Published!

**slofox** · 17th November 2009, 20:01

Woohoo.

The Waikato Times has published my letter re the ACC fiasco - in full, as a two column paragraph right underneath the editorial of the day. With a reply from ACC chief boohoo (shouldn't that be booboo?) McLea - who made the usual tit of himself by claiming that what he said is true and what I said (using his own figures) is not.

Well done Waikato Times. Saved it for the day of the Bikoi as well...

I owe a lot of thanks to others here on KB for supplying the figures I used - I would never have had the time to sit and sift through the clag to find the relevant numbers. You will know who you are. Well done to you all. Thanks for letting me plagiarise your stuff...

My letter attached below. McLea's reply as follows:

"Sadly, the motorcyclke lobby groups seem intent on diverting the debate from the two most important facts, which are obvious to everyone else - that is, that riding a motorcycle is far more dangerous than driving a car and the risk of serious injury is much greater.
The current motorcycle levies do not reflect this and so they have to go up. Whether motorcyclists are 16, 10 or 4.17 (as suggested by your reader) times more likely to be involved in a crash is academic.
The fact remains that even with the proposed increases they won't be meeting the costs of their injuries and will still be subsidised by others.
KEITH McLEA
ACC insurance manager"

**YellowDog** · 17th November 2009, 20:03

It's nice when that happens.

Well done.

**cowpatz** · 17th November 2009, 20:05

Hey well done.
That reply is just shear bullshit. Cyclists don't pay a levy so they are totally subsidised? Why single out bikers? Are we not worthy of susidisation?

**steve_t** · 17th November 2009, 20:14

Nice work Slofox!

**Fatt Max** · 17th November 2009, 20:17

Brilliant my friend, well done...

**Big Dave** · 17th November 2009, 20:18

Originally Posted by YellowDog

It's nice when that happens.

Well done.

Aye.

**Marmoot** · 17th November 2009, 20:27

Originally Posted by slofox

The fact remains that even with the proposed increases they won't be meeting the costs of their injuries and will still be subsidised by others.

Well if I have to meet my own cost of my injuries then I might as well pay directly to the hospital aye? There is no need for ACBloodydamnC!

Either Keith McLea's brain has a loose screw, or he's a right idiot having spewed that kind of reply.

**nothingflash** · 17th November 2009, 20:34

Good stuff slofox

**Naki Rat** · 17th November 2009, 20:50

Well done. Brief and easy to understand, except it seems by Dr McLea.

Why is it that we here are all coming up with similar calculated figures but ACC seem to be missing something?

**NewRob** · 17th November 2009, 20:56

Good on you.

Well put and easy to see the difference. Good job.

**R6_kid:Me** · 17th November 2009, 21:01

One thing I've been wondering is whether the 'registered vehicles' relates to vehicles that were registered for the full year, or vehicles that were simply registered at all in that year - whether it be 1,3,6, or 12 months. That would certainly screw up the 'basic arithmetic' calculations that so many people seem happy to throw back at ACC. I'm guessing it also doesn't include whether the registration came from a moped or a motorcycle, which again would lead to less money per registered vehicle assuming mopeds were included in that figure.

Again it comes back to how reliable their statistics are, and on the face of things they are pulling figures from a number of different reports which is not normally considered to be a kosher way of comparing numbers.