Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[pritch]

Mark Gardiner is a motorcycling blog writer with whom some of you will be familiar. He recently attended a presentation in Washington DC in which statistics related to motor cycling fatalities featured large.
His take on what it all meant is interesting.

It is quite long, and the graphs work better on a bigger screen than a tablet - but the holidays are coming...

http://backmarker-bikewriter.blogspot.co.nz/2017/12/going-deep-on-motorcycle-death-rates.html

[Ocean1]

Mark Gardiner is a motorcycling blog writer with whom some of you will be familiar. He recently attended a presentation in Washington DC in which statistics related to motor cycling fatalities featured large.
His take on what it all meant is interesting.

It is quite long, and the graphs work better on a bigger screen than a tablet - but the holidays are coming...

http://backmarker-bikewriter.blogspot.co.nz/2017/12/going-deep-on-motorcycle-death-rates.html

You can tell a lot about the agenda behind the data source from the way it's structured and presented.

And the lack of acknowledgement of the lack of data correcting for distance traveled by a given cohort is suggestive.

Edit: it's virtually the same data profile several authorities present to justify policy here.

[pritch]

Edit: it's virtually the same data profile several authorities present to justify policy here.

It had a definite familiar ring to it which is why I posted it here.

[Viking01]

You can tell a lot about the agenda behind the data source from the way it's structured and presented.

And the lack of acknowledgement of the lack of data correcting for distance traveled by a given cohort is suggestive.

Edit: it's virtually the same data profile several authorities present to justify policy here.

Morning,
I read the referenced article with interest, and the added comments were thought provoking.

And then I read your comments above. The data gathered by government agencies or otherwise
may well be similar between countries, and the same data omissions may be present (whether it
be due say to cost, or to other factors such as politics).

But, asking out of true interest, what are the specific points that you're making or questioning ?

Cheers,
Viking

[Ocean1]

Morning,
I read the referenced article with interest, and the added comments were thought provoking.

And then I read your comments above. The data gathered by government agencies or otherwise
may well be similar between countries, and the same data omissions may be present (whether it
be due say to cost, or to other factors such as politics).

But, asking out of true interest, what are the specific points that you're making or questioning ?

Cheers,
Viking

The lack of the single most significant variable: miles per event.

And the lack of any acknowledgement that it's missing.

The suspicion being that, although it's absence is almost certainly due to it having not fallen into the researchers laps via freely accessible sources, treating the available data as if the confounding variable were irrelevant is almost certainly due to the fact that the data presented fits a narrative required to justify downstream decisions.

ACC used similarly truncated data to conclude that "born again" bikers were more likely to kill themselves. They even went so far as to present the raw data in different sized age bands, EG: fatalities per 20-25, 25-35, 35-45, 45-75.

When roughly corrected for accidents per kilometer and displayed at a similarly sized age demographic the data showed what most consider a more believable picture: Beginners have far more accidents, there's just fewer of them lately, and far more old bastards with more time on their hands reacquiring the riding habit.

[Viking01]

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated.

Understand your point re age bands and miles travelled. And how an invalid
conclusion could well be derived by a researcher (whatever their motivation).

Re your last sentence: When the source data was re-cast and re-presented,
was that analysis performed by another party (other than ACC) ?

I tend to keep links to such types of analysis (or copies of such reports)
whenever I see them published, but I couldn't find anything similar in a
collection of such resources on my PC. Admittedly, there's only about 15
docs and they date back only as far as 2015.

Would you happen to recall the source of the report, or happen to have a
link to it ? Would be good if I could get my hands on a copy.

Cheers,
Viking

[FJRider]

When roughly corrected for accidents per kilometer and displayed at a similarly sized age demographic the data showed what most consider a more believable picture: Beginners have far more accidents, there's just fewer of them lately, and far more old bastards with more time on their hands reacquiring the riding habit.

This may just prove that the same statistic's (put in a different format) can get an entirely different result. It also means ... if the appropriate formatted statistic's are used ... they can "prove" different sorts of results. Depending on what result you want proved.

Was not the learner rider/driver statistic's used ... to get the change to the rider/driver licensing format that we have today ... ???

[Akzle]

The drug companies need to come up with an alternate cure for a MLC to buying a motorbike. That will be the only way to cut MLC rider deaths assuming they are not the fault of anyone else. An interesting statistic would be how many MLC guys are walking into bike shops each week and buying bikes? Having statistics for the reason why guys get them in the first place would be interesting too. Maybe counselling services need to have a MLC division to divert interest away from buying a bike.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

ACC used similarly truncated data to conclude that "born again" bikers were more likely to kill themselves.

ACC (in this instance) must be fuckwits too by your warped logic.

you have no idea what "logic" is. so stop using the word.

you're a fuckwit.

[Ocean1]

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated.

Understand your point re age bands and miles travelled. And how an invalid
conclusion could well be derived by a researcher (whatever their motivation).

Re your last sentence: When the source data was re-cast and re-presented,
was that analysis performed by another party (other than ACC) ?

I tend to keep links to such types of analysis (or copies of such reports)
whenever I see them published, but I couldn't find anything similar in a
collection of such resources on my PC. Admittedly, there's only about 15
docs and they date back only as far as 2015.

Would you happen to recall the source of the report, or happen to have a
link to it ? Would be good if I could get my hands on a copy.

Cheers,
Viking

I don't have a link to the original source material, it was ACC though. The raw data wasn't made available at the time, but I later stumbled upon it here somewhere and rearranged the age grouping myself. I wasn't interested in the results outside of confirming that the original format was heavily biased in favour of the report's recommendations, so I didn't bother keeping it.

As for motivation, Occam's razor suggests it was an attempt to justify the massive increases to ACC levies on licencing, (presented by Nick Smith and co at the time as a way to redress what was claimed was an unfair extra burden motorcyclists put on the system). The fact that the target demographic, (older, high earning big bike riders) represent both lower hanging fruit in terms of a levy increase and a higher cost in terms of income insurance adds significant weight to Mr Occam's diagnosis.

He might also have been interested in the fact that this was the first historic instance of any attempt to levy ACC directly in terms of claimed associated activity costs.

[Ocean1]

This may just prove that the same statistic's (put in a different format) can get an entirely different result. It also means ... if the appropriate formatted statistic's are used ... they can "prove" different sorts of results. Depending on what result you want proved.

Was not the learner rider/driver statistic's used ... to get the change to the rider/driver licensing format that we have today ... ???

Yeah. Nah, not only are statistics no part of the group "lies, damned lies etc" but it's literally correct that statistics don't lie. Which says nothing about their suitability in supporting any given conclusion, in the case of the original ACC biker beat-up the data was presented in such an amateurishly distorted way that if I'd been minister anyone associated with the report and it's recommendations would have been sacked.

[pritch]

The drug companies need to come up with an alternate cure for a MLC to buying a motorbike. That will be the only way to cut MLC rider deaths assuming they are not the fault of anyone else. An interesting statistic would be how many MLC guys are walking into bike shops each week and buying bikes? Having statistics for the reason why guys get them in the first place would be interesting too. Maybe counselling services need to have a MLC division to divert interest away from buying a bike.

Using the ancient standard of three score years and ten your MLC happens about age 35 when people are riding bikes less because wives and kids tend to be the priority. Even if you extend that life expectancy by ten years, which may not be actually justified, mid life would be forty.

