Data from ACC

[MarkH]

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

You mentioned rugby players, cyclists & offroads - my point was that there are also home DIYers to add to the list, they cost the ACC more than the 3 groups you mentioned combined and they also don't get charged a levy.

I am sure that there are many other groups as well, but accidents around the home are probably the biggest source of ACC payouts. If you think about it we are doing ACC a favour by going out on our bikes instead of staying at home where most accidents happen!

[Ixion]

Help me here chasps.

According to this official ACC document there were 3456 NEW claims for car drivers/passengers in 2007.

And 1336 ditto motorcycle

But : if I total the claims in the spreadsheet for "Passenger car" I get 7216 claims for 2007 . And the heading says that year is the accident year. There might be a very small number where the accident occurred in one year and the claim lodged in the next year but it would be tiny.

So the number of claims in the spreadsheet is twice that in the web document

BUT with bikes it's reversed

Only 829 claims in the spreadsheet , versus 1336 in the document

This is the source of the claims that we cost more than cars

If you take the spreadsheet figures (remember, this isn't what they have paid out, this is what they have put aside for that year and subsequent years ), average cost per car = 19710. Versus bike = 61401

But if we take the figures in the document

Car = 41154
Bike = 38100 - we're cheaper.

Sure I can ask ACC. But I hate asking for information when I don't know what I'm going to get back .

Any ideas ??

[MSTRS:Me]

You just use the figures that suit our purpose. You can truthfully claim, and prove, that those figures were given to you by ACC when pressed under the OIA.
As you and others have said, it's about making them look unreliable, if not downright deviously dishonest.

[Ixion]

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 ?..

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.

The answer is "all of the above"

We want to push for a policy of "no-one pays more"

But we need to discredit ACC figures. because at present they are saying (and politicans are parroting" " Motorcyclists should really be paying #3700. Every car driver is subsidising motorcyclists by $77. Motorcycles are 16 times as dangerous as cars"

Now, with that going down, it's hard to get much traction Politicians will say, or think , "Well, sounds like you're getting off lightly".

We don't want to move the costs from one group of bikers to another.

What we want to do is to be able to say "ACC's figures are unreliable. Look here. And here . And here". You can't rely on their figures at all"

Then we have the ground clear to argue that the fair way (and the simplest since ACC figures are no longer trusted) is to make cars and bikes the same

Or, at least , put cars and ALL bikes up by the same amount . (that works for us, because they dare not have huge increases in car levies). "Just while the correct numbers are worked out, eh?"

This is really important.

We're attacking the numbers to discredit them. Not to move costs around .

[Ixion]

Incidentally has anyone noticed that SS is title "Relativity_Initial_Data".

I shall ask for the FINAL version. I wonder what has changed?

[Ixion]

You just use the figures that suit our purpose. You can truthfully claim, and prove, that those figures were given to you by ACC when pressed under the OIA.
As you and others have said, it's about making them look unreliable, if not downright deviously dishonest.

Oh, I shall. But I like to know (just in my own mind, like) , where there is a discrepancy, WHY that is. Then you know what areas to avoid.

[sleemanj]

The answer is "all of the above"

We want to push for a policy of "no-one pays more"

But we need to discredit ACC figures. because at present they are saying (and politicans are parroting" " Motorcyclists should really be paying #3700. Every car driver is subsidising motorcyclists by $77. Motorcycles are 16 times as dangerous as cars"

Can't we just cut to the chase and ask the ACC to show us how exactly they come to these figures, they seem to be quite certain about them, one would expect that some charlie there has the formula written down (possibly it looks something like "Step 1: pick a number, Step 2: ???, Step 3: profit!")

In the words of my high school math teachers, "please show working".

[MSTRS:Me]

Pointless - if the originating data is a load of bollocks.
I know you get marks for correct workings at school, but this is the real world and the bottom line is "Is the answer right?"

[Ixion]

Not really. We are at a level under formul;as, we are looking at raw data here. If the fundamental data is wrong, doesn't matter what the formulas are (f'instance if a clerk copying accident data into the computer turns over two pages at once, and a page full doesn't get entered, the result will be wrong no matter how you work it out).

[PhantasmNZ]

I do wonder if the "smoking gun" of the CC rating nonsense is as was stated earlier that owners of higher capacity machines tend to earn more...

Can we confirm the payout figures include covering loss of wages as well as medical expenses - if they do then we have another strong case. ACC already deducts a % from our wages which is already linked to what we earn.

There's a strong possibility that some fresh out of school BA sat there with his "Analysis Toolset" (a copy of Excel), and just =SUM'ed all the little boxes with $ signs.

I would completely expect that, if the data anywhere gives car make/model, that the ACC risk profile of BMW/Merc/Lexus/HSV/FPV owners is significantly higher than the rest of us.

Incidently - one really good point to make - The ACC/National are planning to give a REDUCTION to owners of greener (IE BRAND NEW) cars - if the assertions above are true, then I would bet my dinner that cost per claim of new car owners is higher than those who drive 10+ yr old jap imports.... why do they get off so lightly - they should be stung with MORE LEVY

Hoping to have a deeper dig into those numbers as well - Les, please keep me on the list for more data if you get any - happy to help analyse.

[sleemanj]

Pointless - if the originating data is a load of bollocks.

Not really. We are at a level under formul;as, we are looking at raw data here. If the fundamental data is wrong, doesn't matter what the formulas are

You're both missing the point, if we find out HOW ACC has come to the conclusions they have, starting with (as you have) the base data and also including the workings they took to get to the result set, then we are in a stronger position to point out whatever the obvious flaw in thier working is.

As it stands we only have (some of) the base data, we don't (as far as I know) know how ACC got from that base data to the conclusions they are drawing, we are only guessing.

It's about the whole picture.

Otherwise we may wind up saying "look, the way we have worked all this out, you're wrong, and this is why" and they say "well that's not how we worked it out, and this is why" and we all get back to square one (well, square two) again.

[PhantasmNZ]

I think we're on the track though - the (admittedly bollocks) data does seem show the 'ACC' picture of the universe (big cost per claim, "bigger" for "big" bikes (when aggregated badly))- even though it's inconsistent and more than inconclusive...

[Ixion]

inconsistent and inconclusive is enough!. We only have to show that their model is defective. We don't have to come up with al alternate model

If we can say "There is no consistency in cost or crash figures across capacity ratings. Since the evidence is inconclusive a cc based schem cannot be justified"

Which it is

750s crash less and cost les sthan 600s yet they would charge them more.

etc etc

(But the point made earlier is a valid one : we don't want to just move pain around. Gaining a reduction for 600+ is meaningless if it's promptly shoved onto < 600. We need an across the board reproposal)

[The Stranger:Me]

You're both missing the point, if we find out HOW ACC has come to the conclusions they have,

Why not ask them point blank?
Simply say, hey from the data you have provided we can't make the figure stack up, can you please show us how you got there?
Why wouldn't we?

[Ixion]

I want to go back to them on monday and demand more

I want

Breakdown into income replacement costs and other costs (to see if bigger bikes cost more because of higher income riders)
Breakdown into "paid this year" so we can see what they are actually paying each year
I want to know where the missing bieks are . MoT show about 10000 more registered than appear in the ACC totals

I want to knwo where the missing claims have gone to on bikes, and where the extra ones came from on cars.

What else do we want ?

make a list