you're wrong AGAIN, Nick. Critique please

[Ixion]

Forget it

I should have posted it at 'TrainWrecks-R-us'

[Katman]

Mr Smith also says that the fact that there are twice as many motorcycles on the road now as in 2003 is irrelevant. Other things being equal , more road users will mean more accidents. Cars have MORE accidents than motorcycles. That's because there are more of them . Mr Smith says that's irrelevant.We say that's just silly.





Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

[Ixion]

Not the point.

The Nickster said the rate had gone up. It hasn't.

[DidJit]

...(any others?)...

stuff.co.nz
voxy.co.nz
publicaddress.net.nz

[Katman]

Not the point.

The Nickster said the rate had gone up. It hasn't.

Regardless of whether it's the point or not, I'd suggest you get your thinking cap on and formulate an answer, just on the off-chance that they suddenly throw those figures at you.

[Bald Eagle]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?
'cos the other 98% keep running into us

[glegge]

Looks great to me, My only concern is that none of the stuff we are saying in the forums here and to each other is being heard by the public etc. I truly hope that what you have written is heard and can be put under the politicians noses so they correct there facts.
Great work. i was watching the 'which main frame' thread with interest. very cool. great stuff.

[Ixion]

Sig 5 posts and already it's a train wreck.

Forget it, I'll run with what I've got.

[Kiwi Graham]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

Perhaps you too have been fooled into beliving ACC stats :niceone:

[Katman]

Perhaps you too have been fooled into beliving ACC stats :niceone:

I think you'll find that they're LTNZ stats.

[mashman]

'cos the other 98% keep running into us

bless your cotton socks... cheers for the :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Kiwi Graham]

Les an excellent piece of detective work.

Is there anyway we/you can get the comparable figure for entitlement claims for 08?

[MSTRS]

Sig 5 posts and already it's a train wreck.

Forget it, I'll run with what I've got.

Do we not know that the 2008 rate was in the order of 1335? Forget the 5044...most of those are irrelevant, as you said. So compare 871/# bikes with 1335/# bikes. I believe it shows a drop in the rate/1000

[Mully]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

Good point.

What percentage of "rider-at-fault" accidents are we?

[Bassmatt]

If it supports our argument I think it would be beneficial if you could include the two like vs like figures.
How do they compare?

[mashman]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

If you want to point the finger at our accident rates, you better be able to back it up with us being at fault for the accident!

[Katman]

If you want to point the finger at our accident rates, you better be able to back it up with us being at fault for the accident!

58% of the time we are at fault or have a shared responsibility.

(According to LTNZ figures).

[mashman]

58% of the time we are at fault or have a shared responsibility.

(According to LTNZ figures).

Is that multi vehicle accidents?

[Jantar]

Irrespective of where or how ACC come up with a claim number, the official accident rate put forward by the MoT http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/MotorVehicleCrashesinNewZealand2008/ is 1446 killed or injured. As it is a requirement that ALL injury accidents on the road are notifiable to the police we can safely assume that this is also the maximum number of claims to ACC in that year from motorcycle accidents on the road. Any number of claims higher than this must be from off road motorcycle accidents that ACC have included in the road account.

[Reckless]

Irrespective of where or how ACC come up with a claim number, the official accident rate put forward by the MoT http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/MotorVehicleCrashesinNewZealand2008/ is 1446 killed or injured. As it is a requirement that ALL injury accidents on the road are notifiable to the police we can safely assume that this is also the maximum number of claims to ACC in that year from motorcycle accidents on the road. Any number of claims higher than this must be from off road motorcycle accidents that ACC have included in the road account.

Bingo give that man a medal!!!

And one of the main basis of their $77-00 argument is that car drivers shouldn't pay for bikes yet quite permissible to work out the figures on dodgy numbers and then send you a bill for my off road accidents!!
That should be a main point in our fight! Yet no one seems to highlight this point?

Btw where are cyclist road accidents paid from?? The general fund or our road account??

