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

[Conquiztador]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

And that is what we are up against.

But none of the ppl I know buy any of those shock adds. Ppl change channels or get another beer. And their comment is normally: "I hate that add so I don't watch it". And the hate is not because it hits a raw nerve, it is because it is such BS.

[Pedrostt500]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

Depends how much money they want to spend.

[Fluffy Cat]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Geez, i'm feeling cynical tonight.

NRC.

No you are not just persecuted. The money should have been spent on a properly thought out safety advert. Something along the lines of watch out for bikes at junctions. Instead of this snivelling pointless, drivel.
The ad shows the quality of the moronically dopey fools that are running this farce of an ACC campaign.
If we lose this one we lose to morons. Now there's a thought....

[jeffs]

Well well well ! If you can be cynical so can I

This is not about motorbikes, it has never been about motorbikes. This is and has always been about money.

ACC are planning on raising levies on cars as well ( Fact ).

What better way to deflect the reasons than find a scapegoat.

You can see the next ad.

" ACC raises car levies by $77 to pay for motorbike claims"

Bingo, nearly $200M more money and a scapegoat.

Cars now start bumping into bikes more often, because they now hate us for being the cause of their increase, and ACC projected increase in accident rates to justify their increases, is proven.

Basically bikers are f**ed


Welcome to the world of the spin doctor.

Ps. Sorry for the over use of the word ( FACT ).

[Mystic13]

Originally Posted by Mystic13
Thanks guys and now this is where the $77 comes from.

Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims. And you've all been foolishly basing your numbers on that. lol. You need to realise ACC haven't done that. They picked an arbitrary number for next years claims. They chose $252 million. ..

Actually, we do realise that. And, from an insurance actuary's point of view it is correct.

but

a) this is not a debate between actuaries or statisticians. This is a propaganda war. ACC are presenting information in a highly slanted fashion. We can (and should) do the same. ACC's figure is technically correct. So is ours. Ours is easier for Joe Q Public, that deep and incisive thinker, to understand. Indeed , an eight year old can understand it. If ACC try to explain their number Joe's eyes will glaze over.
b) The actuarial basis of the numbers is highly suspect and politicised. One could take a dartboard and get almost any number

Sorry Ixion I was being facitious in the post and maybe that didn't come through.

I'd like to know how ACC think motorcyclists next year are going to cost 4 times more than last year?

That's the whole crux of their raising the fees and this $77 figure. It's rubbish.

[Conquiztador]

Sorry Ixion I was being facitious in the post and maybe that didn't come through.

I'd like to know how ACC think motorcyclists next year are going to cost 4 times more than last year?

That's the whole crux of their raising the fees and this $77 figure. It's rubbish.

If we all buy 4 bikes for 2010 there is your answer... Hang on... then we all pay 4 x ACC levy and there is 4 x as much money for ACC. That then would mean that we could buy more bikes and...

[jeffs]

ACC are modeling on the future cost of running a fully funded scheme. This is not real money they need to pay out now, but what they think they will need to put away to pay for accidents in the future. If they stayed with the same model as now ( pay year on year ), or pushed the fully funded date out to 2019 we would not be having such a big hike.

Ie ( very simplistic view ) It may cost $1 dollar to pay for something now , but in 2014 it could cost $4. So ACC starts collecting $4 now to make sure they have the money. Since bike levies don't cover the cost now, ACC think they will require to take $77 from the car levies to be fully funded by 2014.

Don't you love projected numbers

[jeffs]

Sorry forgot the " I'ts BULL" because its a guess.

What if the cost per year does not increase at the projected rate. ie Moterbikes cost $62m this year, but come 2014 only cost $100m, all the extra money that was collected by cross-charging cars by $77 will just go to some other claim cost, like pushbikes, skiiers, fishermen...
Because by 2014 the government ( which ever one in in power at the time ) will no longer require to put money into ACC because it's Fully-self funded by levies.

