Answer from the AA - new stats?

**veny** · 19th October 2009, 18:23

Originally Posted by shrub

Actually they are as skewed as you can get. I've forwarded the PDF to Professor Lamb at Lincoln for his interpretation. I suggest you check out the data on our site as a comparison.

Not easy to compare when the PDF is 2003 - 2008. Does one include 2008?
So stats are over a 6 year period or 5?
My guess is 5. Either way the stats look a little better when divided down per year. But that doesn't excuse Bend-Lost control/Head on, Straight-Lost
control/Head on! WTF?!

If true, a very sobering read indeed.

**Damon** · 19th October 2009, 18:38

What a load of crap, NZ Transports stats are completely different, reply to him and ask him to explain this , vehicle rego stats can be found here

In 1985 there were 3940 injuries, in 2007 there were 1336, yes it has gone up in the last couple of years but probably due to increased riders, it's not the "rapid increase" he would have us believe (page 2). as for "particularly for larger motorcycles" there has been no significant change over the measured period (page 3), what pop up book has he been reading?

He then goes on to quote the document i just got these stats from?! obviously only choosing data that tells the story he wants, and then quotes information the government has supplied which is obviously flawed, $77 for each of the 2631014 cars/vans registered last year = $202,588,075? but ACC quote only $64,000,000 in motorcycle related costs??....

As for his CAS information, according to that there were only 282 accidents where another vehicle was at fault in an accident with a bike...IN THE LAST 5 YEARS?!?!?! I could find more on this site alone, hell i was at lease 2 of them, this guy is a fool, he relies on selected parts of information and made up facts, anyone with 10 mins and a calculator can tell he and Nick Smith are full of shit.

**shrub** · 19th October 2009, 19:03

Originally Posted by Damon

As for his CAS information, according to that there were only 282 accidents where another vehicle was at fault in an accident with a bike...IN THE LAST 5 YEARS?!?!?! I could find more on this site alone, hell i was at lease 2 of them, this guy is a fool, he relies on selected parts of information and made up facts, anyone with 10 mins and a calculator can tell he and Nick Smith are full of shit.

I personally know of half a dozen people who have had injury accidents in the last 24 months (I work in a bike shop), and all but one were either the fault of a car driver or unmarked roadworks. I think calling this guy a fool is a little charitable - I would perhaps suggest that the word "dishonest" is more apposite.

And accidents and fatalities for motorcycles have increased over the last few years, but then so have the number of bikes. In fact the fatality rate per 10,000 bikes has fallen from 14.1 in 1988 to 4.7 in 2008, so we're actually having less fatals.

And if every car driver is subsidising our ACC costs to the tune of $77.00, we need to consider that there are 2,584,509 light passenger vehicles in New Zealand, and that times $77.00 comes to $199,007,193.00. Yet ACC reckon we only cost $50m pa?

Lies, damn lies and statistics

**pete376403** · 19th October 2009, 19:20

It's not supposed to be about blame / fault / cause. ACC was always intended to be NO FAULT. In exchange for accepting that, we gave up the right to sue the person who caused the accident for damages.

The police (usually) prosecute the person deemed to be at fault, who may or may not be the person who is most injured or receives the most ACC-fund hospital care.

**rustic101** · 19th October 2009, 19:22

Originally Posted by Damon

What a load of crap, NZ Transports stats are completely different, reply to him and ask him to explain this , vehicle rego stats can be found here

In 1985 there were 3940 injuries, in 2007 there were 1336, yes it has gone up in the last couple of years but probably due to increased riders, it's not the "rapid increase" he would have us believe (page 2). as for "particularly for larger motorcycles" there has been no significant change over the measured period (page 3), what pop up book has he been reading?

He then goes on to quote the document i just got these stats from?! obviously only choosing data that tells the story he wants, and then quotes information the government has supplied which is obviously flawed, $77 for each of the 2631014 cars/vans registered last year = $202,588,075? but ACC quote only $64,000,000 in motorcycle related costs??....

As for his CAS information, according to that there were only 282 accidents where another vehicle was at fault in an accident with a bike...IN THE LAST 5 YEARS?!?!?! I could find more on this site alone, hell i was at lease 2 of them, this guy is a fool, he relies on selected parts of information and made up facts, anyone with 10 mins and a calculator can tell he and Nick Smith are full of shit.

Mike,

I have posted your reply on Kiwibiker. It appears AA have been caught out as you stated, 'The proposed levy increases are complicated so it will take me a while to cover it all, so bear with me and read on please....'... seems to have been a templated holding statement excluding the first few lines. Whilst this is no real surprise it appears to be a major Communications blunder from AA.