[Jantar]

Bingo give that lady a medal!!!....
Who you calling a lady? Even if I was female I wouldn't be no lady. :bleh:

[Reckless]

Who you calling a lady? Even if I was female I wouldn't be no lady. :bleh:

Oh fuck sorry mate many apologies!! Don't know why the hell I did that the aviator maybe! DUH moment there! Post edited Bling sent!!

[Badjelly]

...As it is a requirement that ALL injury accidents on the road are notifiable to the police we can safely assume that this is also the maximum number of claims to ACC in that year from motorcycle accidents on the road. Any number of claims higher than this must be from off road motorcycle accidents that ACC have included in the road account.

Or from on-road motorcycle accidents that were not reported to the police, requirement notwithstanding?

[NONONO]

58% of the time we are at fault or have a shared responsibility.

(According to LTNZ figures).

WTF, LOL.
Of course we have a SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, we were on the road when they hit us. FFS.

[yod]

Btw where are cyclist road accidents paid from?? The general fund or our road account??

I guess they'd come from the general income levy? what is it now 1.5%?

[Reckless]

I guess they'd come from the general income levy? what is it now 1.5%?

Does anyone know for sure?

[caseye]

FYI Mr McLea has been writing leters to teh editor in the harold today, Just a small 2 paragraph joby, telling the editor and joe public that motorcyclists are continuing to propogate the "myth that they are not responsible for most of their accidents, words to that eftect.
he signs himself off as ?McLea general manager ACC
Hey i asked my self, self! where'd he put that last bit, you know the 'INSURANCE' part that we who submitted to the ACC got back by way of reply.
I hope you've all written, again, as I have, to the ACC Complaints dept, the national Gubbermint , the opposition parties and the harold asking how it is that the ACC has ALREADY BECOME AN iNSURANCE COMPANY.
This guy has used our money and I'm sure time to write to the herald specifically to discredit us! Where does he got off.
Letter by way of reply off to the harold Editor tonight.
Keep up the digging Ixion.They're becoming somewhat lopsided I reckon.

[NighthawkNZ]

FYI Mr McLea has been writing leters to teh editor in the harold today, Just a small 2 paragraph joby, telling the editor and joe public that motorcyclists are continuing to propogate the "myth that they are not responsible for most of their accidents, words to that eftect.
he signs himself off as ?McLea general manager ACC

And there lays another problem... ACC is a no faults so it does matter who is at fault even if it was 100% motorcycle rider error ... it does not matter as it is "no fault"...

[twinkle]

Btw where are cyclist road accidents paid from?? The general fund or our road account??

Only if the accident involves a road registered vehicle does it come from the road account, if it doesn't it comes from another fund (the general fund I suppose).

[Reckless]

Only if the accident involves a road registered vehicle does it come from the road account, if it doesn't it comes from another fund (the general fund I suppose).

So if they cannot even separate the off road and on road bike accidents how can they do that sort of separation.

And if a certain amount is coming from the Road Account how much of the car rego is covering these accidents! Now that would be an interesting figure!
Could be a very good way to attack the $77 amount.

[caseye]

As promised that letter to the editor.
I note that in todays Herald Tuesday 24th Nov 2009. Mr McLea General Manager of ACC New Zealand has spent time and effort, time and money which I'm sure as a taxpayer that he has used during working hours, further denouncing Motorcyclists of NZ.
I'd like to ask him directly why it is that in this letter,which all new Zealanders can read he signs himself off as General Manager ACC, whereas in the submision reply confirmation I and 2,750 other motorcyclists/members of the public received he quite plainly signed himself off as General Manager ACC INSURANCE.
I'd like to make it quite clear, I have an email confirmation with this title on it as do many others.
Further I 'd like to ask why it is that taxpayer money was spent on full page Herald, Dominion. Waikato Times, newspapers hitting out at motorcyclists and again denying them a fair opportunity to be heard without bias in their submissions process.This advertisment campaign approved and authorised by him as GM of ACC Insurance?
Should this add have been allowed?
Do the general public of new Zealand understand that ACC has spent their money telling them that motorcyclists are dangereous and bad before a submission process had closed?
I sincerely hope this letter is published in it's entirety.

[Mom]

Btw where are cyclist road accidents paid from?? The general fund or our road account??

