The Lean - A statistical factsheet

[bogan]

MAG-NZ have done a stats factsheet and analysis as part of our ACC and Motorcycle safety campaigns.

go to our site (http://www.mag-nz.org/campaigns/motorcycle-safety/statistics) to have a look (Factsheet exceeds the file size limit here).

Here's the intro:

Most will be aware of the ‘lean’, or bias, taken with the statistical analysis of motorcyclists accidents in recent times. This fact sheet is intended to provide unbiased data to motorcyclists and anyone else with an interest. We supply this to allow you to make your own informed decision about the risk of motorcycling, so you can choose which way to ‘lean’ and take action accordingly!
The report is split into two sections, Historical Data, and a Current Crash Statistics section that takes a more in depth look at various factors contributory to the accidents.

[porky]

Nice work. Is there further breakdowns. Just curious what the pie charts for fatalities/ injuries would look like seperated out by the motorcyclist at fault vs not at fault and then compare the two.

[bogan]

Nice work. Is there further breakdowns. Just curious what the pie charts for fatalities/ injuries would look like seperated out by the motorcyclist at fault vs not at fault and then compare the two.

yup reading of a graph in the "2008 motorcycle crash statistics" shows that for minor injuries biker fault is just under 50%, serious injuries just under 60% and fatals just over 70%.

We haven't put many in depth analysis's in the factsheet as the data gathered has some inherent limitations. One of these is combining the crashes from scooter with those of motorcyclists, scoots make up around a third of registered two wheelers. Combining motorcycle crash data with a vehicle class limited to 50kmhr (basically inner city commuting) is far from ideal, but you have to take that into account when looking at the more in depth analysis's.
Like the per km figure they have done, it meaningless as they don't compare the same kilometers, their calculated risk per km is 4x greater than the risk per registered vehicle because they have established bikers do 1/4 of the mileage. You gotta ask how many assumptions and data manipulations have they made to assume I do 1/4 of the km that I used to in the car. Have I moved closer to work? or have I stopped going for sunday drives? :lol:

[NONONO]

There are so many anomalies in the data that it is statistically useless, but we pointed some of that out to them last time with nil result.
Looking the the stats, the actual "Fault Determination" has glaring holes.
For example, when broken down by license type we have 11% "Unknown".
11% of accidents where the rider's (who was deemed at fault) license type was not known or not recorded. How is this possible?
There is research that points out the data gathering at the accident scene is not consistent. Also that contributing factors are often ignored in favor of a bias towards recording cause (fault).
The stats provided are just too simplistic, too general to have any meaning.
Good to see them so clearly displayed though, good on yer Mr Bogan.

[Katman]

There are so many anomalies in the data that it is statistically useless, but we pointed some of that out to them last time with nil result.


If nothing else, they give an indication of the extent of our problems and the direction we should be looking in.

(Oh, and they also categorically destroy the "it's always the fucking cage drivers fault" fallacy).

[Blackflagged]

Not many would say always.Be interesting to see fault % for car vs motorcycle.And exclude single vehicle accidents.Because car drivers a probable responsible for over 50% also.Intersection still most dangerous for accident, must be all those Motorcycle riders not seeing cars!

Always remember the penalty's for getting it wrong can be quite severe! Big improvement since 1995 though.

[Katman]

And exclude single vehicle accidents.

Far too many motorcyclists are far too quick to ignore the single vehicle accident stats.

(And there's possibly as many 'single vehicle' motorcycle accidents that go unreported as those that figure in those stats).

[bogan]

Not many would say always.Be interesting to see fault % for car vs motorcycle.And exclude single vehicle accidents.Because car drivers a probable responsible for over 50% also.Intersection still most dangerous for accident, must be all those Motorcycle riders not seeing cars!

Always remember the penalty's for getting it wrong can be quite severe! Big improvement since 1995 though.

did you read the whole thing? there's a pie chart which includes that stuff.


Far too many motorcyclists are far too quick to ignore the single vehicle accident stats.

I guess the assumption there is those who consider themselves careful or good riders don't have to worry about single vehicle accidents wonder if theres any stats for single vehicle accidents who considered themselves good/safe riders though... :whistle:

[NONONO]

Far too many motorcyclists are far too quick to ignore the single vehicle accident stats.

(And there's possibly as many 'single vehicle' motorcycle accidents that go unreported as those that figure in those stats).

Currently looking at research, as I mentioned earlier, that would present a different angle. That CONTRIBUTING factors are often ignored or overlooked in the rush to find cause and therefor by definition fault.
So single vehicle accidents are attributed simply to the rider without any attention being paid to contributing factors.
Now you can argue the point all you like, but the research IS there if you look for it.

[Berries]

wonder if theres any stats for single vehicle accidents who considered themselves good/safe riders though... :whistle:
You could just look at BMW riders.

[Squiggles]

but the research IS there if you look for it.

I did and came to a similar conclusion to Katman...

[bogan]

I did and came to a similar conclusion to Katman...

more importantly, what do you think of MAG-NZ's interpretation?

[MSTRS]

I did and came to a similar conclusion to Katman...

In a single bike crash, you can only conclude rider fault if you call it rider error. By that, I mean, all those crashes where the rider *should have seen, processed and adjusted for* a threat to his safety. I don't buy that it is possible to do so in a significant number of such cases.
However, I don't mean that a rider is not responsible for their riding. A better standard of roadcraft would see a huge reduction in all types of motorcycle-involved crashes.

[Squiggles]

more importantly, what do you think of MAG-NZ's interpretation?

There isnt much interpretation, more a rehash of what the individual documents state =\

I'd also look at the age of riders and the so called "returning riders". I had a study from Auckland Uni (i think) on that but can't find it now. Very interesting as it put us at the end of that era (meanwhile plenty of funding is being poured into it)



The incident type data shows that intersections and losing control account for a very large proportion of both fatalities and injuries. It is likely intersection accidents will be predominantly caused by other motorists not doing adequate check for bikes, and the loss of control will be single bike accidents.

No need to theorise about fault, the breakdown is listed on page 6 of the MoT Crash Stats 2008.

[bogan]

There isnt much interpretation, more a rehash of what the individual documents state =\


Well yeh, with only general figures available, we could only comment on the general state of things. Would really like to get some more data to work with, especially separate stats for scoots vs motorcycles. But with what I've seen to start getting into detail requires a lot of assumptions...



I'd also look at the age of riders and the so called "returning riders". I had a study from Auckland Uni (i think) on that but can't find it now. Very interesting as it put us at the end of that era (meanwhile plenty of funding is being poured into it)


Be interested to see that study about returning riders if you do come across it.



No need to theorise about fault, the breakdown is listed on page 6 of the MoT Crash Stats 2008.

Right you are :yes:

[Squiggles]

Be interested to see that study about returning riders if you do come across it.


Frustratingly can't locate it, I remember it being posted here as well as getting an email about it. Alot of ulysses members took part

[bogan]

Frustratingly can't locate it, I remember it being posted here as well as getting an email about it. Alot of ulysses members took part

I know the feeling, I keep remembering shit I've read bout these issues but not where its from, gonna use the save option far more from now on I reckon :yes:

also, you wouldn't happen to have (or know somebody that might) the doc ACC put about which showed some of the working they had used to calculate that our 'true' cost was like 3k or wahtever. I remember seeing them use a bunch of % risk factors for different cc's, but can't find it anywhere, and lots of the links posted up a year ago are now dead.

[NONONO]

There isnt much interpretation, more a rehash of what the individual documents state =\

I'd also look at the age of riders and the so called "returning riders". I had a study from Auckland Uni (i think) on that but can't find it now. Very interesting as it put us at the end of that era (meanwhile plenty of funding is being poured into it)




No need to theorise about fault, the breakdown is listed on page 6 of the MoT Crash Stats 2008.

:facepalm:
Your investigations must have been very superficial then.
No, you're right if it's MOT quoted then it must be gospel....

[Berries]

Well yeh, with only general figures available, we could only comment on the general state of things.
Only general figures might have been published, because there are endless ways of interrogating the data. 40 to 50 year old males crashing post 2005 bikes of 750cc and over. At night. While sober. Can be done, you just need to ask the right people. In fact, if you are serious about looking at crash data then for a couple of hundred dollars you could probably get your own CAS licence.


Would really like to get some more data to work with, especially separate stats for scoots vs motorcycles. But with what I've seen to start getting into detail requires a lot of assumptions...
If scoots = mopeds then they are classed separately to motorbikes and as such are easy to remove from the data.

[bogan]

Only general figures might have been published, because there are endless ways of interrogating the data. 40 to 50 year old males crashing post 2005 bikes of 750cc and over. At night. While sober. Can be done, you just need to ask the right people. In fact, if you are serious about looking at crash data then for a couple of hundred dollars you could probably get your own CAS licence.


