclists are upset at the increase in levies they have to pay.......

The questions you ask and the data are available on this forum if you use the search function.

Here is what I would like to find out if anyone has a source of information:
* the average annual ACC payment to people injured in motorcycle accidents vs car accidents

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

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

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

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

Average Current situation for all accounts
- 14762 active claims
- $341,007,000 total cost
- $ 23,100 per claim

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

* some statistics relating payouts to engine rating – I imagine moped riders can be hurt as easily as big bike riders

We asked for this information from ACC, but guess what? They don't collect this data. They did supply an excel spreadsheet that listed a small proportion of motorcycle accidents by size which they cross matched to CAS data then assumed that it would apply to all data.

* information on the proportion of accidents involving motorcycles where the fault was with the rider (premiums should be charged to those responsible for the accidents, rather than the victims)......

This data is available from http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf
It shows that motorcyclists are responsible for 51% of all accidents involving motorcycles (including those accidents where no other vehicle is involved), but are only responsible for around 38% of multi vehicle accidents.

James Deuce

24th November 2009, 12:11

I apologise if my words did not come through very clearly to you. I hoped my original post was worded clearly enough for people to see that I'm not saying all bikers are like that. But we are talking about statistics (i.e. generalisations). Are my observations wrong that there seem to be more bikers driving recklessly than car drivers? Perhaps I travel a different motorway to everyone else :-\

Actually, I would be grateful if someone could post a link to the data. I guess I'm not very good at searching, but all I've been able to find is information interpreting the data, and not the raw data itself. Dr Lamb says he acquired the data by a request to the ACC. It would be helpful to see what they provided so I can understand more.
If you don't provide an email address I can't send it to you.

Your post was a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory and you shouldn't try to shy away from its intent. You wrote it, now own it.

You also seem to be unaware that we're discussing proposed increases to levies, not actual increases. Might I point out that ACC have also proposed a 60% increase in ACC levies for motorcars?

In terms of your observations, I really don't think that they are relevant except in the sense that they mark you out as a Victor Meldrew, intent on imposing your reality on others.

Swoop

24th November 2009, 12:13

We are protesting against ACC because they can do the impossible...

Try and unite TEN bikers (THAT is impossible under normal circumstances).
ACC has managed to unite THOUSANDS!!!!

Amazing skills. Also, thank you to Nick Smith! Nice work.:devil2:

James Deuce

24th November 2009, 12:16

OK, I'm prepared to give Reflex the benefit of the doubt.

The questions you ask and the data are available on this forum if you use the search function.

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

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

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

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

Average Current situation for all accounts
- 14762 active claims
- $341,007,000 total cost
- $ 23,100 per claim

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

We asked for this information from ACC, but guess what? They don't collect this data. They did supply an excel spreadsheet that listed a small proportion of motorcycle accidents by size which they cross matched to CAS data then assumed that it would apply to all data.

This data is available from http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf
It shows that motorcyclists are responsible for 51% of all accidents involving motorcycles (including those accidents where no other vehicle is involved), but are only responsible for around 38% of multi vehicle accidents.

Dr Lamb's figures are significantly different from the ACC's using the ACC's own data, rather than the obviously massaged data the ACC have published on their website.

<center> <table width="394" border="2" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#dfdfdf">2008 ACC Claim Payout by Motor Group Levy</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td bgcolor="#dfdfdf"> Group</td> <td bgcolor="#dfdfdf">Payout per claim</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Truck</td> <td>$17,807</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Passenger Car</td> <td>$14,885</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Pedestrian</td> <td>$13,678</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Cycling</td> <td>$12,626</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Motorcycle</td> <td>$12,013</td></tr> </tbody></table> </center>

pzkpfw

24th November 2009, 12:25

Dr Lamb's figures are significantly different from the ACC's using the ACC's own data, rather than the obviously massaged data the ACC have published on their website.

He also has way more cyclist claims.

"Lamb said last year there were 1475 motorcycle accidents in New Zealand and 50 deaths.

By comparison, 36 cyclists died in 1170 bicycle accidents but the cycling community paid no levies."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2969309/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

(
Compared to...

Cyclists:
- 289 new claims
- 567 active claims

Motorcyclists:
- 1336 new claims
- 3173 active claims

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

Clockwork

24th November 2009, 12:28

VTEC pretty much says it all. From my Point of view if you are going to start appointing risk/blame to one group you simply must go the whole hog and do it for all contributors in all ACC categories but of course if you take that argument to its logical conclusion you may as well do away with ACC altogether!

As things stand because I ride a motorcycle I am expected to meet the claims of all other motorcyclists both present and PAST. I dispute that I pose a significant risk as a road user and would happily let my driving record and claim history speak for itself but I'm denied that right.

Meanwhile, while wearing some additional personal risk we get no credit for making the roads less dangerous for other users, roads and car parks are less congested and less harm is done to the environment. It seems as a group we must we must pay for our own injuries but have no right to ask for any quid pro quo.

Jantar

24th November 2009, 12:29

Dr Lamb's figures are significantly different from the ACC's using the ACC's own data, rather than the obviously massaged data the ACC have published on their website.

<center> <table width="394" border="2" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#dfdfdf">2008 ACC Claim Payout by Motor Group Levy</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td bgcolor="#dfdfdf"> Group</td> <td bgcolor="#dfdfdf">Payout per claim</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Truck</td> <td>$17,807</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Passenger Car</td> <td>$14,885</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Pedestrian</td> <td>$13,678</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Cycling</td> <td>$12,626</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td>Motorcycle</td> <td>$12,013</td></tr> </tbody></table> </center>
Not really different, just the figures I've quoted are from all active claims in 2008 and Prof Lamb's figures are for new 2008 claims. They both show that motorcycles claims are less than car claims irrespective of whether they are new or historical.

mashman

24th November 2009, 12:35

wingrider

24th November 2009, 12:42

Hi Reflex.
If you click on the link to the bronze site. click on the ACC link you can stroll down and find a downloadable version of proff lambs speech.

There were many of us that perhaps got taken aback by the initial announcement that our fees were to rise. We also got rocked when we saw the size of the rise in proportion to the cc rating of the bike we ride.

Reading more, we soon came to the conclusion that something was really wrong and politicly biased in respect of the information being released to the public.

A hell of a lot of very detailed work undertaken by a few contributors on this forum unearthed a whole pile of discrepencies that required further research.

THE RESULT WAS THAT NOT ONLY WERE THEY USING POORLY CONSTRUCTED STATISTICS TO PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA, THEY WERE OUTRIGHT LYING TO US AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

It was our investigation that bought a LOT OF THE HIDDEN CHANGES OUT FROM UNDER THE MAT, and it was a change of tactic from us that allowed the whole picture to be put on public display.

If you really took time to read the threads you would see that although we continue to be seriously pissed off with the changes to Motorcycle levies, we are just as pissed off with other increases planned that even if we gave up Motorcycling, we are going to get screwed by increases in ACC levies that form part of our everyday lives.

Every single person currently pays their share "if" Acc were to be run under the umbrella on which it was founded. Successive Governments have raped those foundation principles and turned it into a circus.

National has the chance to take the right attitude and "fix the problem". Right now, Right here.

But it's not in their nature and their belief is we can fix this by selling it off and letting the rich get richer at the expense of the majority of the population.

You state that you are willing to pay for the increase if it can be proven to be correct and fair.
OUR RESEARCH SHOWS THAT IT IS NEITHER CORRECT NOR FAIR.

Will you be as vocal in your support of our efforts, if there was to be a reduction in levies which our research shows is what should be happening?

I to am happy to meet my "fair share" of taxes and ACC levies.

What I am not going to do is sit back and watch a Government continually LIE and use deception as their memorandom of right.

And this applies to whatever party holds power.

With respect I suggest that you look at the replies posted, not take any of them as a personal attack, but use them to further your insight into this debate that I am convinced will only lead you to the truth.

I am sure that you will then be joining in the next ride.

Reckless

24th November 2009, 12:47

Yes you assume the statements are true and they are not!

Firstly-If you start to query statements, stats and figures you have already gone to far!!
This is fast becoming a fight to save the original ACC formula of a no fault system. The Govt are getting it ready to be sold off which we do not agree with, we would like it to stay with the original Woodhouse ethos. I don't see why we have to pump more money into a system that has let costs get out of control and still paid a 700 mil dividend to the govt!

But if you want to even start into the figures the base figures are not good enough to assess who should pay what. Doctors put down "Motorcycle or Bike accident" even if it happens off road (and probably on a cycle). So the base figures are so far out that are unusable in my opinion. But even if they where correct for motorbikes only, I can use their own argument here. Why should road registered bikes pay for another recreational groups accidents ie off road?

There are many other facts and figures that are incorrect as many other posters will no doubt convey but for me these two core issues are very wrong before you even start on all the arguments that follow after!

You sure your not simply on a fact finding mission for the Nats???
We won't stop till the public are informed!

Ragingrob

24th November 2009, 12:51

He also has way more cyclist claims.

"Lamb said last year there were 1475 motorcycle accidents in New Zealand and 50 deaths.

By comparison, 36 cyclists died in 1170 bicycle accidents but the cycling community paid no levies."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2969309/Researcher-criticises-motorbike-levy-logic

(
Compared to...

Cyclists:
- 289 new claims
- 567 active claims

Motorcyclists:
- 1336 new claims
- 3173 active claims

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

Well accidents don't always relate to claims do they?

Elysium

24th November 2009, 12:59

Don't know who this guy is or what he does but he speaks crazy talk!

Mikkel

24th November 2009, 13:02

Chance is also in your future, to me Chance beats Probability PERIOD! Because it takes EVERYTHING into account that Probability does and then takes everything else into account that Probability doesn't.

The Probability of Chance is 50 - 50!!! Same as anyone in the world!

Everyone aboard the failboat... :rolleyes:

Probability - neutral
Chance - positive
Risk - negative

"There is a certain probability per kilometer travelled that a motorcyclist might be involved in a crash - there's a chance he will survive if this occurs, but there is also a risk that he may sustain grievous injury."

pzkpfw

24th November 2009, 13:06

Well accidents don't always relate to claims do they?

Then how is it relevant?

Ragingrob

24th November 2009, 13:10

Then how is it relevant?

That's what I'm saying...

You're comparing number of accidents with number of ACC claims and stating that they're different, of course they are!!

StoneY

24th November 2009, 13:21

Absolutely hilarious

This threads grown faster than Pinichio's nose at a fishing tournament

mashman

24th November 2009, 13:51

Everyone aboard the failboat... :rolleyes:

Probability - neutral
Chance - positive
Risk - negative

"There is a certain probability per kilometer travelled that a motorcyclist might be involved in a crash - there's a chance he will survive if this occurs, but there is also a risk that he may sustain grievous injury."

chance /tʃæns, tʃɑns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [chans, chahns] Show IPA noun, verb, chanced, chanc⋅ing, adjective
Use chance in a Sentence
See web results for chance
See images of chance
–noun

1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all.
2. luck or fortune: a game of chance.
3. a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success.
4. an opportune or favorable time; opportunity: Now is your chance.
5. Baseball. an opportunity to field the ball and make a put-out or assist.
6. a risk or hazard: Take a chance.
7. a share or ticket in a lottery or prize drawing: The charity is selling chances for a dollar each.
8. chances, probability: The chances are that the train hasn't left yet.
9. Midland and Southern U.S. a quantity or number (usually fol. by of).
10. Archaic. an unfortunate event; mishap.
–verb (used without object)
11. to happen or occur by chance: It chanced that our arrivals coincided.
–verb (used with object)
12. to take the chances or risks of; risk (often fol. by impersonal it): I'll have to chance it, whatever the outcome.
–adjective
13. not planned or expected; accidental: a chance occurrence.
—Verb phrase
14. chance on or upon, to come upon by chance; meet unexpectedly: She chanced on a rare kind of mushroom during her walk through the woods.
—Idioms
15. by chance, without plan or intent; accidentally: I met her again by chance in a department store in Paris.
16. on the chance, in the mild hope or against the possibility: I'll wait on the chance that she'll come.
17. on the off chance, in the very slight hope or against the very slight possibility.