Once again you seem to miss the mark completely.

[pritch]

You have missed my point completely too in that I was not wanting to enter into a debate over at what age a MLC happens but I was just highlighting the point made by ACC that "Born Again" (MLC) riders are at a high risk of killing themselves. There needs to be an alternative cure to buying a bike for guys who suffer a MLC so there are fewer MLC motorcycle deaths I feel. Possibly the best way of avoiding becoming a MLC motorcycle accident statistic is to never give up riding in the first place.

No you are completely confused. SNAFU. Born agains and MLC are different age groups completely and the argument Mark Gardiner presents is that the statistics are misleading. If you had actually read and comprehended what was written you would understand that Gardiner's argument indicates that it is possible the ACC may be misreading the statistics too. As have you.

[GazzaH]

The article is a mess of opinion, conjecture and assertions by a blogger who appears distinctly biased or prejudiced. It lacks hard data and statistical analysis of the data presented in Washington. Is the original data source even cited? Has it been duly peer-reviewed and published? If so, I missed it.

As described by the blogger, the original presentation smacks (to me, a cynic) of death-by-data: 'We have a bunch data points, so let's graph them and blabber as if they mean something and we know what we're talking about'. The data could be used to develop theories and testable hypotheses for further assessment but, without additional work, pure conjecture such as the blogger's commentary is almost worthless. We have no reasonable, rational basis for deciding between the original presenter's findings and conclusions (which don't appear to have been properly cited and referenced by the blogger), the blogger's alternative opinions, and other possibilities (of which there are many, mostly unstated).

But as a device to drive up blog readership, or for political purposes, it's OK I guess. Who cares about science, eh? Who needs statistics? Does it matter if the data concern the US, not NZ? And what have the scientists and statisticians ever done for us?

[pritch]

The article is a mess of opinion, conjecture and assertions by a blogger who appears distinctly biased or prejudiced. It lacks hard data and statistical analysis of the data presented in Washington. Is the original data source even cited? Has it been duly peer-reviewed and published? If so, I missed it.

As described by the blogger, the original presentation smacks (to me, a cynic) of death-by-data: 'We have a bunch data points, so let's graph them and blabber as if they mean something and we know what we're talking about'. The data could be used to develop theories and testable hypotheses for further assessment but, without additional work, pure conjecture such as the blogger's commentary is almost worthless. We have no reasonable, rational basis for deciding between the original presenter's findings and conclusions (which don't appear to have been properly cited and referenced by the blogger), the blogger's alternative opinions, and other possibilities (of which there are many, mostly unstated).

But as a device to drive up blog readership, or for political purposes, it's OK I guess. Who cares about science, eh? Who needs statistics? Does it matter if the data concern the US, not NZ? And what have the scientists and statisticians ever done for us?

Holy shit! Your comprehension skills are a match for Cassina's. Why don't you two get a room?

[GazzaH]

Errrrr, yeah, nah.

I'm merely expressing a cynical opinion, much like the blogger and others here on KB.

Take it or leave it.

[Murray]

I have read this fact on non NZ websites and they cant all be wrong irrespective of what Mark Gardiner or you and a few others on here think.

Please provide link

[pritch]

I'm merely expressing a cynical opinion, much like the blogger and others here on KB.


Fairy nuff.

It's all highly subjective of course, but I consider Gardiner to be much above "blogger" status. I'd put him up with the finest writers ever on matters motorcycling. A bold statement I know, so although these have all been on KB previously they are presented here again. No rush, the holidays are coming.

The three items span almost a hundred years so styles change - but quality? Not so much.

http://thevintagent.com/2017/09/04/t-e-lawrence-the-road/

http://www.latexnet.org/~csmith/sausage.html

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2013/03/article/backmarker-searching-for-spadino/

[GazzaH]

I'm not familiar with his writing, other than that blog piece ... so maybe I should read on.

I wasn't commenting on the quality of his writing, though, so much as the subjectivity of the piece (in my subjective opinion!).

[FJRider]

I have read this WRITTEN on non NZ websites and they COULD all be wrong irrespective of what Mark Gardiner or you and a few others on here think.

Fixed it for you ...

Just for you Cassina ... http://www.lazymotorbike.eu/tips/startridingagain/

https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/8-safety-tips-for-returning-motorcycle-riders

A bit of interesting reading ... https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/a-returned-riders-story

Produced by Aussie's ... but .. https://jointhedrive.qld.gov.au/motorcycles/motorcycle-skills

Everybody loves Wiki ... but ... https://rideapart.com/articles/motorcycle-risks

[awayatc]

ACC used similarly truncated data to conclude that "born again" bikers were more likely to kill themselves.

ACC (in this instance) must be fuckwits too by your warped logic.

Please don't leave your computer unattended....

It appears your dog has been posting on KB again.

[Viking01]

I don't have a link to the original source material, it was ACC though. The raw data wasn't made available at the time, but I later stumbled upon it here somewhere and rearranged the age grouping myself. I wasn't interested in the results outside of confirming that the original format was heavily biased in favour of the report's recommendations, so I didn't bother keeping it.

As for motivation, Occam's razor suggests it was an attempt to justify the massive increases to ACC levies on licencing, (presented by Nick Smith and co at the time as a way to redress what was claimed was an unfair extra burden motorcyclists put on the system). The fact that the target demographic, (older, high earning big bike riders) represent both lower hanging fruit in terms of a levy increase and a higher cost in terms of income insurance adds significant weight to Mr Occam's diagnosis.

He might also have been interested in the fact that this was the first historic instance of any attempt to levy ACC directly in terms of claimed associated activity costs.


Morning. Thanks for the reply. And for advising on availability of source data
or report. Always on the lookout for good data and analysis in this area.

I can recall the last biker hikoi in Wellington a few years ago, and also being
involved in giving the afore-mentioned minister some verbal feedback on his
proposed ACC levy changes. Pity that the greengrocer was all out of soft fruit
that day.

Cheers,
Viking

[Swoop]

I can recall the last biker hikoi in Wellington a few years ago, and also being
involved in giving the afore-mentioned minister some verbal feedback on his
proposed ACC levy changes.

I wonder when the new minister will be asked about the changes required to the system, "hickoied" and publicly shamed into action to reverse the current system...

[Frodo]

I found this to be a well considered and thought through blog. It is not a scientific paper, so the missing citations were okay (would have been useful though).

In fisheries science, if you graph fish age by frequency, you will see peaks in the graph where larger numbers of certain age fish coincide with successful spawning so many years before (please don't take this analogy with motorcyclists too far).
A trawler comes through and scoops up lots of four year old fish this year and then next year 5 year old fish and so on.
The grim reaper is scooping up more 55-60 year old motorcyclists now, because there are more of them riding more miles per year. Ten years ago, the graph shows that the age of the peak was ten years younger.

I agree that we need more data on the number of miles ridden by each age group cohort to accurately calculate relative risk.

[caspernz]

The drug companies need to come up with an alternate cure for a MLC to buying a motorbike. That will be the only way to cut MLC rider deaths assuming they are not the fault of anyone else. An interesting statistic would be how many MLC guys are walking into bike shops each week and buying bikes? Having statistics for the reason why guys get them in the first place would be interesting too. Maybe counselling services need to have a MLC division to divert interest away from buying a bike.