If scoots = mopeds then they are classed separately to motorbikes and as such are easy to remove from the data.

Would certainly be interesting to get into the raw data of it all, but not sure if it'd be much practical use. Bikers and general public probably only want the general analysis, as personal riding styles are likely to cancel out any specific demographics they are in. And TPTB seem to just ignore that we can see through and expose their lies and misleading stats. In saying that, if anyone offered to run a few queries through for free we certainly wouldn't say no!

Also, thats an interesting observation, if its so easy one wonders why ACC haven't separated them?

[Squiggles]

[/I][/B]

:facepalm:
Your investigations must have been very superficial then.
No, you're right if it's MOT quoted then it must be gospel....

I was actually attempting to better quantify "It is likely intersection accidents will be predominantly caused by other motorists not doing adequate check for bikes"

Do you believe the MoT are out to get us?



also, you wouldn't happen to have (or know somebody that might) the doc ACC put about which showed some of the working they had used to calculate that our 'true' cost was like 3k or wahtever. I remember seeing them use a bunch of % risk factors for different cc's, but can't find it anywhere, and lots of the links posted up a year ago are now dead.

I've got it at work, will have to upload it and all the studies

[Katman]

In saying that, if anyone offered to run a few queries through for free we certainly wouldn't say no!


Hell, if it's as easy as Berries suggests to get a CAS license and MAG-NZ don't have the spare funds yet to do so, I'll happily stump up the $200 for someone within the organisation to obtain the license.

(Of course, it would have to be someone capable of carrying out unbiased research). :msn-wink:

[NONONO]

Hell, if it's as easy as Berries suggests to get a CAS license and MAG-NZ don't have the spare funds yet to do so, I'll happily stump up the $200 for someone within the organisation to obtain the license.

(Of course, it would have to be someone capable of carrying out unbiased research). :msn-wink:

Not me then.
Problem with CAS it is dependent on the data collected and fed in.
The problem lies with how it's collected.

[mashman]

In fact, if you are serious about looking at crash data then for a couple of hundred dollars you could probably get your own CAS licence.


I've had this data before (in the UK) and it cost thousands of pounds, couple of hundy is damn cheap. Is there any supporting documentation anywhere, that outlines the database design or an outlines the information that is held on the database?

What database engine does CAS use? Can you export the data?

[bogan]

I've got it at work, will have to upload it and all the studies

that'd be awesome, send it straight to john.howarth@mag-nz.org if you have any issues uploading it here.


Hell, if it's as easy as Berries suggests to get a CAS license and MAG-NZ don't have the spare funds yet to do so, I'll happily stump up the $200 for someone within the organisation to obtain the license.

(Of course, it would have to be someone capable of carrying out unbiased research). :msn-wink:

you've probably noticed we can manage some unbiased stuff :yes: in fact unbiased stats are the easiest, it's when you've gotta jigger them to say what you want em to say it gets tricky!


I've had this data before (in the UK) and it cost thousands of pounds, couple of hundy is damn cheap. Is there any supporting documentation anywhere, that outlines the database design or an outlines the information that is held on the database?

yeh, is worth looking into, would also need a source for total rider numbers/demographics to give the numbers correct context.

[mashman]

it's when you've gotta jigger them to say what you want em to say it gets tricky!


That's MUCH easier than you think :yes:. Exclude a category here, Include a category there, "group" your query slightly differently :)... very easy.



yeh, is worth looking into, would also need a source for total rider numbers/demographics to give the numbers correct context.

As Berries keeps saying, know what questions you want answered, then you'll know what data you need.

[Berries]

I've had this data before (in the UK) and it cost thousands of pounds, couple of hundy is damn cheap. Is there any supporting documentation anywhere, that outlines the database design or an outlines the information that is held on the database?

What database engine does CAS use? Can you export the data?
Bit of info here - http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/crash-analysis-system/cas.html

Nonono is right, it can only analyse the data that gets fed in, so it is very much reliant on the quality of that and it can be variable at times. But it is as good as you'll get in NZ, and is the source used by MOT and others to determine priorities.

[mashman]

Bit of info here - http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/crash-analysis-system/cas.html

Nonono is right, it can only analyse the data that gets fed in, so it is very much reliant on the quality of that and it can be variable at times. But it is as good as you'll get in NZ, and is the source used by MOT and others to determine priorities.

Thanks for that. Shame you don't get the raw data on a CD each month like they do in the UK.

I think the easiest ACC claim to "debunk" or "confirm", using the CAS data alone, would be the cross-subsidy claim.

Could you find out, for 2009:

The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL car crashes (including pedestrians etc...).
The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL motorcycle crashes. (including pedestrians etc...).

I know I have made several assumptions, but i'm not looking for a statistical analysis, let alone one based on risk. I'm looking at the cold hard FACTS, not the future projections based on risk that the ACC seem to be producing to validate the cross-subsidy claim.

After all, hospitalisation is hospitalisation, and if you've been hospitalised due to a car crash, you woulda thought it'd have to be a doozy considering it's surrounded by metal, impact bars and air bags etc... I'd be interested to see those results... after all, you can fit more people in a car :yes:

[NONONO]

Would be interesting to know..but,
"ALL Motorcycle Crashes" would include all moped and scooter crashes, as well as all the 49cc and below vehicles which do not even need to be registered or WOF'ed.

[FJRider]

If nothing else, they give an indication of the extent of our problems and the direction we should be looking in.

(Oh, and they also categorically destroy the "it's always the fucking cage drivers fault" fallacy).

The FULL licence holders seem to be featuring :gob: .... if I get disqualified :facepalm: .... I must be less a risk .... :innocent:

[mashman]

Would be interesting to know..but,
"ALL Motorcycle Crashes" would include all moped and scooter crashes, as well as all the 49cc and below vehicles which do not even need to be registered or WOF'ed.

True. But not all of the scooter riders etc... will require hospital treatment as they're generally slow offs with just cuts and grazes... granted that's not always the case, but you can find that out through the CAS data. How many bikes mow people down? not many, but cars??? it may well be that they offset each other, dunno, but it's a simple question that "could" give some quite interesting results.

If you can nail them on the cross-subsidy argument, well, that's the door open to question everything else. After all, TPTB say that it's the hospitalisation and long term rehabilition that's the reason for our higher levies and that we're still being cross-subsidised. Now i doubt that very VERY much after seeing some of the driving and as we're constantly reminded, there are more cars on the road :yes:, therefore a higher likelihood of accidents. The CAS data should be able to highlight this.

ACC don't care if you're reg'd/wof'd/licensed etc... because someone has still been hospitalised. So why bother worrying about it. It'll be interesting to see the figures. The cross-subsidy argument is used to raise our levies further and drive the "political" wedge between drivers and riders. What if that isn't true? It may well be another, well we thought it was mainly the cars faults, but what if this one isn't?

This is not a statistical question, well not really, it's based on hospitalisation, not per km travelled, not vehicle type and certainly not as a ratio of the number of vehicles on the road, because that info taints the FACTS. Just a simple, how many people were ACTUALLY hospitalised cars v's bikes. If there's 5 or 10 times more people in the cars category, well...

[Berries]

Could you find out, for 2009:

The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL car crashes (including pedestrians etc...).
The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL motorcycle crashes. (including pedestrians etc...).
I can, making the assumption that serious injuries require hospital treatment whereas minor injuries don't. But........ car vs motorbike. Which category should that be in ?


Would be interesting to know..but,
"ALL Motorcycle Crashes" would include all moped and scooter crashes, as well as all the 49cc and below vehicles which do not even need to be registered or WOF'ed.
'All motorcycle crashes' would include all bikes not classed as mopeds, ie over 50cc. You have to specifically include mopeds to get that info. It would include 250cc scooters, and those Burgerman things as well.

[NONONO]

Mashman, go for it..another angle, not as far as I know yet explored. Cool.

Berries...So on the crash report form (filled out by the police) is there a tick box that states Moped, under 50cc and one for Motorcycle?

[Katman]

At the end of the day the "Was it a moped or a motorcycle - did they pay any registration or not" argument means jack shit.

If the powers that be want to paint any motorised two wheeled transport as dangerous and deserving of being legislated off the road, the general public will swallow it without question.

The only hope we have is by reversing the statistics that are being used against us.

Stop having so many accidents - it's that simple.

[bogan]

At the end of the day the "Was it a moped or a motorcycle - did they pay any registration or not" argument means jack shit.

If the powers that be want to paint any motorised two wheeled transport as dangerous and deserving of being legislated off the road, the general public will swallow it without question.

The only hope we have is by reversing the statistics that are being used against us.

Stop having so many accidents - it's that simple.

but the stats they use are bollocks, we already have a low enough accident rate to disprove them :yes: and are working on doing so, ACC's new spin doctor got given the learn in the HB today, yesterday :innocent:

[Katman]

we already have a low enough accident rate to disprove them

Are you serious?