I stand by what i said

Mikkel

24th November 2009, 13:52

chance /tʃæns, tʃɑns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [chans, chahns] Show IPA noun, verb, chanced, chanc⋅ing, adjective
Use chance in a Sentence
See web results for chance
See images of chance
–noun

1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all.
2. luck or fortune: a game of chance.
3. a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success.
4. an opportune or favorable time; opportunity: Now is your chance.
5. Baseball. an opportunity to field the ball and make a put-out or assist.
6. a risk or hazard: Take a chance.
7. a share or ticket in a lottery or prize drawing: The charity is selling chances for a dollar each.
8. chances, probability: The chances are that the train hasn't left yet.
9. Midland and Southern U.S. a quantity or number (usually fol. by of).
10. Archaic. an unfortunate event; mishap.
–verb (used without object)
11. to happen or occur by chance: It chanced that our arrivals coincided.
–verb (used with object)
12. to take the chances or risks of; risk (often fol. by impersonal it): I'll have to chance it, whatever the outcome.
–adjective
13. not planned or expected; accidental: a chance occurrence.
—Verb phrase
14. chance on or upon, to come upon by chance; meet unexpectedly: She chanced on a rare kind of mushroom during her walk through the woods.
—Idioms
15. by chance, without plan or intent; accidentally: I met her again by chance in a department store in Paris.
16. on the chance, in the mild hope or against the possibility: I'll wait on the chance that she'll come.
17. on the off chance, in the very slight hope or against the very slight possibility.

I stand by what i said

It's hard not to stand by it when you've written it and it has been quoted.

... that doesn't make it any more intelligible though.

firefighter

24th November 2009, 13:54

Are my observations wrong that there seem to be more bikers driving recklessly than car drivers? Perhaps I travel a different motorway to everyone else :-\

Eghm.

I guess lanesplitting looks pretty dangerous to a cager, which you obviously are, in fact I highly doubt you ride at all.

I would have never, ever personally have thought more motorcyclists rode recklessly than car drivers drive. Even well before I started riding.

How many teens do I see doing burnouts, trying to imitate "The fast and the furious" and adults in their trucks or shiny Holdens bullying other motorists?......a lot more than I see from bikers, at least the biker is'nt likely to injure or kill anyone else.....eh?

Different motorway indeed mr car driver man........

Now fuck off, this is a bikers website.

Tank

24th November 2009, 14:03

Now fuck off, this is a bikers website.

but, but, but - you ride a Honda ..

mashman

24th November 2009, 14:12

It's hard not to stand by it when you've written it and it has been quoted.

... that doesn't make it any more intelligible though.

Nothing to do with that. This is my own thought process. You can say what you like about it, we're not all hard wired to agree. That's why i stand by it :bleh:

Does it make it less intelligible than

Probability - neutral
Chance - positive
Risk - negative

?

firefighter

24th November 2009, 14:18

but, but, but - you ride a Honda ..

Yep, rain hail or shine......more than what could be said of 98% of the chromed "real bike" variety which rarely leave the garage.......

Now how about getting back to abusing old Nick.....eh?

Winston001

24th November 2009, 15:20

NONONO

24th November 2009, 15:30

Well I take Reflex at face value. He's asked where the data is supporting our rejection of the ACC case.

I had a look myself for some of this raw data the other day. The trouble is, the ACC sub-forum was so busy that I couldn't find what I wanted. After half an hour I eventually found a PDF from ACC which had the figures.

Just above there are two contrasting sets of figures, one being from Professor Lamb. We don't help ourselves by using different numbers - and that happens a lot in posts. We need to have our facts straight and available in one thread as a source.

Reflex (are you sure? Not knee jerk?)
I am probably over 16 time more likely to have an accident dancing the polka than a one legged man.
However, I never have, not once, nadir.
My excellent polka safety rating aside,
Why should I not pay a levy based on my polka risk rating?
Why should I not pay more than Mr Omni Leg?

mashman

24th November 2009, 15:53

Reflex (are you sure? Not knee jerk?)
I am probably over 16 time more likely to have an accident dancing the polka than a one legged man.
However, I never have, not once, nadir.
My excellent polka safety rating aside,
Why should I not pay a levy based on my polka risk rating?
Why should I not pay more than Mr Omni Leg?

Because of your probability rating. You cannot argue with probability.

This is where part of the problem lies. The new levy has not been calculated just using the actual numbers. Variances of risk have been added to the actual numbers. Apply the variance (risk factor) to the actual numbers, and even without the fact that the data is shit, motorcycles look bad.

We all know it.. but the fact that the data is shit is masked by the variance that's been added, carefully calculated risk, change the numbers by a small amount and the probability still looks relatively sound... change the variance WOOOOOOOOOO, Government see this as FACT! Probability is not fact, it's guess work!

NONONO

24th November 2009, 16:01

Because of your probability rating. You cannot argue with probability.

This is where part of the problem lies. The new levy has not been calculated just using the actual numbers. Variances of risk have been added to the actual numbers. Apply the variance (risk factor) to the actual numbers, and even without the fact that the data is shit, motorcycles look bad.

We all know it.. but the fact that the data is shit is masked by the variance that's been added, carefully calculated risk, change the numbers by a small amount and the probability still looks relatively sound... change the variance WOOOOOOOOOO, Government see this as FACT! Probability is not fact, it's guess work!

But I said that, I stated that "I was PROBABLY 16 times more likely"
I demand to be levied for my polka risk rating, after all according to Knee Jerk (sorry Reflex), it's only fair.

mashman

24th November 2009, 16:23

But I said that, I stated that "I was PROBABLY 16 times more likely"
I demand to be levied for my polka risk rating, after all according to Knee Jerk (sorry Reflex), it's only fair.

Sorry, my bad

16 times more likely of having a crash! Not necessarily 16 times more likely to have any motorcycle related accident!

Motorcyclists are probably 80% (a ficticious 80%) more likely to burn themselves on their exhaust, than car drivers. Add a variance of 0.1

Motorcyclists are probably 80% (a ficticious 80%) more likely to have a vehicle on top of them , than car drivers. Add a variance of 0.1

I'm not sure if that's how it's calculated, but i wouldn't rule it out either!

Anyway it all adds up, now add those variances to the variance/margin for data error, multiply to motorcycles and you can make some quite staggering Numbers...

If it was up to me i'd levy yaw polka ass...

Ixion

24th November 2009, 16:31

Gah. They've even got US believing that bollocks now.

For the record.

1. The survey that was based on was flawed as hell. They concluded that motorcyclists rode an avergae of 800 kilometres each per year. Go figure

2. EVEN THEN, the figure was 16 times PER MILLION KILOMETRES. But few bikers would ride as many kilometres as a sales rep drives, or a courier van.
Bikes DON'T cover the same distance , so, real world here, we are NOT 16 x more likely to crash.

MSTRS

24th November 2009, 16:39

Hmmm...I think someone needs to get his nose out of the newspaper. No good will come of leaving it there.

It is a timely reminder, tho, that the media in general are not helping the cause.
Few are the times when I've seen much more than "Nick Smith said this" or "Nick Smith said that".
How's about saying what we said, for a change?

NighthawkNZ

24th November 2009, 16:40

Ixion

24th November 2009, 16:41

That's inevitable. He IS a Minister of the Crown. He's going to get the coverage.

Which is why we need to keep putting on a how for the press.

They look for sensation and showmanship.

A lot of bikes is very media worthy.

James Deuce

24th November 2009, 16:42

800 km a year... but but but... last year I did 30,000??? and usually do 800 in a single weekend?
Yeah mate, even I do about 12,000 a year, and I'm a bit of a part timer.

avgas

24th November 2009, 16:43

I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount.
To put things in perspective.
I pay personal health insurance. It covers me above what ACC pay - so I will never have to make another ACC claim again in my life.
Said company covers a very small % of NZ. They are not a HUGE company, but a good one.
My fee for this service is about $500/year. They know I ride motorbike, drive a car and partake in dangerous sports (mountain biking etc).
So how can a company like ACC who has millions of members on its books claim more than $500/person/year? This is taken via vehicle registration (of which NZ average is 0.4/person - so I'm told) and income tax.

Where does the money go?
I am not blaming the claim they are making - I just want to see the evidence for the expenditure. Is the system broken? We need to know these things before we invest more money.
In fact - I am going about this all wrong.
...(runs off to download the accounts to evaluate ACC)

Badjelly

24th November 2009, 16:47

The questions you ask and the data are available on this forum if you use the search function.

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

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

OK. According to LTNZ (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-29.html), there were 170,219 cars (petrol + diesel) registered in 2008 and 13,687 motorcycles. So...

Car Occupants:
- 0.050 active claims per registered car
- $1224 per registered car

Motorcyclists:
- 0.232 active claims per registered motorcycle
- $4568 per registered motorcycle

Am I right so far?

Ixion

24th November 2009, 16:48

Uh, that 170K is the number of vehicles that were registered in 2008. As in, for the first time.

The actual number of cars on the road is about 3.2 million (depending on how you treat vans and utes and such)

NighthawkNZ

24th November 2009, 16:54

13,687 motorcycles.

13,687 x $252.69 = 3,458,568.03 $9 million short of the $12.3 million gathered by ACC

12,300,000 / 252.69 = 48,677 registered bikes required

My guess is that table is newly registered bikes for the year. As the total fleet of cars and vans is around 2.9 million and biles and mopeds about 130 thousand

Reflex

24th November 2009, 16:55

The problem is your assumption that the statements are true.

Just taking one point quickly:

* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists

So what about the many bike owners who own multiple bikes and pay multiple regos? Let alone the majority of bike owners who own a car also?

This is something I agree with. As someone who uses two bikes, in an ideal world I think it would be fair to only charge one lot of premiums as you will only be using one vehicle at time. And if you are able to come up with a practical way of implementing this then I'll be backing you.

Not sure about numbers, you don't want them anyway, but if you around at the stats threads that show the actual maths, right at this moment the number of registered bikes x the current ACC levy actually exceeds the payout motorcyclists have needed.

That's the problem... Nick Smith has pushed completely false numbers into the media, and that is what you're working from.

Why do you say I don't want the numbers anyway? I'm asking to see the (original) numbers.

And I (sincerely) don't wish to imply that you're uneducated, as is normal I expect you are have learnt just what is necessary to do your job. But if people had more experience in the risk industry they'd realise that it's not about current cash flows. It's about having enough reserves now to cover the future cash flows.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 17:00

The bottom line is that ACC is meant to be no-fault accident compensation. That means that the road-user levie is actually supposed to be the same for everyone who uses a vehicle on the road in private use. It is different for commercial vehicles etc though. The changes the Government is intending to make will move away from no-fault accident compensation and more towards a user-pays scheme like you have with insurance. Also, it is unfair that motorcyclists have to pay more than car drivers do - especially when cyclists, rugby players, gardeners, et al don't pay anything and yet still make a large proportion of ACC claims.

I think there is some confusion about the term "no-fault". I have taken that to mean that the compensation is paid out to irrespective of whether the person was at fault. This isn't the same as everyone paying the same.

FYI All businesses are rated according to their risk category. And cyclists, rugby players etc do pay an ACC levy as part of they P.A.Y.E.

Grumpy

24th November 2009, 17:00

Why do you say I don't want the numbers anyway? I'm asking to see the (original) numbers.
.

Check out www.bikersagainstacc.co.nz

Should find the answers to most of your questions there.

You keep saying "premiums" ACC is not a insurance company ........ yet.

NONONO

24th November 2009, 17:05

However, there is no one here, apart from your good self talking about risk or premiums.
This is exactly what we are, and intend to keep on, opposing.

mashman

24th November 2009, 17:05

I think there is some confusion about the term "no-fault". I have taken that to mean that the compensation is paid out to irrespective of whether the person was at fault. This isn't the same as everyone paying the same.

Granted there is an assumption that "no-fault" means everyone pays the same and why wouldn't you if you want a "no-fault" system. Otherwise there's someone subsidising someone else! and we're asking for parity!

Reflex

24th November 2009, 17:10

Gee for someone with a single post to your name - you know a lot about the site.

If you cant work it out then fuck off - you are obviously not smart enough and not worth arguing with.

P.S. Hope you dont drive a car, play rugby, ski, or get out of bed in the morning.

If you do - remember you could be next. Perhaps then you will understand.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Evaluate the argument, not the history. And you're right – I don't know a lot about the site, which is why I haven't been successful finding (accurate) information here. But that's about as relevant as what I had for lunch as far as this topic goes.

I take it from the lack of anything useful you've got to add that you agree motorcyclists sustain worse injuries than drivers? That's just subjective observation, but do you claim otherwise?

And yes, if I am next, that's when I'll be grateful for the system we have and that everyone has paid their due to keep it going. Perhaps you prefer to live off other people's contributions and 10 years down the track you'll be in hospital because someone changed lanes in front of you, wishing that crowd wisdom wasn't so short sighted.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 17:25

I'll try and do as simple and clear list as possible into some of the details that I know of.
*Individual motorcycle claims are actually less per claim than car crash claims by $5000 per claim, so we aren't hurt more (in dollar terms) in our crashes as has so often been stated.
*Off road motorcyclists are included in the stats attributed to road motorcyclists and push up our claim numbers per registered bike substantially

Now this is the first intelligent reply I've come across (still working my way through the responses though). This is what I was hoping would be typical of responses to my post. This kind of information is relevant and helpful in figuring out what is fair.

