ACC Levies - A resource thread

[Ixion]

EXCELLENT!

That shows that about 50000 bikes are 600 cc or bigger. That is, about two thirds of them

MoT motorcycle crash statistics show that about 38% of crashes involved bikes 750cc or larger (they don't split at 600cc but the extra 601 to 750 is going to be small. . Say even 45% for over 600cc).

So, big bikes crash LESS proportionately.

66% of the bike fleet. 45% (say) of the crashes

ANOTHER ACC LIE.

[Mystic13]

I've been re-reading and filtering through the ACC site and I missed the background papers. There are more ACC quoted stats in their including the figures quoted by politicians.

So it's these categories;

Consultation documents 2010-2011
Introduction to Levy consultation 2010-11 (PDF 188K)
Levy rates for motorists - Levy consultation 2010/11 (PDF 365K)
Background papers to Levy consultation 2010/11 (DOC 30K)

At this link.

http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/le...ex.htm#P15_801

I am going to send in another submission because they ask specifically for comment on increasing the fuel levy by between 2 and 3 cents and so far as a group we haven't commented on that. I think they should look for their funds there and drop the bike rego to the same as cars.

[Ixion]

There is a massive anomaly

According to http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/gr...ctrb118085.pdf

The claim frequency for bikes is (as a percentage of that for cars)

0-125 cc(mainly mopeds) 285%
126 - 600cc 443%
601+ 331%

Now, those seem sane figures to me. They equate well to our own figures based on MoT stats, that show bike crashes at about 3 to 4 times those of cars

And, BTW totally give the lie to the "bikes are 16 x as dangerous", because if they were we would have a 16x claim frequency !

But - the anomaly

Same document (all this is on P29 BTW) shows the cost per claim, again as a percentage of car :

0-125 cc(mainly mopeds) 146%
126 - 600cc 187%
601+ 369%

The variation between the three I can understand . Big bikes cost more, probably will be ridden by people with higher incomes than small bike riders, and higher incomes means more ERC costs when they crash.

BUT - this (familiar) document, also ACC's own issue shows as as costing , on average , 20% or so LESS than cars.

Since all the size categories are showing as higher than cars, the two are irreconcilable.

Since the latter doc actually gives numbers (our well known 62million) whereas the first document just plucks a percentage out of this air, I think we are entitled to claim that the one in our favour should be sued.

But I don't see where the anomaly comes from.

Anyone ?

[R-Soul]

when the ACC was first mooted, the principle of "No fault, no sueing" was used to get our support for it.

A noble cause that frees up our court systems for more useful endeavours.

In effect, the government said, "we will take away your right to sue, and in return, we will makes ure that you are looked after - and no fault applies". the no fault principle is important. Let me explain what happens in a normal privatised insurance system.

Individuals pay premiums according to group risk. The group risk can be affected by individual factors such as safety record (no claims bonuses etc), age, disabilities, and others. In an insurance contract, you hand over (called "abrogating") your right to sue to the insurer. In the event of another's fault, they will be able to sue on your behalf to reclaim at least part of the costs that paid to you. This abrogation allows them to reduce premiums because they will make less of a loss (on average) when claims happen.

BUT now the government has taken away our right to sue, which means it cannot be abrogated to the insurers. and the ACC now wants to make us pay what are in effect insurance premiums to them, taking our risk as a group into account. BUT fault is not dealt with as it is a "no fault" scheme. That means that they have taken away our rights to be able to reduce our final payout (by sueing), while still holding us liable and making us pay as a group for the risk. They cannot have both.

I really think this legal aspect could be against human rights, and is clearly unfair. If the government wants to go ahead with this, we as a group should insist on having the right to sue back - which will open up a bigger can of worms than the government may be ready to deal with.

Most importantly, the cage drivers will be wary of this as well, since any one of the accidents caused by them will now be a potential massive liability for them. If this is the altrernative, I think they would rather subsidise us by $77 a year than face a massive payout if they hit a scooter in the morning traffic.

Of course, there may be dfferences between the way that insurance contracts and medical insurance contracts work (which may operate very differently) where abrogation may not come into it.

But the same principle applies, we lost our rights in order to gain from the broad general principles of the ACC as a trade off. If those broad general principles of the ACC are now being violated, then we want our right to sue back.

[Howie]

I got sent an e-mail today from an organisation calling themselves ACC Futures Coalition. They attached a newsletter explaining who they are, and why they set the organisation up. Which was originally to fight the privatisation of the ACC work account. In this newsletter they are now asking for all sporting, recreation, and other interested groups to join them. Quote from newsletter below.

"We need all Organisations who may be affected by this privatisation agenda, including sports groups, recreation groups, tourism groups, small businesses etc. to join the coalition. Circulate this newsletter and encourage interested organisations to contact us on info@accfutures.org.nz "

The web site has some interesting links, and resources on it as well although I think we have found most of them already.