We are having waaaay too many accidents that could have easily been avoided.

Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

[Ocean1]

Are you serious?

We are having waaaay too many accidents that could have easily been avoided.

Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

We?

You?

How 'bout We let these fine gentlemen do the job properly and You fuck off somewhere your silly little game might find an amused audience.

The kindy down the road might not have heard it yet...

[Katman]

We?

You?

How 'bout We let these fine gentlemen do the job properly and You fuck off somewhere your silly little game might find an amused audience.

The kindy down the road might not have heard it yet...

:tugger:<hgvhgvhjv>

[NONONO]

At the end of the day the "Was it a moped or a motorcycle - did they pay any registration or not" argument means jack shit.

If the powers that be want to paint any motorised two wheeled transport as dangerous and deserving of being legislated off the road, the general public will swallow it without question.

The only hope we have is by reversing the statistics that are being used against us.

Stop having so many accidents - it's that simple.

Yes we can reduce the accident rate, stuff in process as we speak. BUT we should not have to pay the government the levy hikes while we do so.
The government justify the hikes by their shonky stats, I oppose this, others do too. So we keep looking for the slight of hand and the statistical party tricks that they have used to fool the public, and we expose them.
The levy hikes remain unjust, discriminatory and unnecessary.
They are in fact Theft by Deception.
Keep on going Bogan...

[Berries]

Berries...So on the crash report form (filled out by the police) is there a tick box that states Moped, under 50cc and one for Motorcycle?
Yes, see attached.

222445

[bogan]

Are you serious?

We are having waaaay too many accidents that could have easily been avoided.

Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

read what I said, thier stats already overstate our accident rate, if we lower it will they stop overstating it? I'm thinking not. Imo the ACC issue will not be won by trying to lower our accidents (take years to get any measurable results). However, this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to reduce accidents as well, reducing them is reward enough in itself.

[Winston001]

Pardon me for being a pedant but the word "Lean" for most motorcyclists means the angle they adopt going through a corner. I thought this thread was going to be about leaning angles and tyre adhesion and the effect of mass.

If you want to establish there is a "bias", simply say so.





Then again, tyres have bias so........:blink:

[mashman]

I can, making the assumption that serious injuries require hospital treatment whereas minor injuries don't. But........ car vs motorbike. Which category should that be in ?


I'm a little pissed up at the mo, good party :), so may have read your category thing wrongly, but i'm not looking to assign fault. The car v motorbike is road based, the result of all hospitalised accidents for cars and motorbikes, irrespective of how where when and why, just the base numbers. Whether it's a bike crash that was caused by a car or a car crash cause by a bike is neither here nor there for the question I was looking to get answered. Just what the hospitalisation numbers for each was. Is it possible without further definition? I'm no looking to split them between serious and "cosmetic" accidents, as one of my assumptions is that if you're admitted it may just be for a check up... that still costs money. However, if there is that distinction, it may be worth exploring at a later date.

Please correct me if ive read you wrongly, bloody interweb and alcohol... gawd that took a long time to type up :yes:

[Berries]

I'm a little pissed up at the mo, good party :), so may have read your category thing wrongly, but i'm not looking to assign fault. The car v motorbike is road based, the result of all hospitalised accidents for cars and motorbikes, irrespective of how where when and why, just the base numbers. Whether it's a bike crash that was caused by a car or a car crash cause by a bike is neither here nor there for the question I was looking to get answered. Just what the hospitalisation numbers for each was. Is it possible without further definition? I'm no looking to split them between serious and "cosmetic" accidents, as one of my assumptions is that if you're admitted it may just be for a check up... that still costs money. However, if there is that distinction, it may be worth exploring at a later date.
CAS records things by crash severity, fatal, serious minor and non. Serious should correlate with hospital treatment, minor shouldn't, but that may not always be the case. Hospital admission figures are kept at by the MOT. These are used to estimate crash reporting rates and I am not sure whether they even go to the most basic level of detail and state what kind of vehicle was involved. But if all you want is the comparative rate of hospitalisations then the comparative rate of serious injuries should be fairly close.

Still not 100% sure what you are after. The number of hospitalisations caused by all crashes where a car was involved and the number of hospitalisations caused by all crashes where a motorbike was involved ?

Do you want fries, sorry, mopeds with that ?

[NONONO]

Yes, see attached.

222445

Cheers for that..
Just to be sure, anything not classed as Moped is by default Motorcycle?

[Berries]

Cheers for that..
Just to be sure, anything not classed as Moped is by default Motorcycle?
No. If vehicle type isn't checked then when coding the crash, make, model and engine size have to be looked at to decide what kind of vehicle it was. At a later date when on the system the rego number is checked which can lead to changes to what is recorded.

[Paul in NZ]

I'm over all this. I'm not a 'serious' motorcyclist so I suppose i shouldnt comment here but from what i can see, all this does is divide motorcyclists (who already dont like each other much) into haves and have nots.

Frankly I thinks its time to give it up...

[NONONO]

I like you Paul..Cheer up eh?:2thumbsup

[Paul in NZ]

I like you Paul..Cheer up eh?:2thumbsup

Well thanks but I think I'm serious. (yet oddly happy)

The inability to re register old bikes (restored old wrecks), proposed laws to prevent any modifications (at all) and the expense of keeping any vehicle on the road let alone an expensive tool are sucking the soul out of the motorcycling I enjoy, ie cheap mechanical fun.

Couple this up with the fights that go on around registrations etc means that like everything motorcycling changes and now it seems its heading into a place that holds very little attraction for me. I read threads like this and I start loosing the will to live.... (yes yes, go for a ride and stop reading but I also have other reasons why going for a ride this morning aint happening)

Anyway - stopping reading seems like the best option right now... :innocent:

[mashman]

CAS records things by crash severity, fatal, serious minor and non. Serious should correlate with hospital treatment, minor shouldn't, but that may not always be the case. Hospital admission figures are kept at by the MOT. These are used to estimate crash reporting rates and I am not sure whether they even go to the most basic level of detail and state what kind of vehicle was involved. But if all you want is the comparative rate of hospitalisations then the comparative rate of serious injuries should be fairly close.

Still not 100% sure what you are after. The number of hospitalisations caused by all crashes where a car was involved and the number of hospitalisations caused by all crashes where a motorbike was involved ?

Do you want fries, sorry, mopeds with that ?

heh. I understand your frustration :yes:

Just how many hospitalisations there were, in total, from any accident that involved a car, even if it's car v bike:

Bike hits car, there are 3 people hospitalised (2 car, 1 bike) during the accident.
Bike by itself, 2 people hospitalised during the accident
car v car, 6 people hospitalised during the accident
car v pedestrian 1 person (the pedestrian (classed, for this purpose, as car))
bike v pedestrian 2 people (1 bike, 1 pedestrian (classed, for this purposes, as bike)).

The answer i would expect to see is 9 for cars, 5 for bike. Add mopeds in. We need the fullest picture possible given the data available. Any clearer?

[crazyhorse]

That was very interesting information - well researched :niceone:

[Berries]

The answer i would expect to see is 9 for cars, 5 for bike. Add mopeds in. We need the fullest picture possible given the data available. Any clearer?
As clear as a very clear thing. Will post the answer tomorrow.

[mashman]

We have probably covered this over the last year... but we've, maybe, asked the wrong question.

Cars are cross-subsidising motorcyclists??? I beg to differ. After all, it's the person that requires hospital treatment, not the vehicle!

We all use the road? We all ride/drive a vehicle? Look at the figures below as a percentage of TOTAL drivers. The one thing we all have in common :yes:

taken from transport.govt (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/crashstatisticsNov2009/)

Injuries:

Cars: 8381 drivers, passengers 3277 = 11658
Motorcycles: 1396

We know this is why they have separate accounts. More cars to divide 11658 into to weight the levy. BUT, as a percentage of the TOTAL drivers/riders on the road what FACTS would you uncover when answering the below questions in regards to cross-subsidy?

Which vehicle type causes the highest percentage of accidents?
Which vehicle type has the higher risk of crashing?
Which vehicle type has the worst safety record?
"insert own question here"

Remember, cars can carry up to 8 people. If they are a higher risk... hmmmmm

It doesn't matter how many vehicle types we have on the roads. The FACTS show that, in all likelihood, Cars have the higher social cost and that it would seem that Motorcyclists are cross-subsiding Car drivers by approx 9:1... yet that's not the case according to Mr Smith and his slimey friends?

Good job we have the separate accounts eh :blink: I wonder why!

[Ocean1]

I read threads like this and I start loosing the will to live....

I know what you mean, however, I don’t think the soul sucking thing is motorcycling specific. I think it’s the cumulative effect of several decades of wee grey men taking liberties with the rules.