The AA stats you provided are in conflict with other Government Departments and statistics available. The AA stats have been passed to Professor Lamb at Lincoln for his interpretation, as well as other Local and International professionals for their analysis. I have also copied TVNZ into this message for their information as I know the media are interested in exposing the facts of the entire ACC affair.

It appears when talking to individuals and reading the message boards that the reputation of AA is eroding fast. What the AA seem to have failed to identify is that most Motorcyclists are also car owners. Car owners that are AA members, and users of AA insurance as well as other products products.. The AA holding statement you provided in respect to my questions failed to address my personal needs as a customer of AA.

In my particular case, don't get me wrong Motorcyclists are a risk, but the ACC Levy need to be fair and transparent as well as a meaursed approach. As a motorist, not just a Motorcyclist I would have expected an organisation I belong too to support that approach. It is my understanding that AA works with Government, Industry and the Media to represent my interests and the interests of its 1.2 million members. AA Advocacy and Policy is meant to work mainly on; protecting the freedom of choice and rights of motorists, keeping the costs of motorist fair and reasonable, and encoraging the safety of all users. The AA is meant to speck out strongly both in the media and to Government and to Industy when motorists are not getting a fair deal. That the AAs views are research-based, and reflect the views of menbers and reflect the responsible position the AA holds in NZ as the contrys largest comsumer organisation.

Mike and AA - I do not believe you have met these statement of facts based of my limited understanding of AA.

As a result of the interaction to date with AA and in particular I will be contacting AA over the next few days to remove all of my services once I have arranged an alternative.

Regards

**dipshit** · 19th October 2009, 19:36

Originally Posted by dpex

Holy Shit! If those 'facts' are right, then that constitutes sobering reading as regards our long-held belief that it is the cagers who cause most of our ills.

That long held delusion amongst many motorcyclists has been fostered by the likes of BRONZ and some in the motorcycle industry. They have been telling complete bullshit to the media at every available opportunity. It will come back to bite them in the arse one day.

**dipshit** · 19th October 2009, 19:45

Originally Posted by StoneY

The prof's figures utterly refute AA's with blame 60/40 in bikers favor of blamelessness, (more or less)

That 60/40 was not for all motorcycle accidents. It was only the split of the multiple vehicle accidents. It was not including the single vehicle motorcycle accidents on top of that. All that is saying is that when motorcycles have accidents with cars, it is cars that are to blame in 60% of them.

When you count all motorcycle accident, (single vehicle and multiple vehicle) car drivers are certainly not responsible for most motorcycle accidents.

**Reckless** · 19th October 2009, 20:02

Already threatened to end my membership and insurance original post here. I am quite prepared to do it and even paste the reply a few posts up.
BUT I'm not to keen on telling them to shove 25+ years while you guys are still debating the facts. I'm flat out with meetings most of tomorrow so will check back in on this thread later.
Glad to see the stats have informed us of the other side and prompted some thinking from this side. Best to have our shit together when it hits the fan!

So do we side with the Professor or the AA?? Pretty grim for us if its the AA.

Confession time! ( I'm probably the wrong guy to go to bat for us)
Look I would have been with some of you crowing about how I hadn't had an off for 25 years but have actually got a foot in both accident camps now. 3 years ago was doin the Whitford loop on the VTR1000 and a had a BIG off. My fault and I'll live with the screwed neck. So that's in the single rider, big bike bracket! Then last Xmas (new years day) someone did a sudden un-indicated right turn and took me out. So I sorta had no prangs for many many years then a bad run. One my fault and one not. So I ain't no angel either!

**Squiggles** · 19th October 2009, 20:14

Originally Posted by dipshit

When you count all motorcycle accident, (single vehicle and multiple vehicle) car drivers are certainly not responsible for most motorcycle accidents.

Semi twisted statement there... to clarify, this is the version given by the 2008 MoT crash factsheet (uses 2007 data):

Single Vehicle Rider at fault: 26%
Multi-vehicle primary responsibility: 25%
Multi-vehicle no rider fault id'd: 39%
Multi-vehicle partial responsibility: 7%
Single Vehicle no ride fault id'd: 3%

So 51% of All motorcycle accidents are the riders fault/responsibility. 39% of all motorcycle accidents are multivehicle accidents where the rider was not at fault.

Professor will have used other available data to get the 60/40 split for Multivehicle accidents

**shrub** · 19th October 2009, 20:19

Originally Posted by dipshit

That 60/40 was not for all motorcycle accidents. It was only the split of the multiple vehicle accidents. It was not including the single vehicle motorcycle accidents on top of that. All that is saying is that when motorcycles have accidents with cars, it is cars that are to blame in 60% of them.

When you count all motorcycle accident, (single vehicle and multiple vehicle) car drivers are certainly not responsible for most motorcycle accidents.