The other solution is to provide a bit of training for BAB or MLC types. Oh wait, it's already available, and by what I've heard it's even having an effect. But then those who have been for a Rideforever course will know this already.

As for the drug companies coming up with an alternate cure for MLC...next you're gonna suggest Viagra and internet porn have a link. Or that Viagra and Tinder have some connection...



I found this to be a well considered and thought through blog. It is not a scientific paper, so the missing citations were okay (would have been useful though).

In fisheries science, if you graph fish age by frequency, you will see peaks in the graph where larger numbers of certain age fish coincide with successful spawning so many years before (please don't take this analogy with motorcyclists too far).
A trawler comes through and scoops up lots of four year old fish this year and then next year 5 year old fish and so on.
The grim reaper is scooping up more 55-60 year old motorcyclists now, because there are more of them riding more miles per year. Ten years ago, the graph shows that the age of the peak was ten years younger.

I agree that we need more data on the number of miles ridden by each age group cohort to accurately calculate relative risk.

Fair comment on the topic. Baby boomers have a lot to answer for aye? Unless the raw data is published, it'll always be someone (or some agency) skewing the stats to present the result they want. Yes I'm a cynic on this :bleh:

[riffer]

You guys have it all arse about face.

ACC never used the MLC riders kill themselves argument. They were more concerned that MLC riders cost more because they didn't die. They got injured, and they cost more to rehabilitate - a) because, well, older folk take longer to come right and b) us 50+ riders earn more than some young squid does, generally.

They never phrased it that way though. Dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator (as they always do) they told us that we were 20 times more likely to have an accident that would injure us. The truth was, that for each kilometre travelled, the payout for motorcycle accidents was 20 times the payout for car accidents. Now there's some wild manipulations of statistics there but the real thing was Nick Smith wanted to turn ACC into a commercial insurance company so National could sell it off, and so they tried out private insurance company modelling. With the inevitable result. If you were an insurance company, you'd not be keen to bet that a motorcyclist is never gonna get hurt. The big problem of course is, that in a minor accident we can incur some pretty large medical bills. Inevitable result of kinetic energy acting upon a body with relatively low protection.

For the record, I don't consider myself a mid-life crisis rider. I started riding bikes when I was 12, through my teenage years, and I was between bikes when I met my first wife. She had recently had a bike accident and was recovering. Over time she turned negative against bikes, and I wasn't rocking the boat over that one and kept myself happy with a succession of V& and turboed cars. Long story short, we separated and when I married Gini we moved to Upper Hutt (we were closer to Wellington city) and she suggested I get a new bike. That was back in 2003 (if you search far enough back on my posts you'll find my first post all about picking up an FZR750R as a commuter bike).

I have ridden daily since 2003 until exactly three months ago when my riding career was cut short at the age of 50 by a car pulling out from nowhere on SH58. Multiple fractures, and a brachial plexus injury have seen me out of action for two years, if not forever. But the ACC bills have been pretty steep. Three weeks in hospitals, surgeries, MRIs, CTs, Xrays, lost earnings (I earn over the average wage), doctors bills, drugs - they all add up. And I am still facing more surgery and rehabilitation. I only work three mornings a week at the moment. So I can see where the money goes.

So I did everything right - I did all the training, had a good, well maintained bike, was wearing all the gear and a hi viz vest, was scanning the road for danger, and I was travelling under the posted limit. And I still got taken out by somebody else's mistake. And that is the thing that irritates me. It's gone down as a motorcycle accident with motorcyclist not at fault (driver pleaded guilty to Careless Driving causing injury) but all the costs come out of the ACC motorcycle account. Given that approximately 55% of motorcycle accidents are not the rider's fault there is a case for motorcyclists complaining. They do reckon that car drivers subsidise us anyway but I believe the motorcycle and all other road vehicles accounts should be merged to remove this anomaly. Sure, let's accept that motorcycling is inherently less forgiving in a crash, do all we can to remove the issues, but we should not have to pay extra because a) we get more hurt in a crash, b) the road furniture is likely to hurt us and c) the other road users are more likely to hurt us.

Something is wrong here. I said it on the steps of Parliament to hundreds of bikers a few years ago and it's still the same. The government would not ever think of charging women more for ACC because they are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. But still bikers are penalised for being victims.

Sorry for the rant. It's been coming for a while.

[riffer]

The other solution is to provide a bit of training for BAB or MLC types. Oh wait, it's already available, and by what I've heard it's even having an effect. But then those who have been for a Rideforever course will know this already.

As many who know me are getting sick of hearing, if it were not for learning and practicing the emergency braking skills taught on the RiderForever course, I would have definitely died in my accident. No ifs, buts or maybe. Died.

[caspernz]

As many who know me are getting sick of hearing, if it were not for learning and practicing the emergency braking skills taught on the RiderForever course, I would have definitely died in my accident. No ifs, buts or maybe. Died.

You've got a valid message Simon, sod those who don't want to hear it. Banging your head against the KB wall can't be helping your recovery :rolleyes:

For me it's challenging to articulate the frustrations I have on the topic of ACC, rider training, licensing standards, enforcement standards etc. But that's only because in my past I've seen the topic handled better, albeit in other countries.

Totally agree that we shouldn't be treated any different by ACC on account of our chosen mode of transport. In the interim, on a personal level at least, becoming the best/safest rider one can be seems sensible. Not foolproof obviously :(

[Woodman]

There are some muppets on here that dont want that though as they are too frightened of being at fault themselves.

Not one muppet on here has said that. You are making shit up again.

[Akzle]

You sound like you would agree with me to have all those with a history of at fault crashes paying a higher ACC premium than those with a history of not being at fault. This would see many car drivers paying the same or even more in ACC premiums than large motorbike owners. There are some muppets on here that dont want that though as they are too frightened of being at fault themselves.

you're a fuckwit

[riffer]

I wouldn't Cassina as it goes against the Woodhouse principles, and further turns ACC into an insurance company. Those who create accidents should be charged by Police. If found guilty, they lose licenses and their vehicle insurance is affected. Anything else with ACC opens up the possibility of victims being charged more.

[Frodo]

You guys have it all arse about face.

ACC never used the MLC riders kill themselves argument. They were more concerned that MLC riders cost more because they didn't die. They got injured, and they cost more to rehabilitate - a) because, well, older folk take longer to come right and b) us 50+ riders earn more than some young squid does, generally.

...

Something is wrong here. I said it on the steps of Parliament to hundreds of bikers a few years ago and it's still the same. The government would not ever think of charging women more for ACC because they are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. But still bikers are penalised for being victims.

Sorry for the rant. It's been coming for a while.

Hi Riffer

I think we agree about the statistics.

In terms of the message:

"National road policing manager Superintendent Steve Greally said it was "certainly commonplace" to come across victims who had taken up motorcycling in their later years after coming into some extra cash and had a bit more time on their hands, forgetting that they're a bit slower and the machines they're riding are a lot more powerful." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11767690

"ACC’s Carey Griffiths, Senior Injury Prevention Programme Manager (Motorcycles) [said] “The disturbing feature of these deaths is that the majority involve male riders all over the age of 40. ...This highlights a real issue that we are dealing with. It concerns older male riders who are overly confident and often riding bikes that are beyond their experience and capabilities.” Nearly three quarters (73%) of fatal crashes occur on the open road where a loss of control can be deadly." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1602/S00114/motorcycle-riders-over-40-at-risk.htm

I think these statements are wrong as they equate risk with the absolute number of fatalities / injuries, whereas it should be based on fatalities / injuries per km ridden.

