An idea and a reply concerning ACC levies from Tauranga National MP

[drummer]

I replied to a thread in facebook regarding ACC levies.

This is Simon Bridges reply

This is an important and interesting debate.

Peter and Matt you obviously feel strongly about this. Remember the ACC Board's proposals are not set in stone yet, and you can make a submission - in fact I strongly encourage you to - at www.acc.co.nz/consultation. the submissions window closes 5pm 10 November.... Read more

I also think the figures regarding all of this are pretty powerful. ACC is losing billions at the moment. Regarding just motorcycles, ACC paid out more than $62m in the 2008/09 year and collected only $12.3m in motorcyclist levies. The maths in other words doesn't work well.

Note also that even with the ACC Board's proposed incresaes to motorcyclists, every other non-motorcyclist driver will be subsidising motorcyclists at a rate of $77 each.

Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes. I am certainly not saying all or even most crashes involving motorcycles are motorcyclists fault, just that the facts and figures are pretty significant.

Cheers
Simon


OK... I have an idea... please try and corner your MP's into stating their postions... also branch chairman etc. The local branch chairman in Glendowie told me I sould "Ride a bicycle" if I didn't want to pay the fees. The elctorate chairman told me that the levies ere fair for bikes but in his opinion ACC should be privatised. This I stress was his as quoted "personal opinion". But what worries me is the complete misunderstanding of the subject.

We need to get groups going in all electorates to put extreme (legal) pressure on these National MP's who have never even seen a decent motorcycle let alone ridden one.

Personally I would rather have the Nats than labour any day... however the Nats are writing their own epitaph with this proposal...

Get those submissions in folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PM me if you want to chat. I am willing to assist in co-ordinating the protest... I have been involved with politics for 20plus years and can put a lot of pressure on people (legally.. and I stress that)

Peter Chatteris

[Matt_TG]

I've added you on FB mate Tony Ryall and Simon Bridges are usually in office on Friday, and I am looking for Friday off work due to other weekend commitments Fri and Sat night. Ironically my bike rego is on hold at the moment, but could look at borrowing someone's ....

[Ixion]

Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes. I am certainly not saying all or even most crashes involving motorcycles are motorcyclists fault, just that the facts and figures are pretty significant.

Absolute nonsense.

According to ACCs own figures avergae cost of a car crash claim= $17,382

Ditto Rider/pillion motorcycle = $13,866

We cost them LESS not more.

Please disillusion the parliamentary gemtleman. Figures from here

[Matt_TG]

Thanks Ixion, will reply

[jed4czar]

"Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes"
- Heres the breakdown from Ixions link (Shamelessly copied from http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/debat...needed/5/27442 )
In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:
Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim
MOTORCYCLIST's
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim
These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree.
So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Probably because more of them get killed. Dead men don't require treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which is meant expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

Get this info out there - send to opposition MP's, Newspapers etc. We have the data to refute the misinformation being spread by an ideologically driven gobernment that seemed to have learned a lot from their predecessors i.e. they will drop it back to $500 and Joe Public will be so grateful and love them for it. Ironically enough this is the strategy Uncle Joe Stalin used!

[Ixion]

My figures were 2007, yours 2008. But both show the same thing, we cost less, not more.

I think it's because bike crashes often involve treatment for minor injury (bruises, grazes) whereas a car crash if you'r einjured at all it's often fairly bad.

Also a lot of bikers are students, they're cheap as chips to ACC cos they have bugger all income.

[FJRider]

"Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes"
- Heres the breakdown from Ixions link (Shamelessly copied from http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/debat...needed/5/27442 )
In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:
Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim
MOTORCYCLIST's
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim
These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree.
So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Probably because more of them get killed. Dead men don't require treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which is meant expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

You are starting to think for yourself. This is totally against current goverment policy. Please conform immediately...

[pete376403]

sent to my MP, borrowing from others input:
Dear Mr Hipkins,

As one of your constituents and also as a motorcyclist I would be interested to learn of your position with regard to the proposed ACC levy increases.

I am particularly disturbed that that both ACC and the Minister for ACC are repeatedly making and distributing misleading figures and sound-bites to justify the very large increases in ACC levies as they apply to motorcycles.

For example, the statement “motorcycles are 16 TIMES (my emphasis) more likely to be involved in an accident” is incorrect and the correct figure, ..16% more likely...” which I am sure you would agree, totally changes the context. This figure is from ACCs own website.

Another misleading (can I say blatant lie?) statement - “ motorcycle injuries cost 4 times more than car accidents” is shown to be incorrect.

In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:
Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim
MOTORCYCLIST's
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim
These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree.

So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Probably because more of them get killed. Dead men don't require treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which is meant expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

ACC was established as a “no-fault” scheme. In many cases of motorcycle accident, the fault is because a car has failed to give way, or turned into the path of a motorcycle. By raising the levy to such a degree, motorcyclist are being penalised for being the victim of a criminal act.

I would appreciate your responses to the above statements

[drummer]

OK FOLKS THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THE PROTEST PLEASE ADD ME AS A FRIEJND ON FACEBOOK... PETER CHATTERIS.. oops sorry for the caps... should have saved it for the pollies

[Skyryder]

I replied to a thread in facebook regarding ACC levies.

This is Simon Bridges reply

This is an important and interesting debate.

Peter and Matt you obviously feel strongly about this. Remember the ACC Board's proposals are not set in stone yet, and you can make a submission - in fact I strongly encourage you to - at www.acc.co.nz/consultation. the submissions window closes 5pm 10 November.... Read more

I also think the figures regarding all of this are pretty powerful. ACC is losing billions at the moment. Regarding just motorcycles, ACC paid out more than $62m in the 2008/09 year and collected only $12.3m in motorcyclist levies. The maths in other words doesn't work well.

