ACC ad in Dominion Nov 5 (now with 100% more PDF)

[MSTRS:Me]

What about a list of targets along the lines of...

[jeffs]

What does that mean?
I understand the words, but I can't comprehend anyone (apart from maybe a scroterist) saying that.
Or anyone who says that bothering to subscribe to a biker forum.

This is off point in this thread but I had to answer

Get over it, I used to ride a scooter and would own another one in a second

As a matter of fact, when my bike is being service, the bike shop gives me a scooter while its in the shop.

The point I am making is, I don't own any leather gear and I ride my bike every single day to get to work ( over 12,000km a year ) , because it saves me 1/2h each way in time. Yes I love my bike, so last time I looked that allowed be to join KB

Every media article starts of with the smart ass comment " Leather-clad.... "

[Jantar]

Here's my complaint to the ACA.

This ad contravenes the advertising code of ethics in the following areas:
Basic principal #3 (No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer. )
Rule #2 (Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading). )

There are a number of areas where this ad is designed to blatantly mislead the public, but I would like to concentrate on just 3.

The first one is the claim that even with the proposed levies, that most other motor vehicles will still subsidise motorcyclists by $77 each. 2.6 million light vehicles each paying $77 equates to an annual subsidy of around $200 million. However the total amount paid out by ACC last year for current and historical claims was $62.5 million. http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...ount/IS0800157 So even if motorcyclist paid nothing this claim would still be incorrect.

The claim that motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to make a claim than other road users is a further distortion.
The Ministry of Transport YEARLY REPORT 2009 shows that there are 47.8 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles compared the motorcycle crash rate of 147.2 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles. This gives a relative risk for motorcycles of 3.1 compared to passenger vehicles.
Even the ACC's own data is at odds with this claim. The table of Claim frequency on page 28 of the ACC consultation document shows that with passenger vehicles as a base case, motorcycles are between 2.85 and 4.43 times more likely to have an injury accident than a passenger vehicle. Interesting to note that the mode of accidents includes the 250 cc size which of course is the size learners and inexperienced riders are limited to.

The third point is where they claim that ACC's proposed levy will "insure" the rider. The ACC Act , S262 says "2) To avoid doubt, it is not a function of the Corporation or any Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation to provide insurance."
In making this statement they openly admit to breaking the law, and acting ultra vires.
They are not permitted by law to provide insurance.

[FastBikeGear]

WHERE IS KEY IN ALL OF THIS?

ABSENT BY HIS SILENCE!

He will send his major's to the slaughter. In the blink of an eye.

We need to drag him into this battle kicking and screaming. He is their chosen leader and why should he escape our wrath?

Nick Smith and others are only pawns in a game being played out by those who will benefit financially for personal gain.

take out the generals and the army will fold.

+1
Very well put we need to draw John Key into this. I guess he is sitting on the side line waiting to see the public reaction before he commits himself.

[FastBikeGear]

Can anyone advise if this ad was placed in any other papers than the Hearld or the Dominion Post please?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Can anyone advise if this ad was placed in any other papers than the Hearld or the Dominion Post please?

I heard there was one in most major papers over that week... the ODT was the following day I think

[flyingcrocodile46]

The claim that motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to make a claim than other road users is a further distortion.
The Ministry of Transport YEARLY REPORT 2009 shows that there are 47.8 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles compared the motorcycle crash rate of 147.2 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles. This gives a relative risk for motorcycles of 3.1 compared to passenger vehicles.
Even the ACC's own data is at odds with this claim. The table of Claim frequency on page 28 of the ACC consultation document shows that with passenger vehicles as a base case, motorcycles are between 2.85 and 4.43 times more likely to have an injury accident than a passenger vehicle. Interesting to note that the mode of accidents includes the 250 cc size which of course is the size learners and inexperienced riders are limited to.

Excellent stuff. Using their own data to show their lies is pure gold

Yes and no.
Since the "catch up" is simply the result of a change in policy, it'd be way "fairer" for that to come from general ACC collection, rather than lumping it all on the singled-out group (us) seemingly all at once.

