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

**The Stranger:Me** · 6th November 2009, 07:05

Originally Posted by Ixion

They just used the ones they had. About one quarte rof the total. And assumed the rest followed the same pattern.

Perhaps one reason it was only a quarter was because there is no registration to check against for off road accidents?

**motorbyclist** · 6th November 2009, 07:40

I don't like my conclusions - even if I argue against relativity I end up paying more as I ride a 400, so my levy is actually lower than it would be if I pay the 150% we always have been to compensate for risk and petrol.

Either I'm very confused or we're genuinely screwed.

draft attached, probably send it off tonight.

**bogan** · 6th November 2009, 08:05

Originally Posted by motorbyclist

I calculated it three ways, but the pure MoT way wasn't too good, and the other two are the ACC way:

go here and extract a few numbers.

if we take the new claims and/or costs things look worse, so use the total cost of claims and total number of claims for passengers and motorcyclists. Now take the numbers of registered bikes and cars from the proposal pg34.

if we divide total cost by bikes and compare to total cost by cars, then multiply by 58% "at fault factor", we get a relativity of 522% to share amongst our capacities.
($62523000/85902bikes)/($208305000/2575165cars)*0.58 = 522%

yes, i do realise the ACC count of bikes is lower than MoT, because MoT includes bikes under exemption or some other such excuse.

if we divide total claims by bikes, total costs by claims, multiply them together to get cost per bike, do the same with cars, see how many times bikes cost more than cars, and then multiply by 58% as per the proposal, we get 522%. this to me shows they aren't too bright at maths doing it such a redundant way - or it hints they use different numbers somehow...

now if we use the MoT fleet data excel spreadsheet, we can extract:
0-125cc = 32% of fleet
125-600 = 25% of fleet
600-up = 44% of fleet

if we multiply these by ACC's corresponding relativities and sum the products, we get...
(32*241)+(25*481)+(708*44) = 509%

hmm, stats! I can fault the logic here, but it seems a roundabout way of doing it (my analysis must have been too). The initial relativity uses a bikeer cost of $727 (before no rider fault is taken into account) and a car cost of $81, propgating that through gives a relative of 509% but this will be applied to a car cost of $160 (current rego+$33 increase), not $81, almost doubling the bikes cost.

The Relative % way you get $814.40
The basic sum/count (*fault) way you get $421

And this is all using the 62mil, which (I think) is used to fund the future scheme, would be good to know what percentage of the 62m the future part is. Then we cud say heres what we would pay under the old scheme (the True cost) and heres what we would pay for a few years under the new scheme.

**Jantar** · 6th November 2009, 08:15

Originally Posted by bogan

.... would be good to know what percentage of the 62m the future part is. Then we cud say heres what we would pay under the old scheme (the True cost) and heres what we would pay for a few years under the new scheme.

The $62 m is the cost under the pay as you go way. That is the actual amount paid out for all motorcycle claims that were active in 2008. It is made up of 1336 new claims that year, and 1837 claims relating to previous years giving a total of 3173 active claims.

A fully funded scheme would rerquire this same amount plus the rate of inflation for one year only. The extra money would be invested and would earn an income aproximately equal to future inflation. By asking that the total inflation adjusted amount be paid up front ACC are effectively saying that their investments will earn nothing in the future.

**bogan** · 6th November 2009, 08:54

Originally Posted by Jantar

The $62 m is the cost under the pay as you go way. That is the actual amount paid out for all motorcycle claims that were active in 2008. It is made up of 1336 new claims that year, and 1837 claims relating to previous years giving a total of 3173 active claims.

A fully funded scheme would rerquire this same amount plus the rate of inflation for one year only. The extra money would be invested and would earn an income aproximately equal to future inflation. By asking that the total inflation adjusted amount be paid up front ACC are effectively saying that their investments will earn nothing in the future.

arent they trying to accumulate all the funds needed for the life of the claim from the year of that accident though? meaning they have to put heaps of money in their coffers, which Im assuming comes from us, or is that in the 62mil as well?