I would still be wishing to see the actual data before I could be confident about these figures, but if they were true then it dispels one of my assumptions.

*Statistics show that actually over half of motorcycle injury accidents on the road are caused by car users, I promise you that motorcyclists do not cause half of car crash injuries, so some cross subsidisation would be fair if it was actually happening.

And this relates to my original suggestion that this statistic should be accounted for in where the charges should be borne. I must say though, it does contradict another report (in the Herald) a few months back saying that very few accidents were due to the cars (which surprised me at that time).

…more statistical analysis needs to be performed to find out what motorcyclists REALLY cost ACC and because they are trying to make it an insurance system they need to include fault into their analysis also or else it is blatantly UNFAIR.

Amen to that. This has been my point from the start. The decision needs to be based on research and reasoning. My (apparently inadequate) research to date has been unable to find this information from a reliable source.

NighthawkNZ

24th November 2009, 17:31

I would still be wishing to see the actual data before I could be confident about these figures, but if they were true then it dispels one of my assumptions.

Widely availble on the net on ACC and LTSA website, and on here...

go search for it, and use some school yard math yourself

Mom

24th November 2009, 17:34

I think there is some confusion about the term "no-fault". I have taken that to mean that the compensation is paid out to irrespective of whether the person was at fault. This isn't the same as everyone paying the same.

FYI All businesses are rated according to their risk category. And cyclists, rugby players etc do pay an ACC levy as part of they P.A.Y.E.

Your logic is all well and good mate, but...

No fault should apply everyway, not just in treatment.

I pay levies on the wages I pay to my staff, I pay levies on the money I earn personally, I pay on my fuel, I pay on my car and van registrations and I pay on my bike. How about you go off and do a bit of homework for me. Find out the cost of sports injuries payouts versus the earnings levy they attract. Go on I dare you. They can not tell who plays sport when they collect the PAYE portion of the levy. They have no way of knowing that. We are simply an easy target. I have no doubt they (or whatever ACC is planned to morph into) will find a way to do that, and they will pay too.

FastBikeGear

24th November 2009, 17:35

Reflex I appreciate you getting invoved in this discussion and I hope you can contribute some of your acutary skills to the analysis of what would be a fair personal injury premium IF ACC was an insurance company.

FYI All businesses are rated according to their risk category. And cyclists, rugby players etc do pay an ACC levy as part of they P.A.Y.E.

Yes but none of the high risk categories that you listed in the sentence above (Except businesses) pay a risk rated premium.

My mum doesn't cycle, play rugby, play netball, do motorcross or any other high risk activity. Nor is she at the age where we can expect her to fall over because she has forgotten where her feet are.

Why should she be subsidising you or me?

Rugby Union and Rugby league players cost $50,000,000.00 in ACC claims in 2008. ACC statistics clearly show that Rugby players are many, many, many times more likely than car drivers to make an ACC claim!

If motorcyclists are to risk rated, then to be equitable so should other high activities like Rugby.

Most people on this Forum are not advocating that this justifies making Rugby Players pay an ACC levy but I am because I prefer soccer and as long as soccer players are OK then making Rugby players pay $500 extra in ACC levies suits me just fine.

It's time the culture of New Zealand got away from looking after each other. I can afford to look after myself.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 17:35

never posted , though. Odd.

The reason for this is I avoid wading into the arguments that normally propagate through forums. Too much mud slinging without any actual enlightenment going on.

But once in a while I'll feel that mass opinion has become hysteria and it is time to remind people that hype isn't the best basis for moving forward.

As an actuary, you will be committed to the idea of ACC being turned into an insurance company . Probably work for either ACC , or for one of the insurance companies that are looking to feast on the carcase of the Woodhouse scheme.

Actually, no. My actuarial training taught me how to look at numbers and be aware of what information to interpret – and what to be cautious of.

Not sure why the message is so hard to grasp . We (bikers, and the people of NZ) DON'T WANT ACC TO BE AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

That's what we're protesting against. Simple enough?

Well, that's the first time I've been made aware that that's what all this is about. I always thought it was that bikers didn't want to have to pay (much more) money. I guess you've answered my original question then.

scissorhands

24th November 2009, 17:41

'''The reason for this is I avoid wading into the arguments that normally propagate through forums. Too much mud slinging without any actual enlightenment going on.

But once in a while I'll feel that mass opinion has become hysteria and it is time to remind people that hype isn't the best basis for moving forward.''''''

Thanks for the timely reminder, I've been feeling hysterical all day

Seriously though, there has been hysteria lately. If we are in this for the long haul, I'd suggest plenty of rest and dont even think ACC for a few days, every now and then. Seriously, we need to stay in good mental shape

MSTRS

24th November 2009, 17:45

I always thought it was that bikers didn't want to have to pay (much more) money. I guess you've answered my original question then.

That was very much the case in the first few days after the hike was announced. What we realised we were up against, and why, changed very early in the piece. I think the "Who's Next" become the call after maybe 2 weeks...

k2w3

24th November 2009, 17:46

And then he said... "pretentious? Moi?"

Winston001

24th November 2009, 17:58

Granted there is an assumption that "no-fault" means everyone pays the same and why wouldn't you if you want a "no-fault" system. Otherwise there's someone subsidising someone else! and we're asking for parity!

No Fault does not equal No Risk. The levies on employees are rated on risk and have been for decades. Builders pay lots more than office workers. The proposed introduction of risk rating on motor-vehicles comes as a shock but it isn't a novel idea. Messy and wrong though. :mad:

I would still be wishing to see the actual data before I could be confident about these figures, but if they were true then it dispels one of my assumptions.

.

Try this thread http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=109890 There are a lot of links.

It's worth knowing that the LTSA has different figures to ACC and doesn't support their proposals.

Ixion is the font of knowledge - he may have other links.

NighthawkNZ

24th November 2009, 18:14

No Fault does not equal No Risk. The levies on employees are rated on risk and have been for decades. Builders pay lots more than office workers.

But the principles of ACC is that risk should not be part of the calculation as we all benifit from it and that comes from Sir Owen Woodhouse himself. We all do risky activities every day, including walking across the road, to riding or driving...

The only reasoon they bough the risk calculation is to make it easy to privitise as they tried back in the 90's and failed...

At the end of the day my levy I pay in my PAYE covers me for anything and I mean anything I do as a private citizen (including yes driving or riding a motorcycle) The rego levy should only be a top up. Technically I have paid more than the true figure of $3770 ACC say bikers levy's should pay... Why should I pay more???

Finally ACC was never ever designed to have the seperate accounts, and I should not need to be paying seperate levy's here and there to seperate accounts... Biking is the most dangerous thing I do so I want all my ACC to cover that...

We have a population of 4.2 million, ACC made 4.5 billion dollars you do the math...

XP@

24th November 2009, 18:15

Forget the $$$'s none of us are in possession of all the numbers, We cannot fight on a battlefield that we cannot see.
Personally I am fighting to keep NZ free from private insurance companies and lawyers.

The pain a country goes through when a big part of the infrastructure is privatised is hard hitting. The sale of Telecom would be nothing compared to ACC. We would then need to we introduce litigation so that the competition between insurers could function.

What we end up with is a system like in the UK or worse the USA where the health care companies and the lawyers rule supreme. Ask yourself:

Do you really want to see our hospitals turning away accident victims because their personal insurance is not paid up?
Do you really want to leave hospital only to have to visit the lawyer?
Do you really want to be turned down for treatment because you are not cost effective?
Do you really want someone else to profit from your mis-fortune?
Do you really want live under the fear of being sued for every action?

How to sort it out? I don't mind paying my dues so charge me for what i use put it on the petrol (I do 45,000+ a year on my bike, so I will get hit)
Or put it on GST you pay what you spend, affecting all equally. There are other ways than by creating an insurance company on the sly.

Kiwi Graham

24th November 2009, 18:18

The reason for this is I avoid wading into the arguments that normally propagate through forums. Too much mud slinging without any actual enlightenment going on.

But once in a while I'll feel that mass opinion has become hysteria and it is time to remind people that hype isn't the best basis for moving forward.

Actually, no. My actuarial training taught me how to look at numbers and be aware of what information to interpret – and what to be cautious of.

Well, that's the first time I've been made aware that that's what all this is about. I always thought it was that bikers didn't want to have to pay (much more) money. I guess you've answered my original question then.

If you are as smart as you are portraying you are and you genuinely think you can help in raising awareness to the inacurracies published by the ACC and Nick Smith using your acutary skills, please use those smarts to research the figures we all have and request a meeting with the presedent of BRONZ to stratagise a rebutle to those figures.

Mr Ixion is a fountain of knowledge and it would be best you correspond with him directly rather than doing it here.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 21:28

I think all of your questions will be resolved when you complete page 3 of this document. http://www.salesfish.co.nz/www-ACC-Insurance-co-nz/ACC_Premium_Calculator.pdf

…

Let us know what figure you come up with?

Gave it a go. Came up with a figure of $825. So I guess I'm coming out ahead then? :-)

One question: how come the base premium on this form was $500 (in my case) when on the other version of the form I came across it was $5000?

NighthawkNZ

24th November 2009, 21:33

Reflex

24th November 2009, 22:12

No Fault does not equal No Risk. The levies on employees are rated on risk and have been for decades. Builders pay lots more than office workers. The proposed introduction of risk rating on motor-vehicles comes as a shock but it isn't a novel idea. Messy and wrong though. :mad:

Try this thread http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=109890 There are a lot of links.

It's worth knowing that the LTSA has different figures to ACC and doesn't support their proposals.

Ixion is the font of knowledge - he may have other links.

Thanks for the links. I was only able to find one piece in there with actual numbers, but it didn't support the protester's cause. Essentially it said that the average car driver is paying an extra $77 to cover bike riders.

The flip side of that is the smallest category of bike is getting subsidised by $1000 per rider, up to over $3000 per rider for the big bikes.

Apart from conspiracy theories, how does that show bikers are being unfairly targeted?

scissorhands

24th November 2009, 22:25

We can never win with the media, some journalists are aiming high in life....must keep...wiping..the..brown..off my ...nose.... Please dont hang on their words, they are poison, and you will only be manipulated and destroyed.

Recently, I stopped reading the papers and watching the news like I used to, and experienced a reduced feeling of frustration, less anger, a sense of freedom and clarity of mind, once those reinforced messages became less prevalent in my day to day life.

The newspaper like TV is a conditioning vehicle. Why expose yourself to conditioning?

Reflex

24th November 2009, 22:25

One question reflex - who do you work for?

Hello ManDownUnder. Nice to meet you.

Who do you work for? I'm not sure of the relevance of this question to the discussion. Unless you're heading along the lines of questioning my impartiality.

Irrespective of who I work for, it should be the facts and reasoning that is the issue here, not the background.

But since it's not an issue for me, I work for a small company providing consulting services to other small to medium-sized companies. I'm not involved with the government at all, so if I was to suffer from any bias, it would be as a biker who is also subjected to these increases (for two bikes in the most pricey category what's more). And if that bias was so strong to cause me to spout forth emotional and unjustifiable claims, I would surely be mirroring the sentiment of the other posters on this site, and not trying to bring reasoning to the table.

So no, I have no secret agenda. It is a shame that the majority of the posters (not including your post in that group) are unable to step back and be a little more objective.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 22:31

OK, I'm prepared to give Reflex the benefit of the doubt.

…

The questions you ask and the data are available on this forum if you use the search function.
This data is available from http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf
It shows that motorcyclists are responsible for 51% of all accidents involving motorcycles (including those accidents where no other vehicle is involved), but are only responsible for around 38% of multi vehicle accidents.

Awesome. This is what I've been looking for. I would never have thought of looking for the statistics under "about ACC" :-o

I do some crunching this week and see what I come up with.

Sorry it's taken so long for me to get this far. I'm trying to respond to each person who's made a valid point or posted a question (or made an invalid point that needed to be rebuffed).

Thanks for your assistance :-)

Jantar

24th November 2009, 22:36

....The flip side of that is the smallest category of bike is getting subsidised by $1000 per rider, up to over $3000 per rider for the big bikes.

Apart from conspiracy theories, how does that show bikers are being unfairly targeted?

Could you please show how you have arrived at these figures? $62m divided by 130,000 motorcyclists and mopeds equates to $476. motorcyclist already pay $252 levy plus $90 on fuel levy which comes to $342, so the shortfall per motorcyclist is $134. Divide this among the 260,000 cars and vans and the subsidy is $6.70 from each car driver.

