Danger time

[mashman]

This is straight from the "How to read ACC statistics" page on their website

Categories with fewer than three claims

For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims. (Are our payments also calculated this way... the figures could be out by as much as a factor of 3)


Presenting cost of claims

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’. (WTF)

so the final total could be really quite wrong if these statistical analysis parameters are used. I am no expert, but have written shitloads of reports before and these parameters could cause be used very badly.

i'd say in this instance you've got carte blanche to come up with any figures you deem fit!

[scissorhands]

No increase!!

[XP@]

It is not so much the money, it is philosophy!
Don't get caught up in that!

Even a $5 difference for a bike with a different cc rating is a change in principal and should be fought tooth and nail! If they suceed in that change the door or possibly floodgates will be opened.

We need to remember we are fighting to keep ACC as it was intended, not just to save ourselves a couple of $' this year.

[Naki Rat]

This is straight from the "How to read ACC statistics" page on their website

Categories with fewer than three claims

For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims. (Are our payments also calculated this way... the figures could be out by as much as a factor of 3)


Presenting cost of claims

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’. (WTF)

so the final total could be really quite wrong if these statistical analysis parameters are used. I am no expert, but have written shitloads of reports before and these parameters could cause be used very badly.

i'd say in this instance you've got carte blanche to come up with any figures you deem fit!

The statistics collected in the past have been recorded for totally different reasons than the purposes they are now being used for. Bookkeeping for a compensation scheme is a world away from the number crunching required to turn the same into a commercially answerable insurance company.

The way the statistics are being interpretted is an absolute nonsense, and we are being screwed in the process

[AD345]

but at the end of the day, it's not totally unreasonable.

Yes it is

it IS totally unreasonable.

We may be 20 years late in waking up to what has been done to ACC but "better late than never" is still valid.

ANY specific targeting of risk by way of an incresed levy for ANYONE is game over for ACC and game on for a brave new world of privatised insurance