Transcript of a Facebook Conversation - Pt1

[James Deuce]

This guy is really good to work with, very clever, and a really pleasant chap. The transcript reveals (IMO) just how skewed public perception has become due to subtle and overt media manipulation both by Government and Private organisations including Fairfax.

A: its pretty simple, insurance is based on risk, if it wasnt the government provideing the insurance, privte companies would charge moter cyclyts a lot more because ther is a lot more risk of an accident costing a lot more than a car driver. i ask this of the bikers, why the hell should i have to pay for your risk?

Another Facebook user replies

A: i asked why sould "I" pay for bikers risk, I am a very careful driver, I make sure I only put makeup on in the comfort of my own home, I have never caused a motercycle accident. your argument supports more of a sueing based system like they have in the states where you, as the parapalegic motercyclist, after having your accident could get great satisfaction out of sueing the driver who was putting their lipstick on and it would all be worth being crippled for. if we are taking a comunal approach to paying for acceident compensation i want to make sure people arent taking unneccesary risks no matter whos fault it may be

Another Facebook user replies using ACC levy on license argument

A: not sure how that would work, a lot of people, myself included, have a moter cycle lisence for years but have not ridden a motercycle. the whole its the car drivers fault is really thre ultimate in cutting off your nose to spite your face - im a cripple now but at least it wasnt my fault, even though i was fully aware of the risks!??!!

Me: Piece of wees A. If you don't own a registered motorcycle, the fee doesn't touch your license.

ACC is a no fault syste. Motorcyclists are the only people singled out. Cyclists and pedestrians cost just as much and car accidents cost more per accident victim than motorcyclists. Motorcyclists shouldn't be singled out. No one else is. Bear in mind also that ACC is the only Government dept making money. They have returned an avergae of 8.7% on investment over the last 5 years, including the recession bit. Their fund managers are geniuses.

A: i am not happy paying for other peoples sports injuries either.you dont need to look at stats to work out its going to cost more to fix a motercyclst than someone with airbags out the arse. how do you people know i havnt ridden a bike for a period of time, i have and then i woke up to how dangouros they where when my gearbox seized on the motor and a girlfriend almost got killed by one and I also know a number of surgeons who seem to think the injuries are a lot worse as well, but no, its that crazy acc targeting motercyclysts for no other reason than revenue. now i can afford a car i dont really see the point to taking a risk on a bike on the road with idiots when i could go to a track where i only have myself to blame. dont get me worng i dont care if you ride moterbikes, i just dont want to pay your medical bills if i dont cause your accident.motor cyclysts arnt the only people singled out in acc, differnt companies pay different levies based ont the risk to their employees (pretty sure).also i was pretty sure i had seen lots of articles in the news latly saying acc were running at a huge debt whcih is why they are bringnig in new fees, wasnt paying much attention. also i agree acc is a load of shit, i would much prefer to have a choice to buy private health insurnace. anyway i can see your all rather opinionated about this, as i would be if i were a biker. end of the day i dont really care so long as i dont have to pay any more
so do you all think ACC have intentionally cooked the stats to show bikers cost more so they can target them. now that would ma them really stupid, surely they woudl be fatr better off cooking the stats showing car drivers cost more, they are far more of them so they would get far more revenue. or have you taken the paranoia to another level and worked out that they would see through it if the did it to car drivers, no one will ever catch on (or care) if we target motor cyclyts. even though they are making a profit as one person said, why would they want to make more, it not as if it goes into thier pocktes
if it is in fact true that per accident victum a car driver costs more than a motorbike rider then i retract everything i say and car drivers shold pay more that bikers, can anyone point me to this source of information becasue everythhing i have seen is the opposite
8 hours ago

Me: Yes mate I can. As I said, come and see me tomorrow and I'll go through it with you.

I've pulled this from ACC's stats.
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

Motorcyclists: - 3173 active claims - $62,523,000 - $19,704 per claim

Car occupant prices for ACC are going up due to the energy needed to penetrate the passenger cell. When the cell is penetrated the damage to the occupants is getting worse. It's one subtle component of the death toll staying static or trending slightly up.

[James Deuce]

Me: No one's cooked the books. ACC is making money, but not enough to operate as a fully funded insurance business. Currently ACC is pay as you go for everyone except motorcyclists. National wants to change it to a fully funded model which means ACC needs to carry the capital cover its liability. The issue isn't that motorcyclists face a rego rise or that ACC "cross subsidises" motorcyclists. The issue is that motorcyclists are the ONLY group of Kiwis singled out in this manner.

Just another point ACC isn't and should never be regarded as an Insurance business. It is a compensation scheme designed to avoid the litigious approach to compensation that blights the US and the UK. Despite only one dollar in 8 being spent on ACC clients, it still requires less money to run per head of capita than the " So Sue Me" approach in both the US and the UK.