I did my first Ride Forever course the weekend before last. Great course and I learned a lot. Recommended. But I tired of the pro-ACC drivel about how car drivers were subsidising the motorcycle ACC levy.

That said, most days I ride I see bikers riding like idiots.

In short:
- There are a lot of motorcyclists being killed / injured. Too many.
- Compared to other age groups, there are more older bikers dying/injured because there are more older bikers riding more miles. I believe that, on average, older riders are safer than younger riders per mile ridden.
- The ACC levy is based on "no-fault" so includes motorcycle accidents that we ultimately the fault of the other driver. I think this is unfair. The levy should be based on an assessment of who caused the accident.
- Training can help avoid or reduce injury in accidents caused by others
- A lot of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents or are otherwise the fault of the rider. This is, IMHO, caused by reckless behaviour and/or poor skills. The latter can be addressed by training. The former is more difficult ...

[riffer]

Hey Frodo,

it's a no-brainer that the majority of fatalities occur at higher speeds - kinetic energy being half the mass times the speed squared (Ke = 1/2m * v2) so as speed increases there is an exponential effect on kinetic energy - the energy that is available to be expended in the event of the moving mass impacting with another mass. Whether the other mass is moving or not has a bearing on it's kinetic energy. Suffice to say - hit something at 50km/hr you might survive, hit something at 100km/hr you definitely won't.

Carey is a mate, and I've taken him to task on these comments. As usual with reporters, he had a whole lot to say, and they've taken the most salacious bit and only printed that. All the other stuff is lost in the meantime. One of the reasons Carey left the role, I guess. His job has been taken over by Dave Keilty, who's also a mate. It's actually good to know that as motorcyclists we have some of our own in key positions now. Try and ignore what the media say. They really don't understand the topic well. If they reported on finance or weather like they report on motorcycling there would be a roar of prtest country-wide.

We can't also argue that the majority of motorcyclists are older than 40. It stands to reason that if 75% of motorcyclists are over 40, then you'd expect a corresponding injury/death rate among those 75%. Except you don't - we tend to ride safer so our injury and death rates are less than our proportion of the riding population. However, a death is a death.

The motorcycle population has increased a lot in the last five years, and our injury/death rate has gone down. However, as a result of the increasing population of riders, the death rate has remained more or less static - in fact it's climbed slightly. TPTB work in total numbers when it comes to deaths. Personally, I don't put too much stock in deaths. It's the injury rate I really want to look at.

Unfortunately, a number of deaths are single vehicle accidents. However, this does not necessarily mean that the rider was completely at fault. Generally, there is something unexpected that has happened, and the road design/road furniture meant that the accident was not survivable as the road is not safe to any motorcyclist coming off his bike. So, yes, training is a great idea. But it's not the only one.

We need to look at the road design - and I don't just mean the road surface. Some roads encourage people to ride quicker for a while, then present them with a tricky change to conditions - all very well to say ride to the conditions but a 100km/hr road should be maintained to a 100km/hr standard, with, say, a tolerance of 5-10%, meaning that you should be reasonably expected to be able to travel at a speed between 90-100km/hr on it. If there are any sections that are below that speed, then at least 500 metres before the section the speed limit should be reduced to 80km/hr, or even less. That way, you signal beforehand that there is an issue - don't just present the road user with a problem when they were used to a certain speed.

Also, prevent the ability of the road user to fall into the other lane should they come off. Unfortunately, that would mean barriers - and modified cheesecutters could do this, through the introduction of a type of "chicken wire" mechanism to ensure that flying riders don't get sliced. Then we get to the sides of the road with culverts, posts, etc. We need to ensure that these are either covered, like you would in a racetrack, or moved completely so you couldn't hit them.

And then - and this one is the kicker - we need to introduce a kind of RideForever for cars. And make it compulsory at least every ten years - say as part of licence renewal. I don't care if people don't like that - generally those who don't are shit drivers anyway. If there was a RideForever for car drivers I'd do it tomorrow (actually there is, kind of. A group of people I know are trying to convince ACC to take this idea on - they are motorcycle and car instructors who want to make a difference - it would be a practical driving course with an emphasis on hazard avoidance and better driving).

Responding to the fatalities per km ridden. It's very difficult as, as a number of posters have already stated, there are a significant number of riders who don't register their motorcycles. The trick is to get those who - like my father in law does, keep their bikes off the road in winter - undertake some training on re-registration. This could be done by offering them a hand out card at the licence renewal place.

The biggest problem with the training though remains the stubbornness of humans. And I was one too - suspicious about the need for training. After all, I had years of practice on bikes. Actually I may have had years on bikes but I wasn't really learning anything - other than being put on to Keith Code's Twist of the Wrist by a fellow KBer a number of years ago. But I did a RideForever and got hooked. But there are a significant number of 40+ year olds who just don't believe they need training. I hate to generalise, but a number of them ride a particular American manufactured motorcycle. Not all, but a significant amount. Getting into the 1%ers is hard.

The myth about high viz needs to be busted. The driver who pulled out in front of me was colour blind. My bright red Aprilia looked a muddy brown to him, and my high viz vest was like a pale brown. I've had the opportunity to sit in a room and talk to the guy about what happened. It was a genuine mistake - it's really affected my life though. At the very least it will be two years before I can ride again. And there's a big IF there because I have a brachial plexus injury which means half my arm is paralyzed. Still, as I say far too much, because I did the emergency braking training I was able to slow down enough to minimise my hurt. And there's no reason why others can't learn how to do this.

The solutions are there. They are not particularly cheap. And we are up against the inevitable fact that driverless electric vehicles are our future. And the insurance companies and the likes of ACC will ensure that motorcycling on the roads becomes so expensive that the majority of riders won't bother. And collectively we are getting older. My dad can't ride any more due to Parkinsons. He's in his late 70s and would love to ride. There's aren't enough people taking up riding. My son, Pediigru on here, is a notable exception. But he's a 4th generation motorcyclist on my side and 3rd generation on his mum's side. So eventually, there won't be motorcyclists. And it will probably only take a generation or two. So TPTB don't see much need to invest too much money.

We need to convince them that this is a mistake. And we have to start by getting the next generation to ride. And train them as much as possible and teach them how to survive. Because it's worth it. :)

[riffer]

True no one has said exactly that but there has been opposition coments from others to having those at fault paying a higher ACC premium than those not at fault on here. This would work the same way as if you have an at fault crash it is likely your future bike/car premiums will go up. I really dont think the reason as I have speculated for others to oppose such an idea would be for any other reason than fear of being at fault. Such a policy would have a spin off of improving road safety too as people will not want to find their ACC premiums going up for an At Fault crash as well as whatever the court punishment is.

Absolute bollocks.

Firstly, an increase of even 50% to ACC premiums (you really would not be able to charge a higher premium - too many lawyers drive cars).
Secondly, it's going completely against the principles of no-fault. I really can't work out where your brain is at. Your ideas would lead to huge increases to motorcyclists.

Speechless.

