Has anyone actually done an analytical report yet? If not I need stats, STAT!

[PhantasmNZ]

The missing part of the puzzle though - as Ixion was on the hunt for - is the raw and unaggregated data (and methodology) used by ACC to engineer their stats/lies/damn-lies.

It's all very well us trawling every data source we can find publically available - but few of these figures add up either. If ACC's figures are accurate, independently audited by PWC (not forgetting personally checked by the head honcho of ACC - ooooooh!) - then it should be straightforward for anyone to see the point their making.

In the end if the data is the data then we have to accept it. It might still not be fair (or what the ACC is supposed to be) and that's another issue - but currently, we have what looks like poorly engineered statistics that contradict each other to anyone with over an 8 or so year-olds grasp of maths

[StoneY]

Heres a screenshot of the Fleet Numbers in NZ as at 30 June 2009
I have asked NZTA directly for these 3 figures to be extracted and e-mailed to me

1: How many registered Private Motor vehicles are in New Zealand as at 31st October 2009
2: How many registered Motorcycles (or any class 6 classified vehicle) are registered in New Zealand as at 31st Oct 2009
3: How many Commercial light vehicles (eg not class 2 or above) are registered in New Zealand as at 31st October 2009


please look closely at the screenshot here fo NZTA stats
Note the registered ATV's
Lady on the phone before told me these class as a Motorcycle in the overall tally

Total REGISTRERED vehicles (including ATV and Mopeds) within the Motorcycle account at NZTA adds up to 134,973 as at 30 June 2009

Motorcycles specific, 101,457

Thats a shitload more than 12 million in ACC levys collected

[MacD]

It's going to be in a report format, assessing the actual claim costs of motorcycling and other means of transport, and their relative revenues.

From there I'll calculate the fair cost for us and other road users to be paying. This will be based on current costs we "owe" and the latest land transport/MoT data without accounting for future growth, UNLESS information is supplied to allow me to do that.

I'll make a few assumptions you guys won't like, like that we pay for all our costs irrespective of cause, but that will be applied to ALL road users... UNLESS I can find statistics to allow an accurate calculation of costs incurred to motorcyclists from car drivers etc. asfaik this information do not exist.

You do realise that this is effectively the analysis ACC has already undertaken? Personally I'm not of the opinion that the ACC figures are wildly inaccurate based on the assumptions they have made in producing them.

Our best argument is that the allocation of costs on this basis undermines the fundamental principles of ACC as a no-fault compensation scheme with the community sharing the costs of injuries in order to assure that all members of the community receive adequate care. Applying the strict rules of insurance-based risk and cost assessment will result in the the type of outcome we already have seen from ACC. The figures for injury liability insurance for motorcycles in Australia are about comparable with the ACC proposals.

[Jantar]

... Personally I'm not of the opinion that the ACC figures are wildly inaccurate based on the assumptions they have made in producing them......

Possibly. But we already know that those assumptions are incorrect.

[motorbyclist]

Possibly. But we already know that those assumptions are incorrect.

well hopefully I'll be able to verify that...

cheers for the data guys - here's hoping that public organisations keep their figures/data readily available to the public online

[motorbyclist]

10charsminimum

that pdf there you posted basically sums up a lot of what I've set out to do - why haven't I heard that conclusion brandied about yet?! $82 per vehicle (per year I assume) sounds almost too good to be true!

Of course I'll be checking all of that, just in case


I've reattached it for those that didn't read it....

[motorbyclist]

Progress report: still going through the ACC financial statements - in 2008 alone they lost $429 million on the motor account.

All up, 2008 saw a loss of $2.4 billion, rather than the budgeted loss of $0.6 billion

From what I can tell, the guys who made the 2008 budget totally got it wrong - future costs of claims went up while investments lost us $1.6million rather than earning $766million, probably thanks to the recession etc etc


interesting that this isn't mentioned in the "ACC at a glance" part at the start of the 2008 annual report.... but sure enough the 2009 statement of intent opens by saying they're screwed....

