Stop bitching and use your brains...

[Coldrider]

So?
We also pay earner levies, like cyclists do...

Yes but my arguement is specific to MC costs is it not, I pay the other levies to, I might hurt myself doing my gardening or home repairs, pull a ham string running. I might crash any of my other cars, each levy on those vehicles pays for that. There is heaps of other threads with the I pay other....blah blah blah crap, and that will fix nothing.

[MSTRS:Me]

Yes but my arguement is specific to MC costs is it not, I pay the other levies to, I might hurt myself doing my gardening or home repairs, pull a ham string running. I might crash any of my other cars, each levy on those vehicles pays for that. There is heaps of other threads with the I pay other....blah blah blah crap, and that will fix nothing.

The point is that cyclists hurt on the road are covered from road levies. WHICH THEY DO NOT PAY.

[dipshit]

- 1.1 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
- 47 injuries per 10,000 vehicles
- 34 injury crashes per 10,000 vehicles


- 5.2 deaths per 10,000 motorcycles
- 144 injuries per 10,000 motorcycles
- 142 crashes per 10,000 motorcycles

Hmm ... so deaths run at just under 5 times the average, injuries at just over 3 times the average and crashes at 4 and a bit times the average. Not 16 times though, and no way I've found to massage or selectively examine the figures can make bikers' accident rates 16 times the national average.

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Which makes it worse for motorcycles. A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend. Just look at how many 5 year-old bikes or so still have very low mileage. Surveys that monitor actual road use will show a very low percentage of motorcycles. Same if you look at kms travelled per accident.

[Coldrider]

Yes Sanx that is pretty cool work,Young Nick is selling it with lies, however the bridge to cross is, $62,523,000 in claims supported by 96,952 registered MCs works out to an Ave of $644.88.

Nick Smith is quoting $2700 has the full cost of ACC recovery but they have only the balls to put it up by $500.
So where does the $2,700 come from.
These numbers are cooked up by ACC and given to Mr Smith to sprout.

[MSTRS:Me]

Not helpful, DS. They are using flawing figures in the media etc to hurt us, don't be giving them something real...

[Coldrider]

The point is that cyclists hurt on the road are covered from road levies. WHICH THEY DO NOT PAY.

I didn't mention cyclists or any other group in the thread you are on about.
I don't give a shit about anything other than the proposed motorcycle ACC levy on motorcycle regos.

[Tony]

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Which makes it worse for motorcycles. A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend. Just look at how many 5 year-old bikes or so still have very low mileage. Surveys that monitor actual road use will show a very low percentage of motorcycles. Same if you look at kms travelled per accident.

What we need is a user pays levy that is based on mileage just like the Road User Charges I pay on my diesel. This way if you have multiple vehicles or do a low mileage you still pay according to your likely hood of needing a payout

[dipshit]

Not helpful, DS. They are using flawing figures in the media etc to hurt us, don't be giving them something real...

The longer motorcyclists live in fantasyland - the worse the problem will become.

[MSTRS:Me]

I didn't mention cyclists or any other group in the thread you are on about.
I don't give a shit about anything other than the proposed motorcycle ACC levy on motorcycle regos.

As do I. Yet a chunk of what is being asked from me is going to injured cyclists. It's not equitable (if that is what ACC is trying to achieve)

[Genestho]

But if I can spend an hour or so on Google and come up with this, then surely someone who's a) competent and b) is actually going to be affected by the levy increases can spend some actual time, do some proper research and publicly challenge the figures given by the government as justification.

Thankyou!!! Nick Smith - "The claim that it is cars that cause the accidents does not negate the debate... the cost of other motorcycle accidents far exceeds the proposed levy." I realise it is an emotive issue

People need to stop reposting the same stuff over and over and over, and take that statement head on.

[Coldrider]

As do I. Yet a chunk of what is being asked from me is going to injured cyclists. It's not equitable (if that is what ACC is trying to achieve)

Are we not discussing the emballished figures on motorcycle ACC costs or are you responding to every other thread.

Is this just now a general ACC thread or are we going to stick to the subject matter of the motorcycle acc costs and stats.
Other user pays groups or non payers can be discussed on numerous other threads.
All I did was crunched the numbers given by SANX (his topic) and arrived at a number at which we are be given close enough to pay.

[Ixion]

Hmmm. So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Yeah - probably 'cos more of them get killed dead men don't requirement treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which I mean expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

Correct. We have more injuries but less serious/costly.

Makes sense . Car and bike tangle at an intersection. Car driver usually uninjured. Bike rider maybe has bruises and grazes. Treated either by ambo or A&E, either way goes down in ACC as a motorcycle injury, but low cost. Whereas if a car driver ends up in hospital it's usually fairly serious.

I've passed that information on the MP Darien Fenton to use in the debate next week.

[Coldrider]

I think they base it on actual road use rather than the registered vehicle fleet.

Which makes it worse for motorcycles. A lot of bikes only get taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend. Just look at how many 5 year-old bikes or so still have very low mileage. Surveys that monitor actual road use will show a very low percentage of motorcycles. Same if you look at kms travelled per accident.

The problem motorcycles have is there is not enough of us to dilute the payment pool as cars do.

[MSTRS:Me]

Are we not discussing the emballished figures on motorcycle ACC costs or are you responding to every other thread.

Fair enough. But I am limiting myself to appropriate comments in appropriate threads. Sanx included cyclists and pedestrians in his post, and because everything is linked, their drawing from the motor fund MUST be noted.

[k2w3]

Hold on. How can they calculate it using "miles travelled" (or "hours on the road", either way) AND lump into the equation injuries caused by non-registered bikes, such as farm bikes and dirt bikes? The mileage travelled by those is unknown and therefore left out of the equation.

Not that including them would make a huge amount of difference in our favour, but the point is that is a flawed calculation.