Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

[mashman]

It's hard not to stand by it when you've written it and it has been quoted.

... that doesn't make it any more intelligible though.

Nothing to do with that. This is my own thought process. You can say what you like about it, we're not all hard wired to agree. That's why i stand by it

Does it make it less intelligible than

Probability - neutral
Chance - positive
Risk - negative

?

[firefighter]

but, but, but - you ride a Honda ..

Yep, rain hail or shine......more than what could be said of 98% of the chromed "real bike" variety which rarely leave the garage.......

Now how about getting back to abusing old Nick.....eh?

[Winston001]

Well I take Reflex at face value. He's asked where the data is supporting our rejection of the ACC case.

I had a look myself for some of this raw data the other day. The trouble is, the ACC sub-forum was so busy that I couldn't find what I wanted. After half an hour I eventually found a PDF from ACC which had the figures.

Just above there are two contrasting sets of figures, one being from Professor Lamb. We don't help ourselves by using different numbers - and that happens a lot in posts. We need to have our facts straight and available in one thread as a source.

[NONONO]

Well I take Reflex at face value. He's asked where the data is supporting our rejection of the ACC case.

I had a look myself for some of this raw data the other day. The trouble is, the ACC sub-forum was so busy that I couldn't find what I wanted. After half an hour I eventually found a PDF from ACC which had the figures.

Just above there are two contrasting sets of figures, one being from Professor Lamb. We don't help ourselves by using different numbers - and that happens a lot in posts. We need to have our facts straight and available in one thread as a source.

Reflex (are you sure? Not knee jerk?)
I am probably over 16 time more likely to have an accident dancing the polka than a one legged man.
However, I never have, not once, nadir.
My excellent polka safety rating aside,
Why should I not pay a levy based on my polka risk rating?
Why should I not pay more than Mr Omni Leg?

[mashman]

Reflex (are you sure? Not knee jerk?)
I am probably over 16 time more likely to have an accident dancing the polka than a one legged man.
However, I never have, not once, nadir.
My excellent polka safety rating aside,
Why should I not pay a levy based on my polka risk rating?
Why should I not pay more than Mr Omni Leg?

Because of your probability rating. You cannot argue with probability.

This is where part of the problem lies. The new levy has not been calculated just using the actual numbers. Variances of risk have been added to the actual numbers. Apply the variance (risk factor) to the actual numbers, and even without the fact that the data is shit, motorcycles look bad.

We all know it.. but the fact that the data is shit is masked by the variance that's been added, carefully calculated risk, change the numbers by a small amount and the probability still looks relatively sound... change the variance WOOOOOOOOOO, Government see this as FACT! Probability is not fact, it's guess work!

[NONONO]

Because of your probability rating. You cannot argue with probability.

This is where part of the problem lies. The new levy has not been calculated just using the actual numbers. Variances of risk have been added to the actual numbers. Apply the variance (risk factor) to the actual numbers, and even without the fact that the data is shit, motorcycles look bad.

We all know it.. but the fact that the data is shit is masked by the variance that's been added, carefully calculated risk, change the numbers by a small amount and the probability still looks relatively sound... change the variance WOOOOOOOOOO, Government see this as FACT! Probability is not fact, it's guess work!

But I said that, I stated that "I was PROBABLY 16 times more likely"
I demand to be levied for my polka risk rating, after all according to Knee Jerk (sorry Reflex), it's only fair.

[mashman]

But I said that, I stated that "I was PROBABLY 16 times more likely"
I demand to be levied for my polka risk rating, after all according to Knee Jerk (sorry Reflex), it's only fair.

Sorry, my bad

16 times more likely of having a crash! Not necessarily 16 times more likely to have any motorcycle related accident!

Motorcyclists are probably 80% (a ficticious 80%) more likely to burn themselves on their exhaust, than car drivers. Add a variance of 0.1

Motorcyclists are probably 80% (a ficticious 80%) more likely to have a vehicle on top of them , than car drivers. Add a variance of 0.1

I'm not sure if that's how it's calculated, but i wouldn't rule it out either!

Anyway it all adds up, now add those variances to the variance/margin for data error, multiply to motorcycles and you can make some quite staggering Numbers...

If it was up to me i'd levy yaw polka ass...

[Ixion]

Gah. They've even got US believing that bollocks now.

For the record.

1. The survey that was based on was flawed as hell. They concluded that motorcyclists rode an avergae of 800 kilometres each per year. Go figure

2. EVEN THEN, the figure was 16 times PER MILLION KILOMETRES. But few bikers would ride as many kilometres as a sales rep drives, or a courier van.
Bikes DON'T cover the same distance , so, real world here, we are NOT 16 x more likely to crash.

[MSTRS:Me]

Hmmm...I think someone needs to get his nose out of the newspaper. No good will come of leaving it there.

It is a timely reminder, tho, that the media in general are not helping the cause.
Few are the times when I've seen much more than "Nick Smith said this" or "Nick Smith said that".
How's about saying what we said, for a change?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Gah. They've even got US believing that bollocks now.

For the record.

1. The survey that was based on was flawed as hell. They concluded that motorcyclists rode an avergae of 800 kilometres each per year. Go figure.

800 km a year... but but but... last year I did 30,000??? and usually do 800 in a single weekend?

[Ixion]

That's inevitable. He IS a Minister of the Crown. He's going to get the coverage.

Which is why we need to keep putting on a how for the press.

They look for sensation and showmanship.

A lot of bikes is very media worthy.

[James Deuce]

800 km a year... but but but... last year I did 30,000??? and usually do 800 in a single weekend?

Yeah mate, even I do about 12,000 a year, and I'm a bit of a part timer.

[avgas]

I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount.

To put things in perspective.
I pay personal health insurance. It covers me above what ACC pay - so I will never have to make another ACC claim again in my life.
Said company covers a very small % of NZ. They are not a HUGE company, but a good one.
My fee for this service is about $500/year. They know I ride motorbike, drive a car and partake in dangerous sports (mountain biking etc).
So how can a company like ACC who has millions of members on its books claim more than $500/person/year? This is taken via vehicle registration (of which NZ average is 0.4/person - so I'm told) and income tax.

Where does the money go?
I am not blaming the claim they are making - I just want to see the evidence for the expenditure. Is the system broken? We need to know these things before we invest more money.
In fact - I am going about this all wrong.
...(runs off to download the accounts to evaluate ACC)

[Badjelly]

The questions you ask and the data are available on this forum if you use the search function.

Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim

OK. According to LTNZ, there were 170,219 cars (petrol + diesel) registered in 2008 and 13,687 motorcycles. So...

Car Occupants:
- 0.050 active claims per registered car
- $1224 per registered car

Motorcyclists:
- 0.232 active claims per registered motorcycle
- $4568 per registered motorcycle

Am I right so far?

[Ixion]

Uh, that 170K is the number of vehicles that were registered in 2008. As in, for the first time.

The actual number of cars on the road is about 3.2 million (depending on how you treat vans and utes and such)