Data from ACC

[Reckless]

What else do we want ?

make a list

How many of those claims relate to road registered bikes.

[Ixion]

They will say all of them. By definition if they are in the MV accunt they BELIEV they are raod registered.

The road registered problem goes right back to source - we have no way of knowing if the data has been input correctly in the first place.

[Reckless]

They will say all of them. By definition if they are in the MV accunt they BELIEV they are raod registered.

The road registered problem goes right back to source - we have no way of knowing if the data has been input correctly in the first place.

And there is the very reason why we shouldn't have to pay any levy!!
USE their own argument on them:
If one group (according to National/ACC) ie cars should not pay for Road bikers why should we pay for off road accidents! Simple! I ride mostly off road so I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but fairs bloody fair!!

When National and ACC can come up with figures that single road riders out (and all other sports) we all pay! Until then levy everyone or Bugger off!!

We should go down and rip the freckin doors off Parliament until they can come up with a fair and democratic solution! Simple as that!
This is wrong so bloody wrong!!

[wingrider]

Not sure if these comments are relative here but!!

A very close friend is a senior officer with Highway patrol. He is often called upon to do the training of new recruits in respect of accidents.

Your registration papers and your registration stickers have the cc rating on them.

The Police are required to log the relevant info on the accident report form, make-model cc rating. This info is then cross referenced to the registration database to ensure that everything matches. Quite often they need to query details from a bike shop or car dealer to verify that the plates and the corresponding details actually match the vehicle in question. Many makes and models have different engine sizes and plates from one model have been found on the wrong vehicle.

It was always thought that these details were recorded in full on the database. Supposedly several agencies were then able to draw on the details to make up the statistics.

In a perfect world you could then tell the total number of accidents to make and model and cc rating.

He feels that this would be impossible as in doing investigations for court proceedings he regularly finds that the details are recorded as eg:- 2001 ford falcon. He is required to confirm all details are correct to positively identify the vehicle or the case may be lost on insufficient evidence.

His point is that if someone has been asked to analyze crash data to identify a specific group ( bikes over 600cc) how the hell would they know what it is if the bike has only been recorded as a honda CB. They would need to cross reference the registration database to the accident database to confirm the statistics.

As there are a shitload of accidents that happen where the bike is not registered and therefor has no details as to cc rating it is often just showing on the accident report as a honda quad or trailbike. Where are these bikes recorded in the stats? ( he says we would be startled to know how many of these accidents are on public roads.) There are many homebuilt bikes powered by lawmower engines used on beaches or paper roads that are also recorded as a motorcycle accident. No make or model let alone cc rating recorded.

It is his personal opinion that the stats are not able to be correctly reported, are not sound and have to many variables to reflect the actual figures.

It is also his personal opinion that this is a deliberate attempt to target a minority group because it is impossible to confirm either the accuracy or inaccuracy of the data provided.

He has been very helpful in passing on all details and flyers to many stations throughout NZ as he is a riding buddy with many other officers who are as pissed off about this as ourselves

[Reckless]

He has been very helpful in passing on all details and flyers to many stations throughout NZ as he is a riding buddy with many other officers who are as pissed off about this as ourselves

Trouble is can we get someone to front up and officially state these facts/opinions!
I don't think so but can't blame them for not risking their job.

Good work mate! You just tell him and his mates not to ticket us when we don't pay our rego as a protest because of all the reasons stated here!!

[wingrider]

Has commented that there is already talk about if they are going to be required to check rego's.

The response has been they will only check rego's if the rider has brought themselves to their attention because of other activities, They are required to do this as a normal part of their duties.

No way in hell are the going to be able to target every rider on the road and they dont want to be labeled as ACC Police.

[PhantasmNZ]

Slight aside... I rode through a police checkpoint the other day with my "Easy Taget - Who's Next" printed vest over my jacket. Bike cop looked, smiled, said "good on ya" and waved me on through...

Great to see support from the boys in blue

[PhantasmNZ]

Read THIS.

This is from the analyst guy who was at the protest this morning. It seems there is no actual link between cc class and cost - since (as we thought), ACC do not correlate individual claims/costs...

“…ACC does not collect information on the precise vehicle class associated with each Motor Vehicle Account claims. (p25)

“…The CAS information only allows the number of claims in each class to be identified, rather than the claim cost. (p25)

[PhantasmNZ]

Just wondering if there's been any more from the ACC Ixion?

By the way - anyone who missed the Close-up episode where ACC promised this elusive data is here: http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/angry-bik...-3089877/video

[Ixion]

Further data requested

Hi paul

The "covering letter" referred to , from keith McLea, asked me to contact you for any further requirements.