I was coming home yesterday following a guy in an SUV. He slowed down and the normal thing to do is overtake, but he wasn't indicating and people don't just slow down because they feel like it, so I hit my brakes. Sure enough, he turned right. If I had overtaken he would have legally been at fault, but I would have been bleeding (and worse than that, my bike would have been broken) but my experience meant there wasn't an accident, so nobody was at fault.

Every accident I have had has either been completely my fault (eg riding pissed) or if I had known then what I know now, would probably not have happened (once I'd have ended up under that SUV).

I think the issue we face, and the mechanism that will give us greatest clout in preventing these levy increases, is to say "hey, motorcycling is dangerous - let's all work together to minimise the risk of an accident, and if there is an accident to minimise the harm".

In a perfect world I'd like to see rider training made much more available (and even compulsory), subsidies on gear, campaigns to make car drivers more bike-conscious and better roads. And for that I'd pay more in ACC levies, but there is no way I will pay more for less (which is what may happen).

**Squiggles** · 19th October 2009, 20:23

Originally Posted by Damon

He then goes on to quote the document i just got these stats from?! obviously only choosing data that tells the story he wants, and then quotes information the government has supplied which is obviously flawed, $77 for each of the 2631014 cars/vans registered last year = $202,588,075? but ACC quote only $64,000,000 in motorcycle related costs??....

Originally Posted by Levy Rate Consultation Doc...

How much is the cross subsidy between the motorcycle risk groups and
other vehicle groups?
With the motorcycle relativity factor set at 150% of a passenger vehicle rate there is a
significant level of cross subsidy between the motorcycle risk groups and other vehicle
groups. The table below shows the details of this cross subsidy that equates to an expected
total of $252 million during 2010/11 (26% of the total 2010/11 levy income) or an additional
+$77.65 for most other motor vehicle owners.

So thats 200mil of that. The $252 million figure, i dont know where it comes from, hopefully someone else whose read up on that part can tell...

**dipshit** · 19th October 2009, 20:42

Originally Posted by Squiggles

Single Vehicle Rider at fault: 26%
Multi-vehicle primary responsibility: 25%
Multi-vehicle no rider fault id'd: 39%
Multi-vehicle partial responsibility: 7%
Single Vehicle no ride fault id'd: 3%

It is all here on page 4.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

That '25% Multi-vehicle primary responsibility' is the percentage out of total bike accidents. In other words, out of all motorcycle accidents, 25% are a motorcycle being at fault in a collision with another motor vehicle.

It not saying out of all multiple vehicle motorcycle accidents, the motorcyclist was responsible for only 25% of them.

In all multiple vehicle motorcycle accidents, the motorcyclist was responsible for 40% of them. 60% to the cars.

Out of all motorcycle accidents, other vehicles were responsible for around 40% of them.

**Squiggles** · 19th October 2009, 21:10

Originally Posted by dipshit

bla

I was reinforcing what you were saying but with the numbers

Gotta get me some more engrish skills

**maxf** · 23rd October 2009, 22:51

Guys, the 60-40 factor is even acknowledged in the official ACC consultation PDF - http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/gr...ctrb118085.pdf - go and read it fully - it's the "culpability factor" the use in the top table on Pg 29, eg multiplying the relative cost weightings (being the extra likelihood of being in accident by the extra average cost of the injury above a car injury) by 58% - the amount they take as the proportion the motorcyclist is responsible for.

The problem is they then use the full 100% figures in the dollar calculations on the bottom table - the one giving the $259M cost figure - IT IS 42% OUT. (Try dividing the $3770.96 by the 100% cost for cars - $312.91 - and you get approx 1225%, should be 708% by their own working in the upper table!)

This means that the numbers are screwed (sorry, skewed!) by even more than the factors already highlighted, eg
- questionable cherry-picking of stats from reports across various years (eg the old reports from 1998, maybe 2001 as found by Ixion)
- questionable raw data in those reports (eg the CAS database omissions for CC ratings over a very statistically significant sample)
- inaccurate / muddled vehicle and/or licencee counts from different survey points (reports of different years, disagreeing within a single year etc - all showing the lowest counts so the PR stats look more "juicy")

This is even before they start debating the other flimsy facts - if they hadn't agreed with all this "culpability" BS, why include it?

I'm sorry, but someone should call a war-crime on the torture those poor stats are being put through - or at least for the heads of the ACC PR flaks that wrote the press briefs and the stats managers that gave them this shoddy work to start with...!

And I know it's not necessarily directly constructive, but I'd also say that any submissions anyone does - please, please call them out on their rate of increase in internal overheads... 16%pa (closer to 20 from the costs, see pgs 22 & 23) is high even now...

Max

PS - already been said before, see here for details & some spreadsheet analysis if you're bothered... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...5&postcount=23

-