Nowhere have we seen any indication that big bikes cost more when the data provided shows that 250 cc bikes have the largest rate of claims.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 22:38

Granted there is an assumption that "no-fault" means everyone pays the same and why wouldn't you if you want a "no-fault" system. Otherwise there's someone subsidising someone else! and we're asking for parity!

Hmm. Confused here. You're saying that we should be aiming for parity, and there shouldn't be some subsidising others?

Then that suggests you are all for the biggest beneficiaries of the system (whoever that may be) to contribute the largest amount to it. Is that a fair interpretation?

So if cars are the cause of most of the claims (which they may well be) then they should pay more? And conversely for motorbikes?

Reflex

24th November 2009, 22:54

Reflex I appreciate you getting invoved in this discussion and I hope you can contribute some of your acutary skills to the analysis of what would be a fair personal injury premium IF ACC was an insurance company.

…

Rugby Union and Rugby league players cost $50,000,000.00 in ACC claims in 2008. ACC statistics clearly show that Rugby players are many, many, many times more likely than car drivers to make an ACC claim!

If motorcyclists are to risk rated, then to be equitable so should other high activities like Rugby.

Well, we are in agreement for at least part of this. It would be much more equitable if people who play sports that cause injury contributed more. But – as you already know – in reality perfect measurement is not practical. I may be cynical, but I suspect that in a land where most people wouldn't even pay their income tax honestly if they had to do it themselves, a system where all our sporting and leisure activities were measured would result in protests about living in a totalitarian state rather than paying our share.

But yes, if I look at the figures and find "a mistake" regarding the calculations, I would be offering much of my time to assist in the protests. I have already emailed a submission to the email address given, asking that allowance for fault recognition in accidents to be included in calculations (so that if cars cause most accidents, they should pay most of the levy).

I am not optimistic though. The figures are already calculated by actuaries at the top of the profession, and checked by other organisations. If I were to find something amiss, it could only be explained by some of these conspiracy theories I see floating around here.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 23:07

Eghm.

I guess lanesplitting looks pretty dangerous to a cager, which you obviously are, in fact I highly doubt you ride at all.

I would have never, ever personally have thought more motorcyclists rode recklessly than car drivers drive. Even well before I started riding.

Numerous times have I been travelling along the motorway – either in a car or on a bike – and I have started to change lanes only to have a motorcyclist thunder past me at speed. Had I been less aware or more careless, that motorcyclist would be under the wheels of more than one vehicle (and so would I if I had been on a bike).

This is just my personal experience, but when I have spoken to other people, they frequently have similar experiences.

I'm doing my best here to respond to your posting with some respect. And it is respect due to courtesy. You have not earned any through your postings. You behave like I suggested your parents weren't very well acquainted. All I'm doing here is making the crazy claim that we bikers should be able to justify our complaints with facts (which is what I'm researching).

Reflex

24th November 2009, 23:11

Well I take Reflex at face value. He's asked where the data is supporting our rejection of the ACC case.

I had a look myself for some of this raw data the other day. The trouble is, the ACC sub-forum was so busy that I couldn't find what I wanted. After half an hour I eventually found a PDF from ACC which had the figures.

Just above there are two contrasting sets of figures, one being from Professor Lamb. We don't help ourselves by using different numbers - and that happens a lot in posts. We need to have our facts straight and available in one thread as a source.

Thank you for posting a reply that shows some wisdom. While I realise you're not coming out in support of me, I've been finding a depressing lack of intelligent conversation on this site. I've seen it frequently on overseas fanatic sites, but had hoped for a little more from New Zealanders.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 23:32

Could you please show how you have arrived at these figures? $62m divided by 130,000 motorcyclists and mopeds equates to $476. motorcyclist already pay $252 levy plus $90 on fuel levy which comes to $342, so the shortfall per motorcyclist is $134. Divide this among the 260,000 cars and vans and the subsidy is $6.70 from each car driver.

Nowhere have we seen any indication that big bikes cost more when the data provided shows that 250 cc bikes have the largest rate of claims.

In the PDF called Key Points - MV (let me know if you can't find it and I'll see if I can trace where I got it from) the last line of the table says that for 601+cc motorcycles, the levies if calculated according to claim would be $3770 per bike. The proposal was for levies of $781. That's a difference of $2989. It also come close to the next two columns if you were to divide the total cross subsidy ($163 million) by the number of vehicles (54 thousand) – $3020 with rounding.

Where were your figures from? It will help me to compare the numbers to form a good argument – possibly even for the protest.

Honestly, I've seen so many figures quoted around the place my head's spinning. So the closer to source material the better. I'm not comfortable using numbers which are from sources who are trying to persuade rather than educate.

Reflex

24th November 2009, 23:35

Thanks for that.

Actually, I found that quite amusing :-)

NighthawkNZ

24th November 2009, 23:38

I don't have access to original data and sources, but from what I have observed / heard, it seems that motorcyclists are upset at the increase in levies they have to pay.

You to lazy to look for it

* a disproportionate amount of ACC payments go to motorcycle riders, due to more serious injuries – and possibly more frequent injury accidents
Yet still works out cheaper per claim... hmmm I wonder how may of those car claims at present also actually own bikes.

* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists
Most bikers also own cars many own 2 or 3, including 2 or 3 bikes. It also does not take in consideration of the fuel. I can only drive or ride one vehicle at a time.

Trucks are subsidising cars, cars subsidise bikes...bikes also subsidise pedistrians and cyclists. I am also subsidising rugby players and most sports players yet I don't play sport... But that is what ACC is suppose to do, the more it subsidises the better it works.

ACC was setup to cross subsidise, the more it cross subsides the better the scheme works and thats the way it is suspose to work. It was never designed to have the seperate accounts. I pay ACC levy in my PAYE which covers me for anything I do as a citizen including driving and riding.

The ACC levy I pay in PAYE is to cover me no ifs or butts about it.

The sooner the combine all the accounts to the single super fund again the better.

I added up all my levies I paid last year and soory to say it was more than enough.

* even with the proposed increases, motorcycle owners will still be contributing less to the ACC fund than they will be receiving in payments

In total the amount of levys bikers fully pay you would not be able to work it out... if you add all levy's collected including PAYE, which has to be included because esentially that is what it is for.

* the levies have to be increased in order to be able to cover projected payments

While technically correct how can you accurately project tomorrows possible costs as well as possible number of claims... 2 unknowns

Have I left anything out? one of the biggest trolls I have seen in a long time...

On the assumption that the above statements are true, it would imply that the protests are actually about bikers having the attitude that being carried by the system is the natural order, and don't want to have to pay their own way.

I see lots of mention on this site of how bikers are being unfairly targeted or even "victimised" (NB incorrectly spelt with a 'z' – a la American – on the web page), but this comes across as a spoilt child stamping its feet and crying that it doesn't want to do its chores.

If you want to appeal to the thinking public, I'd suggest coming up with reasons why you believe bikers are being unfairly treated. Provide some information. Give some statistics. And the note about ACC reserves being higher now than ever has little significance. It's not about how high they are in comparison with history, but how they compare to projected expenses.

Again look closer... think about what ACC is about the fundamentals of why it was set up. What ACC actually is. Personally I don't think you actually know. And no ACC is not insurance. Never has, and never should go down that track.

ACC is also not about risk, it never has been (even if the work account is based on this.) as we all have various risks, from sports to riding horses and motorcycles, hell crossing the road, getting older and falling breaking their hip, kids are higher risk, so parents should pay more, I don't have kids so why should pay the same ammount as some one that does... So where does it stop. and as we have been saying Who is next?

ACC is not about risk. And the comes from Sir Owen Woodhouse, and since you don't know much about ACC he designed it all.

Here is what I would like to find out if anyone has a source of information:
* the average annual ACC payment to people injured in motorcycle accidents vs car accidents
* some statistics relating payouts to engine rating – I imagine moped riders can be hurt as easily as big bike riders
* information on the proportion of accidents involving motorcycles where the fault was with the rider (premiums should be charged to those responsible for the accidents, rather than the victims).

Again you to lazy to find them yourself... then I am to lazy to find it for you...

It makes sense that the highest levy should be paid by the people who are most likely to cause a claim. As an alternative option, perhaps the levy should be not on vehicles but on the drivers. Perhaps the levy could take into consideration the level of demerit points the owner has at time of vehicle licensing.

So are boy racers going to pay more? since they poor diseal on the road for their burn outs and some poor biker has an accident on this.

Are learners going to pay more?

Are much older drivers going to pay more because their reflexes are not as fast as they use to be, and eye sight and hearing slowly failing...

Are those that have older cars in the fleet going to pay more since they don't have air bags or a 5 star rating and can not afford the latest model car?

After all, there should be some relationship between the risks a driver / rider takes and the number of times they have been caught.

Above ACC is not about risk.

If you want to put a good case to government, do it by providing something that the public can agree with – and not by trying to inconvenience as many people as you can just because you're not getting your way. Remember: riding a motorcycle is a choice you made. It's not a right and it's not something which was forced upon you.

In case it makes any difference to the validity of my opinion, I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and bicycle. My training is as an actuary, I pay my taxes, don't pirate music or software, and even though I've never made an ACC claim, I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount.

blah blah blah

And from personal observation, many (not all) people I've observed who ride big bikes ride like idiots. They dress themselves up in leather to feel safe, but split lanes on the motorway, overtake on blind corners, speed like the law doesn't apply to them, and just act as though they are above the laws of physics. I can understand why the government would be wanting that whole category to contribute more to the system that will likely be supporting them in the future.

From my point, and i have been riding for 25 years it is only few that do this and just as there are cage drivers and boy racers that do the same thing as well.

But if they cause an accident, do we go down the track of suing or do we keep the "No fault" system.

So, flame away if you must. But try to justify your comments with a sign that you've put some thought into it and appear to be more than an upset child.

blah blah blah

At the end of the day, there are much better ways of collecting the levys required

Reflex

24th November 2009, 23:59

I see you work in actuaries and therefore calculate "things" using a probability model as your method of choice, pretty pessimistic, but hey!

I agree that in the grand scale of things, IF there is an accident involving a car and a bike, the bike rider is more than likely (probably) going to come off worse right? WRONG.

You can't tell, what kind of crash is it? head on, side on, where did the motorcyclist land when the motorcyclist came off, how did the motorcyclist land when they came off... I can level all of these things at the car in the accident... What kind of crash was it? where did the car end up? what's the ncap rating? Never ending parameters for a calculation!

Yet, the motorcyclist is not inside a cage, therefore the motorcyclist is free to roll to safety, the motorcyclist has body armour so the worst thing that could happen to the motorcyclist is that they need new gear. Ouchy, it's a head on... The motorcyclist could see what's happening and leave the bike in a direction of my choosing, no seatbelt to undo, soft patch of grass to the right, cliff face to the left... exit stage right!

Basically the accident has a myriad of outcomes. People who calculate probability are looking at accidents that are going to happen, without knowing exactly what kind of accident it is and without knowing what the outcome will be (i know there are other variables)... essentially making things up as they go along. Because it's in the future, you have no idea what accident will occur, you only think that there will be an accident because you have calculated its probability... So your planning for the future that may never happen!

Chance is also in your future, to me Chance beats Probability PERIOD! Because it takes EVERYTHING into account that Probability does and then takes everything else into account that Probability doesn't.

The Probability of Chance is 50 - 50!!! Same as anyone in the world!

Your turn!

Well, I don't know where to start with that one :-o

So let's start with saying yep, statisticians don't know the future. Only weather people know that :-P

However, what they do in an attempt to cover up their inadequacies is to say "from past experience, I'm predicting that over the next year we shall witness n number of accidents. Of these accidents, x% will be of type a. And from past experience, a type accidents have resulted in $y of costs. So to predict the costs for the next year, we just multiply n by the sum of all our (x% times $y) to get the total figure.

There will be variations in the number and breakdowns of accident, and a distribution of claim costs for each type. But over the years the goal is to have them all balance out.

And I've only ever witnessed a few bike-car accidents. Each time the driver was distressing over the rider lying on the road in front of them. And their plastic lid and animal skin armour wasn't much competition for a steel cage or tarmac surface. I think in at least two of the cases, it happened while a rider was travelling down the left side of a queue of cars which had stopped to let another car turn. But perhaps this is the exception.

As for "The Probability of Chance is 50 - 50!!!" – I've still got no idea of what to do with that. No idea what it's supposed to mean?

And what's with the PERIOD thing? This isn't America. We say FULL STOP over here!

Reflex

25th November 2009, 00:18

While technically correct how can you accurately project tomorrows possible costs as well as possible number of claims... 2 unknowns

You can't accurately project tomorrow's costs, just as businesses can't predict tomorrow's sales. But you have to estimate them based on past experience and some predicted influencing factors. If the number of individual instances is high, then over the long term you have a good chance to be close.

