Data from ACC

[Ixion]

But on the other hand, the better paid are not the people National want to alienate.

They don't much care if they piss off the poor, the latter don't vote national anyway.

[Ocean1]

Yes, inneresting eh? Tends to suggest a prime mover other than the political arm. And/or a disturbing lack of diligence on the party’s part wrt the crafting of ACC policy.

[Jantar]

......And I'll include in MoT figures for number of bikes registered in each category (From the graph - jantar would it be possible to get actual numbers ?).....

I have emailed Phil Read at the adress from whence then report was emailed to me. So far no response.

[The Stranger:Me]

OK. I think I see where they are coming from

if you group the figures by their classifications (0-125,126-600, 600+) the big bikes come out ahead on both total claims and average per claim

BUT - that doesn't include numbers of each registered.

I've alreay determined that big bikes have only about half the crashes per bike as smaller ones.
(I'll put in actual figures tomorrow)

class 1 4 million 103 claims avg 37K
class 2..5 million 114 claims avg 44K
class 3..17 million 198 claims avg 87K

Sort of figures, big bikes = experienced riders (well, sometimes!). Less likely to have a minor bin than a moped rider. But when they do, it's likely to be nasty

And although the big bikes are costing more per claim, since they only claim ahlf as often it comes to about the same. Fewer claims per machine registered, but bigger oens

Since ACC get twice as much levy , they can't complain at twice as much claims.

It's largely moot anyway. Fighting them on costs is futile.
But I would suspect that the larger avgperclaim is as a result of those on larger bikes generally having larger incomes.
80% of a uni student income vs 80% of say a tradesman/nerd/bank manager etc etc. None of which makes the CC rating at fault. Were these same people to fall off 600s instead the "problem" would exist there.

[Reckless]

But on the other hand, the better paid are not the people National want to alienate.

They don't much care if they piss off the poor, the latter don't vote national anyway.

Exactly we have got to start referring to it as National ACC. And have a go at the Nats. Reinforce the point they are alienating middle NZ here IE their voters!

Btw: Are off road bikes included in those figures posted??I've read several times they don't separate the figures? If they are the 50-600cc brackets are greatly exaggerated. Take out the off road accident costs and you'd have a completely different set of figures! It would make the 600cc+ bracket look pretty bad though as most off road/MX bikes are 85-450cc.

I have emailed Phil Read at the address from whence then report was emailed to me. So far no response.

Would that able you to pull the off road bikers out and get a real figures for road registered bikes!

As an off roader and a road rider fuel levy is about the only way that at least a small portion of ACC could be attributed to me when I go enduro riding. Most off the rides are miles away and then there's fuel for the bikes. I'd put at least $60 bucks gas in the ute and $20 in the bikes just for a ride out the sandpit! More if its a ride in mercer etc. Towing a trailer would suck even more fuel.

Still reckon its undemocratic. Its either fault or no fault! They either levy fuel (or whatever) or they come out with a very long list of ACC costs to ALL sports charged through an ACC levy at purchase (off roaders and mountain bikes etc, second hand and new), Increased sport club fees, Rego levy, and various other methods of collection. Shit they could even levy running shoes or all shoes at $10 a pair at importation and get the pedestrians, joggers, runners etc as well!

Fault or no fault, everyone or no-one!! Its got to be fair, That's why I'll protest and not vote National for the first time in xxx years!

Good luck with trying to discredit their figures guys. Hope you are successful. At least it might win over some public support and also discredit the Nats enough to back down on this issue.

[MacD]

I want to know if the higher cost of big bikes is simply because people crashing them have well paying jobs and therefore cost more for ACC.

I suspect the difference may also lie in the type of accident associated with larger cc ratings, where larger capacity bikes are more likely to be ridden at open road speeds, and so an accident is likely to result in greater injury repair and rehabilitation costs.

On the other hand, looking at the 1340+ figures (the big cruisers mainly) you may be right!

[MacD]

It's largely moot anyway. Fighting them on costs is futile.

While I mostly agree with you, it is worth pointing out that the division by cc ratings is artificial and inconsistent. For example the 51-125cc group (~$68K) has about the same cost per claim as the 1001-1340cc group (~$65K).

CC rating is probably just a proxy for income (purchase cost of bike) or accident speed (open road vs city riding).

[MacD]

401-600.........974371.7.............16............... .......123398.2312

Hi Ixion

Something is not quite right here. Either the total cost is $1974371 or the cost per claim is only $60898.

Can you check which is right?

Thanks

[jeffs]

I understand finding the numbers and crunching them is real important, but after todays ride I took a deep breath and looked back on what is going on, what are we trying to achieve ?