Cyclists and pedestrain claims are paid out of the motor vehicle fund if a vehicle was involved. Off road accidents including off road vehicles apart from bikes are paid out of the motorvehicle fund. The only funding into that specific fund comes from motorvehicle registrations.

[NighthawkNZ]

The only funding into that specific fund comes from motorvehicle registrations.

so where is the 100 million or so in fuel levies gone?

[Mom]

so where is the 100 million or so in fuel levies gone?

Ahhhh good question, I maybe full of shit it seems.

[Reckless]

Cyclists and pedestrain claims are paid out of the motor vehicle fund if a vehicle was involved. Off road accidents including off road vehicles apart from bikes are paid out of the motorvehicle fund. The only funding into that specific fund comes from motorvehicle registrations.

So surly the ACC must have these figures/stats to work out their $77 sum??

We should be able to ask for the off road accidents to be deducted off our increase

and

I'd like to see what sort of figure the ACC reckon car drivers are funding Pedestrians and Cyclists road accidents!!

Surely this country hasn't git so bad someone can send you a bil l and not jusify it! Consumer rights act and all??

[NighthawkNZ]

Surely this country hasn't git so bad someone can send you a bil l and not jusify it! Consumer rights act and all??

where have you been for the last 12 years?

[twinkle]

We should be able to ask for the off road accidents to be deducted off our increase

Mom said that they aren't included already :niceone:


Off road accidents including off road vehicles apart from bikes are paid out of the motorvehicle fund.

[Subike]

Mom said that they aren't included already :niceone:

thats only if they are recorded as off road accidents.
sadly many are reported as just motorcycle accidents, which means they go onto our tally.
But now I am interested to know
Are all motorsport accidents under the motorvehicle levey?
It seems strange to me that road users are paying for race cars, 4WD off road racing, motorised boating events, speedway, to name a few?????

[Ixion]

I posted the orignal, less the table, in the Bikeoi coordinators group for critqiue.

Those who have access, please annotate. Others, sorry, I tried.

I'll leave this thread for Mr katman's hobby horse exercise.

[MSTRS]

We should be able to ask for the off road accidents to be deducted off our increase


Not possible. Because no-one knows how many there are, that are included. If the ACC claim form is filled in saying 'motorcycle' involved, then it's on the list. No place to seperate regd or not.

[Reckless]

I'll leave this thread for Mr katman's hobby horse exercise.

oh shit thats me outa here!

[FastBikeGear]

Seems to me that we are all trying to reverse engineer the claims that Nick Smith, Keith McLea and John Judge are spouting.

Why don't we just ask and insist that they provide the data and calculations that were used to derive the figures they are quoting


The new levies reflect the fact that motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to be involved in a road crash than any other road users and are far more likely to be seriously injured.
Even with the proposed levy increases every car driver will be subsidising motorcyclists by $77.
And why does keith McLea sign himself off sometimes as General Manager of ACC Insurance (thought I ran that company) and sometimes as General Manager ACC.



I have asked these questions under the OIA and am yet to get an answer...I expect it could take some time... but perhaps Phil Goff or Mr Clendon could ask for an explanation in the house for us?

Or perhaps if everyone thought it was a good idea I could ask a reporter I know, to ask these questions for us?

Ixion, what do you think?

[Katman]

I posted the orignal, less the table, in the Bikeoi coordinators group for critqiue.

Those who have access, please annotate. Others, sorry, I tried.

I'll leave this thread for Mr katman's hobby horse exercise.

Pick your bottom lip up Les.

Just remember, you won't be able to run off and hide in any 'invite only' group when ACC starts asking the really hard questions.

[mashman]

Pick your bottom lip up Les.

Just remember, you won't be able to run off and hide in any 'invite only' group when ACC start asking the really hard questions.

Are you going to answer my question from earlier. You asked if anyone could account for the 10% accidents v 2% road utilisation... I believe i have an answer for you. I just need a couple of questions answered!

[Reckless]

Not possible. Because no-one knows how many there are, that are included. If the ACC claim form is filled in saying 'motorcycle' involved, then it's on the list. No place to seperate regd or not.