A: yeah, but once you take into account all the acciednets that cost $0 in claims it changes things a bit doesnt it. so i did make a slight error in my logic the fact is if you are in a car in an accident you are more likely to not cost anything so this is a clear example of how the bikers are using the stats to show what they want which is wht they are accusing the giovernment of doing. better stats would be to include all accidents including the ones that dont cost anything for ACC -

Me: Accidents that cost nothing aren't part of ACC accounting, so you need to amend your logic.

A: thats my point, you cant use those statstics to show that car accidents cost more, they only cost more if they cost something, when you put the $0 value accidents in the avaerage motorcycle accident costs a lot more so why should I have to pay thet is my logic. my only point in all this is really in a comparable accident it costs a lot more to fix up a biker, why should I have to subsidise that when i intentionally choose not to ride one because i dont think the risk/benifit equation adds up. surely through my choices of safty i should be rewarded by paying less in risk based schems
anyway, enough bickering on L's post, sorry L! good luck to you guys getting it reversed end of the day i dont really care

Me: You've bought into the message the ACC is insurance and that "your" money is cross subsidising naughty motorcyclists.

It's a compensation scheme. Snowboarding and skiing is covered by ACC. ACC is still cheaper than proper Accident Insurance by a significant margin. If you want to head down that road and purchase Accident Insurance you won't be able to afford it, just like private jhealth care is marginally affordable now. NZ Insurance companies have already said they aren't interested (just like they did in '99 - two major Aussie Insurance Companies went broke trying to provide the cover ACC did) because they can't provide the coverage that ACC does at much cheaper rates - Have a look through your comments and you'll see that your own argument has veered away from arctuarial management of motorcycle costs to the overall injustice of paying ACC to cover Extreme sports..

Do you know what the biggest ACC account is? It costs us $610 million a year. It is the DIY, cooking, and bathing account. 50% of ACC's spend is on repairing people who cut a finger off cooking, fall off the roof, or slip over in the shower.

Just to bring it on track again, there are 100000 or so powered two wheelers registered on NZ roads. There are 4 million other vehicles. The government has tried to say that car drivers "cross subsidise" motorcyclists at $70 each. How does that work? They want 63 million from motorcyclists specifically (Rubgy costs the same btw), they claim they are getting 12mil (I've asked where the other 6 mil has gone in their books too). $70x4,000,000 is $280 million, 4 times what they reckon we owe them. It's a bit difficult to argue "logic" and "truth" in the face of a bald faced lie like that one.

We're also between 45 and 300% more likely to have an injury accident (depends on NZTA, MOT, or ACC stats - ACC is the lower one. Go figure) not the 1600-1800% that is being claimed in the media.

I'm not bickering and I'm not after a reversal in the proposed increases either, simply trying to demonstrate that the issue isn't anything to do with motorcyclists. We're the easy target because we've already been singled out (single - the only group of Kiwis) as requiring greater levies. So we bitch and moan and create a stink and National quietly gets on with privatising a bunch of ACC "accounts" and then goes, "haha, look no ACC levies - No Compensation or Accident insurance either - dumb F__k bikies - Hah Hah."

[James Deuce]

A: just out of interst, why do you think motorcycle riders are a minority when they seem to have so much going for them, why do you love them so much? if i want the exileration of speed etc I will go to Rainbows End, if I want to go from A to B safe, warm, dry without getting a saw back the car is a great way to go. however i do have a bit of a problem with SUV's for the same reason you guys have problems with cars, where will it all end will we all be driving round in those big foot things

Me:I don't have a problem with cars, and my bike is transport. Can you imagine the increase in congestion if the estimated 2-3000 motorcyclists using their bike as a commuter in Wellington used their car in a single passenger transport mode? I don't use the roads as a racetrack, and neither do the majority of motorcyclists. The minority, like anything, screw public perception up for the rest.

As an example 40% of motorcyclist deaths are entirely the fault of the rider losing control on a bend by themselves. A death is far cheaper for ACC, so we should be being congratulated for that. I don't for one minute believe that any other road user deliberately attempts to injure motorcyclists, but there are a number of factors that contribute to 2 or more vehicle intersection accidents, the major ones being motion camouflage, and the other is the average Kiwi driver only checks for 1/10th of second before making a decision to leave an intersection. Combine those and many drivers who pull out in front of a motorcycle genuinely didn't see them.

A lot of people project their own motorcycling experience onto every other rider. Sounds like you were a hoon and expect the same from everyone else!

I don't like snowboarding or the injuries it causes, but I don't want it banned. I don't like horses much either, and despite horse riding activities being right up there in the ACC stats I don't believe they should be banned either.

The main reason I love motorcycles is that it is the only thing left where there's no stereo, no cell phone, no pager, no other people, and there's just peace and scenery. Bluetooth is threatening to ruin that too. It's a social activity too. I can meet some mates in Tauramanui for a coffee and then ride home via Wanganui. Different scenery = attitude reset. Change is as good as a rest. You'll have stuff that you do that other people regard as risky. Why shouldn't that be banned too? Why should I pay taxes to pay for drownings and rescues at sea? There are as many of those every year as there are motor vehicle related deaths. Ban access to the sea! Who cares if people enjoy it, or use it to earn a living, or use it to commute?