To say "I don't know the accurate answer" isn't justification for doing nothing. So you make the best projections you can and adjust them as new information comes available (one claimed reason why the ACC jump is so large – past rates were too low).

So are boy racers going to pay more? since they poor diseal on the road for their burn outs and some poor biker has an accident on this.

Are learners going to pay more?

Are much older drivers going to pay more because their reflexes are not as fast as they use to be, and eye sight and hearing slowly failing...

Are those that have older cars in the fleet going to pay more since they don't have air bags or a 5 star rating and can not afford the latest model car?

Above ACC is not about risk.

Well, actually yes boy racers would pay more because they are more likely to have been issued tickets. Learners and old people won't because – although they're frustrating to be stuck behind – they don't actually cause many injuries at 20 kph.

And the people with unsafe cars should be contributing more. However it is the accepted way of the state system where those with money support those without (the basis of the graduated tax system, benefits and most forms of government spending).

And as for ACC not being about risk, that's what the whole purpose of it is. Just like insurance. Just like carrying a spare tyre (in a car) or a puncture repair kit on a bike, a fire extinguisher on a boat. You spend money in the hope that you will never make use of it – just because of the small risk that you will.

Reflex

25th November 2009, 00:33

If you are as smart as you are portraying you are and you genuinely think you can help in raising awareness to the inacurracies published by the ACC and Nick Smith using your acutary skills, please use those smarts to research the figures we all have and request a meeting with the presedent of BRONZ to stratagise a rebutle to those figures.

Mr Ixion is a fountain of knowledge and it would be best you correspond with him directly rather than doing it here.

I would be happy to do so. I must confess it hasn't been easy to get the mentioned figures. Everyone tells me the figures are everywhere, but almost no-one has pointed the way. And my searching has been frustrating.

I must warn you that I do not take a side then find the facts to match. I hope to spend a week looking through the data and then coming to my own conclusion. If it suggests that the protesters are justified, I will provide time and energy to backing your cause. If I find they are not, I will provide time and energy trying to persuade BRONZ that the cause is invalid.

I just wish that people here would be more willing to provide information rather than criticism if they really believed they had the facts on their side.

But being optimistic, apparently when I made my first post my opinion was not valid. Now that I'm up to 20 in this thread, does that mean I'm more knowledgeable? ;-)

jrandom

25th November 2009, 05:01

Numerous times have I been travelling along the motorway – either in a car or on a bike – and I have started to change lanes only to have a motorcyclist thunder past me at speed.

A side point, here, but either the motorcyclist was travelling at about twice the legal open-road limit through the traffic (unlikely), or you simply failed to maintain situational awareness before commencing a maneuver.

I've driven plenty of miles in cars around Auckland's motorways over the last decade, have been passed by plenty of filtering motorcycles, and have never had it come as a surprise when I was 'starting to change lanes'.

The average NZ car driver's habits and skills are, quite frankly, appalling.

Not to say that every motorcycling-related injury is a car driver's fault, but what you unintentionally highlight with a description of your own inadequate awareness is a small part of the reason why most motorcyclists resent the current proposals for financial rape.

The question of whether motorcycling levies cover motorcycling claims is not the be-all and end-all of the subject.

Kiwi Graham

25th November 2009, 05:19

mctshirt

25th November 2009, 05:21

Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

What have you got?

NONONO

25th November 2009, 07:09

Well Reflex, now you got me thinking.
Your concerns regarding the figures and stats have sort of worried me. What if we are wrong, what if we have mis interpreted the numbers? And I feel a sense of despair creep over me.
But then I go back to two simple points.
1. Bikers are being targeted unfairly. Many other activities carry the POTENTIAL for injury and it is simply not natural justice to single out one of those activities for higher levies.
2. I would like to keep ACC as it is and believe that this current campaign against bikers IS the thin end of the wedge, the beginning of the privatization process.
So, in fact, I'm all good.
If you are the real deal, I apologize for my earlier post and welcome you on board.
If you are here in an attempt to destabilize the campaign, well...I hope and pray you and yours have the resources to keep yourselves well and healthy in a user pays system. Your children, and their children, will be the ones paying in the future

NighthawkNZ

25th November 2009, 07:31

Simplest way to solve it is to

Recombine all the accounts, as ACC was not designed to have these seperate accounts and the more cross subisiding the better it works. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC we have at present, so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE.

Put ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved... its on petrol, booze every thing you buy and sell, covers yah paper cuts, it covers your tourists and covers cyclists and bikers as you are paying it on every thing you buy for you bike. It covers those that are working, even kids when will be paying ACC out of there pocket money (all the business have to is up GST) the IRD goons do the rest.

A 2.5% increase in GST, to 15%, would then easily raise around $10 - 15 billion which is what ACC requires.

If only 1% was added to GST ACC would be fully funded in 2 or three years. If GST went to 15% ACC would be fully funded in one year and could then be dropped back back to 1% to carry it on.

Pixie

25th November 2009, 07:32

Here's a prediction of one possible future:
ACC levies go up.
A percentage of vehicle users don't pay.
ACC levies go up again to cover the shortfall.
More vehicle users don't pay and more protests start to happen.The public start to get really pissed off with the all the disruption and the continual ACC increases.

MSTRS

25th November 2009, 07:34

But yes, if I look at the figures and find "a mistake" regarding the calculations, I would be offering much of my time to assist in the protests. I have already emailed a submission to the email address given, asking that allowance for fault recognition in accidents to be included in calculations (so that if cars cause most accidents, they should pay most of the levy).

I am not optimistic though. The figures are already calculated by actuaries at the top of the profession, and checked by other organisations. If I were to find something amiss, it could only be explained by some of these conspiracy theories I see floating around here.

You probably won't find a mistake in the calculations. I'm quite sure that actuaries are reasonably familiar with the buttons on a calculator.
The problem lies with the base data being used. It is incomplete, filled with erroneous numbers from non-registered bikes, does not correspond with data from other govt sources (such as MOT crash stats). It's the classic GIGO.
Check the link here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129532737&postcount=19)
Another problem lies with the assumption (on ACC's part) that big/ger bikes are more dangerous because accidents involving them cost more. We would not necessarily be annoyed with this if ACC was not spouting the 'more dangerous' line, but was upfront about the compensation side. It is very clear to us that it is the EC component at fault in this case. Besides, only MOT collect engine size stats, and then only sometimes.

FastBikeGear

25th November 2009, 07:34

Gave it a go. Came up with a figure of $825. So I guess I'm coming out ahead then? :-)

One question: how come the base premium on this form was $500 (in my case) when on the other version of the form I came across it was $5000?

The extra '0' was a typo.

For many people the caluculator will give a lower figure. However for me it costs more because I also do a couple of the other high risk activities, e.g. cycling and martial arts (for which I am still to guestimate a multiplier). For people like me with children the cost will also be higher. Adults with Children should of course pay higher premiums otherwise those with no kids are subsidising them.

The nice thing about the caluculator is that the ACC insurance can easily change the base premium or adjust the individual multipliers when their actuaries have more info to work from.

Mom

25th November 2009, 07:38

So, flame away if you must. But try to justify your comments with a sign that you've put some thought into it and appear to be more than an upset child.

Maybe you could try reading in here. Not everything will have found its way into the thread, but there will be a heap of information there for you to educate yourself a bit further.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=109890

jeffs

25th November 2009, 08:40

I would be happy to do so. I must confess it hasn't been easy to get the mentioned figures. Everyone tells me the figures are everywhere, but almost no-one has pointed the way. And my searching has been frustrating.

I must warn you that I do not take a side then find the facts to match. I hope to spend a week looking through the data and then coming to my own conclusion. If it suggests that the protesters are justified, I will provide time and energy to backing your cause. If I find they are not, I will provide time and energy trying to persuade BRONZ that the cause is invalid.

I just wish that people here would be more willing to provide information rather than criticism if they really believed they had the facts on their side.

But being optimistic, apparently when I made my first post my opinion was not valid. Now that I'm up to 20 in this thread, does that mean I'm more knowledgeable? ;-)

Reflex as a statistician you are looking at numbers, because that is what you do :)
( not meaning to question you, but understand this is the internet and you could be a butcher for all we know ).

Yes under the changes to the funding process the numbers do not stack up on the side of bikers.

But if you can take your statisticians hat off ( and that you may find hard or impossible to do ) and look at the justification beyond the numbers, you will understand what bikers are really up in arms about.

Because its easy by the use of some simple calculations to project future costs using historical figures, ACC are are trying to make a single section of the public ( bikers ) be self funded ( or as near as they can ). The other sections of the public, who are not so easily segmented are not being hit at this time. This is almost a test case to see what the back lash would be if they started to separate out other high cost/risk groups.

Using these calculations ACC are saying. " What are you complaining about ? The real issue is not that we are raising you levies so high, its that we let you get away with such low ones for such a long time, you should not be complaining you have had a free ride for too long"

We are saying " ACC was never set up to charge one group more that others. It was meant to create a level playing field so we did not end up like America, suing people to get cover for injury"

Please by all means crunch the numbers :)

But I will make a prediction.

If you are a statistician, you will come up with the same numbers as ACC. Why because you will have been trained to interpret the numbers in the same way the Authors of the reports have.

Please don't take this as an insult, it is not intended to be.
As impartial as you say you are, you by definition are not, and that is such a shame , because NZ bikers need someone who can crunch the numbers and is NOT impartial, but falls on their side.

If after crunching numbers for the good of bikers, and you come down on the side of ACC. Be smart enough to understand the ridicule you will receive. Kiwibiker.co.nz is not a please for the faint hearted.

wingrider

25th November 2009, 08:41

I would be happy to do so. I must confess it hasn't been easy to get the mentioned figures. Everyone tells me the figures are everywhere, but almost no-one has pointed the way. And my searching has been frustrating.

I must warn you that I do not take a side then find the facts to match. I hope to spend a week looking through the data and then coming to my own conclusion. If it suggests that the protesters are justified, I will provide time and energy to backing your cause. If I find they are not, I will provide time and energy trying to persuade BRONZ that the cause is invalid.

I just wish that people here would be more willing to provide information rather than criticism if they really believed they had the facts on their side.

)

Well I have followed this post with interest. At first I thought that someone was challenging our comments and getting us to sit back and look hard at ourselves and the way in which we have arrived at our conclusions.
Have we put in the hard yards? Justification of staying up late at night pouring through screes of papers and figures to justify our claims. Calling on expert people who have the ability to mentor our findings and advise if we are correct or not.
This post has reaffirmed my conclusion that "INDEED WE HAVE".

Reflex,
Right from the outset you have carefully structured your queries and replies that suggests you like National and ACC have your own agenda. I respect your right to your own opinion.
What I wont tolerate is your continual Holier than thou attitude.
Your mentality is no less than the spoilt child in the candy store who wants the sweet at the bottom of the jar just because it's brighter and possibly bigger than all the others.

You have repeatedly asked for links to research material that we have spent hours locating.
Every person replying to your requests has posted not only those links, but numerous other links as well. Yet you still claim that no-one has shown you the way.

You have repeatedly been given the opportunity to contact those with a greater knowledge than us, but consider this below your projected capabilities.

You "warn" us that you dont take sides and then find the facts to match.

You have obviously found many of the stats provided but then go to great lengths to disprove or display confussion to them when even an 8 year old with a calculator can not come up with the conclusions as made by the Minister nor from the boffins from ACC. Your findings of the facts are as inconclusive as theirs.

You enquire :Am I more Knowledgeable?"
Your ignorance and subtle arrogance gives a definitive NO.

I am left with one conclusion.
You are one of the people, charged with providing the initial information that the ACC and the Minister have released to the public to justify meeting their needs.
You are now facing a bullet because the salespitch didn't work.

You are manipulating your replies to entice a response that will allow you to run back to your superiors ( opps, forgot you wish to be the most superior) to show we got it wrong.
Now you are in the throes of a panic attack because you are unable to refute our statements of fact.

Just for once, go back to the figures provided from ACC ( the links have been provided) Recharge the batteries in your calculator and decide if you can get your calculations to exactly match theirs. Take a week if you have to, (it's the time frame you have set yourself).
If you can then post your findings here with all the relevant data and spreadsheets.
If you can't, then also come back here and have the balls to admit WE DID HAVE IT RIGHT.

Reflex

25th November 2009, 08:49

A side point, here, but either the motorcyclist was travelling at about twice the legal open-road limit through the traffic (unlikely), or you simply failed to maintain situational awareness before commencing a maneuver.

I've driven plenty of miles in cars around Auckland's motorways over the last decade, have been passed by plenty of filtering motorcycles, and have never had it come as a surprise when I was 'starting to change lanes'.