Even the pay forward argument can't explain the amount they are asking

The sum total spent by ACC on motorcycle accident claims last year was $62,523,000. That figure includes all ongoing claim costs relating to historic accidents that occurred last year, the year before and all other previous years dating back to the inception of ACC. The total ACC levies collected last year was as follows; Mopeds 19960 x $59 and motorcycle 55180 x $253 totals $15,138,180. NOT THE $12,500,000 that Mr Smith Claims. If we were to accept that under the abandoned no fault system Motorcyclists should pay for the 40% of claims that other vehicles cause, that would leave a shortfall of $47,384,820.

MR Smith has attempted to vilify motorcyclists by scaring other vehicle users with the prospect that if we don’t pay the shortfall then they will have to cough up another $77 for each vehicle to cover our claim costs. That is quite simply a lie, as demonstrated by basic maths. $47,384,820 divided by NZ’s 2,287,697 registered light passenger vehicles equals $20.71 NOT the $77 claimed by Nick Smith.

As for the argument that the extra cost relates to the need to pay forward to cover the costs of this year’s accidents in years to come... well as the $62.5 million spent last year already includes paying backward for over 30 years of historical claims, just how much extra is really required to pay forward a few years? Mr Smith would have us believe that it must be the balance of the $77 that he talks about. After deducting the motorcyclist shortfall amount of $20.71 from the $77 that he claims other motorists would have to pay, that leaves $56.29 to be multiplied by 2,287,697 for a total of $128,774,464.

That is more than double the amount that ACC has spent on motorcycle claims for last year (which includes the paying backward of ongoing costs for over 30 years of historical claims). Just how stupid does Mr Smith think we are? I suspect that a fairer estimate of the pay forward extra would be around $20 million ($8.74), which would bring the car total to $29.45 NOT $77.


Mr Smith is a lying cock sucker

[caseye]

Here here! Nice work guys, now lwts get it out tothe bloody General Public.
Where it'll do some good.

[Laxi]

has any one recieved a response from the ACA apart from the standard, we are looking into it,?

[FastBikeGear]

has any one recieved a response from the ACA apart from the standard, we are looking into it,?

Not yet, but I accompanied my official complaint with some very interesting stuff I obtained using the Official Information Act, I am consequently hopeful that the shit will hit the fan.

[Laxi]

just got the reply in the post

RE: Accident Compensation Corporation Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint
I am writing to advise that the complaints board considered the above complaint at its meeting on 9 December 2009. After carefully considering the information from all parties the board decided that the complaint be Not Upheld as there had not been a breach of the relevent code.

the letter carries on to say they basicaly took ACCs word for the figures

[bogan]

just got the reply in the post

RE: Accident Compensation Corporation Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint
I am writing to advise that the complaints board considered the above complaint at its meeting on 9 December 2009. After carefully considering the information from all parties the board decided that the complaint be Not Upheld as there had not been a breach of the relevent code.

the letter carries on to say they basicaly took ACCs word for the figures

fuckers, so they basically said there was no misleading info cos they checked it against the misleading info and they matched?

then again, can't say I'm surprised, seems everyone takes ACC's bullshit as truth and our proof as bullshit

[StoneY]

just got the reply in the post

RE: Accident Compensation Corporation Newspaper Advertisement - Complaint
I am writing to advise that the complaints board considered the above complaint at its meeting on 9 December 2009. After carefully considering the information from all parties the board decided that the complaint be Not Upheld as there had not been a breach of the relevent code.

the letter carries on to say they basicaly took ACCs word for the figures

Righty ho, Ombudsman, when a govt dept is caught lying, its an ombudsman issue
Get the Ombudsman to agree the figures are wrong, and the advertising complaints authority will have to back up and take action

[riffer]

Righty ho, Ombudsman, when a govt dept is caught lying, its an ombudsman issue
Get the Ombudsman to agree the figures are wrong, and the advertising complaints authority will have to back up and take action

Hang on a minute.

I've just finished reading the judgement. It's been by no means cut and dried.

It's a MAJORITY decision; a minority of board members upheld our complaint.

However, the majority of members didn't.

I'll post the entire judgement as a PDF when I can scan it tomorrow.

[Hailwood]

Got the same letter...it definitely was a majority decision only but a decision none the less...I did laugh reading the part where it said do not release this to the media as we will do it.......wankers!!!!

Will the Ombudsman look at this in all honesty?