Exactly my point! Should this not be the main response in making their $77 figure false. To my mind they simply cannot prove we are due any amount as their base figures are not finite enough.

But how can we get this across to Joe public thats the hard bit??

Once we get past the basic Woodhouse/no fault thing of coarse!

[Kiwi Graham]

Pick your bottom lip up Les.

Just remember, you won't be able to run off and hide in any 'invite only' group when ACC start asking the really hard questions.

And of course you'll be right there fighting the cause eh Steve,

I'm just never sure what 'side' your on!

[Squiggles]

So surly the ACC must have these figures/stats to work out their $77 sum??

I suspect you'd find the $77 is if you take into account the cost of Motorcyclists in Earnings Related Compensation and the rest of it, not just in the treatment of injuries...

[NighthawkNZ]

Even with the proposed levy increases every car driver will be subsidising motorcyclists by $77.




$77.0 x 2,919,151(fleet) x $224,774,627.00 (using current fleet as for now for next years levys)

The short fall supposedly is $50,000,000
$50,000,000 / 77 = 649,351 vehicles required to cover it (there are currently2.9 million)

The true levy figure is suppose to be $3770 per bike

$3770 x 130,213 = $490,903,010 nearing half a billion the combined car and bike claims in 2008 were only $270,000,000 (the whole traffic account is only 650 million)

[FastBikeGear]

$77.0 x 2,919,151(fleet) x $224,774,627.00 (using current fleet as for now for next years levys)

The short fall supposedly is $50,000,000
$50,000,000 / 77 = 649,351 vehicles required to cover it (there are currently2.9 million)

The true levy figure is suppose to be $3770 per bike

$3770 x 130,213 = $490,903,010 nearing half a billion the combined car and bike claims in 2008 were only $270,000,000

It's one thing you or me proving the figures wrong. It's another thing when they have to explain it. If the reasoning in their expalantion is faulty and we can show it, suddenly they prove themselves to be fools which is much more powerful than us proving their figures wrong! And suddenly their faulty maths becomes a BIG story for the press.

[MSTRS]

It's one thing you or me proving the figures wrong. It's another thing when they have to explain it. If the reasoning in their expalantion is faulty and we can show it, suddenly they prove themselves to be fools which is much more powerful than us proving their figures wrong! And suddenly their faulty maths becomes a BIG story for the press.

You live in Utopia. Got room for another?
The thing is, many of us have been putting the figures and the interpretation of those figures in front of the press for ages. They simply aren't interested.

[FastBikeGear]

You live in Utopia. Got room for another?
The thing is, many of us have been putting the figures and the interpretation of those figures in front of the press for ages. They simply aren't interested.

No. what you have been putting in front of the press is your interpretation of the figures. You like me have been trying to prove their figures wrong. What we need is their workings so that we can point our where they prove themselves wrong.

There's a very big difference.

[mashman]

I'd happily accept an apology and if possible an explanation

[cowpatz]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

So therefore if Nissan Skylines make up for the bigger percentage of car wrecks (as a percentage of the road fleet ) should their owners pay a bigger levy?
Should under 20 yr olds pay a higher levy?
Where would it end?
This is the thin end of the wedge.
We all subsidise one another in practically everything we do.
I pay bucket loads of tax..to subsidise those on a benefit as well as those that pay less tax.
To fully appreciate this issue requires sticking close to the reason ACC was established in the first place and not get tricked into spin doctors playing with dubious and out of context stats.
The accident stats I saw (and stuff it if I can't find where I saw it) had motorcycles only marginally higher per 10000 vehicles. There seems to be a great variance in the stats depending on the original source and the factors recorded when compiling them.

[mashman]

There seems to be a great variance in the stats depending on the original source and the factors recorded when compiling them.

If you want to see how the stats are to be read, go and read the "How to read ACC statistics" page on their website.

"Categories with fewer than three claims

For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims."

"Presenting cost of claims

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’"

You could class the above as variances. But you'd need to see it with your own eyes and with the data or it's worth nothing!

