Vote NO on stuff.co.nz

**Griffin** · 16th October 2009, 15:46

Originally Posted by Katman

38% of 67 is approx. 25

I'm happy with my maths.

Hmmm... your maths or your calculator? Its all semantics anyway... what matters is getting the message across that whatever the percentages... $750 a year is a bloody rip.

**kwaka_crasher** · 16th October 2009, 16:37

Originally Posted by Katman

38% of 67 is approx. 25

I'm happy with my maths.

Yes, 38% of 67% is ~25%. Except that you're doing the calculation wrong.

You're multiplying the percentage of all accidents where primary responsibility lies with the motorcyclist by the percentage of single vehicle accidents involving motorcyclists to get your 25% - it doesn't work like that. You only multiply the percentages within a group to analyse trends within that group. The percentages need to be added together to analyse the group within the entire sample.

Try this:

50% of the population are Male.
Of that 50%, 25% have a specific gene.

Of the 50% of the population that isn't male, 40% have the same gene.

So what percentage of the population have the gene?

It isn't 65% because that's more than half, yet in both halfs of the sample the incidence is less than half. It's 32.5%.

Don't believe me? Say the population is 1000. That's 500 Males. That's 500 x 25% = 125 Males with the gene. Thus 500 Females. 500 x 40% = 200. Total: 125 + 200 = 325 of the population of 1000. 32.5%.

**kwaka_crasher** · 16th October 2009, 16:39

Originally Posted by Griffin

Hmmm... your maths or your calculator? Its all semantics anyway... what matters is getting the message across that whatever the percentages... $750 a year is a bloody rip.

How do you know that if you don't know what we're actually costing, due to our own fault?

**Griffin** · 16th October 2009, 16:50

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

How do you know that if you don't know what we're actually costing, due to our own fault?

Because the fact of the matter is that the true cost is impossible to know. It is a constant variable. What it cost last year wont be what it costs this year - unless each year we recreate exactly the same accidents and injuries.

So then you could argue that we look historically and work out an average per year cost. Great. Now, how is it that we must all foot this bill yet the thousands of people who injure themselves in activities that arent levied get the scheme for scot free.

No matter how you slice it, the system can never be truly fair - but, increasing one section of societies costs by 200% is definitely not a way to deal with it.

**Griffin** · 16th October 2009, 17:00

Hahaha... we get back in the lead and... woops - wheres it gone. GOOD ON YA FAIRFAX.

**Reckless** · 16th October 2009, 17:04

What where the final figures anyone get a glimpse just before they pulled it!!!!

**sammcj** · 16th October 2009, 17:12

Originally Posted by Reckless

What where the final figures anyone get a glimpse just before they pulled it!!!!

over 140,000 votes haha...

**kwaka_crasher** · 16th October 2009, 17:14

Originally Posted by Griffin

Because the fact of the matter is that the true cost is impossible to know. It is a constant variable. What it cost last year wont be what it costs this year - unless each year we recreate exactly the same accidents and injuries.

It's fairly predictable if the correct variables are used and trends correctly identified.

Originally Posted by Griffin

So then you could argue that we look historically and work out an average per year cost. Great. Now, how is it that we must all foot this bill yet the thousands of people who injure themselves in activities that arent levied get the scheme for scot free.

Historical average is no good. It needs to be a number of variables correctly weighted and factored.

Originally Posted by Griffin

No matter how you slice it, the system can never be truly fair - but, increasing one section of societies costs by 200% is definitely not a way to deal with it.

Absolutely. The question needs asking, how much did the crashes where the rider carried sole responsibility actually cost. Then the crashes where the rider carried primary responsibility and what percentage of responsibility was allocated them. Then, and only then, can we actually get a true picture of the situation where ACC is coming from and if it's fair.

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

**Katman** · 16th October 2009, 17:16

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

Yes, 38% of 67% is ~25%. Except that you're doing the calculation wrong.

Lets pretend there's 100 motorcycle accidents.

According to the figures given, 67 of them would be a multi vehicle accident.

Therefore the 33 others are the motorcyclists fault.

Of the 67 multi vehicle accidents 62% of them are the fault of the other vehicle i.e. approx. 42 of them.

Therefore the 25 others are the motorcyclists fault.

33 + 25 = 58

Clear now?

(But what about the multi vehicle accidents that are bike versus bike?)

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

What's the bet that even if you did, you couldn't work out the figures?

**Reckless** · 16th October 2009, 17:18

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

Absolutely. The question needs asking, how much did the crashes where the rider carried sole responsibility actually cost. Then the crashes where the rider carried primary responsibility and what percentage of responsibility was allocated them. Then, and only then, can we actually get a true picture of the situation where ACC is coming from and if it's fair.

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

Sounds like your a good man to check all the info on this thread Kwaka!!

Cheers!

**sammcj** · 16th October 2009, 17:19

Are you questioning Fairfax's integrity?
don't you know Fairfax are always neutral and unbiased, they never preach opinion as fact and would certainly never lean towards the conservative right...

[Yeah, Right]

**Griffin** · 16th October 2009, 17:21

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

Absolutely. The question needs asking, how much did the crashes where the rider carried sole responsibility actually cost. Then the crashes where the rider carried primary responsibility and what percentage of responsibility was allocated them. Then, and only then, can we actually get a true picture of the situation where ACC is coming from and if it's fair.

What's the bet you simply can't get that information?

The question also needs to be asked... how much of other peoples irresponsibility or fault in an accident should you and I expect to carry the can for? So 50 bikers have accidents that can be blamed soley on them. You and I arent one of those 50... every year we are paying extortionate fees to cover them. I accept it is possible that I could have an accident where Im at fault... but what if I go through my life without having one... what am I paying for?