EDIT: PZKPFW explains it pretty good here

**MSTRS:Me** · 6th November 2009, 11:09

Originally Posted by Jantar

The $62 m is the cost under the pay as you go way. That is the actual amount paid out for all motorcycle claims that were active in 2008. It is made up of 1336 new claims that year, and 1837 claims relating to previous years giving a total of 3173 active claims.

This $62M is an interesting figure. It consists of $24M NEW claims and $38M OLD ACTIVE claims...
BUT...actually...BUT it does not itemise the years these claims started in. And levies paid from 1999 covered future payments too.
So. $38M is in fact a red herring, because we don't know what % of it covers unfunded pre-1999 active claims.

**Jantar** · 6th November 2009, 12:32

Originally Posted by MSTRS

This $62M is an interesting figure. It consists of $24M NEW claims and $38M OLD ACTIVE claims...
BUT...actually...BUT it does not itemise the years these claims started in. And levies paid from 1999 covered future payments too.
So. $38M is in fact a red herring, because we don't know what % of it covers unfunded pre-1999 active claims.

Exactly. That is why $62m plus inflation is a good figure to forward on. it covers the current years claims plus an inflation adjusted allowance for all future claims relating to that year.

**MSTRS:Me** · 6th November 2009, 12:40

But, looking back, proportionately there were more accidents than there is now (forgetting the low numbers of bikes/claims in the mid-90s). The trend for accidents is downwards as a % of bikes on the road. Projecting forwards on that basis, any figure for yearly future claims for any year's accidents is very dangerous if using today's old claim figure of $38M. Is there a crack in their crystal ball?

**riffer** · 6th November 2009, 14:53

Originally Posted by MSTRS

But, looking back, proportionately there were more accidents than there is now (forgetting the low numbers of bikes/claims in the mid-90s). The trend for accidents is downwards as a % of bikes on the road. Projecting forwards on that basis, any figure for yearly future claims for any year's accidents is very dangerous if using today's old claim figure of $38M. Is there a crack in their crystal ball?

Maybe. But page 19 of the Annual Report under Injury Prevention Programmes states:

so even they are stating they are seeing a decrease in claims.

**Ixion** · 6th November 2009, 14:56

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Perhaps one reason it was only a quarter was because there is no registration to check against for off road accidents?

or for many road accidents. The figures are basedon 415 caims out of 1336. There are another 29 that had a police amtch but the police had not recorded the cc. Of course those 415 are a selected subset. Only serious claims (normally) make it into the police CAS system.

Originally Posted by MSTRS

This $62M is an interesting figure. It consists of $24M NEW claims and $38M OLD ACTIVE claims...
BUT...actually...BUT it does not itemise the years these claims started in. And levies paid from 1999 covered future payments too.
So. $38M is in fact a red herring, because we don't know what % of it covers unfunded pre-1999 active claims.

I MAY have those numbers on Wednesday.

**jeffs** · 6th November 2009, 15:01

ACC have just sent a response to my submission's. Please find attached.

I have not had time to go through their response so I will let other look before I do.

Please ALL read and comment .

**Ixion** · 6th November 2009, 15:04

Sorry, the letter is just waffle. Nothing there that is not in the docs on their website.

The second link is the pdf they tried to fob me off with initially.

And the third is "duh" stuff.

Edit. I bet others get back exactly the same letter. form response

**jeffs** · 6th November 2009, 15:10

One number that does jump out is they say they are only collecting from a total of 62104 registered motorbike ( all classes ). This is some 50,000 short of the MOT figures. WHY ???

**Ixion** · 6th November 2009, 15:11

balance will be mopeds. The 62104 is actually full year equivalents. A bike registered for 6 months of the year (as folk do) counts as 0.5.

**jeffs** · 6th November 2009, 15:22

Ixion it does not matter one bit if the numbers are regurgitated crap. The issue is ACC believe what they are saying and are able to respond.

Remember they do not have to please us with their response, they just need to be able to justify it to them selfs that they are right, so they can ignore us and do it anyway. Right or wrong make no difference in politics.