The data is the spreadsheet has gone some way toward answering our questions . but there are some gaps and some anomalies

I would therefore request:

1. A break down of the cost figure in the spreadsheet into ERC cost and other cost (or, medical cost and other if that is simpler)
2. The spreadsheet is entitled Relativity_initial_data. Initial implies there is a later version. is there ?
3. We are also using the data published in the 'Statiscs' section of your website , specifically the url http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800020. It would be very useful if that data could be supplied in a spreadsheet 9or xml) format. Failing that can you please supply the ACC payout for each year/vehicle type for new claims that year. the web page has number of new claims for the year and total payout for all active claims, but not payout for new claims
4. Are you able to advise the inflation rates and interest rates assumed for the actuarial calculation of required reserves
5. can you please supply the number and cost , of residual MOTORCYCLE claims for, say, the last 5 years

We are puzzled by an anomaly between the data in the spreadsheet and the data on the cited web page.

We realise (or presume, anyway) that the web page shows only entitlement claims, whereas the spreadsheet shows ALL claims - Is this actually correct? If so it explains why the web page shows 3457 cars driver/passenger claims for 2007-8 , whereas the spreadsheet shows 7426 claims. Not all claims become entitlement claims - for cars the ratio being about 50%. that makes sense.

but when we look at motorcycles, the web page shows 1337 claims. Which agrees , more or less with MoT TOTAL crash figures (though this does imply that almost all motorcycle claims become entitlement claims, which seems rather improbable). but - the spreadsheet includes only 892 motorcycle claims. How can the entitlement claims be greater than the total claims? Even if the spreadsheet years and the web page years do not quite coincide , that would not explain such a large discrepancy/ Can you please explain this anomaly.

We are also puzzled by significant anomalies between the number of machines used in your capacity calculations , and MoT licensing figures for motorcycles. ACC seem to have "lost" over 10000 machines. Are the ACC numbers transformed to give some sort of "full year equivalent" ?

Thank you

Les Mason
BRONZ

[Ixion]

It gets dodgier and dodgier

reply from ACC to request for more info

Hi Paul. Thank you for the prompt reply.

I have added comments and responses below each of your points, below

thanks
Les


On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Paul Gimblett wrote:

Hi Les,

Thanks for taking the time to develop a submission on the proposed levies. I have answered your questions below.

Questions

1) The individual elements of the estimated lifetime costs are not able to be identified as there is a capping applied to the overall cost of the claim. The capping is applied to the total estimated lifetime costs and therefore will affect different payment areas differently. ACC could provide the data requested by removing the capping applied but this reduces the use of the data for levy calculations. - it will also take 2 working days to do due to the current work loads in the actuarial team. Can you confirm you still require this data. Care should be taken when using estimated lifetime costs for individual claims as the estimate error is much higher at individual claim level than when the data is aggregated.

OK. Yes we do still need the data. But i will explain a little more what we are trying to do, and maybe you can suggest an alternative methodology. Looking at the different lifetime cost estimates between capacity calsses, what we are trying to do is determine what proportion of the difference is due to larger bikes being ridden by people with higher incomes, and what proportion is due to the riders of ;larger bikes incurring more serious injuries . And thus higher ERC costs in the event of a crash. Most 250s are ridden by students (or young people anyway). Students, and young people generally have very low incomes. Therefore low ERC costs. Whereas , someone riding an 1800cc machine has the income to pay perhaps $30000 for a machine which is essentially recreational . He will probably have a high(ish) income, and thus high ERC costs. In like manner if large capacity bikes show higher non-ERC costs , which would be mainly medical and rehabilitation expenses , we may deduce that the riders of large capacity machines are indeed more severely injured in a crash

That's what we are trying to derive. If there is a simpler way for your BI team to derive that, we would run with that. otherwise , yes we do need uncapped data

2) The 'initial' means the original data. All subsequent work are summaries from this data.

OK

3) I should be able to get this data in a suitable format for you. The cash spent on new claims is not routinely reported within ACC and as such will need a request for a one-off report to be created. This will take some time at present due to the high level of work being generated around the requests for information from people wanting to present ACC with a submission. The estimate is that the data could be available by the close of business on Tuesday next week. Please confirm you require this data and I will get the request underway.

Yes please. CoB Tuesday would be good

4) The information you are seeking is contained in the technical document you have received from ACC

Noted. I'll go search

5) This is not a standard report inside ACC. The data can be compiled but will take some time as a new one-off report will need to be created and there is currently a significant amount of work underway with other requests for information. The estimate is that the data could be available by the close of business on Tuesday next week. Please confirm you require this data and I will get the request underway.

Yes please. CoB Tuesday is good

Data anomalies.

I am a little concerned with how people are matching data. The injury statistics data reports the partial cash expenditure for the year on entitlement claims and includes claims for injuries from 2008 (in the case of the data you are quoting) back to 1974. While it is tempting to relate the cash costs to levies it is invalid as the cash costs in any one year are funded from a number of years of levy collected. The claim cost data used for levy rates has to reflect the life-time costs of claims which is always an estimate.. Also a component of the levy (around 51% of the motorcycle levy) is used to build up reserves for the cost of claims not funded in the past (prior to 1 July 1999 claims were paid for on a Pay As You Go basis).

Yes , we understand that.

You are correct that injury stats only counts the entitlements however the costs presented do not represent all the costs of those claims. The costs for medical fees and public hospital acute care are not reported.

That is understood. However public hospital acute care is bulk funded, we understand . can you tell us how the cost of the bulk funding is approportioned over the various accounts?