The website for those interested is http://www.accfutures.org.nz/index.html

I have attached a word copy of the e-mail. if anybody would like the full newsletter forwarded to them please pm a e-mail address to me.

Cheers

Paul

[Ixion]

Hm.

NZCTU. And Hazel Armstrong. They've got some big guns there. Ms Armstrong is a very highly respected ACC lawyer. She was on the ACC board until the recent purge.

Interesting.

[mashman]

There is a massive anomaly

But I don't see where the anomaly comes from.

Anyone ?

Yeah, i'll have a go. ACC tell you about how to read their statistics here http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00066. If they use these reporting parameters then you have your answer. I paid particular attention to the points:

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

and

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

Do some sums with those variances and see what you get. I think it's your anomaly

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Do some sums with those variances and see what you get. I think it's your anomaly

may be part of it but means they can't get accurate stats and even then still doesn't add up

[Ixion]

I found the reason for the anomaly , after discussion with an ACC dude.

The figures used in the capacity calculations are a (non random) subset.

They are only serious crashes! No wonder they are higher.

The selection bias is because, for the capacity calculations , they linked to the Police CAS system , which is the only place they can get the capcity figures.

Then tried to match up the ACC crash record with the police record. Only a quarter matched.

Since Police attend serious crashes but (usually) not minor ones, the police recorded crashes will be those where there are serious injuries .

For teh cars they just took the total number of crashes.

[mashman]

may be part of it but means they can't get accurate stats and even then still doesn't add up

That's the whole point. They're making policy decisions based on the wrong figures. How distorted you'll never know unless ya get in there and start hammering the numbers. But hey, they have their excuses so it's alright, business as usual, move along...

[mashman]

I found the reason for the anomaly , after discussion with an ACC dude.

The figures used in the capacity calculations are a (non random) subset.

They are only serious crashes! No wonder they are higher.

The selection bias is because, for the capacity calculations , they linked to the Police CAS system , which is the only place they can get the capcity figures.

Then tried to match up the ACC crash record with the police record. Only a quarter matched.

Since Police attend serious crashes but (usually) not minor ones, the police recorded crashes will be those where there are serious injuries .

For teh cars they just took the total number of crashes.

I'm not surprised their reports are wrong if they calculate figures using their user guide in the link above. You can make some fantastic numbers calculating statistics this way. What's more they told you that they're doing it, so its legal?

[Hanne]

(Mods please move if wrong place)

Flyer to print two per page and use at events

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Ideas of ACC Funding

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

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

A 2.5% increase in GST, to 15%, would then easily raise around $10 - 15 billion which is what ACC requires.
If only 1% was added to GST ACC would be fully funded in 2 or three years. If GST went to 15% ACC would be fully funded in one year and could then be dropped back back to 1% to carry it on.

There have been many ideas running about to ease the pain of the transistion, a few more if GST is not raised.

• Levy Drivers license - Maybe $50 a per year.

• We could put flat fee ACC levy on all vehicles bought including boats, trailers and caravans. Even if it is only $50. This is done on change of registration and ownership.

• Make all farm vehicles warrantable considering they are carry people about the farm.

• Levy on traffic infrigement which must be paid even if the actual infringement is dropped. (if 100% would generate 650million the entire traffic account in 2008 was 635 million.)

• Flat fee on WOF's (say $5 or $10) on all warrantable vehicles and trailers. ie 2,919,151 vehicles (again not not counting trucks or the extra above etc and assuming that all these are once a year, but there will be a good percentage that are every 6 months.) 2,919,151 x $5 = $14,595,755 or $29,191,510 if it was $10. If using the whole fleet and trailers and caravans etc this would be $49 million.

• Increase levy on fuel. Not much even if only 5c a litre.

Adding these up would generate 1.4 billion dollars twice as much as the traffic account is now.

The above suggestions targets the arguements and means the victim isn't paying. Targeting those that cause the problems on our roads. ie; drunk drivers that we do catch.

[RobP]

Hi all,

I’m sure most us would have read David Hough's book “Proficient Motorcycling”, which makes frequent references to the Hurt Report. To the best of my knowledge, this is still one of the only comprehensive studies into motorcycle accidents, and although dated, still might have some relevant today?

Now, it’s been a while since I read the book, but I do vaguely recall that the Hurt Report found that:

1) Most motorcycle accidents were actually caused by the other vehicle not seeing the bike; and
2) That larger bikes actually had less accidents

Given that we know that ACC’s statistics are not stacking up (and that a lot of the time the police don’t actually record the cc rating of a bike involved in an accident), perhaps a proper scientific report like the Hurt Report could be used to bolster our case?

For anyone who’s interested, you can download the Hurt Report here:

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf

It’s quite long (435 pages) and I haven’t finished reading it yet, but it seems to have some useful info in there…

Hope this helps!

Rob

[Mom]

Hm.

NZCTU. And Hazel Armstrong. They've got some big guns there. Ms Armstrong is a very highly respected ACC lawyer. She was on the ACC board until the recent purge.

Interesting.

I just talked to her.