Invitation to Mr McLea

**bogan** · 11th November 2009, 15:39

just a thought I had to aid in keeping it simple. The ACC stats have been gathered in a roundabout way using samples, instead of getting into how thier figures have been generated, point out that if the figures from the totals dont match those gathered from samples, there is probly something wrong with the sampling technique, basic stats.

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 11th November 2009, 15:46

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

[i.e. this is not about the validity of the numbers, but looking for comparable numbers for the other side of the fence.]

That is, take the money paid by cars and subtract the $77 that ACC claim is for bikes. How does that number then compare with the $X M they paid out for car related claims and the $Y M they claim to have collected from cars.

?

Using 2008 figures
$168.46 - $77 = $91.46 (new levy not subsiding bikes)
2,584,509 (vehicles) x $91.46 = $236,379,193.14

2008 Car Claims $208,305,000.00

Leving $28,074,193.14 to add to the future claims of the fully funded model

**Ixion** · 11th November 2009, 15:48

Originally Posted by Marmoot

If you do go into a public debate with Mr. McLea, you'd be right to assume he would have absorped any information discussed in KB and developed angle of attacks on every weak points presented here.

Well that's most likely what I would have done if I were him anyway.

of course. But our approach has also been refined.

**Ixion** · 11th November 2009, 15:50

Originally Posted by Azi Dahaka

well that works out to 4 or 5 hundred as our levies only covered 30 odd million of the 64 million though i do supose that dosnt cover the fule we used and the acc tax on the fule but how do you calculate that

ACC work it out at about 432 per bike (from memory, but it's around that thirty something. Cars they calculate about $120 )

We actually get penalised for being fuel efficient.

ACC work out how much they want in total from each vehicle type and then deduct their fuel calculation . The result is the license levy. because they reckon we use less fuel than cars we pay an even higher licence levy. If they use dthe same fuel figure as cars, we'd be $90 better off.

So much for saving the planet. Admittedly they may have heard about my two strokes.

**Ixion** · 11th November 2009, 15:54

Originally Posted by StoneY

Thanks Stranger, the plug in worked a treat

See attached

Issue is there has been a figure of 116,000 shown in crash report figures as total motorcycle/moped fleet, this doc shows Nicks version is closer to the real figure....somehtings not right between these govt agencies, none give the same figure, none even close to each other numbrrs wise
On phone when I asked for this they verbally quoted 116,000 bikes, this doc says otherwise...wtf?

Nick's figure is full year equivalents - ie a 6 month license counts as 0.5 bikes.

The reports hows 12 month regos and six month. What about 3 month or other .

**retro asian** · 11th November 2009, 15:54

Originally Posted by Mully

Could we get Campbo to host it; that'd be maaaaaaaarvelous..

Bad thing about Campbo is that he loves to do all the talking, and constantly interrupts his guests...

**Marmoot** · 11th November 2009, 15:58

Originally Posted by Azi Dahaka

yes but that would denote that he has some level of intelligance

You're right. I forgot that I'm actually quite smart.

**pzkpfw** · 11th November 2009, 16:05

Originally Posted by NighthawkNZ

Using 2008 figures...

Thanks.

So far I get:

Code:

From Car Rego:       $77 "to bikes"      $91 to cars
  
Claims spend 2008:   $63 M on bikes     $208 M on cars

So ACC claim 46% of the ACC fees they collect off cars is needed for bikes, yet the 2008 spend on bike claims was only 30% of the size of the spend on car claims. (And of course ignores that bikes did pay $12 M, etc.).

Either they are planning for some unexplained huge rise in bike rleated claims, or the maths is seriously weird.

(The stuff Ixion notes in post #34 makes this more complicated than I've allowed for. But it still seems a good comparison.)

**Ixion** · 11th November 2009, 16:12

Originally Posted by Mully

Could we get Campbo to host it; that'd be maaaaaaaarvelous..

Actualy, I thinking for an old fashioned public debate. With a live audience !

**Jantar** · 11th November 2009, 16:14

Originally Posted by Ixion

Actualy, I thinking for an old fashioned public debate. With a live audience !

On the evening of the 17th November perhaps?

**NighthawkNZ:Me** · 11th November 2009, 16:17

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Thanks.

So far I get:

Code:

From Car Rego:       $77 "to bikes"      $91 to cars
  
Claims spend 2008:   $63 M on bikes     $208 M on cars

So ACC claim 46% of the ACC fees they collect off cars is needed for bikes, yet the 2008 spend on bike claims was only 30% of the size of the spend on car claims. (And of course ignores that bikes did pay $12 M, etc.).

Either they are planning for some unexplained huge rise in bike rleated claims, or the maths is seriously weird.

(The stuff Ixion notes in post #34 makes this more complicated than I've allowed for. But it still seems a good comparison.)

the 12m is only rego not fuel and it is esitmated that in 2008 7 - 8 million was bikes fuel acc.

the 63m as you said is also for pre 1999 claims and present claims and forcast future claims

**ManDownUnder** · 11th November 2009, 16:24

Originally Posted by Ixion

Actualy, I thinking for an old fashioned public debate. With a live audience !

Love it, but making the points to Mr McLea is one thing... being seen to make them, by the masses, quite another.

Or are you taking about doing it and inviting TV along? If so I'm sure we could find a school hall or public facility to use? We have a few on here that are skilled with a movie type camerarara!

Edit it... and Youtube it