Come now, jrandom. You need to pick your debating skills up a bit here. If you're going to try to find flaws with the opponent's argument, you need to present a feasible interpretation. Your approach of picking on a point, distorting it until it is no longer accurate, and then criticising it is called the straw man technique. You'll find it most commonly used in political debates. You should be better than than :-\

I can't see any logic to your assumptions so it makes your whole argument look weak.

As it actually happened, the traffic was probably doing about 50kph in an 80 zone, and the biker lane split at probably 20kph above the traffic speed.

Situational awareness has little to do with it as I'm not going to sit looking in one particular rear vision mirror just in case a bike comes down that side. I was aware of my immediate surroundings – just the bike wasn't part of them 3 seconds earlier.

And it if weren't for my vehicle skills, that rider (and myself) would now be a recipient of the ACC payments you're refusing to pay.

Jantar

25th November 2009, 08:49

James Deuce

25th November 2009, 08:50

Well he certainly hasn't PMed me his email address so I can send on Dr Lamb's speech.

Oh well.

Not worth getting bent out of shape about lads and ladies.

Badjelly

25th November 2009, 08:51

Uh, that 170K is the number of vehicles that were registered in 2008. As in, for the first time.

It did seem a little low :baby:

Kiwi Graham

25th November 2009, 09:00

As it actually happened, the traffic was probably doing about 50kph in an 80 zone, and the biker lane split at probably 20kph above the traffic speed.

Situational awareness has little to do with it as I'm not going to sit looking in one particular rear vision mirror just in case a bike comes down that side. I was aware of my immediate surroundings – just the bike wasn't part of them 3 seconds earlier.

And it if weren't for my vehicle skills, that rider (and myself) would now be a recipient of the ACC payments you're refusing to pay.

You Young man have made it to the catagory know as 'self righteous tosser' its not an insult it's a catagory and you fall into it.

You sir are one of the many that could benefit from the further training ACC have hinted at looking to provide to keep the rest of the motoring population safe. You belive your driving prowess is of such a standard that it is down to you that people dont have an accident ffs.

Over this thread........I conclude you are either fukin stupid or have been deliberatly instructed to talk rubbish to cloud the issues we are dealing with.

firefighter

25th November 2009, 09:06

I'm doing my best here to respond to your posting with some respect. And it is respect due to courtesy. You have not earned any through your postings. You behave like I suggested your parents weren't very well acquainted.

Well dipshit, have a look at that red square under your post count, then look at my blue. That's the respect iv'e earnt through my posts on here. Yours are all negative.

Who has not earnt any respect? It's all there for everyone to see......

And by the way, saying: "doing my best here to respond to your posting with some respect" and then writing "You behave like I suggested your parents weren't very well acquainted." does not make you look clever, it just shows you go back on your own word in a single post.

If you do ride, I wish you did'nt. The last thing we need right now is a bike rider who's not on our side, complaining about bikers probably with your cager mates. Fueling anger towards us over something you obviously have little knowledge of;

They dress themselves up in leather to feel safe, but split lanes on the motorway,.

So?!!! Should we just sit in line breathing in exhaust fumes?.....kinda pointless having a bike don't you think?

Try lanesplitting one day (again if you actually do ride) and you will see it's actually relatively safe if you are smart about it, much better than sitting there breathing in exhaust fumes.......

Also, as for your flawed argument;
Remember: riding a motorcycle is a choice you made. It's not a right and it's not something which was forced upon you.
.......this is an old hack argument, it is well and truely my right......"oh! how could it possibly be your right?!" you snort.....

Well, newsflash, I pay for the right, that's right I pay for it. Through rates, Tax, Levys....etc. I pay for the right. I don't want to hear semantics on this.....it is well and truly my right to ride a motorcycle, because I pay for the priviledge.

mashman

25th November 2009, 09:11

Well, I don't know where to start with that one :-o

So let's start with saying yep, statisticians don't know the future. Only weather people know that :-P

ha ha ha, yeah they get it right all the time... nothing to see but sun tomorrow, whoosh have some rain... it's best guess, i.e. Probability!

However, what they do in an attempt to cover up their inadequacies is to say "from past experience, I'm predicting that over the next year we shall witness n number of accidents. Of these accidents, x% will be of type a. And from past experience, a type accidents have resulted in $y of costs. So to predict the costs for the next year, we just multiply n by the sum of all our (x% times $y) to get the total figure.

There will be variations in the number and breakdowns of accident, and a distribution of claim costs for each type. But over the years the goal is to have them all balance out.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't have a problem with the past experience thing, but if your base data is wrong (it's only a suspicion because we can't get the base data, but some are concerened like me) you're making calculations based on an incorrect data.

Also, if you change the number of accidents against a static variance, say add 100 bikes on to the stats, you get more $$$. If it was me and i wanted to generate cash, i'd also have to change the variance as there's more motorcycles on the road. So you have a higher Variance x a higher number of motorcycles a rise of 100% plus something... 200% plus something... until your books balance?????? What books, the ACC account, or the economic books of NZ, where is my money going if THEY are making a profit? Sounds to me like the ACC system is being used to bail out an economy...

If your base data is wrong, you're not just calculating the wrong financial value, you're seriously fucking off your population by trying to tax them out of existence, off the road, from not being able to buy a TV (depending on your financial situation) all because the data is wrong and you can't admit it and ask the people for help!!!!!!! Seriously, follow it through logically, make up some numbers, you don't need the real ones to get an idea for this scenario and then run your actuary calculations. I would be very interested to see your results!

And I've only ever witnessed a few bike-car accidents. Each time the driver was distressing over the rider lying on the road in front of them. And their plastic lid and animal skin armour wasn't much competition for a steel cage or tarmac surface. I think in at least two of the cases, it happened while a rider was travelling down the left side of a queue of cars which had stopped to let another car turn. But perhaps this is the exception.

I've been in a head on before, Bike v Land Rover... I would go as far as to say i was lucky, single track road in Scotland, come around a corner, 20 feet away there's a bright yellow land rover, bank to the left of me, Stone wall to the right, and them, sitting in the middle of the road with people looking at the beautiful coastline. I never died, well at least i don't think i did... Knocked me out for a while, broke a rib, fucked up my bike and i was so dazed i told the fella, no worries she'll be right and headed off to get the bike fixed!!!!!!!!!! I paid, wasn't his fault, i was well within the speed limit and not riding erratically, it was a CHANCE occurrence, but then again isn't everything?????????

Let's just say that if i had given you that scenario, what would have been my chances of survival? CHANCE 50 - 50... Probability would get it wrong and noone seems to care that Probability for calculating risk is LOGICALLY impossible...

As for "The Probability of Chance is 50 - 50!!!" – I've still got no idea of what to do with that. No idea what it's supposed to mean?

Bit cryptic i suppose without a context wrapped around it!

Scenario: I'm surrounded by six big hairy bikers because i have slept with their wives (and damn i was a stallion), i have no combat training, other than finishing tekken on the sega saturn once upon a time, and they're all carrying weapons. Probability says i'm going to die, Chance, to me, says i still have a 50%, well chance, of living, because anything can happen! You can't calculate the Probability of Chance!!!!! Yet you think you can calculate the probability of everything else. HIGHLY ILLOGICAL

And what's with the PERIOD thing? This isn't America. We say FULL STOP over here!

Fair point, it was freudian, my wife is on the rag!!!

James Deuce

25th November 2009, 09:17

Come now, jrandom. You need to pick your debating skills up a bit here. If you're going to try to find flaws with the opponent's argument, you need to present a feasible interpretation. Your approach of picking on a point, distorting it until it is no longer accurate, and then criticising it is called the straw man technique. You'll find it most commonly used in political debates. You should be better than than :-\

I can't see any logic to your assumptions so it makes your whole argument look weak.

As it actually happened, the traffic was probably doing about 50kph in an 80 zone, and the biker lane split at probably 20kph above the traffic speed.

Situational awareness has little to do with it as I'm not going to sit looking in one particular rear vision mirror just in case a bike comes down that side. I was aware of my immediate surroundings – just the bike wasn't part of them 3 seconds earlier.

And it if weren't for my vehicle skills, that rider (and myself) would now be a recipient of the ACC payments you're refusing to pay.

No Jrandom's point is valid. You shouldn't recieve surprises in traffic. I was overtaken on the left by a motorcar on Murphy St this morning but had picked the chap out of the clutter in my mirrors and was already on the footpath/driveway entry to New World before he came close to hitting me.

I still don't think all car drivers are terrible and deserve the 60% ACC levy increase coming their way though. Accusing Jrandom of a strawman argument when your argument is based on limited sampling and base generalisations without understanding the legality of the situation is a bit of a giggle.

Ixion

25th November 2009, 09:24

In case it makes any difference to the validity of my opinion, I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and bicycle

Numerous times have I been travelling along the motorway – either in a car or on a bike – and I have started to change lanes only to have a motorcyclist thunder past me at speed

Hm

But since it's not an issue for me, I work for a small company providing consulting services to other small to medium-sized companies

A small company that employs actuaries? rarav avis in terra , methinks

And an actuary who claims to be bewildered by figures , and can't find the data he needs ? Wouldn't stay in a job long I think.

Your approach of picking on a point, distorting it until it is no longer accurate, and then criticising it is called the straw man technique

I remember another gentleman who loves quoting that 'strawman' phrase

A biker , in Auckland, who claims to ride a KTM990 , has never owned a car, and doesn't lane split . Ever. Tui, good beer.

My bullshitometer is off scale

This guy's a plant.

His objective is to be able to say "Look, the bikers provided my with their own figures. And they're wrong!'

Which they will be of course because he has swallowed the entire ACC argument (" we are an insurance company" ) as his starting point.

He's trying to do to us, what we are doing to ACC

Close him down.

Kiwi Graham

25th November 2009, 09:32

I remember another gentleman who loves quoting that 'strawman' phrase

A biker , in Auckland, who claims to ride a KTM990 , has never owned a car, and doesn't lane split . Ever. Tui, good beer.

My bullshitometer is off scale

This guy's a plant.

His objective is to be able to say "Look, the bikers provided my with their own figures. And they're wrong!'

Which they will be of course because he has swallowed the entire ACC argument (" we are an insurance company" ) as his starting point.

He's trying to do to us, what we are doing to ACC

Close him down.

Totally agree, someone claiming to be smart playing at being this dumb. Who's he/she kidding.

vtec

25th November 2009, 09:46

In the PDF called Key Points - MV (let me know if you can't find it and I'll see if I can trace where I got it from) the last line of the table says that for 601+cc motorcycles, the levies if calculated according to claim would be $3770 per bike. The proposal was for levies of $781. That's a difference of $2989. It also come close to the next two columns if you were to divide the total cross subsidy ($163 million) by the number of vehicles (54 thousand) – $3020 with rounding.

Where were your figures from? It will help me to compare the numbers to form a good argument – possibly even for the protest.

Honestly, I've seen so many figures quoted around the place my head's spinning. So the closer to source material the better. I'm not comfortable using numbers which are from sources who are trying to persuade rather than educate.

This is part of the blatantly false data that ACC have put out that we have made formal complaints about.

From ACC's own data motorcyclists cost $62million dollars last year. Yet somehow they are claiming that there is a cross subsidy from car drivers of $77 per car.

Now this has been pointed out many times, even on TV by Les Mason (Ixion) that 2.5 million approx cars multiplied by $77 = $192,500,000, which is far in excess of what motorcyclists have been paid out in the last year.

We are not battling on a level field unfortunately, we have to work with the selective and manipulated data that ACC have provided us, and still we find massive lies.

62 mill / 130,000 approx motorcycles = $477 is the cost that ACC says that we cost them per annum, now if you take into account our fuel levy's aswell as our rego top ups, we very easily cover that, I was paying $2000 per annum approximately as my income levy working as a bicycle courier, ACC pretty much made it not worth working. Then you take into account the fact that nearly all of us register a car aswell, but are less likely to be injured in our cars because we spend time on bikes aswell, then we most definitely cover our costs. Also, take into account the off road motorcycles that have been stuck on our tab. IT'S ALL BULLSHIT. I know that most of Hondas sales are actually of farm bikes and motorcross bikes.

We cannot work out where they got the 4 significant figure levy's from. In other words it's statistical and business cost manipulated bullshit. The cross checks that we have done to work this out have been extremely simple. I think the biggest problem with ACC is that they get PwC to work over their numbers for them to get the results that they are looking for instead of representing the facts.

Here is a link to a vid. So you can see what we are up against. They feed bullcrap and we have to break it done using their bullcrap to do it. http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/angry-bikers-storm-capital-3089877/video
Meet Les Mason :D

Jantar

25th November 2009, 09:48

...Let's just say that if i had given you that scenario, what would have been my chances of survival? CHANCE 50 - 50... Probability would get it wrong and noone seems to care that Probability for calculating risk is LOGICALLY impossible...