‘Er indoors rolled up to sit her full licence last Friday. Her friendly AA supplied tester took the $80something, glanced over the regulation 225 and declined to allow her to sit the licence on it. Somewhere in the 5 min between leaving our gargre and arriving at the AA office her freshly WOF’d and registered machine had blown a tail light bulb.

No Madam couldn’t come back in 5 min. Yes, even though Madam has paid for the full hour required by the booking system. No Madam couldn’t make another appointment next week, we’re booked out.

Comes a time, see when one gives up. The sheer quantity of good will, effort and energy required to meet the requirements of day to day rule compliance becomes more than one’s good-will budget can afford. This is the point at which you have a choice. You can laugh in their face and go live your life without their blessing. Or you can laugh in their face, force them to recant and go live your life with the blessing of a more reasonable regime.

I don’t care enough about rules to spend much time modifying them, can’t be fucked, much easier to simply ignore them. But if these dudes here want to take the time and make the effort to change the rules to something fairer and easier to live with then more power to them. I for one applaud them.

One other thing: the wee grey men don’t live in a vacuum. They need a bevy of moaning, whining sycophants making a deal of noise about how everyone needs to behave this way or that way. Without them there’s literally no call to make the rules more and more restrictive, constrictive. So, go check in the mirror, is that a beam in thine eye?

[NONONO]

Yep it gets tedious and repetitive and boring but the alternative is to give up and accept the lies and bullying, and in so doing, accept that the grey buggers have the power to do whatever they like to you.

Few of us where talking to a local MP yesterday and he gave us some words of wisdom.
"Only when you have repeated your message so often and for so long, you are sick of hearing yourself say it, is the message just, just, beginning to get to joe public......."
I call this "The Katman Premise"....

[Berries]

Could you find out, for 2009:

The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL car crashes (including pedestrians etc...).
The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL motorcycle crashes. (including pedestrians etc...).
In 2009 there were 8793 crashes resulting in injury that involved a car (parked ones excluded) resulting in 1753 people being seriously injured.

In 2009 there were 1350 crashes resulting in injury that involved a moped or motorbike resulting in 474 people being seriously injured.

Note these are injuries recorded as serious in CAS, nothing to do with ACC records.

Noting the comments earlier about moped crashes being less likely to be serious, the severity ratio (proportion of fatal and serious crashes to all injury crashes) for mopeds was 19%. For motorbikes the figure was 41%. For cars it was 18%.

Ding ding. Round two :jerry:

[Eyegasm]

One thing I would like to know is...

How many children have been run over while reversing a motorcycle out of a driveway?

Bloody SUVs

[mashman]

In 2009 there were 8793 crashes resulting in injury that involved a car (parked ones excluded) resulting in 1753 people being seriously injured.

In 2009 there were 1350 crashes resulting in injury that involved a moped or motorbike resulting in 474 people being seriously injured.

Note these are injuries recorded as serious in CAS, nothing to do with ACC records.

Noting the comments earlier about moped crashes being less likely to be serious, the severity ratio (proportion of fatal and serious crashes to all injury crashes) for mopeds was 19%. For motorbikes the figure was 41%. For cars it was 18%.

Ding ding. Round two :jerry:

Let's see now, let's assume that these serious crashes are all serious enough and that the cost of rehabilitation is approximately the same (we'll never know without the figures)

That would mean, that as part of the road using fleet

74% of ALL serious injury crashes involve cars and 26% of all serious injury crashes are involve motorcycles.

I'd say that we're cross-subsising THE ACTUAL COSTS of rehabilitation 3:1, and not in our favour.

Car drivers, as a percentage of the car and motorcycle road going fleet, cause more accidents, by a ratio of approximately 9:1, and SERIOUS injuries 3:1. Why do motorcyclists pay more ACC levy than those vehicles that are most likely to be involved in an accident in the first place?

Who has the LARGEST risk group?
Does it look like we're cross-subsidising Car Drivers?

[bogan]

you gotta normalise for population size though, more cars on the road means they will be involved in more total accidents than bikes, doesn't mean they are riskier. Also factor in the rego fees paid, 100k bikes at average of 300? per rego, 3mil cars at bout 120? per rego, gives 30mil from bikes, and 360mil from cars, so yeh, using those figures we aren't subsidising em

[Swoop]

Couple this up with the fights that go on around registrations etc means that like everything motorcycling changes and now it seems its heading into a place that holds very little attraction for me.
Strange. I was reading an article about the same issues we face today (hideous taxes, being required to conform to some pen-pusher and their ideas, etc, etc) yet this was written in the 1950's.
As a human race, we are destined to repeat this time and time again. I believe the interdweeb simply makes this all to commonplace and it is better to simply ignore and just get on with living life to the fullest in whatever means necessary.

[Katman]

74% of ALL serious injury crashes involve cars and 26% of all serious injury crashes are involve motorcycles.


And yet we only make up about 2% of the total road going fleet.

[mashman]

you gotta normalise for population size though, more cars on the road means they will be involved in more total accidents than bikes, doesn't mean they are riskier. Also factor in the rego fees paid, 100k bikes at average of 300? per rego, 3mil cars at bout 120? per rego, gives 30mil from bikes, and 360mil from cars, so yeh, using those figures we aren't subsidising em


As a percentage of the whole car and bike road going fleet. 74% percent of the ACTUAL TOTAL cost, (if ACC can't prove otherwise) is, granted flimsily, down to car drivers. Just because there's more of them, does not mean we should pay more does it? unless that's how you prefer to see it. Using the ACC principles and all.

The Bill for serious injuries = 74% cars, 26% bikes

I think we're subsiding cars on that basis. As members of the road going fleet that is and looking at the potential real costs. It'd be interesting to find out, but a lot of leg work.



And yet we only make up about 2% of the total road going fleet.


You look at it how you choose to, yet happily separate bikes out from being classed as simply as a road user. Why? Perhaps it's the same reason as TPTB? Is it easier because there's less bikes? Do you not believe in the principles of ACC?

[bogan]

As a percentage of the whole car and bike road going fleet. 74% percent of the ACTUAL TOTAL cost, (if ACC can't prove otherwise) is, granted flimsily, down to car drivers. Just because there's more of them, does not mean we should pay more does it? unless that's how you prefer to see it. Using the ACC principles and all.

The Bill for serious injuries = 74% cars, 26% bikes

I think we're subsiding cars on that basis. As members of the road going fleet that is and looking at the potential real costs. It'd be interesting to find out, but a lot of leg work.

you're still confusing the total with per user. In total they are involved in 74% of accidents, and pay 90% of the total cost, from the approximated figures above.

[NONONO]

So, and I want to be clear bout this...
The bill (cost to ACC and therefore the rego payer) is split.74 % cost from cars 26% from Bike related things.
If we take scooters into account and rego'd mopeds probably the motorcycle figures are between 18 and 22%.

What, given that the damage per capita, caused by motorcyles to others, is much less than caused by cars or vans etc, is the average ACC payout for bike related accidents (all parties included in each accident) compared to 4 wheel accidents (all parties included in each accident) ?

[bogan]

So, and I want to be clear bout this...
The bill (cost to ACC and therefore the rego payer) is split.74 % cost from cars 26% from Bike related things.
If we take scooters into account and rego'd mopeds probably the motorcycle figures are between 18 and 22%.

What, given that the damage per capita, caused by motorcyles to others, is much less than caused by cars or vans etc, is the average ACC payout for bike related accidents (all parties included in each accident) compared to 4 wheel accidents (all parties included in each accident) ?

perhaps, serious injuries for the year 2009 were 74% car involvement, and 26% motorcycle involvement. We don't know the bill, though this may be online somewhere, it is difficult to know if the figures have been inflated or massaged a bit as it would have to come direct from ACC. However, last year someone did crunch some numbers and motorcycles were slightly cheaper per claim using the ACC data. So the assumption that the relative accident rates is proportional to the relative bills, is likely to be valid.

[Berries]

The Bill for serious injuries = 74% cars, 26% bikes
Take that as the true figure just for arguments sake. But ACC do not get 74% of their income from cars and 26% from bikes. Due to the number of each that are registered the gap between the two will be much bigger - 90% and 10% ? I don't know, it is probably more than that, but it would appear from the figures that rider injuries are being subsidised by car registrations. I always thought that was the case. Bikes are more likely to crash than cars, two wheels vs four, and in a crash a rider is likely to get more severely injured than a car driver, cage vs no cage. Simple physics.

The whole argument really comes down to the Woodhouse principles. You either believe that all road users should be treated the same, or it should be risk based. Work related ACC is risk based. That is where I lose track of what the Woodhouse principles actually are, but then I am an import. To me if you are going to go risk based on mode of transport then you have to go the whole hog and look at experience and vehicle type, and here I include drivers as well as riders.