[jeffs]

Remember today if the ACC figures are correct and they only collected $12m in motorbike levies, then cars are already subsidizing motorbikes by around $20 a car. AS THEY SHOULD BE in a no fault system, were cars hit bikes over 50% of the time.

These figures are just to show the logic,

ACC payed out $62M, collected $12M so fell short by $50M

$50 / 2.4M cars ( not including vars ... ) = $20

But they are also subsidizing the whole of ACC.

What I still don't get is if there are 100,000 + bikes how did they only collect 12M not the 25M they should have.

[Ixion]

Remember today if the ACC figures are correct and they only collected $12 in motorbike levies, then cars are already subsidizing motorbikes by around $20 a car. AS THEY SHOULD BE in a no fault system, where cars hit bikes over 50% of the time.

These figures are just to show the logic,

ACC payed out $62M, collected $12M so fell short by $50M

$50 / 2.4M cars ( not including vars ... ) = $20

But they are also subsidizing the whole of ACC.

What I still don't get is if there are 100,000 + bikes how did they only collect 12M not the 25M they should have.

About 90000 full year equivalents . Some bikes are not licensed for the full year . So a six month licence counts as 0.5 of a bike. That's ACCs own figures. And buggered if I know where the extra went. Allowing for the cheaper rate on scooters and the part year licences it should be about 19 M

[jeffs]

I know Axion ( and good on you ) As you know problem is, a lot of us are just honest genuine people, just trying to scrape through life.

$252.69 ( ACC levy for over 50cc ) x 90,000 ( taking your number taking into account the mix of full and part regos ) = $22.2m
( in the MOT stats report there were 106,000 registered bikes over 50cc)

No matter what argument of logic we put forward, they will just spin it for their own purposes.

Ie todays newpaper adds.

How do you win.

You have the right answer ( make your voices heard in Wellington).

But make up flyers for your ride that rebuke every claim on those adds. One at a time, and distribute them when you get to parliament. Because if you do not put the facts in their hands, it will just turn into another.

"6000 leather clad smelly bikes ground the capital to a standstill "

NOT " 6000 law abiding tax paying public, put their well balances view to parliament today"

In my case I ride a bike to commute not to be a biker.

[sunhuntin]

And that is what we are up against.

But none of the ppl I know buy any of those shock adds. Ppl change channels or get another beer. And their comment is normally: "I hate that add so I don't watch it". And the hate is not because it hits a raw nerve, it is because it is such BS.

they lost a lot of credibility when it was uncovered that the mentally disabled woman from the curtain airbags ad was an actor. a lot of people now assume they are all actors, including adrian from the quit smoking ones.

[Big Dave]

Ok I'm a Born again Cynical Bastard, if I was running this from their side of the fence, this is how to start, the next move would be Radio and T.V, ACC has an advertising budget much bigger than we can afford,

We have tens of thousands of advocates with new technology for sharing relevant and current information.

[Ozzie]

Or - actually i maybe just thought of it . The advantage of buying space is that you can say exact;y what you want, and don't have to worry about anyone asking questions.

So, is buying adverts because ACC dare to front up in a debate (either with a biker spokesspokes or just with a media host) in case they get asked questions they cannot or dare not answer?

If so WHAT ARE THOSE QUESTIONS ?

Fancy challenging Dr McKlea (sp?) to a debate on Campbel live Ixion? You nailed him last time, and this would have John on side, as long as you were ready for his (Johns) comments pointed at us.

You're about the only one I've come accross that would put the good Dr in his place and keep John on side.

[Mully]

I wonder how quickly they could make a new "safety campaign" ad, similar to the ones showing the benefits of curtain airbags and electronic stability control. Potentially just showing a motorcycle crossing the centre line on a corner and getting wiped out by a completely innocent car driver (with kids in the backseats... who were on the way to feed cute animals... and have a lovely picnic).

Stop giving the bastard ideas.....

However,
Firstly - probably not quickly enough for this year (they'll be back though)
Secondly - After the uproar about this print ad, they'd be pretty silly to air it if they do have one.