Stats for submissions

[YellowDog]

And that "Motorcycle" stat also includes scooters who are getting an increase that is well overdue in my opinion......

The scooter argument is quite interesting.

I have seen with amazement just how fast some <200cc scooters can accelerate and attempt corners with those little wheels.

When compared with something like a Boulevard M50 with an 800cc motor, the vehicle most likely to cause a drain on ACC resources is quite clear (and it ain’t the cruiser)

[mossy1200]

The scooter argument is quite interesting.

I have seen with amazement just how fast some <200cc scooters can accelerate and attempt corners with those little wheels.

When compared with something like a Boulevard M50 with an 800cc motor, the vehicle most likely to cause a drain on ACC resources is quite clear (and it ain’t the cruiser)

If this splits into smaller groups trying to defend their ride we all lose.

[NZJONESY]

I hate ACC, Just wait till the media realizes they are located in one of the most expensive office buildings in Wellington.

[AllanB]

Hang on - your stats state the cost per active claim rose by .....%

To consider this correctly in relationship to ACC you need to know what was the average cost of claims per category.
eg

say the average cost for cars was $100 per claim and it rose 9.5% to $109.50

Motorcycles may have a average claim cost of $250 per claim ......... which I believe was ACC's point - we are a lot more expensive than other road users per claim per road user.

Stuffed either way as ACC have expressed a dislike of motorcycle before and I see little reason to believe they will change their opinions.

[Ixion]

Hang about. I just has another look at those ACC figures and compared them to MoT stats.

Now, for bikes, ACC claim figures pretty much match MoT

Motorcycles

Riders :............48 killed, 430 serious injury, 884 minor : total 1362
Passengers.........2............26................ ......56....................47

Grand total 1409. ACC claim 1336 claims. So maybe a few of the minor injuries didn't claim.

But cars/suvs/taxis/trucks, lumped together the same way , gives 12066 killed or injured, according to MoT. ACC show only 3658 claims? Wot gives .

Now, this doesn't actually matter as far as the ACC cost goes. ACC paid whatever ACC paid.

But , it DOES give the lie to the interminable "Motorcycles are 16 times more dangerous" claim.

Since, according to MoT figures, there were 3308930 cars/SUV/taxis/van/trucks in the fleet in 2008. And 12066 injuries . One injury/fatality per 274 vehicles

And, 130213 motorcycles/mopeds. With 1409 injuries. One per 92 bikes . Worse than cars, sure, we all know that. But the true ratio is about 1:3 not 1:16.

So bikes are "only" 3 times as dangerous. NOT 16 times.

[Oakie]

What I can't figure out is how they arrived at the cc gradings for the three levels of levy. As far as I know, ACC don't actually capture any information about the cc rating of bikes involved in accidents so what are they basing it on? Anecdotal evidence?

[kathyw]

ACC Levy Statistics
So Statistics don't lie - Using data from ACC
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...ount/IS0800143

Did you know that between 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 that the cost per active claim for car injurys increased by 9.52% while the cost per active claim for motorbikes increased by only 5.55%

Cycling 5.57%
Driving/Passenger--Bus 11.80%
Driving/Passenger--Car 9.52%
Driving/Passenger--Motorcycle 5.55%
Driving/Passenger--Other Veh 6.25%
Driving/Passenger--Truck 18.74%
Other 11.06%
Pedestrian 13.30%
Unknown -0.12%

I have the data - I have done the math - so wouldn't it be fairer if the increase in Levies reflected the increase in costs per claim. Personally I would love to be unknown.

[Exodus]

ACC may not collect those stats, but NZTA do:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

[pzkpfw]

What I can't figure out is how they arrived at the cc gradings for the three levels of levy. As far as I know, ACC don't actually capture any information about the cc rating of bikes involved in accidents so what are they basing it on? Anecdotal evidence?

It's simply from registration stats.

A related thing is that this is why it's considered "too hard" to do it by power-to-weight ratio or something (as even the A.A. suggested).

...this issue is that cc is pretty simple and not often wrong, but model information is much more dodgy - and that's what their computers would need to use to look up the correct fee.

So my 100HP or so Z750S will cost more than some GSXRRRRRR600. Oh well...

[SuperSonic]

ACC may not collect those stats, but NZTA do:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

Wow this link is very interesting read, it makes some of what ACC are claiming to be total crap. If this happens alot of people will be saling there bikes and younger bikers will not start due to costs. it will be the end of motorbikeing as we know it.

[Squiggles]

What I can't figure out is how they arrived at the cc gradings for the three levels of levy. As far as I know, ACC don't actually capture any information about the cc rating of bikes involved in accidents so what are they basing it on? Anecdotal evidence?

Time for a few information act requests... The documents they give refer to how it is done in Victoria and Tasmania (see attachment), but no NZ figures are given that i can see.

[kathyw]

My point (more than anything else) is that you can make the statistics work for you if you are so inclined. (AND I AM)

Also I am yet to find anywhere the costs on cost of injury per accident for car and motorbike. My Point is a 7 seater people mover has the potential to cause injury to 7+ people (the + being if a two vehicle accident). Chances of a motorcycle causing injury to more than 2 people (rider and pillion) is very remote. So - maybe registration should also be calcualted on the potential total cost of injury per accident

Mwahaha

[AllanB]

Your points are valid but ACC's concern, and a real one, is the rate of accidents per users by motorcyclists - if their statement is to be believed you as a motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to have a accident than that 7 seater ugly-car.
Consequently you are a high risk and must be rogered violently through your wallet.

Personally I'd prefer a road user charge system based on kms travelled as I only do about 6,000 per annum on the bike which from April fools day next year will cost me around 14 cents per km in rego.

My Hornet will be parked up with rego on hold for 3-4 months over winter I think.

Watch the sale of battery-tenders sky rocket next winter!!!!!!

[Pedrostt500]

I'm getting a little sick of statistics, I would like to hear some good honest factual numbers, of road users as a whole, then a break down into each group, I would like to have SUVs seperated from cars etc.
In fact it would be good to see the raw data, and look at each individual road accident, and include factors of each accident, ie road conditions, speed, Car vs Car, Car vs Bike, car vs object etc.
If it moves on NZ roads, from pedestrians to huge machinery and is involved in an accident, then it should be included in the data, no slant from any ones perspective.

I wold like to know the total numbers of accidents on NZ roads for each year, regardless what it was or who was at fault.
I would like to know the total number of fatalties, and injuries, for each year.
I would then like to see the above information broken down into sub groups,
Pedstrian, Cyclists, Motorcycle / Scooter, Car / SUV, Bus, Light truck, Heavey Truck, Heavey Machinery, Other. Then put together the A vs B list.
Percentages don't mean anything, 100% of people born in 1890 are dead.

[Ixion]

Your points are valid but ACC's concern, and a real one, is the rate of accidents per users by motorcyclists - if their statement is to be believed you as a motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to have a accident than that 7 seater ugly-car.
..

No! Not true. See this post. More likely, true, but only 3 times. Not 18. They lied. According to MoT figures.