[riffer]

How can innocent victims be charged more under what I have suggested? You said your crash was not your fault and because of that it would be the car driver that hit you paying a higher vehicle premium because of it and not you would it not? The same principle could be quite easily applied to ACC I feel. Did it not piss you off that the person who hit you was paying under $200 for their ACC premium while you as a motorcyclist were paying $400 or more for a big bike if it was of a size where such a charge applies?


I'm not a selfish person, like a huge proportion of the public is. I prefer to have premiums shared across all vehicle users. ACC is no fault. Motorcycles should pay the same as other vehicles. Anything else is assigning fault. At the moment, motorcycle ACC levies are a violation of the no-fault ethos of ACC.

No, it didn't piss me off that the person who pulled out in front of me paid less ACC. Just as if their salary was way higher than mine. Mistakes happen. Shit happens. It's how we deal with the shit that's more important.

In answer to your first question, it's because you wish to enshrine the principle that those that are more risky should pay more. It's a policy that has been creeping in more and more and I don't like that. Allowing for certain people to pay more due to their risk assessment (which we currently do a bit) would lead to ACC looking at what bikes people rode, work out that, say GSXR1000s are more likely to be crashed, so they pay $3000 per annum to register their bikes, whether they crash or not.

It's wrong.

[Luckylegs]

I cant work out where your brain is at either from your post #42

Half his brain is probably still in the helmet lining from his accident yet he's still able to string together a coherant and thoughful post.

I guess perhaps your brain is 90% embedded firmly up some random dogs arse.





Youre a fuckwit

[pritch]

I agree with you about ACC imposing an at fault assumption on anyone ridng a bike. ACC currently place all the risk on the size (cc rating) and not model of bike but there are certainly differences in safety too with respect to different classes of bike for example sports bikes have lowered bars which impairs side vision unless you want to sit up and get sore wrists. The other most dangerous bikes are crusiers due to their lack of ground clearance when cornering. Sports bikes would attract the most dangerous riders as guys who buy them buy them for their speed and Rossi wannabe appeal.

OK, so I have just realised that it isn't that you talk a lot of crap. It's that you talk the same crap over and over and over and...

A reminder: the thread was about the statistics presented by a US Govt funded motorcycle advisory body, and Mr Gardiner's personal take on those statistics and how they were interpreted. Nothing therein invites yet another repeat of any of your hackneyed, half witted, theories.

[Akzle]

Finally someone on here who can see a policy of those at fault paying a higher ACC premium than people not at fault being fairer than the discriminatory policy at the moment on the grounds of mode of transport. Some on here are just too frightened to be found at fault to want this sadly. I disagree that training can help you to avoid the screwups of others for the simple reason that it is them and not you that decides the distance and speed of travel when they screw up. I am saying that as a result of being a victim of others screwups myself. Many on here until they experience such a crash just cant understand that.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

I agree with you about ACC imposing an at fault assumption on anyone ridng a bike. ACC currently place all the risk on the size (cc rating) and not model of bike but there are certainly differences in safety too with respect to different classes of bike for example sports bikes have lowered bars which impairs side vision unless you want to sit up and get sore wrists. The other most dangerous bikes are crusiers due to their lack of ground clearance when cornering. Sports bikes would attract the most dangerous riders as guys who buy them buy them for their speed and Rossi wannabe appeal.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

Experience a "not at fault" crash sport and your thinking may be different.

no, i'm pretty sure he'll still think you're a fuckwit.

[pritch]

And from way out of left field - more statistics.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/11/risk-of-fatal-motorcycle-crash-higher-under-a-full-moon-researchers-find

[Akzle]

Or they will think they are just as bad a rider as me for not being able to brake or swerve to avoid the crash despite possibly being a riding school grad.

you are a gluton for abuse aincha.

that, and a massive fuckwit.

[FJRider]

Experience a "not at fault" crash sport and your thinking may be different.

I hadn't realized it was now a sport. You'll be good at that no doubt ... you've had plenty of practice ... :shifty:

[Frodo]

...

We need to look at the road design - and I don't just mean the road surface. Some roads encourage people to ride quicker for a while, then present them with a tricky change to conditions - all very well to say ride to the conditions but a 100km/hr road should be maintained to a 100km/hr standard, with, say, a tolerance of 5-10%, meaning that you should be reasonably expected to be able to travel at a speed between 90-100km/hr on it. If there are any sections that are below that speed, then at least 500 metres before the section the speed limit should be reduced to 80km/hr, or even less. That way, you signal beforehand that there is an issue - don't just present the road user with a problem when they were used to a certain speed.

...

The biggest problem with the training though remains the stubbornness of humans. And I was one too - suspicious about the need for training. After all, I had years of practice on bikes. Actually I may have had years on bikes but I wasn't really learning anything - other than being put on to Keith Code's Twist of the Wrist by a fellow KBer a number of years ago. But I did a RideForever and got hooked. But there are a significant number of 40+ year olds who just don't believe they need training. I hate to generalise, but a number of them ride a particular American manufactured motorcycle. Not all, but a significant amount. Getting into the 1%ers is hard.

The myth about high viz needs to be busted. The driver who pulled out in front of me was colour blind. My bright red Aprilia looked a muddy brown to him, and my high viz vest was like a pale brown. I've had the opportunity to sit in a room and talk to the guy about what happened. It was a genuine mistake - it's really affected my life though. At the very least it will be two years before I can ride again. And there's a big IF there because I have a brachial plexus injury which means half my arm is paralyzed. Still, as I say far too much, because I did the emergency braking training I was able to slow down enough to minimise my hurt. And there's no reason why others can't learn how to do this.


Riffer, a great email that makes important points that I agree with. There are a few I'd like to respond to.

Road design: I agree that some blatant death traps need to be fixed. But its not feasible to make all 100 kph roads suitable for 100 kph at all times in all places. Just like there could be a tractor on the other side of a blind corner, there could also be gravel, a pot hole or diesel. And what is fine for one rider at 100 kph is too fast for another. Your suggestion about setting lower limits to match some arbitrary decision criterion has me concerned. The limit around the north side of Pauatahanui Inlet is now 60 kph, which is ridiculously slow. If ride it safely at 80 kph I stand a good chance of being pinged, given how many cops there are there. The problem was boy racers flying out of corners, but now I am being penalised.

1%ers: age is a simple criterion, but what about those who have base jumping as a second hobby and the other risk takers that enjoy riding. My psychologist brother-in-law tells me about frontal lobes of the brain (responsible for risk awareness and management) not being fully developed by the time most people are 25. He also talks about risk takers being "under-aroused" (nothing to do with sex), that they need higher stimuli to achieve the same level of thrill. It is really difficult to reduce accidents in the second group.

Hi-vis: yes, a driver near Tauranga in good dry, clear conditions with lots of visibility pulled out in front of a truck and trailer unit and was killed. What chance does a mere motorcyclist have to be seen? Nevertheless, after my "incident" with someone who failed to give way a couple of years ago, I installed small, bright LEDs mounted on the base of my indicator stalks. These form a triangle with my headlight and give a better perception of movement than a single headlight. But no hi-vis for me...