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00066

[Howie]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

So Katman are you saying we are 10% of the total accident statistics, or are you saying we are 10% of the recorded INJURY accidents. As those are too different things. As a Incident involving a Motorcycle is much more likely to result in an injury accident, than an incident involving just cars. I read somewhere that trucks are involved in 18% of all fatal vehicle Accidents is that above where they should be?

[Katman]

So Katman are you saying we are 10% of the total accident statistics, or are you saying we are 10% of the recorded INJURY accidents. As those are too different things. As a Incident involving a Motorcycle is much more likely to result in an injury accident, than an incident involving just cars. I read somewhere that trucks are involved in 18% of all fatal vehicle Accidents is that above where they should be?

Total accidents stats.

(According to LTNZs figures).

[NighthawkNZ]

(According to LTNZs figures).
10% more like 8% and in the 40% of the total accidents are cars fault and in total 51% are not the riders fault... stats suck

[MSTRS]

No. what you have been putting in front of the press is your interpretation of the figures. You like me have been trying to prove their figures wrong. What we need is their workings so that we can point our where they prove themselves wrong.

There's a very big difference.

Yes, there is a difference. However, their 'workings' are not likely to be wrong. The errors made are not in the ADDING of the figures, but in the figures themselves. And in some important assumptions that the, no doubt non-motorcyclist, actuaries have made. Which is all we have to fight with.

But if errors could be found in their workings, that would be dynamite.

[FastBikeGear]

Yes, there is a difference. However, their 'workings' are not likely to be wrong. The errors made are not in the ADDING of the figures, but in the figures themselves. And in some important assumptions that the, no doubt non-motorcyclist, actuaries have made. Which is all we have to fight with.

But if errors could be found in their workings, that would be dynamite.

Good comment. I absolutely agree that their maths won't be the problem. But if the base figures and assumptions are wrong so much the better!

GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Lets get them to tell us what base figures and assumptions they made. They must have an internal working document that explains how they came up with their numbers. We need it not the just the raw numbers we have!

[MSTRS]

Good comment. I absolutely agree that their maths won't be the problem. But if the base figures and assumptions are wrong so much the better!

GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Lets get them to tell us what base figures and assumptions they made. They must have an internal working document that explains how they came up with their numbers. We need it not the just the raw numbers we have!

I doubt such a thing exists. Why would it, when they just need to go into their computer and extract the injury/accidents that they have recorded to get the number/s? That we can prove that number is wrong hasn't made much headway.

[Madmax]

Sig 5 posts and already it's a train wreck.

Forget it, I'll run with what I've got.
I wonder if the is a leavy on trains
:pinch:

[FastBikeGear]

I doubt such a thing exists. Why would it, when they just need to go into their computer and extract the injury/accidents that they have recorded to get the number/s? That we can prove that number is wrong hasn't made much headway.

I would be extremely suprised if their actuaries have a document with their workings. It's the way actuaries are trained and work. If you have ever worked with a good one you will have discovered that they are both brilliant and pedantic mathematicians/staticians.

The pedantic bit means that they have written workings.

However if they were come back and say they have no workings how damaging would that be when it hits the press?

[Reckless]

However if they were come back and say they have no workings how damaging would that be when it hits the press?

Shouldn't we already know this in the stats sent to Ixion after the ACC head said on TV we could have all the figures. If we have got them and cannot separate the cyclists road accidents and the off road stuff isn't that case proven??
or am I misreading your direction??

[FastBikeGear]

Shouldn't we already know this in the stats sent to Ixion after the ACC head said on TV we could have all the figures. If we have got them and cannot separate the cyclists road accidents and the off road stuff isn't that case proven??
or am I misreading your direction??

Reckless, You make a good point. Statistics are just the raw data.

What I want to see is how they come up with the numbers they have come up with from the raw data?

For example how did they determine that motorcyclists were 16 x more likely to make a claim from the raw data?

I know we have had some guesses at how they might have manged to use the raw stats to come up with this figure, and our guesses are probably right.