*makes coffee*

[motorbyclist]

right, maybe this shoudl have been conveyed by the media/Smith before announcing the new levies:

If the recent trends continue, the Scheme may well become non-viable in the long-term future.
At the very least, significant increases in levies will be required to fund the increases in costs and
liability.

Based on the most recent valuation, at 31 March 2009, the projected liability as at 30 June 2009
is estimated to be $21.2 billion inclusive of risk margins.

and the act requires the bills from pre-1999 to be paid by 2014. Without a payout from the currently national govt I'd say they're pretty clearly stuffed... I do wonder what things look like today though, rather than the forecast from the start of the year...

[Danae]

Nice work...

[jeffs]

This was the tail part of my submission. ( not the whole thing ).

One possible reason for ACC only collecting $12m is there are a shit load of bikes only doing 3 and 6 month rego's.

So as part of my submission I asked the question.

------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.

Can ACC please clarify two statements on your web site.

http://www.acc.co.nz/news/PRD_CTRB118214

1) "In 2008/09 ACC paid more than $62 million for motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies from them."

According to the MOT statistics there are Approx 100,000 registered motorbikes over 50cc in New Zealand.
The ACC levy for motorbikes over 50cc is $252.69.

This should have meant you collected $25M. Why did you collect only $12M ?

2) "Even with the significant proposed increases in the rates payable by motorcycle and moped drivers to redress this imbalance, car drivers will still continue to subsidise motorcycle and moped drivers by $77 a year for the 2010/2011 year."

According to the MOT statistics there are Approx 2.4M registered cars ( not including light vans ).

At your stated $77 subsidy, this would equate to $184M, but your pay out in claims was only $62M. Are you saying by next year 2010/2011 you are projecting an increase in claims of 300% ?

Where is the money going, non of these figures make sense ?

You are claiming that these rates of subsidies would continue even after increasing the levy on bike by up to 300%.

Again where is the money going ?

It does not seem to be paying for claims, as you already claim that cars are paying 300% of the total cost.


Please explain.

[motorbyclist]

righto, I've gotten started on the 2009 annual report and the entire opening basically says they're totally fucked. lovely.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/...+annual+report

read it.

[jeffs]

no your not fucked until the fat lady sings.

Two lines of though about submissions.

1. Only put in a submissions if you think you have a valid point that should be considered.

2. Every person put in a submission, no matter how emotive the reason you think ACC should not increase levies.

Both of these options are valid, because if you faff around and do not put in anything, you achieved nothing. ACC will see no ( or few ) submission as an acceptance of their increase.


" The increases are not fare, I have 3 bikes and its going to cost me over $2400 in rego's and I can only ride one at a time" Is a perfectly valid reason to complain.

Get you submissions in !!!!! and in the next 5 days.

It's about money not accidents, let no one fool you.

If it was about accidents, they would be collecting money to educate people to reduce the accident rates, not just collecting money to pay for claims.

[motorbyclist]

It does not seem to be paying for claims, as you already claim that cars are paying 300% of the total cost.

Please explain.

yep those numbers make zero sense, and I'm not up to that yet, but:

read the into of the 2009 report.

What is increasingly evident to me is that while they can pay for current claims, they can't pay for the increase in the future costs of the claims.

the growing future costs of claims, to paraphrase Nick Smith, is a result of ACC becoming a welfare provider and falling rehabilitation rates, much more than any effects the recession has had.

[motorbyclist]

Both of these options are valid, because if you faff around and do not put in anything, you achieved nothing. ACC will see no ( or few ) submission as an acceptance of their increase.

very true, as I've also come to understand.

[jeffs]

To be honest there is no point in debating their claims of future costs ( its a guesstimate ). The numbers they have provided and public statements they have made, almost seem to be deliberately misleading in an attempt to confuse and divide their opposition.

You must look at the data you have, and make you own decisions about how to write you submissions, but don't be disheartened when you get to the end of your reading and you are still scratching your head ( you are not the only one )

Over the last 2 weeks, I have read nearly every report, gone through every web site and tried every method to crunched the numbers. and frankly non of it makes any sense.

Welcome to statistics