Are we saying big bikes should not have to pay more, all bikes should be the same ? Because if we are we are condemning smaller bikes to pay even more. This will only out price the up and coming next biker generations riding 50-250cc bikes.

Surly the argument is "Why are we being asked to be completely self funding for ACC when other dangerous sports are free" ?

Just accept that if say 60% of crashes leading to ACC claims are Car on Bike. 40 % are not. So why are we now being asked to solely fund the 60% as well. This is the real important number we to find out.

62M X 40% = $25M ( just plain Bike only related ACC claims )

25M / 106,000 ( registered bikes over 50cc ) = $235

We already pay this and a bit more.

ACC is a no fault system, so the pool to cover the remainder should include the cars ( like it of not AA ).

62-25= $37M
$37 / 3million + cars and vans + 106,000 bikes = $11

Even if my figures are out and it's 50% cars on bikes. The shared costs should reflect the total vehicles involved.

Cars and Bikes. !!!!

Stop trying to find out which bike should pay less or more. Do we have real figures for Car on Bike ( through the CAS data ).

Or maybe I've got it wrong and I'm not on the same page.

[Marmoot]

Arggh .
whats going on here.
....
yes it does . 444 records for type like '%motor%' and year = 2009
...
If it is only 444 for 2009, what's going on.

I'll validate it to 2008

2008 gives only 892 claims against acc figures of 1337
...

444 + 892 = 1336
Close to 1337.

But let's sit back and look at our point though?
If you want to prove that levy charges should depend on the amount of cost involved per bike class, should the same logic be applied to "per activity class" which means ACC should start charging for cyclists, rugby players, and offroads?

ACC in one side maintains that just because motorcyclists cost too much for the levy collected from the section, they have to be levied more.
Yet on the other side ACC maintains that cyclists et al can not be levied regardless of their cost?

Who's subsidising them? Car drivers and wage earners? They are happy to subsidise these yet they complain about subsidising motorcyclists?

That's an angle you can work on.

[The Stranger:Me]

Surly the argument is "Why are we being asked to be completely self funding for ACC when other dangerous sports are free" ?

Well that and since when did the concept of victim pays become vogue. Where else does the govt enshrine the principals of victim pays?
Cars hit us and we pay? They are looking for "fair" (or equitable) the cars should be subsidising us.

[MarkH]

should the same logic be applied to "per activity class" which means ACC should start charging for cyclists, rugby players, and offroads?

Most accidents happen around the home - how come I can buy a ladder without paying an ACC levy for it? ACC payouts for people that fall off ladders are huge! What about power tools and even hand tools? DIY costs ACC a lot of money, but it is motorcyclists that the ACC are gunning for!

Of course there is no guarantee that they aren't looking at how they can charge rugby players next and another group after that.

[Marmoot]

Quoted from my post

Most accidents happen around the home - how come I can buy a ladder without paying an ACC levy for it? ACC payouts for people that fall off ladders are huge! What about power tools and even hand tools? DIY costs ACC a lot of money, but it is motorcyclists that the ACC are gunning for!

Of course there is no guarantee that they aren't looking at how they can charge rugby players next and another group after that.

Sorry I may have missed it, but your post's point was....?
(not pulling your legs, mate . This is a serious question).

[Pixie]

444 + 892 = 1336
Close to 1337.

But let's sit back and look at our point though?
If you want to prove that levy charges should depend on the amount of cost involved per bike class, should the same logic be applied to "per activity class" which means ACC should start charging for cyclists, rugby players, and offroads?

ACC in one side maintains that just because motorcyclists cost too much for the levy collected from the section, they have to be levied more.
Yet on the other side ACC maintains that cyclists et al can not be levied regardless of their cost?

Who's subsidising them? Car drivers and wage earners? They are happy to subsidise these yet they complain about subsidising motorcyclists?

That's an angle you can work on.

If ACC are so fucking dogmatic on who can and can't be levied,then we should be equally dogmatic and demand that there be no separate levy structure for any vehicle.And we will not register till this is put in place.
Screw the numbers!

[Ixion]

The important point about the numbers is that they are a political not insurance concept

We don't have to (or probably want to) come up with alternative numebrs to ACC.

What we DO want to do is find faults with their numbers so that we can sow the seeds of doubt in peoples minds

At present people like John key say "ACC tell us that really you guys should be paying $3700. So $750 sounds like you're getting a pretty good deal, why should other people subsidise you"

We need to make them uncertain about the figures ACC give them.

Which we can do by highlighting anomalies.

ACC are putting forward numbers that are technically correct but misleading and slanted. Cherrypicking the bad stuff.

We can do the same, cherrypicking the good stuff

We're trying to persuade the politicians and the public, not accountants or statisticians.