No one should ever equate the quoting statistics as a substitute for statistical research. Their will always be assumptions and gaps in statistics analysis. (E.g. as you have raised, how did they separate the offroad data)

I want to see how they have addressed these and if they haven't adequately addressed these issues I want to expose their failings with their own workings, rather than my explanation of how I think they came up with the conclusion.

My background is in sales and marketing. It is always so much more powerful/compelling when the other party makes a statement than when you make the same statement on their behalf).

To illustrate

Which of the following is more powerful and story worth?
Which has more credibility?


"Our calculations show that the ACC has got it's numbers wrong"

compared to


"ACC's workings clearly show that they have got it wrong....let me show you in their workings where I think they went wrong...what do you think?"



Liam Venter
www.salesfish.co.nz

[mashman]

Reckless, You make a good point. Statistics are just the raw data.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!! Raw data is the raw data, statistics are something that you calculate against a dataset generated from the raw data!!!! Statistics, as have been proven, can also contain weightings, variances etc... You can calculate a finite value from Raw Data!!!! You can't trust the data if it is presented as statistics...

Tomato, Tomarto... NO!

[FastBikeGear]

WHAT!!!!!!!!!! Raw data is the raw data, statistics are something that you calculate against a dataset generated from the raw data!!!! Statistics, as have been proven, can also contain weightings, variances etc... You can calculate a finite value from Raw Data!!!! You can't trust the data if it is presented as statistics...

Tomato, Tomarto... NO!

My stats are:

Height 186cm
Chest 160cm
waist 120cm
Weight 280kgs

Can you tell me what the my raw data is?

...and before you give me a smart reply check out my stats above again!

....OK in this case the stats lie, I am 60Kgs wet, but I do have sharp teeth.

Sorry for getting off topic.

[mashman]

My stats are:

Height 186cm
Chest 160cm
waist 120cm
Weight 280kgs

Can you tell me what the my raw data is?

...and before you give me a smart reply check out my stats above again!

....OK in this case the stats lie, I am 60Kgs wet, but I do have sharp teeth.

Sorry for getting off topic.

I don't know how heavy your internal organs are (and that's not a flippent answer)

You shrink at night, what time of day is it?

If you want the data from statistics, you have to ask the questions!!!!

[Reckless]

"ACC's workings clearly show that they have got it wrong....let me show you in their workings where I think they went wrong...what do you think?"

We will never get to see their workings in a million years because they have lumped all the road cycle, pedrestrian and Off road bike accidents in there, I reckon. I'd bet my wife on it! LOL!!
If you take all these plus the extra ones that the doctors simply put in as bike and are allocated to us, their figures would match much more closely to the LTNZ/MOT stats! They need these extras to get to their $77-00 and 16x figures. It would prove National and ACC are simply liars!
Well thats my take on it!
Its just how do we prove it and market the fact so simply that Joe public gets it immediately is another issue!

$77-00--BULLSHIT because.. 1 liner in here
$16x more likely-- BULLSHIT because.. 1 liner in here

Just a few thoughts, I'll leave the rest to greater minds than I possess.

[Katman]

Just a few thoughts, I'll leave the rest to greater minds than I possess.

Skidmark is busy at the moment.

[Reckless]

MEEEoooowww claws out from the Kat I see!! LOL!!

LOL!! Was that an attempt at Humor!! Not bad! You must be having a better day today!

[FastBikeGear]

We will never get to see their workings in a million years because.....


Hi Liam

Further to our conversation this morning, I have located the manager of the area your email was received on the 4 November 2009.

He was able to locate both of your emails, the first dated the 4 November 2009 and the second 10 November 2009. There was an acknowledgement sent for the 10 November, however, unfortunately, there does not appear to be one sent for the 4 November 2009. It seems this has happened as the email was directed to the appropriate area for the Offical Information Act (OIA ) request.

I have spoken with the department that are handling the OIA request and they have confirmed they are working on this currently and the 20 working days in which they have to provide a response is due to finish on the 2 December 2009.

If you have any further quesitons, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards
Louisa Fellowes, Customer Support Co ordinator, ACC
Tel 0800 650 222 / Fax 0800 750 222
ACC cares about the environment – please don’t print this email
unless it is really necessary. Thank you.