Motorcyclists are more susceptible to dodgy road conditions and more vulnerable when they collide with a vehicle or something at the side of the road. Good safety gear (I was overtaken in the left by a guy riding an SV1000 on the Kapiti expressway this morning - he was wearing shorts) and good training will help reduce accidents and their severity. But the risk will not disappear. I must admit to being peeved by the imbalance of ACC levies and the argument that car drivers are subsidising bikes. Raising the levy for those individuals at fault in more accidents will require huge costs in lawyers and experts determining fault (my daughter was knocked off her bicycle by a car that ran a red light in Canada - three years later she has not seen a cent of compensation and her lawyer will take a third of the payout).

Perhaps getting cars and bikes to pay the same levy would send a signal to car drivers: you want a lower levy, then look out for bikes.

[FJRider]

We need to look at the road design

Bullshit.

The most recent SAFEST roads built and recently opened ... have a set speed limit of 110 km/hr. Simply because there are too many people on the roads believing that 100 km/hr is safe (in/on whatever vehicle they are in control of) because that is the set limit. As do those that ignore warning signs near corners. This road being two lanes in each direction with all the barriers ... how long before the first motorist dies on it ... bets anyone .. ???

There is (and always will be) a large portion of public (sealed) highways that are unsafe / impossible to travel at or near 100 km/hr.


You think dumbing down the NZ roading system is really a valid response to the road death toll ... ???

[eldog]

Bullshit.

The most recent SAFEST roads built and recently opened ... have a set speed limit of 110 km/hr. Simply because there are too many people on the roads believing that 100 km/hr is safe (in/on whatever vehicle they are in control of) because that is the set limit. As do those that ignore warning signs near corners. This road being two lanes in each direction with all the barriers ... how long before the first motorist dies on it ... bets anyone .. ???

There is (and always will be) a large portion of public (sealed) highways that are unsafe / impossible to travel at or near 100 km/hr.


You think dumbing down the NZ roading system is really a valid response to the road death toll ... ???

i doubt riffer is referring to dumbing down the road everywhere.
just start to cleanup some of the death traps, here and there.

Not everyone should travel at the speed target. Some can’t handle it. Some roads aren’t suited. some can’t recognise these facts.

i have been on one of those ‘safe roads’, all I remember is the cheese cutters and it would be useful if you wanted a straight trip. I do prefer the back roads if I have time.

[awayatc]

Experience a "not at fault" crash sport and your thinking may be different.

You are a fuckwit......

The biggest one ever

[Old Steve]

Actually, I quite accept the ACC levy for motorcyclists. We do have more accidents, and it's more expensive to repair us.

I've been the recipient over the last year of ACC's payment to my upkeep, surgery, recovery and physiotherapy following my accident. Yeah, the accident was caused by a taxi driver who was convicted of careless use causing an accident and leaving the scene, but I still received 80% of my wages following the accident and surgery, surgery at a private hospital and physiotherapy to build up my wasted muscles. I was lucky that I could work from home over most of the time I was off work, I worked an hour or so every day on the computer and the company paid me the remainder of my salary.

I have also done a couple of Ride Forever courses, and swear by them. In the event of my accident I slowed down before the side street because there could be cars coming out of it, but the taxi driver turned across me from the right turning into the side street and stopped right in front of me blocking 3/4 of the lane. I went around the front of him, but the bike lifted as it went over the camber of the side street (I can remember thinking, "I'm going to high side, how is that happening") and the loss of traction caused the bike to low side. Without the side street camber I think I would have made it around the front of the taxi and back into the lane, maybe, maybe not.

If I'd been in a car I'd have braked, gone straight into the side of the taxi, and the seat belt and air bag would have saved me from injury. But we motorcyclists are more exposed than a car driver, so we get injured more and it takes more time and money to fix us up. I also think there are more single motorcycle crashes than there are single car crashes. Of the three motorcycle crashes I've come upon, all were single bike crashes, one at 30 - 40 km/hr at a roundabout and two at 100 km/hr on a straight road.

So, my personal experience is the ACC does a good job for a fair price, I'm still about 4 to 1 in my favour over the ACC. And everyone should take a Ride Forever course just to top up what they know, or think they know, already.

[Viking01]

"Lets say I was at fault and knocked you or one of the others who are happy
paying higher ACC than car owners on here off with my big 4WD, will you or
one of the others happy with the ACC fee structure still be happy or would
you start thinking about the current fee structure as being unfair I wonder?"


Why do you think that raising the ACC levy for at-fault drivers is going to
make a difference to their daily driving behaviours ?

What level do you think the levy needs to be raised (or raised to) before
drivers or riders will modify their behaviour on a permanent basis?

Which do you think is going to be more productive re improving road safety
longer term: an increased financial penalty after the fact (in terms of an
increased ACC levy), or action to try and achieve better driver habits through
training?


If you knocked me down in your SUV - assuming you were at-fault and that
I survived, I'd much rather (i) that you had some decent driver training in the
first place (ii) that you'd pay more attention to the task in hand on a regular
basis.

[Old Steve]

What he said.

Yeah, at what level would car drivers pay attention, look over their shoulder when changing lane, not text while driving, etc.

Look, its just my personal opinion based on my own experience. After years in the engineering industry I've learned that the simplest way may not be the best but its always the simplest. The current ACC levy isn't fair, but it works and there was enough money there to fix me up. And no-one is looking at ways to alter our accident statistics that may restrict our enjoyment of our riding. Our safety is our concern and we should be training ourselves rigorously to improve our chances of survival.

If you don't agree with me, and many of you don't, then we must agree to differ. If you do gain some reduction in our ACC levies without incurring restrictions to our riding freedom, then I'll accept them and thank you graciously for your hard work.

[Voltaire]

I was in the SI the last two weeks and one day riding down the Molesworth a lamb ran out in front of me and I had to reduce my speed using both the front and rear brakes to avoid it.

My question is:
How many posts can I use this story in?

[SVboy]

If you or any others on here are worried about your survival on a bike you need to seriously think about giving up riding. I can remember my parents telling me a number of times over the years when I was younger how they heard of guys giving up riding because of the risk but if you think going to riding school will make to just as safe as giving up good luck with that.

I would imagine your parents were only too keen to see you on a bike as soon as possible and with as little training as possible. Say hi to your mum from me, will you sport?

[Viking01]

Vehicle insurance companies if you did not know impose higher premiums for those that have a history of being at fault and you will find they ask you to state all at fault crashes when you apply. By doing this they are able to keep premiums for all others lower. So if such a system can be applied to vehicle insurance why not ACC? What you are saying if I applied your logic to vehicle insurance this means you would prefer to see everyone paying the same amount which would be much higher irrespective of how many at fault crashes have been had in a year?

I personally would be far more motivated to change my driver behaviour if I was at fault in a crash if I knew my ACC would rise over training as I would end up being charged with a specific offence and unless I disputed it what good would training be if I had already been told by the police/court what I did wrong? Some of us have the ability to "self correct" our "on road behaviour" and if this was not the case whenever we get stopped for a driving offense we would be ordered to go to a driving/riding school instead of being fined would we not.?

As for what level of ACC premium it would take to change driver behaviour it would depend on what they earn I guess. Occasionally there are stories in the media about countries that have a lower crash rate than ours and it would be interesting to know if they have greater financial disincentives than NZ to achieve this.


Why don't you just answer the actual questions asked, instead of avoiding
them (or wandering off on a tangent each time). Every time !

We're not talking about insurance companies. I'm perfectly familiar with
insurance company behaviours (having worked for two, as well as at ACC
in the past).

we're talking about the ACC Scheme !