Bit cryptic i suppose without a context wrapped around it!

Scenario: I'm surrounded by six big hairy bikers because i have slept with their wives (and damn i was a stallion), i have no combat training, other than finishing tekken on the sega saturn once upon a time, and they're all carrying weapons. Probability says i'm going to die, Chance, to me, says i still have a 50%, well chance, of living, because anything can happen! ......

Sorry, I'm with Reflex on this one. Probablity and chance are effectively the same thing. Toss a die and the probability of getting a six is 1/6. The cahnce of getting a six is 1/6. There is no difference between probability and chance.

Mr Merde

25th November 2009, 10:06

....

A biker , in Auckland, who claims to ride a KTM990 , has never owned a car, and doesn't lane split . Ever. .....

I am a biker, I live in Auckland, I ride a 1200 Suzuki, I have never owned a car or held a car licence (I am 53 yo) unfortunately I cant say that I have never lane split.

In fact when living in the UK I went for a UK licence and failed the first one because I didnt lane split. They said I was too timid on the road

Badjelly

25th November 2009, 10:07

OK. According to LTNZ (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-29.html), there were 170,219 cars (petrol + diesel) registered in 2008 and 13,687 motorcycles. So...

Car Occupants:
- 0.050 active claims per registered car
- $1224 per registered car

Motorcyclists:
- 0.232 active claims per registered motorcycle
- $4568 per registered motorcycle

Am I right so far?

No, as Ixion pointed out immediately. OK, so according to LTNZ (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-31.html) there were 2,287,697 cars licensed in 2008 and 55,180 motorcycles plus 19,960 mopeds. (I'm ignoring rental cars and taxis in the cars figure, though accidents involving occupants in those would probably be lumped under car occupants by ACC).

So...

Car Occupants:
- 0.0037 active claims per registered car
- $91 per registered car

Motorcyclists:
- 0.0422 active claims per registered motorcycle/moped
- $832 per registered motorcycle/moped

Ixion

25th November 2009, 10:09

I am a biker, I live in Auckland, I ride a 1200 Suzuki, I have never owned a car or held a car licence (I am 53 yo) unfortunately I cant say that I have never lane split.

In fact when living in the UK I went for a UK licence and failed the first one because I didnt lane split. They said I was too timid on the road

yes. That was the bit that seemed totally improbable.

FastBikeGear

25th November 2009, 10:21

Hm

And an actuary who claims to be bewildered by figures , and can't find the data he needs ? Wouldn't stay in a job long I think.
.

Well he's not the only one who can't find the data he/we need. In in the originals submissions document ACC stated

"Further information, including consultation documents and 'actuarial reports' relating to setting levy rates and the estimated outstanding claims liability, is available from www.acc.co.nz/consultation. Alternatively, call 0800 ACC RATES (0800 222 728) or send an email with your request to consultation@acc.co.nz."

Well I couldn't can't find any thing that looks like an 'actuary report' via the link given and I requested some stuff via email and quoted the OIA and I still haven't got it - even though the submission is now closed ( I put one in anyway). I have followed up again on my request and I have been promised a response by the close of business today.

Hmm be interested to see what I get.

Horse

25th November 2009, 10:46

This guy's a plant.

Exactly - got it in one.

Horse

25th November 2009, 10:50

As it actually happened, the traffic was probably doing about 50kph in an 80 zone, and the biker lane split at probably 20kph above the traffic speed.

If you're surprised by a vehicle approaching from behind with a closing speed of 20km/h, you're not fit to drive on NZ roads. Please hand your license in to your nearest AA or other designated NZTA agent and stick to bicycling.

Badjelly

25th November 2009, 10:52

His objective is to be able to say "Look, the bikers provided my with their own figures. And they're wrong!'

Do we have figures?

:dodge:

mashman

25th November 2009, 10:56

Sorry, I'm with Reflex on this one. Probablity and chance are effectively the same thing. Toss a die and the probability of getting a six is 1/6. The cahnce of getting a six is 1/6. There is no difference between probability and chance.

Probability is calculated. Chance is a static value of 50%... HUGE DIFFERENCE...

If you have 2 dice the Probability changes, Chance does not

Reckless

25th November 2009, 11:00

Originally Posted by Ixion
This guy's a plant.

Exactly - got it in one.

Agreed I posted this way Back on page 3

You sure your not simply on a fact finding mission for the Nats???

pzkpfw

25th November 2009, 11:33

Screw the statistics. Here is what I'm fighting for...

Background A.

My car is a 2006 Toyota Avensis. Nine airbags, and a bunch of other safety features that gave it the first 5 star safety rating (2003) under the revised NCAP system; the highest score ever at that time. So in a crash I should be safer than many other drivers - I am less likely to be injured and my injuries should be less serious. I therefore carry a lower "risk" of cost to ACC.

But do I think I should get lower ACC premiums on my car registration (or those "unsafe" drivers pay more)? No. There are two reasons:

Firstly, although safety was among criteria I used when I bought that car - I wouldn't have bought it if I couldn't afford it. Penalising drivers of "less safe" cars (which in many ways simply means "older" or "cheaper" cars) is as much a penalty on having a lower income. Taking more money off people who didn't have enough to start with is inequitable. Besides, the unaffordable new car of today becomes the affordable second-hand car of tommorrow (my Avensis is now worth half what I paid for it). Over time the vehicle fleet does in general get "safer" as the newer safety features trickle down.

Secondly, people should have choice - and why the heck not! What if some Kiwi happens to be able to afford some brand-new up-to-date-safety-features car but happens to like their old VF Valiant? I've come to the conclusion that I don't care. If that's what they want to drive, I am quite happy for them to drive it. It's not up to me to tell them not to. I am perfectly happy for him/her and me to pay the same ACC fees in our registration, regardless of whether they are more "at risk" in their Valiant than I am in my Avensis.

{This is not so different to how my ACC fees are helping to pay for cyclists and rugby players. I don't care if that's whay they want to do. They can do both at the same time for all I care. Maybe tommorrow I'll start riding my bicycle again? Maybe my Nephews who play Rugby will get hurt? Who knows? I'll just keep paying my ACC fees and people will still get cared for. That's a good thing.}

Background B.

While I drive a "safe" car, I am apparently very unsafe when I ride my motorcycle. The statistics "prove" this (even after ignoring the ACC rubbish "16 times" claim, we are more likely to have accidents on bikes then in cars).

But that is simply a convienient way to "classify" a chunk of the population. Here's a bunch of road users:

A B C D E F G H

ACC find a way to classify a chunk of them:

Cars=(A B C D E F) Bikes=(G H)

ACC then say "bikes are more risky/costly so let's charge them more".

But that's much more arbitrary than it seems. There are other ways to segregate the population.

White Cars=(A B C) Black Cars=(D E F) Bikes=(G H)

The statistics prove that black cars are more likely to have accidents than white cars. Why does ACC not separate out those drivers of black cars, and make them pay higher ACC fees?

Screw that. I can tell you that Dutch born 6 foot 3 inch drivers of Toyota Avensis's have had zero motor vehicle related ACC claims EVER - so maybe they should demand that they be given a 100% discount on ACC fees! Why draw that circle around bikes? Why isn't the road fund just one big pool we can all contribute to?

Conclusion

There are plenty of other reasons why the proposed increases are wrong (e.g. to do with how the numbers are calculated and how "risk" and/or "fault" are treated) but the above two points are what I've found to be my main drivers: freedom of choice, and the collective help we give each other.

I am fighting for being a Kiwi. Us all being able to have a go, to do what we want (within reason) and help each other when it goes wrong.

You want to paint your own house? I'll help you if you fall off your ladder.

You like your kids to help in the kitchen? I'll help you if they cut themselves.

You like playing rugby? I'll help you when the scrum collapses on your neck.

You like cycling? I'll help you when the car "didn't see you".

I like riding my bike. Will you help me, if I need it?

(And don't get all "absolutist" on me. I am not advocating "complete freedom"; e.g. I think reasonable speed limits and a ban on drink driving are fine. I'm happy that even that VF Valiant, mentioned above, needs to pass a W.O.F. inspection. I don't mind being told to wear a motorcycle helmet, and I even wonder why gloves are not mandatory.)

Bald Eagle

25th November 2009, 11:42

Screw the statistics. Here is what I'm fighting for...

I am fighting for being a Kiwi. Us all being able to have a go, to do what we want (within reason) and help each other when it goes wrong.

You want to paint your own house? I'll help you if you fall off your ladder.

You like your kids to help in the kitchen? I'll help you if they cut themselves.

You like playing rugby? I'll help you when the scrum collapses on your neck.

You like cycling? I'll help you when the car "didn't see you".

I like riding my bike. Will you help me, if I need it?

One of the best statements I have seen yet on this subject.

DidJit

25th November 2009, 11:52

Jantar

25th November 2009, 12:01

Probability is calculated. Chance is a static value of 50%... HUGE DIFFERENCE...

If you have 2 dice the Probability changes, Chance does not
I trust then that you are going to rewrite all the statistics text books with this brand new definition?

Are you also going to tell all those people who buy a lotto ticket that the chance of them getting the 1st division is 50%, or 1 chance in 2?

NighthawkNZ

25th November 2009, 12:03

getting the 1st division is 50%, or 1 chance in 2?

cool I'll buy two :D

mashman

25th November 2009, 12:06

I trust then that you are going to rewrite all the statistics text books with this brand new definition?

Are you also going to tell all those people who buy a lotto ticket that the chance of them getting the 1st division is 50%, or 1 chance in 2?

Ahhhh semantics... It's cool, we look at things differently...

I'll tell the people who buy a lotto ticket that you have a 1 in 4 million Probability, but your chance still remains 50 - 50, because you either win it, or you don't... again though that's just my take, you can class it as wrong if you like.

twotyred

25th November 2009, 12:09

mashman

25th November 2009, 12:19

I am fighting for being a Kiwi. Us all being able to have a go, to do what we want (within reason) and help each other when it goes wrong.

You want to paint your own house? I'll help you if you fall off your ladder.

You like your kids to help in the kitchen? I'll help you if they cut themselves.

You like playing rugby? I'll help you when the scrum collapses on your neck.

You like cycling? I'll help you when the car "didn't see you".

I like riding my bike. Will you help me, if I need it?

(And don't get all "absolutist" on me. I am not advocating "complete freedom"; e.g. I think reasonable speed limits and a ban on drink driving are fine. I'm happy that even that VF Valiant, mentioned above, needs to pass a W.O.F. inspection. I don't mind being told to wear a motorcycle helmet, and I even wonder why gloves are not mandatory.)

I completely agree

XP@

25th November 2009, 14:21

Again forget the numbers - they are a smoke screen for the real issues at hand.

The deadline for the levy increases has passed but they still need to pass the bill to make them possible. And this is only one part of the bill! We need to attack the change in principal which will allow them to separate the motor vehicle account further on a risk basis.

It is not bad enough that you loose your job because you cannot work any more but they want to use any outstanding holiday pay used to cover weekly entitlements.

Are you then willing to stand back and give ACC the ability to force you back in to a job for at minimum wage 30 hours per week, even though you were earning $1000 a week before your accident.

These are only the tip of the iceberg it is this bill which will cripple the country NOT the dollar increase in bike levies!

Winston001

25th November 2009, 15:50

Personally I am fighting to keep NZ free from private insurance companies and lawyers.

What we end up with is a system like in the UK or worse the USA where the health care companies and the lawyers rule supreme.

Essentially I agree with you. However when the Workers Account was opened to insurance companies in 1998, there was no right to sue introduced. So your perfectly reasonable concern can be allayed.

This isn't such a surprise. Life insurance carries on happily without any right to sue. Medical insurance (which I'll bet a lot of KBs have) doesn't include a right to sue. Loss of income insurance which is very common does not have a right to sue.

So we can relax on that score.

Ixion

25th November 2009, 16:05

I beg to differ.

All that means is that we end up with the worst of all worlds.

No effective compensation AND no recourse to the courts.

When the Workers Account was handed over to Insurance Companies , the workers were the ones that suffered.

A worker is injured , because (for the sake of argument) , his employer does not properly maintain a machine.

In other jurisdictions, the worker would sue (or at least make noises about it) the employer. Who would call in his insurance company. The insurance company represents the employer, so it is in its interest to shaft the worker. But it can't go TOO far down that road, because the worker can always have recourse to the courts. A poor recourse, and those who remember how that worked prior to 1972 will understand why ACC is worth fighting for. But, recourse none the less.

If the insurance company tell the worker "Piss off, we don't want to pay you money", the worker can take them to court.

