Comments from Resource and final info threads

[MSTRS:Me]

And where would they get the figures for the no of km's bikes ride in a year compared to cars? (maybe from the WOF readings?)

Possibly. But more likely to have come from a highly accurate survey they did in 1998 or 1999 of 300 people.

[Ixion]

I have some stats form ACC. Very limited, but I'll get more

Already we can PROVE that their "big bikes cost more " is total bullshit

See the ACC data thread for breakdown

[Ms Piggy]

Miss P, looks like your designated photographer, thanks for the offer

Ooooo rightio then!

[CherryB]

The facts on Motorcycle crashes can be found here (assuming that ACC used these for their policy):

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...clecrashfacts/

A problem is that a lot of these don't mean much in isolation. The graph showing % of bikes involved in crashes on page 3 doesn't show it in relation to how many bikes are in those categories.

Death and injury rates likewise should be relative to past trends and numbers riding in each year...

[wingrider]

Not sure if some of the info I just posted on the thread below is of any help


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...&postcount=109

[R-Soul]

I also think that the statute forming the ACC should be more clearly reviewed to see what the terms and conditions are for the citizens of a country losing their rights to sue.

Who knows - Perhaps the proposed ACC levies are illegal?

[R-Soul]

Now there is an opportunity for a barrister to make a name for himself by representing 110 000 bikers (who may or may not be rich buggers with many bikes and cars) in taking the ACC down a peg or two.

Any takers?

[MSTRS:Me]

... I think they would rather subsidise us by $77 a year ...

But they aren't. It is a complete fabrication. And we have proved that.

[R-Soul]

But they aren't. It is a complete fabrication. And we have proved that.

Actually no you have not.

Sure if you take $77 and multiply it by the no of cages then you get more money than the $62 mill they said they paid out for us last year. BUT remember that they are moving to the "fully paid" version, which means that they don't just collect what they will need to pay out in a particular year (like they did before). Now they collect what they will pay out that year, as well as what they will pay out in for the entire term of the payouts for those injuries sustained in that particyular years (i.e. they collect the initial costs as well as ALL the future payouts such as physio, loss of income, etc for the life of those injuries in the year that the injuries were sustained). They collect additional money and then estimated what the value of this money (when invested) will be and whether that money will be enough to pay for ALL the costs.

Which is where they got the $77 from. Hate to burst your bubble, but I think if we are going to bitch about things, we need to know the truth and understand where they are coming from.

[MSTRS:Me]

Partially right. You forget that if $77 pays for future costs, that means approx $240M is collected each year to cover those future costs. Then again next year. And the year after that. Etc.
Don't tell me that future costs from injuries in any given year are $240M. Each and every year.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Now, those seem sane figures to me. They equate well to our own figures based on MoT stats, that show bike crashes at about 3 to 4 times those of cars?

Only those cars that make an ACC claim guy at work as had three accidents (no ACC claim yet) but I am sure the insurance companies would give a different figure

of course beinga biker you a more likely to make an ACC claim

[R-Soul]

Partially right. You forget that if $77 pays for future costs, that means approx $240M is collected each year to cover those future costs. Then again next year. And the year after that. Etc.
Don't tell me that future costs from injuries in any given year are $240M. Each and every year.

Actually if teh inital costs are $62m, then the final tally for accidents in that year could be $240m. Think: income replacement (the really big one), physios, family support, medical support, disability support. this ongoing support could keep going for the next 10 or 20 years.

$180 million divided by the number of bike accidents (758 in the last year) is (cant remember how many) and by 10 years is 23 000 dollars a year per accident. Probably not that unrereasonable when you take administrtaion charges into account as well (maybe up to a third?).

[Ixion]

According to ACCs own figures (that data they sent me), the total FULLY FUNDED cost for bike claims in 2009 was $49,211,466.85 (love the precision).

So, the cost of crashes that happened in 2008 was 49 million odd, to pay ALL the costs of those crashes forever.

Then there needs to some added for the costs of crashes prior to full funding (? 1999?) , which will be the balance of the 62 million.

And they want to add some extra to build up the fund to fully fund those old crashes.

But no way does the present and future cost of a years crashes come to $200 M +

[MSTRS:Me]

Nor is the initial cost in 2008, $62M. $38M of it is historical.

[Ixion]

Yes. The 62M is the amount they actually paid out that year.

That would be PART of the 49M (cos the 49M covers future years also), plus payments for people who crashed between 1999 and 2008 , which should NOT be set aginst that years income because they are already paid for, plus payments for people who crashed before 1999.

That's one of the things I'm going to go back to the ACC on - how much of the 62M is historic, how much previous years funded, and how much current year.

The ACC are incredibly secretive about how much they pay out each year for that years new claims. Which makes me suspect it's a number that doesn't fit their theories.