Your supposition was that "a rise in ACC levy would somehow modify driver
or rider behaviour in a positive manner".

Explain to me how this phenomenon would work. And at what threshold
$ value it would trigger.

Because I can think of other behaviours that it would more likely drive -
and improved driver or rider behaviour isn't one of them !



"I personally would be far more motivated to change my driver behaviour
if I was at fault in a crash if I knew my ACC would rise" ....

What utter bollocks !!

Given that your behaviour - as a driver or rider - is probably affected
by all of (i) Experience (ii) Education (iii) Enforcement Regime (3E's)
to varying degrees, the Enforcement Regime is probably the factor that
would contribute least to a positive improvement in your driving or your
riding behaviour in the future. [ Ignore confiscating your vehicle ]

The fact that you had caused (or significantly contributed) to a non-fatal
accident would be far more front-of-mind and far more sobering upon your
future driving or riding behaviour. [ Experience ]

Whether you then chose to seek some driver or rider training - to improve
your game - would be up to you. [ Education ]



"As for what level of ACC premium it would take to change driver behaviour
it would depend on what they earn, I guess".

You guess ? You're the one telling the story. You're the one that's been
saying that an increase in ACC levy is "the answer".

Your supposition (again) was that "a rise in ACC levy would somehow modify
driver or rider behaviour in a positive manner".

Are you now trying to tell me that it might not be as effective as you had
thought, because of driver or rider earning capacity or willingness to pay ?

Are you trying to tell me that there might be some unintended side-effects ?



"Occasionally there are stories in the media about countries that have a
lower crash rate than ours, and it would be interesting to know if they have
greater financial disincentives than NZ to achieve this".

Yes, there are often stories in the media. Every day. And occasionally there
are studies with reviewed and published findings. Which (sometimes) make
interesting reading.

So, why don't YOU go and do a little online research yourself (say Finland or
Sweden, for example) ?

Why don't YOU find some studies that support your assertion ?

And when YOU have, why don't YOU come back and tell us what they concluded
(i.e. whether an increase in fines or other financial penalty was deemed to be the
most productive avenue to go down, bearing in mind a goal of improved road safety).

[Moi]

Who was the previous minister for ACC who wanted to change ACC so it resembled an insurance company so it could be sold off?

Who on this site is always going on about making ACC more like an insurance company? If you're at fault you pay more...

Is there a connection between the two?

Have I stumbled onto the true identity of the "C" person?

[nerrrd]

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been.

It might actually be being done already everywhere else in the world, since our ACC system is pretty unique. Is it a factor in reducing crashes in other countries? Someone could probably look up some statistics.

[pritch]

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been. When it has been tried and if it fails I only then will agree with you.
.

Again, you miss the point. ACC is a no fault, no liability scheme. That's at the very foundation of it - and that's a good thing. Previously we had to prove someone else was at fault and then take them to court to seek damages. If the other driver wasn't prosecuted because the Police attended the accident and couldn't be bothered prosecuting, you were just shit out of luck. Back then you had to get the Transport Dept to attend to get a prosecution, if that was appropriate, but not everybody knew that.

So a guy broke his ankle trying to jump a wall to escape prison and he got ACC. There was an uproar, but the moaners missed the point too. ACC is a no fault, no liability, scheme and the benefits that provides outweigh the bad points like some twat prisoner getting free treatment for his busted ankle.

Your proposal to financially punish miscreant drivers goes totally against the very basis of the scheme. Until that changes your idea is therefore completely unrealistic.

[Viking01]

I am sorry that you can not comprehend my analogy with how vehicle insurance companies work with respect to their higher premiums for those at fault and how I could see it easily applying to ACC.

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been. When it has been tried and if it fails I only then will agree with you.
You are another muppet who likes claiming just because i was an innocent victim in a crash you call me a "significant contributor" You are another one on here that needs to experience a "not at fault crash" before you "grow a brain" and see my logic.


Is there a "shaking one's head in wonder" icon on here somewhere ?


"I am sorry that you can not comprehend my analogy ..."

I have no problem with understanding either a direct ACC levy increase, or
your insurance analogy.

I'm just objecting to you using the "insurance analogy" to argue a course of
action for ACC. They're different business models with completely different
business and social objectives.



"To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, ... "

Again, you chose to put words in people's mouths to suit your needs.

But why implement a course of action [ levy increase ] when you know that there
are better methods [ Improved education ] for achieving improvement in outcome
[ safer riding and fewer injuries ] across a driving / riding population ?



"You are another muppet who likes claiming just because i was an innocent
victim in a crash... "

I have no in-depth knowledge of any of your [4] accidents, other than comments
you've made in respect to the bridge and dog incidents. So I've not made any
claims as to your possible innocence or culpability.



"You are another one on here that needs to experience a "not at fault crash"
before you "grow a brain" and see my logic".

Why ?

I do my best to avoid accidents in the first place, through increased education
and safe riding practices.

And while it's no guarantee to my future longlevity, it helps improve my odds.

[Moi]

ACC needs to do a survey to find out how many motorcyclists would prefer a person weighted premium over a mode of transport weighted premium and i bet if this was done most would be in favour of it being person based just like vehicle insurance is. The end result and it would be set so there was no loss of income to ACC would see some car drivers paying similar premiums to what motorcyclists pay or even more.

I'm sure it's been said before, but just in case it hasn't...

if you pay a PREMIUM then you are buying insurance, however ACC charges a LEVY because it is not an insurance

Stop talking as if it is an insurance, accept that it is NOT an insurance...

Also accept that, I'd suggest, the majority of NZers prefer ACC to remain as a "no fault" compensation scheme even if we do grumble about it from time to time.

[Banditbandit]

Well the no fault policy needs to change then and if you try and think about it which I know is hard for some on here, they have already changed their no fault practise but rather place it on the person, have placed it on their mode of transport motorbikes. If the situation was changed where the police no longer attened crashes which I doubt would ever happen we now have dash cam technology at our disposal to aid estabishing proof of fault.

You're still a fuckwit ...

And the no fault scheme was accompanied by forbidding court prosecutions in such cases

If we change that we will be like the USA - where people get sued for anything from standing on a person's foot to breathing germs ..

[Banditbandit]

ACC needs to do a survey to find out how many motorcyclists would prefer a person weighted premium over a mode of transport weighted premium and i bet if this was done most would be in favour of it being person based just like vehicle insurance is. The end result and it would be set so there was no loss of income to ACC would see some car drivers paying similar premiums to what motorcyclists pay or even more.

That suggestion was made to ACC - tag it to the licence, not the vehicle - then higher levies could be imposed on those who crash a lot

ACC turned it down

[Voltaire]

ACC give me great rates on some of my bikes, I think my weekend go to bike is less than $60 a year to register.:banana:

Must be the additional safety of under 50 BHP and Lockheed brake.:lol:

[Moi]

So if the payment is compulsory its called a Levy but if its not its called a Premium (private insurance payment definition). Which ever of the 2 you prefer to call your payments it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I am debating in that motorcycle ACC "levies" to use a word you better understand are set at an unfair level for those of us with a no "at fault" history...

The levy is not compulsory. You do not HAVE to pay the levy on your vehicle's annual licence. You can "not licence your vehicle" and so avoid paying the levy. However, by doing that you can not use your vehicle on a public road.