Note also that even with the ACC Board's proposed incresaes to motorcyclists, every other non-motorcyclist driver will be subsidising motorcyclists at a rate of $77 each.

Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes. I am certainly not saying all or even most crashes involving motorcycles are motorcyclists fault, just that the facts and figures are pretty significant.

Cheers
Simon

It's a polite way of or Take your pick.


Skyryder

[Clockwork]

It occurs to me as earners we pay into the ACC Earner account differing amounts depending upon what we earn, presumably because high wage earners would be compensated more for lost income. Obviously non-earners would not get wages compensation, but who pays for their medical care - don't tell me the rest of the earners subsidise them because we all know how ACC feels it unreasonable for cross-subsidies of this nature to exist!

When a rider claims from a bike accident presumably the medical expenses are paid for from the Motor Vehicle Account, can anyone tell me if lost income is compensated from the wage Earners Account or does it also come from the Motor vehicle account?. Likewise, if a non rego paying passenger in a registered (or unregistered for that matter) vehicle needs compensation from a vehicle accident, what ACC account meets their costs, or to put it another way who's subsidising them?

I suspect that all claims originating from a vehicle accident will be funded entirely from the Motor Vehicle Account. As $62M seems an awful lot of money to spend on 1300 accidents, I'd like to know how much of that amount was spent on the 3100 "Active Claims" because we should bear in mind that we "current levy payers" are also expected to ante-up enough to pay for these pre-existing "Active" claims from former riders who almost certainly will never own or register a motorcycle again. And lets not forget that since the accounts are not yet fully funded, guess who's expected to pick up their share of that cost too!, If we stopped having accidents tomorrow they still want to levy us to pay off that! Surely asking only current riders to cross-subsidise the claims of former rider's is also unfair, if we all said "stuff this" and stopped riding bikes who would they get to pick up this cost then?

Finally, ACC is not broke! At this point in time, because of the world's investment economy, ACC's investments "appear" to be insufficient to meet the needs of "anticipated" long term claimants. But once the investment markets improve and the investments start to reflect their original values do you suppose these levy hikes will be reversed. Somehow I don't think so. Oh, and lets not forget that we're only part way through the conversion to a fully funded business model, so it's hardly surprising that there is a shortfall on this account, even if the worlds investment markets hadn't just shat themselves.

[buellbabe]

Pete! That is a fantastic letter.
We have GOT to get this information out there!

The general public is being deliberately mislead.

I will be "borrowing" some of the same facts and writing to my local MP as well and sending in a personal submission.

[MSTRS:Me]

It occurs to me as earners we pay into the ACC Earner account differing amounts depending upon what we earn, presumably because high wage earners would be compensated more for lost income. Obviously non-earners would not get wages compensation, but who pays for their medical care - don't tell me the rest of the earners subsidise them because we all know how ACC feels it unreasonable for cross-subsidies of this nature to exist!

Wage-based rates are dependent on the type of job. The amount you pay is $x per $100 earned. The x varies from one type of job to another, based on injury likelihoods gathering via stats.

When a rider claims from a bike accident presumably the medical expenses are paid for from the Motor Vehicle Account, can anyone tell me if lost income is compensated from the wage Earners Account or does it also come from the Motor vehicle account?. Likewise, if a non rego paying passenger in a registered (or unregistered for that matter) vehicle needs compensation from a vehicle accident, what ACC account meets their costs, or to put it another way who's subsidising them?

If an accident occurs on the road and a vehicle is involved, then that is the fund that pays. So, yes, rego-based levies cover the likes of pillions, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists etc, who pay nothing in. We can assume that a portion of them do,but are just not using their own vehicle...it gets very complex and impossible to work out. The fact is that all those who pay in, are subsidising the entire draw off from that fund.

I suspect that all claims originating from a vehicle accident will be funded entirely from the Motor Vehicle Account. As $62M seems an awful lot of money to spend on 1300 accidents, I'd like to know how much of that amount was spent on the 3100 "Active Claims" because we should bear in mind that we "current levy payers" are also expected to ante-up enough to pay for these pre-existing "Active" claims from former riders who almost certainly will never own or register a motorcycle again. And lets not forget that since the accounts are not yet fully funded, guess who's expected to pick up their share of that cost too!, If we stopped having accidents tomorrow they still want to levy us to pay off that! Surely asking only current riders to cross-subsidise the claims of former rider's is also unfair, if we all said "stuff this" and stopped riding bikes who would they get to pick up this cost then?

You suspect right. And that $62M (if true) is spend on all active claims. That means the 1336-odd injuries during 2008 Plus 1840-odd ongoing payments to those injured in previous years. What I don't know is if payments are for medical-type stuff, or whether they include earnings compensation too.

Finally, ACC is not broke! At this point in time, because of the world's investment economy, ACC's investments "appear" to be insufficient to meet the needs of "anticipated" long term claimants. But once the investment markets improve and the investments start to reflect their original values do you suppose these levy hikes will be reversed. Somehow I don't think so. Oh, and lets not forget that we're only part way through the conversion to a fully funded business model, so it's hardly surprising that there is a shortfall on this account, even if the worlds investment markets hadn't just shat themselves.

Absolutely right.

[StoneY]

OK FOLKS THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THE PROTEST PLEASE ADD ME AS A FRIEJND ON FACEBOOK... PETER CHATTERIS.. oops sorry for the caps... should have saved it for the pollies

Peter, please contact your regional BIKOI coordinator

United we stand, devided we fail

Cheers

[Dodger]

sent to my MP, borrowing from others

Oh please send that letter to TV1, TV3, campbell live etc.