[Katman]

That is where I lose track of what the Woodhouse principles actually are,

In an ideal society the Woodhouse principle would work ideally. Maybe we had such a society back when it was introduced.

Unfortunately we live in an entirely different society today. Far too many couldn't give a shit how their actions may negatively impact on others.

It has become a situation where the responsible are continuously paying for the stupidity of the irresponsible.

In the same way, our welfare system has become one where the diligent, hard-working members of our society pay for the lazy to remain in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

[MSTRS]

In an ideal society the Woodhouse principle would work ideally. Maybe we had such a society back when it was introduced.

Unfortunately we live in an entirely different society today. Far too many couldn't give a shit how their actions may negatively impact on others.

It has become a situation where the responsible are continuously paying for the stupidity of the irresponsible.

THAT is THE BEST post I've ever seen from you. :shit:
And scarily, it holds a big truth too. Whether Woodhouse or risk-based, the problem of idiots is the same. But with risk-based as we have now, the pool is smaller relative to the idiots (or unfortunates etc) in each class.

[bogan]

In an ideal society the Woodhouse principle would work ideally. Maybe we had such a society back when it was introduced.

Unfortunately we live in an entirely different society today. Far too many couldn't give a shit how their actions may negatively impact on others.

It has become a situation where the responsible are continuously paying for the stupidity of the irresponsible.

In the same way, our welfare system has become one where the diligent, hard-working members of our society pay for the lazy to remain in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

exactly, and if the hardworking can pay for the lazy, which is largely intentional, surely they can pay for ACC, which is accidental.

[Ocean1]

To me if you are going to go risk based on mode of transport then you have to go the whole hog and look at experience and vehicle type, and here I include drivers as well as riders.

Bling raincheck.

[Ocean1]

THAT is THE BEST post I've ever seen from you. :shit:
And scarily, it holds a big truth too. Whether Woodhouse or risk-based, the problem of idiots is the same. But with risk-based as we have now, the pool is smaller relative to the idiots (or unfortunates etc) in each class.

And here's another thing about idiots: They'll cost more than they're worth no matter what.

[Winston001]

Take that as the true figure just for arguments sake. But ACC do not get 74% of their income from cars and 26% from bikes. Due to the number of each that are registered the gap between the two will be much bigger - 90% and 10% ? I don't know, it is probably more than that, but it would appear from the figures that rider injuries are being subsidised by car registrations. I always thought that was the case. Bikes are more likely to crash than cars, two wheels vs four, and in a crash a rider is likely to get more severely injured than a car driver, cage vs no cage. Simple physics.

Exactly. Motorcycles make up a very small percentage of vehicles, yet as you posted earlier, contribute a larger percentage to injuries.


The whole argument really comes down to the Woodhouse principles. You either believe that all road users should be treated the same, or it should be risk based. Work related ACC is risk based.

There is a lot of confusion on here regarding the "Woodhouse Principles". Sir Owen Woodhouse recommended that an injury compensation scheme be introduced based on no fault and a social contract. Specifically he meant little/no risk weighting and cover funded year to year by the government.

The comparison is the Unemployment Benefit. Its the same amount whether you had a well-paid job or low-paid. The money to pay is gathered through taxation each year, not built up in a special dole fund.

In the USA by contrast, there is state unemployment insurance which you contribute to in taxes, and pays a percentage of salary for a limited time. Then you drop down to Welfare. We don't have that 2 step system.

[mashman]

Sorry for lack of proof reading (i'll do that later if it's that badly out of whack, or if someone points something out))...

The whole argument really comes down to the Woodhouse principles. You either believe that all road users should be treated the same, or it should be risk based. Work related ACC is risk based. That is where I lose track of what the Woodhouse principles actually are, but then I am an import. To me if you are going to go risk based on mode of transport then you have to go the whole hog and look at experience and vehicle type, and here I include drivers as well as riders.

I do have the Woodhouse principles in the back of my mind. But my calculations are looking at the social cost and not the "financial" cost, as such, i'm just making the assumption that we have the lower social cost based on accident ratios. My conclusions are my conclusions, they may be yur conclusions too...

Total of people killed on the road for 2009: 396
Total of people killed on the road for 2009 in Driver/Passenger Vehicles (DPV): 302
Total of people killed on the road for 2009 on Motorcycles: 50

As a social cost, DPV inhabitants account for 76% of road deaths
As a social cost, Motorcycles account for 13%

Total of people injured on the road for 2009: 14842
Total of people injured on the road for 2009 in DPV's: 11658
Total of people injured on the road for 2009 on Motorcycles: 1396

As a social cost, DPV inhabitants account for 78% of road injuries
As a social cost, Motorcyclists account for 9% of road injuries

Berries Serious Injury stats com in to play here.

Total of serious injuries cars/motorcycles/mopeds for 2009: 2227
Cars resulting in Serious Injuries for 2009: 1753
Motorcycles resulting in Serious Injuries for 2009: 474

As a social cost, Cars account for 79% of serious road injuries
As a social cost, Motorcycles account for 21% of serious road injuries

Hospital admissions that were immediately discharged: 7839
Hospital admissions that require 1-2 day stays: 2824
Hospital admissions that require 3 or more day stays: 1868

The assumption is made that Berries figure of serious injury, will result in a stay longer than 3 days.

Even if all 474 of motorcycle accidents required more than 3 days, that still leaves 1394 serious injuries that need to be paid for. Just because they can spread the cost on numbers and they can apportion "blame", does not reflect the true social cost.

Say the average cost of rehab for a motorcycle rider is the same as a DPV at $20,000 per person. Have fun with the social cost numbers. And then answer who is subsidising who from the social point of view. The FACTUAL point of view.

474 * $20,000 = $9,480,000 at an average of $500 rego per bike, say 50,000 bikes that's $25,000,000.

1394 * $20,000 = $27,880,000. Motorcycles are paying their fair share of serious injury costs and then the rest of the cost is spread?

Someone want to tell me what the other $15,520,000, of motorcycle levy, is spent on? We don't pay our fair share? Who am I subsidising?

[MSTRS]

Someone want to tell me what the other $15,520,000, of motorcycle levy, is spent on? We don't pay our fair share? Who am I subsidising?

ACC would have us believe it is for 'ongoing treatment and ERC for injuries starting in the year of collection'...

[Winston001]

I've explained Sir Owen's recommendations above. What we all need to understand is that Parliament never accepted the whole report. ACC was created and morphed into a government insurance scheme.

Parliament established risk categories and ACC levies were variable, just as they are today.

So, to be clear, the social contract where society paid as we go (annual taxation) was never adopted. ACC has always been a compulsory accident insurance scheme.

Now you and I may not like this but that's the way it is, and has been since 1972. Talking about Woodhouse Principles is as useful as talking about Eugenics, which was a hot concept in the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. Its time has passed.

[mashman]

I've explained Sir Owen's recommendations above. What we all need to understand is that Parliament never accepted the whole report. ACC was created and morphed into a government insurance scheme.

Parliament established risk categories and ACC levies were variable, just as they are today.

So, to be clear, the social contract where society paid as we go (annual taxation) was never adopted. ACC has always been a compulsory accident insurance scheme.

Now you and I may not like this but that's the way it is, and has been since 1972. Talking about Woodhouse Principles is as useful as talking about Eugenics, which was a hot concept in the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. Its time has passed.

The theory was never properly tried? If that's the case, perhaps they should try it, they may be surprised by the outcome. Obviously the system isn't fair. And that was the poremise for the Woodhouse principles. Over the years govts have tweaked this, on the premise that motorcycle cause the higher costings. The above facts seem to suggest otherwise, having a fair system and all...

If it hasn't been tried. I'd suggest that the government of the day try it to see if it'll work.

[mashman]

ACC would have us believe it is for 'ongoing treatment and ERC for injuries starting in the year of collection'...

If that's what the cost is for motorcyclists, what's the actual cost for cars/passengers? considering they have, across the board, 70+% more accidents than us and 9 times more vehicles on the road. Are they too being POTENTIALLY "ripped off" to subsidise something else (albeit it may be ACC related)? If that's the case, would they be interested in sharing the costs and therefore sharing the savings. Instead of throwing money at a govt that will, in all likelihood (nats or labs) keep pushing towards privatisation?

[MSTRS]

If that's what the cost is for motorcyclists, what's the actual cost for cars/passengers? considering they have, across the board, 70+% more accidents than us and 9 times more vehicles on the road. Are they too being POTENTIALLY "ripped off" to subsidise something else (albeit it may be ACC related)? If that's the case, would they be interested in sharing the costs and therefore sharing the savings. Instead of throwing money at a govt that will, in all likelihood (nats or labs) keep pushing towards privatisation?

