A question about the ACC "facts"

[dpex]

Since we are supposidly in a fully funded model... the previous claims are most likely pree 1999

And the crowning point to the stats you have put up, NH, is that all car and bike crash claims represent just 0.0112% of all ACC claims. So why are there no other 'targeted' levies against any of the other 99.988% claimants?

[MSTRS:Me]

And the crowning point to the stats you have put up, NH, is that all car and bike crash claims represent just 0.0112% of all ACC claims. So why are there no other 'targeted' levies against any of the other 99.988% claimants?

But there is. A forestry worker will pay (and his employer too) a higher rate than does an accountant. Presumably felling trees is more dangerous than shuffling paper and tapping on a calculator. For instance.

[FROSTY:Me]

But there is. A forestry worker will pay (and his employer too) a higher rate than does an accountant. Presumably felling trees is more dangerous than shuffling paper and tapping on a calculator. For instance.

AHH-now yassee that depends dunnit?
has the accountant put in 20 claims this year for paper cuts to his staff and the forestry company put in none.?
acc has been quietly 'adjusting" employer acc levvies according to the industry and the company claim level

[Ixion]

I distinguish that , though. Because ALL employers are classified by risk Whereas ONLY motorcycles in the road account are classified by risk. If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)

And the process of determining each industry group risk rating is quite a consultative and transparent one, which the bike risk process certainly is not.

[Holy Roller]

and the forestry company put in none.?
l

Many small injuries like a wire strand through a finger are not claimed against as the paper work and proceedure let alone the increase in levies due to a claim are horendous and it is easier and cheaper to carry the workers time off work. From a mate (someone I know in passing) who runs a logging business.

[pzkpfw]

If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)

No and yes.

My point in the "sound bites" thread was that ACC want me to pay more for my "risky" motorcycle yet I pay the same for my 5-star-safety rated car as someone driving an old clunker [e.g. with (gasp) zero air bags and no ABS].

But I wouldn't actually want ACC fees differentiated by "safety rating" for cars. (I've read Nick Smith wants this!).

Although safety WAS one reason why I chose my car, another was budget - I could afford it.

"Safety" ratings tend to be about new technologies and designs; but you need to buy new cars to get these things.

A higher ACC fee would disadvantage people who simply can't afford a new "5-star-safety rated" car. It would unfairly disadvantage the "poor" - by making them "poorer"!

...and ACC is supposed to be a fair ("no fault") thing we all get.

(The current system, where new standards mean new cars get "better" is fine; todays new car is tommorrows second-hand car...)

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

But I wouldn't actually want ACC fees differentiated by "safety rating" for cars. (I've read Nick Smith wants this

They are thinking of changing this too... which again I disagree with... it simply goes agains the princples of ACC

Article[/COLOR]
“To read Sir Owen is to understand how far we've strayed from many of the principles on which ACC was built. Like community responsibility, which goes against the idea that you should levy one section of the community more heavily than others, as proposed by the current government. Sir Owen held that as we all benefit from risky activities, we should all bear the cost equally.

Targeting motorcyclists with this hike goes against everything ACC stands for. Sir Owen Woodhouse one of the founders of ACC says it breaches the principles of the scheme.

for for those that don't know he came up with the idea of ACC

[FROSTY:Me]

I distinguish that , though. Because ALL employers are classified by risk Whereas ONLY motorcycles in the road account are classified by risk. If all road users were risk rated then I'd say "fair enough" (I'd still think that such a concept was wrong in that it would violate the Woodhouse rpinciples, but that's another matter)

And the process of determining each industry group risk rating is quite a consultative and transparent one, which the bike risk process certainly is not.

Ya do see my point though.ACC has been changing from totally NO fault for quite some time. transparent or not acc levvies are adjusted by claim numbers by employers and the industry. so you could argue a precident has been set.

NOW STOP --before ya start slagging ME its Im not saying its right. I'm saying a real counter arguement to that needs to be available cos sure as eggs is eggs it WILL be raised in debate some time.
The same applies to the CURRENT and up to date facts.

[XP@]

ACC are presenting as fact the cost of motorcycle accidents is $X and this cost needs to be covered by registered motorcycles.
If this value is correct then we have nothing to argue with.

However if one accident off road is included in the stats then the $X becomes incorrect. Current collection methods do not provide adequate clarity in this split. Therefore neither us nor the ACC can determine the true cost until a statistically representative sample can be collected using a clear method which ascertains which group the accident falls in to. This may take 12+ months to obtain, given change to forms and changes to collection methods.

The line may be fuzzy in places e.g. an off road motorcycle on a public road like a beach or a registered motorcycle on an off road track.

Until we have correct data we can only guess that there is a substantial percentage of "off road" accidents. However from experience I have fallen off hundreds of times off road but, on the road, touch wood, only a few.

Quoting our own numbers is dangerous as they may be able to prove them wrong by providing more statistics. Whereas if we can undermine their collection methods all of their numbers become useless and their argument falls.

We should also remember that they have web browsers too...