[James Deuce]

The issue of Dangerous motorcyclists has been sold over time to the "public" as being a problem we have created for ourselves and they've bought it.

Even the clever ones.

Stay polite. Don't lose friends over it.

Don't even try to make a point if it all starts to go nasty either. Drop the argument and apologise.

Save the invective for those who make the stats up and label you, yes YOU, a nut case because you like bikes, but doesn't seem to mind people diving around underwater fumeroles.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

The 12.3 mil is only reistrations. it is estimated $90 per bike per year is paid in ACC via fuel (problem is that is estimate has a high error percentage and I can't find one that is closer.

$90 x 71648 = $6,448,320.00 (and the true number of bikes is really in the 100 thousand which puts it up around 9m)

there is also talk that actualy claims for 2008 were as low as 7.8 million and the rest is pre 1999 claim pay offs

[martybabe]

Thanks JD, food for thought there.

I don't think we have many friends outside of the biking community, at least I don't think many people are stopping to question whether this levy increase is just or not.
On a superficial level, to disinterested parties, it makes sense that we fall off and get hurt more and should therefore pay more, I doubt most people will take the time to look beyond the figures the Government are spitting out parrot fashion, I just don't think none bikey people will be that interested in our cause mores the pity. Man I hope I'm wrong.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I just don't think none bikey people will be that interested in our cause mores the pity. Man I hope I'm wrong.

I do know quite a few non bikers that see it as complete BS and un just

(there words not mine)

[James Deuce]

I do know quite a few non bikers that see it as complete BS and un just

(there words not mine)

They're probably too scared of you to argue.

[Pussy]

Nice work, Jim!

[JohnR]

This guy is really good to work with, very clever, and a really pleasant chap. The transcript reveals (IMO) just how skewed public perception has become due to subtle and overt media manipulation both by Government and Private organisations including Fairfax.

A: dont get me worng i dont care if you ride moterbikes, i just dont want to pay your medical bills if i dont cause your accident.

Kinda says it all really

[martybabe]

I do know quite a few non bikers that see it as complete BS and un just

(there words not mine)

Oh mate I do hope so, but honestly come 'D' day I think us bikers will be standing alone, except, maybe, for a few other small disgruntled groups that stand to loose by the changes to ACC and perhaps a few MPs with agendas of their own.

Can we really wake up the sleeping giant that is the general public even with a Superb case against the Nationals and ACC, I just don't think their interested enough.

Anyway, enough negativity... what do we want JUSTICE! when do we want it NOW!

[Winston001]

Thanks JD, food for thought there.

I don't think we have many friends outside of the biking community, at least I don't think many people are stopping to question whether this levy increase is just or not.
On a superficial level, to disinterested parties, it makes sense that we fall off and get hurt more and should therefore pay more, I doubt most people will take the time to look beyond the figures the Government are spitting out parrot fashion, I just don't think none bikey people will be that interested in our cause mores the pity. Man I hope I'm wrong.

I agree with you Marty but there is one thing in our favour. Our average age. Bikers aren't scruffy young lads. Ok - you might be but most of us aren't.

Todays bikers include engineers, doctors, businesspeople, lawyers - educated middle-aged people who are able to express themselves. We won't be quite as easy for Nick Smith and ACC to dismiss as they imagine.

[Ender EnZed]

Even the clever ones.

Stay polite. Don't lose friends over it.

Don't even try to make a point if it all starts to go nasty either. Drop the argument and apologise.

But some of them are so illiterate it's difficult to follow their illogic. IMO if you have enough friends you should make a point of cornering at least one or two and yelling loudly until they agree.

[martybabe]

I agree with you Marty but there is one thing in our favour. Our average age. Bikers aren't scruffy young lads. Ok - you might be but most of us aren't.

Todays bikers include engineers, doctors, businesspeople, lawyers - educated middle-aged people who are able to express themselves. We won't be quite as easy for Nick Smith and ACC to dismiss as they imagine.

Indeed, bring on the articulate ones from all walks of life , The more people the public see and go, oh look (he/she looks decent enough and they do make a very good case) the better. I really do believe we have good reason to be irked I just don't think Mr average would be bothered enough to cross a road and sign a petition as reflected in the text Jim posted.

I'm personally staying away from public speaking for fear of repulsing the populous against us, as in "Look at the state of that Ethel, typical rough arsed biker"

Hope your healing well mate.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I just don't think Mr average would be bothered enough to cross a road and sign.

Till we mention they are next... that their car will lower safety ratings will be higher ACC

the combined car and bike payout and motocycle claims
$270,828,000.00 / 2681461 = $101 per vehicle