I like what you did with figures before. Woodhouse based his entire principle on social cost weighed against social benefit. ie someone who 'costs' here, adds value there.
Contrary to Winston's post, ACC as an entity came into being in 1974, and as I recall (was young and not really interested then) was funded from general taxation. It wasn't long before the govt of the day started 'making it better'.
However, ACC don't give a toss about any of that...now, it's all about risk groups. And as a group, we motorcyclists cannot ignore the fact that we do get injured in greater numbers than car drivers, percentage-wise. Whether we pay enough levy to cover that cost, as a group, is academic and open to such huge interpretation that maybe we will never know.
Woodhouse was better than what we have now. In all areas of collection.

[mashman]

I guess what i'm trying to say is.

Serious injuries, are serious injuries. Wether caused by bike, car, truck, pedestrian , cylist (another), other etc... (the last 3 not paying ACC road levy at all).. Yes? They are just serious injuries. They probably ALL end up with ACC payments too :rofl: couldn't resist. No, they're just serious injuries. I think the figures, from a point of view, give some quite shocking reading. Cars do cost society more in terms of accidents and therefore social cost. And there are a shitload of them out there doing dumb things, or not paying attention. They are at least 78% more likely to be involved in a collision than anyone other road user. Look at the numbers.

A crash being a crash. Injuries being injuries. Lots of different people on the road. 9 times more cars?

Cars have some scarey numbers. I'm sure we have equivalent total crash numbers? tui? we have relatively high ones as motorcyclists, in comparison to motorcyclists and noone else. Socially, cars type vehicles are responsible for 78% of the total injury crashes recorded for 2009. That kinda stuns me. Motocyclists pay more ACC Levy, yet, cars cause 78% of the total injuries. They pay less ACC levy, yet cause the most "car"nage. :killingme

That's just the injury crashes. What would the percentages be in relation to all crashes (crash being car v EVERYTHING else) for 2009?

Now these percentages have a social cost. What is it? 78% of the number of people claiming long term ACC benefit could well have had their accidents whilst being the driver or the passenger of a vehicle that isn't a motorcycle.

what's wrong with actually attempting to bring the social costs down at the expense of sharing the financial cost. They were responsible for 10 of "rural" road deaths, 2 for motorcyclists. If high speed or bad cornering is the cause of the accidents on the "rural" roads. Then, out of the 12 vehicles that have that "rural" crash (those that cost more), 10 were car/vehicles, bike were 2... motorcylcists have a 17% chance of it being them. My wife, has an 83% chance of being involved in that crash. A serious injury is a serious injury and has a huge knock on social cost. The numbers speak fo themselves.

Just because TPTB decide to measure their figures as a proportion of our population, doesn't mean that it will yield the best social results.

You wouldn't say that that isn't a discussion to be had with TPTB? Or is it too much of a vote loser (earner)? In which case, why doesn't someone run for office :).

You need to start "asking" car drivers to put some thought into their driving. Not penalising a minority and think that the job is done. Because it really isn't done. that's bad policy, both financially and socially.

Just one of the reasons why i won't vote.

[mashman]

I like what you did with figures before. Woodhouse based his entire principle on social cost weighed against social benefit. ie someone who 'costs' here, adds value there.
Contrary to Winston's post, ACC as an entity came into being in 1974, and as I recall (was young and not really interested then) was funded from general taxation. It wasn't long before the govt of the day started 'making it better'.
However, ACC don't give a toss about any of that...now, it's all about risk groups. And as a group, we motorcyclists cannot ignore the fact that we do get injured in greater numbers than car drivers, percentage-wise. Whether we pay enough levy to cover that cost, as a group, is academic and open to such huge interpretation that maybe we will never know.
Woodhouse was better than what we have now. In all areas of collection.

Agreed. The history doesn't matter really at the moment, because we can see that the system is going in the wrong direction(s). It's the challenge that matters. If you get it right, you could potentially get the vote.

I propose the following restructure to the political offices of New Zealand.

The role of Prime Minister is to be abolished. And in it's place there will be. The Financial Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Social Prime Minister of New Zealand.

John Key becomes the Financial Prime Minister and we decide who the front wo/man we appoint for the Social Prime Minister. (labor and the nats can fight for that position too)

Nothing else changes.

The Social Prime Minister will be responsible for the reading of submissions posted by the public of New Zealand. Find out what the financial cost is from JK, then figure out if it can be done. The Social Prime Ministers Office will be down the pub if necessary.

I will then vote.

[mashman]

If you could see your way to passing on this petition (http://www.petitiononline.co.nz/petition/removal-of-mp-travel-subsidies-entirely/22). They may actually see us coming too. Cheers

[Winston001]

Contrary to Winston's post, ACC as an entity came into being in 1974, and as I recall (was young and not really interested then) was funded from general taxation. It wasn't long before the govt of the day started 'making it better'.


I'm afraid you're misremembering: ACC has always been funded by levies. Mostly from employers, until quite recently when a uniform employees levy was added.



In 1967 the Royal Commission produced the Woodhouse Report, named after its chairman, Mr Justice Woodhouse (now the Right Honourable Sir Owen Woodhouse). The Woodhouse Report signalled a significant shift in how New Zealand dealt with the consequences of injury. It proposed a move away from a litigious, fault-based system, toward a completely new ‘no-fault’ approach to compensation for personal injury.
The report recommended a scheme that covered:


all injuries to earners whether occurring at work or not, funded by a flat-rate levy on employers for the cost of all injuries to their employees. A levy on the self-employed to pay for injuries occurring at work or outside of work was also proposed
all motor vehicle injuries, funded by a levy on owners of motor vehicles and drivers.

[Winston001]

The theory was never properly tried? If that's the case, perhaps they should try it, they may be surprised by the outcome....

If it hasn't been tried. I'd suggest that the government of the day try it to see if it'll work.

Fair enough but you have to accept the consequences. If ACC becomes funded as a social contract, just like other social welfare payments (the dole, DPB, National Super etc) then the weekly loss of earnings will be a standard payment. Say 35 hours @ $12.50/hr less 20% to encourage claimants to return to work.

A lot better than the dole but also a lot less than some people currently earn.

[mashman]

Fair enough but you have to accept the consequences. If ACC becomes funded as a social contract, just like other social welfare payments (the dole, DPB, National Super etc) then the weekly loss of earnings will be a standard payment. Say 35 hours @ $12.50/hr less 20% to encourage claimants to return to work.

A lot better than the dole but also a lot less than some people currently earn.

I agree, fair point. It doesn't work if people don't "play the game"... That's the point. If the people don't want to try it, don't do it. But you have to ask everyone if they think your idea is acceptable... and implement it as long as the social cost does not outweigh the financial cost.

It's a win win in the potential social gain. No financial loss, potentially more relaxed and attentive drivers. :shutup:

[Ocean1]

A lot better than the dole but also a lot less than some people currently earn.

All fair eh?

What do you suppose ACC pays sole traders and small business owners by way of lost income compensation?

Y'know, those responsible for about 27% of their total income.

Eh?

Eh?

[MSTRS]

... Socially, cars type vehicles are responsible for 78% of the total injury crashes recorded for 2009. ...

Forgive me if I'm not au fait with this type of figure, but...
Is this injuries to car drivers and passengers only? Or all injuries where a car was involved? Don't forget that 98% of all road vehicles are 4 wheeled...
I don't like ACC's risk-based policy for setting levies (who does) and we definitely won't like where it leads. Pedestrians and cyclists pose a significant risk, in terms of cost of injury to themselves, so sooner or later there is likely to be a levy imposed on them too. Unless ACC moves away from risk assessing. And that will take a(nother) act of parliament.

[Winston001]

I need to say that I admire and support the efforts of people challenging the ACC calculations and systems. I've been putting counter-arguments because that is what you will face from ACC, and being aware of other interpretations helps to be ready with more answers.

I believe ACC is a good system, should not be privatised, and is superior to private insurance.

It is healthy to challenge ACC to keep them honest. Keep up the good work team. :D

[MSTRS]

Challenging them is good. But, have we really achieved much? The ACC juggernaut rolls on with it's bollocks increases here/there/everywhere. They've done little more than blink at our efforts to expose the bullshit, and then carry on.

I have kept up a 'program' of Letters to Ed locally, in an effort to open people's eyes to what is going on. I know they are read, because people who know me come up and say 'Good job...isn't it terrible what ACC is doing?' For the most part, the public still seem to be asleep. I have had 3 different ACC minions respond (with more/new lies) in an attempt to shut me up. Goody - more ammo to chuck at them publicly.
The ONLY thing that will turn this issue around is for the public in general to stand with us.

[mashman]

Hopefully this'll help... shout out if it doesn't, i'm sure you will lol.

Does that seem right to you? They cause more injuries, yet get away with murder, literally.

EDIT: i made a mistake in the play columns. I added 604 extra motorcycle, instead of 4 in the total injuries for motorcycle play column. Hence the large jump in Levy, they still only went up 10 bucks for their extra 1000 injuries :yes:.