The other issue you raise with the number of claims not aligning across the two sources is not surprising as the data you have been sent is the matched claims between MOT and ACC data. All other claims are not included. As you correctly pointed out the MOT provided crash reports represent a small fraction of the 45,000 (approx) claims ACC received in the Motor Vehicle Account each year. Not all of the crash reports can be matched to ACC claims. Pages 25-27 of the technical document you received outline the results of the matching process.

OK. So you are saying that the remaining claims are not taken into consideration at all. Is there a data source that shows ALL motorcycle (in particular, though other vehicles being included would be fine) claims, whether matched or not. We are looking at the entirety of the motorcycle cost landscape not just that relating to different capacities

The matched data was used to determine relativities between groups of vehicles and not the levy. The levy was based on the calculation of the total funding required divided by the number of standard vehicles. The relativities then distribute this average levy across the groups of vehicles. For motorcycles ACC used a relativity of 150% (the same one used since the 2002/03 levy) to get an average levy of $585.84 for motorcycles (cars are paying $390.96). From here the average levy is distributed across the motorcycles based on the relative cost per vehicle. This mechanism means that if the levy for large motorcycles is decreased then small motorcycles must increase to ensure the average $585.84 is maintained..

The numbers provided for vehicle are "vehicle years" - that is the number of equivalent full year licensed vehicles (ie a motorcycle licensed for 6 months is counted as 0.5). I'm sorry for any confusion it was not clear to me at the time I forwarded them to our media area.

OK. Understood. That makes calculations simple

			Paul Gimblett, Product & Scheme Manager, ACC Tel +4 918 7554 / Fax +4 918 7351

[PhantasmNZ]

The other issue you raise with the number of claims not aligning across the two sources is not surprising as the data you have been sent is the matched claims between MOT and ACC data. All other claims are not included. As you correctly pointed out the MOT provided crash reports represent a small fraction of the 45,000 (approx) claims ACC received in the Motor Vehicle Account each year. Not all of the crash reports can be matched to ACC claims. Pages 25-27 of the technical document you received outline the results of the matching process.

So... for motorcycles, we are ONLY looking at crashes serious enough for there to be a detailed crash report to match to. Theses more serious crashes are more likely to result in ERC claims (not much loss of earings with a grazed knee).

Since the "number of claims per bike" is fairly flat across the capacites (the highest ACC category has actually .01% less claims per bike than the middle one) - I think this implies reasonably clearly that the ERC costs are an important factor. Looking forward to the additional data on this split...

[pzkpfw]

The cash spent on new claims is not routinely reported within ACC...

How the fuck is this not something they report?!

Also a component of the levy (around 51% of the motorcycle levy) is used to build up reserves for the cost of claims not funded in the past...

So they claim they need more money off us to pay for our accidents, but over half of what they want is really just to cover the change in the way things are funded.

[riffer]

So they claim they need more money off us to pay for our accidents, but over half of what they want is really just to cover the change in the way things are funded.

Not quite. The claim they need more money off us to pay for how much they ASSUME it will cost for the amount of accidents they ASSUME we will have, and over half of what they want is really just to cover the change in the way things are funded.

[Reckless]

So... for motorcycles, we are ONLY looking at crashes serious enough for there to be a detailed crash report to match to. Theses more serious crashes are more likely to result in ERC claims (not much loss of earings with a grazed knee).
.

Also all off road injuries (as they are not recorded separately we are told) will have no Mot crash report done as they are not on the road, even though some of them could have very high ongoing costs attached. The costs for all these accidents need to be taken out of the figures for a start. Tha would reduce ACC costs and therefore the charges to us immensely. Otherwise this is just a exercise in futility.

Also Ixion a comment on your Larger capacity/Higher income theory! If the stats and costs for MX, Enduro & recreational X country accidents are included. Most MX bikes are 125-450, Income brackets would be from low to high so the no distinction can be made there Vs cc rating? So how does this work??

I cannot understand if the Off road stats are not excluded from the figures how ACC can even apply any rates to road bikes and CC ratings. It simply doesn't work! Its like asking pedestrians to pay for cyclists ACC. The base data is so wrong even without you guys doing any evaluation that it should be thrown out on that basis alone.
Thats probably one of the reasons the Mot and ACC data don't match road bikers are being charged for a HUGE amount of ACC claims that don't happen on the road and that should simply not be allocated to us!!! Wouldn't surprise me if Doctors put down Bike Accident even if its a push bike!

Ask ACC for the figures for road registered bikes. A Rego charged ACC levy should only be for Road registered bike accidents. If they can't supply tell them to bugger off with their levy till they can. Simple as that in my view!
If your plumber can't prove he did the work he was charging you for, there laws that apply to that prevent him from ripping you off right! So why do these same laws not apply to ACC!! There's another angle maybe??

I know I'm harping on over this, and I'm an off roader (I don't actually have a working road bike at the moment) but I cannot understand how even you guys can do your figures??

I'm not going to be ripped off! I simply won't pay my bike rego! Its very very wrong that National can let this happen.
After many years voting National I have lost all faith in National over this!