It is a levy because that is what it is called in the ACC Act. I strongly suspect the Owen Woodhouse used that word to show that it was a compensation scheme and not an insurance policy.

You are not really arguing that the levies [please not the spelling of the plural] are "set at an unfair level for those of us with a no "at fault" history". I'd suggest you are arguing that you have been unfairly treated by having to pay such levies.

Before we go any further... have you ever claimed for ACC as a result of any of your "not at fault" crashes?

If you have claimed and been treated to medical care and wage compensation by ACC then I'd suggest that you are being grossly ingenuous - in other words a whining little weasel!


Private insurance rewards those with no fault by charging lower premiums and you for some warped reason think because ACC is compulsory there is no way it can change from a mode of transport based fee structure to an at fault based fee structure so those not at fault can be charged less...

My reasoning is not warped... but my "does not tolerate fools gladly" has been known to go into warp-drive...

Please read my comment above about "being compulsory"...

As I am sure has been explained before, the way that ACC sets levies is set out in the Act under which it operates. The corporation is also directed by the Minister as to how it should act. The way the Act is written means that the levies are set in a particular manner which is different to the manner in which insurance companies set their premiums. If ACC was to change to a "not at fault" charging methodology then the Act would need to be amended.


... I think some years back ACC introduced lower levies for industries that were claim free. So if that is true there is your proof ACC can change their fee structure for motorists too.

It possibly did do so... however, it would be for a group - read for that, forestry workers - rather than for individuals. I think it was not so much "claim free" but rather that the injuries those involved in that industry suffered cost less to rehabilitate than the cost for those injured in other industries.

Finally, this thread was an interesting, thoughtful and though-provoking discussion until you came along and started on your " mid-life crisis" and/or "not at fault" mantras. I have bitten my tongue over your continual rabbiting on until I could no longer suffer either the pain in my tongue or the blood in my mouth... If you have something to say, please make it worthwhile and on-topic or keep out of the discussion.

[Viking01]

Motorcycles - See items 66 onwards.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/employment-and-skills/Cabinet%20paper%202017-18%20and%202018-19%20ACC%20Levies.pdf

[Akzle]

I am sorry that you can not comprehend my analogy with how vehicle insurance companies work with respect to their higher premiums for those at fault and how I could see it easily applying to ACC.

To say a higher ACC premium will never work for those at fault, in altering their behaviour we will never know though UNLESS ITS TRIED which it has never been. When it has been tried and if it fails I only then will agree with you.
You are another muppet who likes claiming just because i was an innocent victim in a crash you call me a "significant contributor" You are another one on here that needs to experience a "not at fault crash" before you "grow a brain" and see my logic.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

If you found this thread only interesting untill I came into it I have to question your logic in wasting your time replying to any of my comments then and the in-depth technobabble replies you have made? I can only assume you work as a beurocrat in some organization with the way you comprehend.

you're a fuckwit

[Akzle]

That is the only good thing about the current system in that if either of us screw up and crash into someone else we are not going to lose our houses over it. I dont know why you think things would go that way if a simple "at fault" levy was put on all those at fault though. In the meantime expect road safety to never improve. I read in an article once that life was cheap on NZ roads and if we dont lose our houses if we screw up bad enough it just proves it is.

you're a fuckwit

[FJRider]

i doubt riffer is referring to dumbing down the road everywhere.
just start to cleanup some of the death traps, here and there.

Not everyone should travel at the speed target. Some can’t handle it. Some roads aren’t suited. some can’t recognise these facts.

i have been on one of those ‘safe roads’, all I remember is the cheese cutters and it would be useful if you wanted a straight trip. I do prefer the back roads if I have time.

Dumb down the roads and the end result is dumbing down the vehicle operators ... and some are dumb enough already.

Regardless of road conditions ... many wont know what the facts are. Or care. Until they prang. Then ... the "I wasn't speeding" line is heard.

There have been quite a few threads started in these forums about "their" crash ... with all the blame going in every direction but inwards.

Every road is safe if you ride and drive it to the (road) conditions on the day. Riding(or driving) any road ... while assuming it is in the same condition as the last time you rode (or drove) it (at speed) two years previous ... is expecting a lot.

I worry about stuff ON the road ... not the stuff off the road. The stuff on the road is more likely to give me trouble.

If I have time ... I take the long way.

[FJRider]

That is the only good thing about the current system in that if either of us screw up and crash into someone else we are not going to lose our houses over it. I dont know why you think things would go that way if a simple "at fault" levy was put on all those at fault though.

There is two actually ... one called "Fines" and the other "reparation" ... with a possible addition of court costs ...


In the meantime expect road safety to never improve. I read in an article once that life was cheap on NZ roads and if we dont lose our houses if we screw up bad enough it just proves it is.

Roads are only as safe as those using it ... we look at your advice on road craft ... and cringe.

And by the way ... You are a fuckwit ...

[FJRider]

If you found this thread only interesting untill I came into it I have to question your logic in wasting your time replying to any of my comments then and the in-depth technobabble replies you have made? I can only assume you work as a beurocrat in some organization with the way you comprehend.

From your logic ... you must work in a kindergarten ...

[Woodman]

No I am just not into bullshit like so many on here.

You only talk bullshit so you saying you are not into bullshit is bullshit. You are not even entertaining any more. Oh, and I gladly pay my ACC levy.

[Akzle]

No I am just not into bullshit like so many on here.

yeah right. bullshit is all you ever post!

you're a fuckwit

[Murray]

Motorcycles - See items 66 onwards.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/employment-and-skills/Cabinet%20paper%202017-18%20and%202018-19%20ACC%20Levies.pdf

Love item 70 -what a load of crap

[FJRider]

No I am just not into bullshit like so many on here.

You wouldn't know bullshit if you stood in it. You're a fuckwit.

[Moi]

You wouldn't know bullshit if you stood in it. You're a fuckwit.

Cowshit is useful on a cold morning and you have bare feet...

[awayatc]

no 71.....

Investment in the Ride Forever skills training programme has seen 7,950 riders
participate in the skills training programme since 2013. Preliminary results are very
encouraging with a 50% reduction in entitlement claims and a 24% reduction in
medical fees, per 1,000 riders.


now imagine if everybody would be doing skill training.....

not only motorcyclistas, but also cagers.

that would at least be a start....

[Black Knight]

$16 mil in the levy fund with only $3 mil due to be spent,and its dropped from $30 to $25,whoop de fuckin' do.

[caspernz]

Motorcycles - See items 66 onwards.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/employment-and-skills/Cabinet%20paper%202017-18%20and%202018-19%20ACC%20Levies.pdf

At least they're admitting the Rideforever program is showing results aye?


no 71.....

Investment in the Ride Forever skills training programme has seen 7,950 riders
participate in the skills training programme since 2013. Preliminary results are very
encouraging with a 50% reduction in entitlement claims and a 24% reduction in
medical fees, per 1,000 riders.


now imagine if everybody would be doing skill training.....

not only motorcyclistas, but also cagers.

that would at least be a start....

Yes and item 72 stood out for me, have heard rumours to such an extent, now to see/hear what develops.

[rastuscat]

Congratulations to those committed enough to trawl through government discussion documents looking for the relevant bits.

You have more patience than me.