[mashman]

I need to say that I admire and support the efforts of people challenging the ACC calculations and systems. I've been putting counter-arguments because that is what you will face from ACC, and being aware of other interpretations helps to be ready with more answers.

I believe ACC is a good system, should not be privatised, and is superior to private insurance.

It is healthy to challenge ACC to keep them honest. Keep up the good work team. :D

I understood what you were doing.

If the figures in the above spreadsheet are even close. Using the social cost we'd have a HUGE levy cut at no cost of Total ACC road account funding.

In fact, put 50 bucks on the social cost and you'd have a $100,000,000 budget for safety campaigns. I know who i'd direct mine at :) the 78% of injury causers.

A vote winner?

[Katman]

The ONLY thing that will turn this issue around is for the public in general to stand with us.

I agree entirely.

We need to work on getting the general public to believe that motorcyclists are worth standing with. :whistle:

[NONONO]

Awesome work Mash...we will be looking deeper at this and showing it to some VERY senior pollies in the very near future.
Some sit downs already arranged and more to come....
You and Bogan need to link up formally (not thinking of a Civil Union here) this is the very stuff we need to counter the bull.

[MSTRS]

I agree entirely.

We need to work on getting the general public to believe that motorcyclists are worth standing with. :whistle:

That'd work. But, in reality, it is more likely to be a case of motorists 'joining' with us when they realise that they are being shafted too. It is bikers (and very few of them, I might add) that are driving the campaign to get the REAL facts in front of Joe Public. If and when he finally wakes up, it is us he will look to for leadership in turning this around.

[mashman]

Awesome work Mash...we will be looking deeper at this and showing it to some VERY senior pollies in the very near future.
Some sit downs already arranged and more to come....
You and Bogan need to link up formally (not thinking of a Civil Union here) this is the very stuff we need to counter the bull.

:rofl: make sure the figures are correct first :yes:, although they seem to be sound. Give it to Charlie Lamb, he's got the respectability :) and quite possibly the figures that would firm up the results.

[bogan]

:rofl: make sure the figures are correct first :yes:, although they seem to be sound. Give it to Charlie Lamb, he's got the respectability :) and quite possibly the figures that would firm up the results.

yeh I only got the injury and rego figures, nothin about the cost on injuries, all would have to be filled in to get firm results. Have a look round ACC's website for any injury costs and you may find something useable. I think there are some yearly totals on there...

[mashman]

Something else to consider from the consultation document name (off the ACC site, you've possibly already seen it)

Full levy consultation document 2011/12.

"We’re already making promising progress, which means the levy increases we’re proposing this year are far less significant than those we proposed in 2009. For example:
• We’re proposing no increase at all in the average work levy, although some individual industries may see rises. And we anticipate no further levy rises in the foreseeable future
• We’re proposing a 2.5% increase in the average motor vehicle levy, which means that some vehicle classes will increase and others will decrease. The average increase is equivalent to the forecast long-term inflation rate. Our plan for this Account does include very small increases for the next two years, again at the rate of inflation, but after that no more rises should be necessary, assuming everything goes as expected
• We propose a 6.7% increase in the earners’ levy, which is paid by everyone in the paid workforce. Again, we plan no more increases from 2012/13 onwards."

There's more levies on the way folks. And it's all due to their "ACCounting" methods. I'd love to see the actual figures.

[pzkpfw]

• We’re proposing a 2.5% increase in the average motor vehicle levy, which means that some vehicle classes will increase and others will decrease. The average increase is equivalent to the forecast long-term inflation rate. Our plan for this Account does include very small increases for the next two years, again at the rate of inflation, but after that no more rises should be necessary, assuming everything goes as expected

My mate who works at ACC told me that in the next planned round of adjustments, cars were going to go up a little and bikes were going to go down a little; but because the Govt. decided to make no changes...

(I'll try and get more details this weekend, if I bump into him.)

[oldrider]

Yep it gets tedious and repetitive and boring but the alternative is to give up and accept the lies and bullying, and in so doing, accept that the grey buggers have the power to do whatever they like to you.

Few of us where talking to a local MP yesterday and he gave us some words of wisdom.
"Only when you have repeated your message so often and for so long, you are sick of hearing yourself say it, is the message just, just, beginning to get to joe public......."
I call this "The Katman Premise"....

This is more about breaking down the barriers of selective listening, a subconscious behaviour practised by the majority of human beings! :facepalm:

Like Mrs Marsh's chalk, there is a point where it does get it in! :bash:

That's the basis of TV advertising and using a machine gun! :ar15:

[RidingHard]

Just came across this article on honda-motorcycles.co.nz (sorry if repost):

"Crash figures are being wrongly used to back large ACC levy increases for motorcyclists, a leading researcher says.

Lincoln University Associate Professor Charles Lamb, who heads the Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies project, said ACC and minister Nick Smith were basing the proposed increases on poor facts.

ACC wants to increase annual motorcycle levies by hundreds of dollars, with owners of machines over 601cc facing a massive rise from $252 to $745.

ACC said riders were 16 per cent more likely than other road users to be involved in a crash.

It paid $62 million in motorcyclists' claims last year, while receiving only $12m in levies from users.

Submissions on the levy proposal close on November 10.

Lamb said analysis of Ministry of Transport crash data showed 67 per cent of motorcycle accidents involved other drivers, and 60 per cent of those crashes were caused by the other driver.

He said ACC also wrongly loaded higher levy increases on to motorcycles with engines over 600cc.

Lamb said 43 per cent of the 420 accidents – studied last year – between motorcycles and other vehicles in Auckland and Canterbury did not have the bike's engine size on the police accident report. The most common engine size in the remaining 57 per cent of crash reports was 250cc, which lent no weight to charging higher levies on bigger machines, he said.

Smith said even if cars caused all accidents between vehicles and motorcycles, the cost of other motorcycle accidents exceeded the proposed levy.

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.

Lamb said ACC figures also included injury crashes involving unregistered, offroad motorcycles and farm bikes."

http://www.honda-motorcycles.co.nz/newsitem.asp?newsid=929

[mashman]

We need the actual number of registrations per vehicle for 2009 and i'd say we're done.

I've just sourced the average social cost per road injury to go with the total social cost... that elusive bastard...

Draw your own conclusions. But looking at the average social vehicle levy... it probably averages out better than MOST are currently paying, even for multiple vehicles. I really doubt their sums for some reason.

Does it tally well?

223145

[Katman]

Does it tally well?


Imagine how much better it could tally if we could cut the current rate of accidents by half.

[Ocean1]

Imagine how much better it could tally if we could cut the current rate of accidents by half.

How 'bout I throw an extra couple of hundred in the pot and you go find a bridge to jump off.

[Katman]

How 'bout I throw an extra couple of hundred in the pot and you go find a bridge to jump off.

How 'bout you go fuck yourself?

[mashman]

Imagine how much better it could tally if we could cut the current rate of accidents by half.

That will follow, hopefully :shutup:. This is not a principled world. It's a financial world. Is all i can really say to that.

[bogan]

One thing I have noticed today, the ACC new claims currently are over 3x the recorded injuries, which may throw out your analysis as the average injuries would need to be changed to a much higher amount to fall in line with the ACC's figure. But I just can't see why the number of new claims is so much higher than the number of new injuries recorded, anyone have any ideas? Is it possible that over two thirds of injury causing on road motorcycle accidents go unrecorded by the proper authorities?

[Katman]

Is it possible that over two thirds of injury causing on road motorcycle accidents go unrecorded by the proper authorities?

I'd say there's a damn good chance of that.

[bogan]

I'd say there's a damn good chance of that.

yet ten years ago the claims were less than the number of recorded injuries, how does that work?

[Katman]

yet ten years ago the claims were less than the number of recorded injuries, how does that work?

I don't know. I thought by "proper authorities" you meant the police.

I'm sure there's a huge number of motorcycle accident ACC claims that never come to the attention of the police or NZTA's statisticians.

[bogan]

I don't know. I thought by "proper authorities" you meant the police.

I'm sure there's a huge number of motorcycle accident ACC claims that never come to the attention of the police or NZTA's statisticians.

yeh I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant number, it's just the change that confuses me, a minor increase in injuries over the last ten years 900-1400 (increased bike numbers account for this), yet the claims have gone from 800-5000. Something smells a bit off here, perhaps an investigation into how the records work on both sides is in order.

[Katman]

yeh I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant number,

Can you imagine how bad all those unreported motorcycle accidents (many of which are making ACC claims) could make our stats recorded by the NZTA look?

[bogan]

Can you imagine how bad all those unreported motorcycle accidents (many of which are making ACC claims) could make our stats recorded by the NZTA look?