Now compare this with privatised non-tort insurance scheme. (ie privatised ACC.

The worker is injured. He reports the injury. The employer doesn't want to know. If the injury is not serious that's probably as far as it goes. The worker bears the brunt.

If the injury is serious, the worker demands the insurance company be notified. The insurance company represents the employer, so it is in its interest to shaft the worker. And it can do so with impunity because the worker has NO effective recourse. The insurance company says "Piss off, we don't want to pay anyone anything". The employer says "Shut up and don't argue, I don't want my premiums to go up". And the worker has nothing at all he can do.

He can ask the insurance company for a review. So the insurance company reviews its own decision. We can tell how *that's* going to end up, can't we.

End result: the worker ends up on the sick or invalid benefit, the insurance company (and employer) laugh all the way to the (overseas) bank. And the taxpayer pays for it all.

Yep, we can relax all right.

NighthawkNZ

25th November 2009, 16:26

I am a biker, I live in Auckland, I ride a 1200 Suzuki, I have never owned a car or held a car licence (I am 53 yo) unfortunately I cant say that I have never lane split.

cool I'm 41 never owned a car or even have a car license :)

but well yes I lane split every so often (but not all the time)

jrandom

25th November 2009, 17:18

... straw man technique

Chuckle. I'm with the others who've called the alter ego.

Your obsession with formal logical fallacies gives you away, Idle.

Absolutely superb effort here, though. I salute you!

(For what it's worth, since I started by stating that I was making a 'side point', and therefore implicitly not an attack on the validity of your central questions, I don't think my post did constitute a strawman argument.)

Edit: I wonder how many other 'sleeper' accounts you have waiting in the wings, you sly old dog.

Winston001

25th November 2009, 17:40

Now compare this with privatised non-tort insurance scheme. (ie privatised ACC)

The worker is injured. He reports the injury. The employer doesn't want to know. If the injury is not serious that's probably as far as it goes. The worker bears the brunt.

If the injury is serious, the worker demands the insurance company be notified........The insurance company says "Piss off, we don't want to pay anyone anything".....

Ix, your scenario is no different under ACC. Both they and the employer can deny the veracity of the injury right now. Indeed they do - as you'd expect if ACC is to be anything other than a rubber stamp for easy money.

There are rights to review and rights of appeal above that. There are a few lawyers who specialise in ACC cases so its not all slammed doors by any means. All of these rights still pertain under an insurance company cover - (something which incidentally I oppose).

Ixion

25th November 2009, 18:12

The difference is that ACC (until they started turning into an insurance company, anyway) have no real inherent reason to screw people. And if they started to do so, they are , in the end , accountable to a Minister. An elected representative.

An insurance company is accountable to no-one in NZ. And the people they are accountable to (head office in God Knows Where) are only interested in the same thing - making as much money as possible.

The right to review is somewhat dodgy under ACC- who have no vested interest in not being fair, except, sometimes, saving face.A right of review by an insurance company is meaningless. Why on earth would they ever find against their own company - it's going to cost them money.

And , by and large, under the present scenario, the employer has no vested interest in hiding an injury. Admitting "Joe got hurt" doesn't cost them anything. Under an insurance system , that admission costs them money.

mashman

25th November 2009, 18:45

Micro management

Winston001

25th November 2009, 19:51

And , by and large, under the present scenario, the employer has no vested interest in hiding an injury. Admitting "Joe got hurt" doesn't cost them anything. Under an insurance system , that admission costs them money.

Two points:

1. Some employers can currently get a non-claims discount on their levies if they have an accident free workplace.

2. Employees have been known to come to work and "trip" the moment they arrive. Their injury was actually sustained at home but that means a week with no pay. Much better for the employee if the injury happens at work.....on 80% pay immediately. Paid by the employer.

So there are good and valid reasons for the employer to occasionally doubt the injury....

Real life example - AFFCO: worker finished work, in the carpark, gets shot by a rival gang member. ACC successfully argued that AFFCO had to pay all of the compensation.

Ixion

25th November 2009, 19:56

And mechanisms exist unde rthe present (historical) scheme for employers to address those points.

ACC doesn't just automatically take the workers word for it.

But the point is that ACC is (reasonably) neutral. No axe to grind either way.

Whereas an insurance company is not.

You do realise that the employer has the SOLE decision what insurance company to run with ? Workers get no say at all. If Mr Gradgrind elects to insure with Chiseling & Bastard Insurance , that's what happens.

The insurance companies will be touting for business on the basis of "we're cheapest". They'll be paring down the premiums (especially at the start). And to recover the profits they believe they are entitled to, there's only one thing they can do. make sure that they don't pay out.

And when a claim is made, they are judge , jury, and appeal court. In their own case.

MacD

25th November 2009, 20:55

Essentially I agree with you. However when the Workers Account was opened to insurance companies in 1998, there was no right to sue introduced. So your perfectly reasonable concern can be allayed.

No it can't be, it is an almost inevitable long-term consequence of moving to a private insurance model. Primarily because if you introduce risk ratings without assigning fault, you produce the obvious anomalies that we are arguing against with the current proposals. For motorcyclists, they are to be charged premiums based on the total risk of motorcycling, while at least 40% of that risk should be attributed to the "at-fault" motorist.

At the political level, the Business Round Table has actively promoted a return to the right to sue for injury compensation for many years. The new Chair of ACC is a "alumnus" member of the BRT. In my opinion this is not coincidence, but part of a long-term agenda.

This isn't such a surprise. Life insurance carries on happily without any right to sue.

What do you mean by this? Injury resulting in loss of life is covered by ACC surely? Under what other circumstances would the right to sue be exercised regarding life insurance?

Medical insurance (which I'll bet a lot of KBs have) doesn't include a right to sue.

Again, because treatment injuries are covered by ACC.

Loss of income insurance which is very common does not have a right to sue.

Again I am confused by what you mean? There are many avenues for seeking compensation from employers for emplyment issues. If the loss of income is due to injury it is covered by ACC, hence you cannot sue for compensation.

So we can relax on that score.

In my opinion this is a very naive view in the long term.

Also your examples seem to be examples where ACC removes the right to sue, as in all these cases it would only likely be an injury caused by a third party that could result in an action being taken?

Mikkel

25th November 2009, 22:53

Now this is the first intelligent reply I've come across (still working my way through the responses though). This is what I was hoping would be typical of responses to my post. This kind of information is relevant and helpful in figuring out what is fair.

One very easy way of showing at least how the real ACC data could, realistically, be skewed in comparing motorcycles with cars is to consider the number of licensed (i.e. registered) vehicles versus the total number of vehicles as estimated by the LTSA.

This is the NZ motor vehicle registration statistics from 2008 (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/index.html).

If we first consider Table 31 - Total licensed vehicles, by vehicle type, as at year end June 2008 (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-31.html), we see the following number of licensed vehicles in 2008 by type:

Motorcycles: 55,180
Mopeds: 19,960
Cars: 2,287,697

If we then consider Table 37 - Fuel types: total vehicles as at year end 2008, by vehicle type and fuel type (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-37.html) - which includes vehicles on exempt licenses, non-registered vehicles (e.g. race vehicles, farm bikes, etc.) and an estimate of the number of un-registered vehicles (i.e. vehicles driven on the road without registration) we see the following numbers for total vehicle numbers by type:

Motorcycles: 106,454
Mopeds: 30,939
Cars: 2,789,676

What we can conclude from that, is that registered motorcycles and mopeds constitute a much smaller proportion (51.8% and 64.5% respectively) of the total vehicle population compared to cars (82%). As a result each vehicle registration has to cover a larger proportion of their segment.
As an analogy - consider a society with an unemployment rate of 48.2% versus one with an unemployment rate of 18% - huge difference.

Based on this alone, it is clear that if you want to differentiate in regards to ACC levies it has to be made very clear in regards to payments whether the claim is related to a registered motorcycle or an un-registered motorcycle. Otherwise it can not be considered fair.

And nowhere has any evidence been supplied to suggest it is reasonable to distinguish as to engine capacity in regards to ACC levies.

Thanks for the links. I was only able to find one piece in there with actual numbers, but it didn't support the protester's cause. Essentially it said that the average car driver is paying an extra $77 to cover bike riders.

I don't know if Nick et Al has somehow gotten that figure twisted - that the reality is that each motorcycle registration levy is subsidised by $77 in stead of each car levy providing a $77 subsidy to motorcycles. Those numbers might make sense.

Anyway, that is not what they are claiming. What they claim is clearly fallacious. If each of the 2,287,697 registered cars in 2008 had paid a $77 subsidy towards motorcycles that would be $176,152,669.00 - about 2.8 times the $63 mil. that they claim all motorcycle claims costs per year.

The more realistic interpretation - which is contrary to what they claim - that each motorcycle levy was subsidised by $77 gives us, assuming that there was 55,180 registered motorcycles, a figure of $4,248,860.00 which comes to $1.86 per car registration - not quite so outrageous now is it?

I mean, that could make sense and I am sure no one would loose sleep over that. However... I really do dislike it when I get a feeling that public officials are lying to the public. And it further pisses me off when the media just nods their empty heads and shovels it down as being gospel!

...and this is without even considering what ACC is or is supposed to be. Fairness is not possible unless the ACC levy on vehicle registration becomes the same for all private registered vehicles, irregardless of type.

Sorry, I'm with Reflex on this one. Probablity and chance are effectively the same thing. Toss a die and the probability of getting a six is 1/6. The cahnce of getting a six is 1/6. There is no difference between probability and chance.

We've been over this I believe...

Probability is calculated. Chance is a static value of 50%... HUGE DIFFERENCE...

If you have 2 dice the Probability changes, Chance does not

...so, please, put the pipe down and drop the issue!

FastBikeGear

26th November 2009, 07:08

% of that risk should be attributed to the "at-fault" motorist.

At the political level, the Business Round Table has actively promoted a return to the right to sue for injury compensation for many years. The new Chair of ACC is a "alumnus" member of the BRT. In my opinion this is not coincidence, but part of a long-term agenda.

You raise something I meant to mention the other day. I spent a few minutes on the BRT site you can do asearch on ACC and some interesting discussion papers and presentations come up.

The BRT agenda for a long time has been to privatise ACC. They are not shy about it! They have been campaigning actively on this since the late 80's. Perhaps they now have a government that will listen to them.

I say privatise it. Bring back the right to sue and subrogation....and lets buy shares in the Australian insurance companies. Because their is 100's of millions of dollars up for profit.

My prediction:

In the next few months we are going to see a lot of insurance companies buying very expensive TV ads. Some of this advertising will be from inusrnace companies you have barely heard of before and who have never purchased TV ads in the past.

Clockwork

26th November 2009, 07:33

Real life example - AFFCO: worker finished work, in the carpark, gets shot by a rival gang member. ACC successfully argued that AFFCO had to pay all of the compensation.

IIRC this case was caused by the entry of private insurers into the workplace market. This was a dispute between ACC and AFFCO's insurer, each attempting to offload the claim onto the other. The employee was left stranded in the middle with NOTHING. This would never have happend if both employee and workplace cover were provided by ACC as they'd simply choose which account to assign it to.

To my mind this example perfectly illustrates why private insurers should not be allowed to compete with ACC in this way!

Actually I never heard what (if any) eventual outcome of this case was.

Edit: Sorry, AFFCO may not have used a private insurer, they may have chosen to self insure. Either way the net effect on the claimant was the same.

MSTRS

26th November 2009, 07:54

IIRC this case was caused by the entry of private insurers into the workplace market. This was a dispute between ACC and AFFCO's insurer, each attempting to offload the claim onto the other. The employee was left stranded in the middle with NOTHING. This would never have happend if both employee and workplace cover were provided by ACC as they'd simply choose which account to assign it to.

To my mind this example perfectly illustrates why private insurers should not be allowed to compete with ACC in this way!

Actually I never heard what (if any) eventual outcome of this case was.

Edit: Sorry, AFFCO may not have used a private insurer, they may have chosen to self insure. Either way the net effect on the claimant was the same.
This happened in Wairoa. The worker was stabbed (or shot, and he may have been on a break or going home - can't remember) in the carpark by a rival gang member who did not work there. I believe he was permanently paralysed. Affco had a private ins agreement, and argued that it was a workplace 'accident' - but the insurer argued that it was not. The argument went on for about a year, eventually it went to court, ACC got involved (how?) and the outcome was that the insurer paid half, and ACC paid the other half. A win for the insurer, and a big loss to the taxpayer who got gouged.
Privatising might sound reasonable in the first instance, but the above is the logical outcome. WE DON'T WANT IT!!!

Edit: Affco may have been their own underwriter, and the crippled worker was claiming the workplace injury. Either way, ACC did get involved and the bill was shared.