I can imagine a lot of things, but a 4x (aprox) increase in the accident rate of bikers over ten years is less imagininable than creative accounting from ACC tbh. But imagining shit gets us nowhere, figuring out what this discrepancy arises from will prove insightful one way or the other.

[Katman]

But imagining shit gets us nowhere,

I agree entirely.

Significantly reducing the number of accidents we have could get us everywhere though.

[bogan]

I agree entirely.

Significantly reducing the number of accidents we have could get us everywhere though.

indeed, how about we fix the ACC levy issue (its stopping a lot of potential bikers from getting into it I reckon), and encourage a heap of new riders to get into it, this means other motorists will be more aware of bikes due to increased presence, and we can ensure all the newbies learn how to ride defensively and responsibly. It'll be like a biketopia of sorts :D

[Katman]

It'll be like a biketopia of sorts :D

I like that idea.

How about we go about it this way though - sort our shit out, improve our appalling statistics, make people see that motorcycling can be an accepted and responsible form of motoring, attract loads more people to motorcycling and therefore be a far greater force to be reckoned with by the powers that be.

[mashman]

One thing I have noticed today, the ACC new claims currently are over 3x the recorded injuries, which may throw out your analysis as the average injuries would need to be changed to a much higher amount to fall in line with the ACC's figure. But I just can't see why the number of new claims is so much higher than the number of new injuries recorded, anyone have any ideas? Is it possible that over two thirds of injury causing on road motorcycle accidents go unrecorded by the proper authorities?

You can get multiple claims for a single injury. So i've read

[mashman]

There also this

Information excluded from ACC statistics

* Injuries that resulted in less than one week off work are largely excluded from the Entitlement claims reported in Sections 2-21 of ACC Injury Statistics 2008. This is because ACC is not liable for costs incurred during the first week of incapacity.
* Claims for medical fees only (where the health provider was reimbursed directly) are excluded from the Entitlement claims reported in Sections 2-21 of ACC Injury Statistics 2008.

[Winston001]

I can't help noticing a delicious irony in this discussion on statistics: many of you would also cry long and loud about the high cost of health administration and ACC management. Not to mention police, NZTA etc. Its almost a given that the public think administration - paper pushing - in these areas is a waste.

Yet here we are looking deeper and deeper into statistics and asking why certain figures don't make sense or cannot be found at all. :facepalm:

Personally I'd rather a doctor/nurse/police fixed me up instead of filling out myriad forms in triplicate working out whether I fell off a bicycle or motorcycle, whether it was on a trail ride, playground, or a road, and whether maybe I'd had a pre-existing condition and the cause was medical instead of inattention......

[mashman]

I can't help noticing a delicious irony in this discussion on statistics: many of you would also cry long and loud about the high cost of health administration and ACC management. Not to mention police, NZTA etc. Its almost a given that the public think administration - paper pushing - in these areas is a waste.

Yet here we are looking deeper and deeper into statistics and asking why certain figures don't make sense or cannot be found at all. :facepalm:

Personally I'd rather a doctor/nurse/police fixed me up instead of filling out myriad forms in triplicate working out whether I fell off a bicycle or motorcycle, whether it was on a trail ride, playground, or a road, and whether maybe I'd had a pre-existing condition and the cause was medical instead of inattention......

Funny, i don't see the irony (not really). Anyone that takes a look at ACC, police, NZTA etc... and the running costs, future claims cover, policing strategy etc... will have to undergo exactly the same process... but they will do that in the context of how the current system is run and not by looking at the figures and seeking solutions to "unfair" levying. Paper pushing is inevitable, all you can do is look at it in terms of efficiency.

In light of the numbers not having been made available, what would you have people do? Just leave it and suck up the bullshit? Or figure out why the numbers are far enough out of whack and try to do something about it (if that's possible)

Agreed 100%. But you can't do that with the current system of levy calculation. I would venture that that levy (a single levy in my eyes) would drastically cut the amount of paperwork needing to be pushed. Essentially you pay your ACC levy money and you're "covered", no quibbling, you need fixed up, not a problem, you need help for the future, no problem... as long as you can balance the books at the end of the year, where's the problem. Ohhhhh to have a crack at the ACC database...

[MSTRS]

yeh I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant number, it's just the change that confuses me, a minor increase in injuries over the last ten years 900-1400 (increased bike numbers account for this), yet the claims have gone from 800-5000. Something smells a bit off here, perhaps an investigation into how the records work on both sides is in order.

I think you will find that the 5000 figure includes all those claims begun in previous years, that have an on-going nature. Claiming 5000 injury claims in 2009 is double-dipping by Nick the Prick.

[bogan]

I think you will find that the 5000 figure includes all those claims begun in previous years, that have an on-going nature. Claiming 5000 injury claims in 2009 is double-dipping by Nick the Prick.

no it's quiet clearly stated as new claims. Though if there is evidence that is a misrepresentation, obviously that'd be very useful.

[OV Lander]

So, with all the recent bicycle deaths we have seen a spate of cyclists demanding increased and improved cycleways for the registration fees.

I know, seems like they already get a good deal with a number of facilities for zero contribution to the road fund.

But they also make zero contribution to the ACC fund. Has there been (I'm sure there has, but do we know the results) any research on how many cycle deaths/injuries there are compared to motorcyclists? What are these costs?

If the government are serious about 'user pays', then these guys should be paying their way, surley.

When they do pay their way, then sure, let them have some infrastructure, but until then the Police should be activley pursueing the Rode Code breaches that cyclists perform on a daily basis and which is actually putting them at risk: jumping red lights, not lookig behind them, leaping off kerbs in front of cars etc..etc..

[Reckless]

But they also make zero contribution to the ACC fund. Has there been (I'm sure there has, but do we know the results) any research on how many cycle deaths/injuries there are compared to motorcyclists? What are these costs?

When they do pay their way,


Its very likely a large portion of their accidents are put down as "Bike Accident " in the doctors office and we get lumbered with it anyway??

[bogan]

So, with all the recent bicycle deaths we have seen a spate of cyclists demanding increased and improved cycleways for the registration fees.

I know, seems like they already get a good deal with a number of facilities for zero contribution to the road fund.

But they also make zero contribution to the ACC fund. Has there been (I'm sure there has, but do we know the results) any research on how many cycle deaths/injuries there are compared to motorcyclists? What are these costs?

If the government are serious about 'user pays', then these guys should be paying their way, surley.

When they do pay their way, then sure, let them have some infrastructure, but until then the Police should be activley pursueing the Rode Code breaches that cyclists perform on a daily basis and which is actually putting them at risk: jumping red lights, not lookig behind them, leaping off kerbs in front of cars etc..etc..

Cyclist's cost (going by ACC's numbers) is around a fifth of Motorcyclist's.

Personally I don't like the idea of singling out other road users (though ACC are looking at viable ways of taxing cyclists already) for a pay by risk scheme, as I'm convinced a no fault/risk ACC is what's best for New Zealanders. As I've said before, if we can afford to pay for dole bludgers to sit around doing nothing, we can afford to pay for people's accidental injuries.

[Winston001]

So, with all the recent bicycle deaths we have seen a spate of cyclists demanding increased and improved cycleways for the registration fees.

I know, seems like they already get a good deal with a number of facilities for zero contribution to the road fund.

But they also make zero contribution to the ACC fund.

If the government are serious about 'user pays', then these guys should be paying their way, surley....



Pedestrians use the roads. Want to see them pay road registration and ACC as well?? :D

[davereid]

Pedestrians use the roads. Want to see them pay road registration and ACC as well?? :D

That's the catch isn't it. In spite of ACCs bleating, there is no "fair"way to fund a universal accident scheme.

If you use a poll tax, my mother in her rocking chair will pay the same as a base jumper.

If you use a fuel tax, cyclists don't pay.

If you use a registration tax, it is the same for those who do 10km as those who do 1000,000 km.

But overall, its hard to avoid the conclusion that a fuel tax is the best option.

Its easy to collect and can be done at virtually no cost.

Its very hard to avoid.

It reflects in a crude way the distance travelled.

Compare that with continuous vehicle licensing.

It was done to collect the tiny amount of money that was being avoided by a small amount of people who would skip a months rego.

To do it they need a small army of people to manage it and manage exemptions.

Its still easily avoided by just driving sans rego, exactly as was the case before it was introduced albeit instead of doing for a month, its now 3 minimum.

And it has seriously fucked over people who let the licence get beyond a year, by de-registering their cars, and by giving them a bad credit rating.

It achieves nothing except misery, generally for the poor and poorly informed, and it does it at great cost.

[Ocean1]

It achieves nothing except misery, generally for the poor and poorly informed, and it does it at great cost.

Yup. Same as most compliance licencing systems.

Thing is, they're all designed to extract payment for services the "consumer" didn't ask for and in a lot of cases didn't want.

Any surprise there's avoidance issues?