Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

[Mikkel]

I'm not entirely sure that the OP should be taken, out of hand, as an attempt to denigrate the protesting - maybe, rather, it should be considered a hint as how to be taken serious by those without a vested interest in the current affairs.

Don't let me stop your happy flaming - but how seriously do you usually take grown ups that throw their toys out of the cot?

just as 2 boy racers in Nissan Cefiros doesn't necessarily mean all Nissan Cefiro drivers are diesel spreading midnight drift cowboys.

"Some people call me the diesel spreading midnight drift cowboy - yeah
some call me the gangster of love..."

[vtec]

Hi Reflex,

Thanks for your interest in our plight. All of your answers have been covered so many times on these here forums.

It's just that we don't have an advertising budget paid with road user levies at our disposal to get some facts out there as opposed to the propaganda that has been realeased by National / "ACC Insurance". Currently we are awaiting resolution from the Advertising Standards Authority Complaints on a lot of the data that was false and then released in further misleading fashion. Hopefully this will be a very public explanation of why we are "stamping our feet" and you will get your answers clearly.

Somehow I have a feeling that the resolution will be delayed until after submissions are closed and then largely swept under the rug. Unless you go and listen to one of Les Masons or Chris Lambs speeches or do some further reading on this forum or maybe some cross checking of the numbers yourself you will understand our annoyance at being villified.

I'll try and do as simple and clear list as possible into some of the details that I know of.
*Individual motorcycle claims are actually less per claim than car crash claims by $5000 per claim, so we aren't hurt more (in dollar terms) in our crashes as has so often been stated.
*Off road motorcyclists are included in the stats attributed to road motorcyclists and push up our claim numbers per registered bike substantially
*The costs released by ACC are complete fabrications, massive percentages of the funds are unaccounted for that I can see, and I assume they have been swallowed up by the bureaucracies.
*ACC took in one billion dollars more than they paid out last year (more than $200 per person in this country)
*Motorcyclists pay levies not only through their registration but also on the fuel they use as do all other fuel users, and this is not included in data showing how much motorcyclists pay towards ACC.
*Every motorcycle user I know also has a car, and I've noticed that these people are still human and are unfortunately only capable of using one vehicle at a time.
*Statistics show that actually over half of motorcycle injury accidents on the road are caused by car users, I promise you that motorcyclists do not cause half of car crash injuries, so some cross subsidisation would be fair if it was actually happening.
*By driving a motorcycle you are putting all other road users at less risk than you would if you were in a car. A motorcycle is approximately 1/10th the mass of a car, and therefore, much less likely to injure someone in a car than if you crashed into them when driving your car, so we are doing car drivers a big favour.
* My father has 3 over 600cc motorcycles, a Landcruiser and a Hiace. He can only use one at a time and it would cost him close to $3000 per annum to maintain those registrations and he hasn't crashed anything in the last 30 years let alone ever injured himself in a vehicle.
* Another point that I find has been understated is how much more aware motorcycle riders/cyclists are than car drivers, so when they get back behind the wheel of their cars they see hazards far sooner than the average car user, more statistical analysis needs to be performed to find out what motorcyclists REALLY cost ACC and because they are trying to make it an insurance system they need to include fault into their analysis also or else it is blatantly UNFAIR.
*ACC have been squandering funds like you wouldn't believe, all their subsidy costs have gone through the roof, people are working the system like crazy, and suppliers of things like fake limbs/ leg supports are charging 1000% markups... because they can. It beggars belief how inefficient ACC has become in such a short space of time. It's coming across like it was intentional so as to make the reason for privatisation.
* Is anyone else uncomfortable with ACC being run like a hedge fund aswell? WTF have they got investments for?

I recently heard of a $350,000 RSI settlement that was in the High Court, for a woman who was typing too much or something. I hate to think what the court costs were. ACC is being run by retards but with an agenda. I used to vote National, but they have been far too one eyed recently. I'm glad I abstained at the last election as I don't like Labour either. I thought about voting for the Bill and Ben party, but I was too lazy. I will next time, or maybe I'll go Labour, Phil Goff has actually impressed me somewhat although he needs to get his hands out of his pockets when he does public speeches more often.

I drive a car, I ride a bicycle and I ride a motorcycle, all in relatively even spread of km's. I paid a crap load of ACC working as a bicycle courier, but I could at least see where some of that money was going even if it wasn't to me. I know plenty of runners who go to Physio very regularly because of overuse injuries, it seems to me that sportspeople are the biggest drain on ACC, do I know what to do about that? No, but that's why I'm not paid the big bucks, it's definitely not car or motorcycle users place to pay for that, or is it in your opinion?

Also, I don't think it costs that much for ACC when a motorcyclist is killed, admittedly motorcyclists do get killed far easier than car users, half of these deaths are caused by car users, how many car users have been killed by motorcyclists.

[Ixion]

Hm. Perhas not a plant, as I at first thought

Join Date: 6th October 2007 .

never posted , though. Odd.

As an actuary, you will be committed to the idea of ACC being turned into an insurance company . Probably work for either ACC , or for one of the insurance companies that are looking to feast on the carcase of the Woodhouse scheme.

You work in the insurance industry, you will naturally think that turning ACC into an insurance company is a good idea. Or, better still, selling it off (cheap) to Australian insurance companies.

Not every body agrees.

Not sure why the message is so hard to grasp . We (bikers, and the people of NZ) DON'T WANT ACC TO BE AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

That's what we're protesting against. Simple enough?

[FastBikeGear]

This post will be major flame-bait, but I have to ask: What is it bikers are actually (honestly) upset about??

Welcome to the Kiwi Biker Forum. You raise some great questions!

I think all of your questions will be resolved when you complete page 3 of this document. http://www.salesfish.co.nz/www-ACC-I...Calculator.pdf

If you have any questions left after you have done the 3 step exercise please feel welcome to contact me.

Please remember that the ACC levys that you calculate in this exercise replace only the ACC levies you pay as part of your motorvehicle registration. You still pay all the other ACC levies.

Let us know what figure you come up with?

Oh and let us know what bike you decide to purchase.

[merv]

To me in simple terms the ACC system is meant to be a no blame help the accident victims type system. Why ACC even want to break it into risk categories kind of goes across that philosophy.

If they want it as a user pays type risk system then it should be about individual insurance and we should pay once each individually based on our own accident history.

If that was the case then myself and Mrs merv would get a huge discount from what we are paying now because of how many vehicles we own, the fact we pay the employee levy etc, yet we have had no accidents to speak of.

Personally I don't mind that we are paying to help others that have had accidents as that should be what society does to help itelf, and we can be thankful we haven't had to use the system as I am sure major accidents are no fun.

So why expect bikers to pay more, they are just citizens like any one else and a true fair system would be we all pay the same each.

So Reflex, can you understand that approach? If so, then you can understand why bikers are upset at having to pay far more than an equal share (without even taking into account the fact that most of us own more than one bike, plus cars, trailers etc and pay a wage related levy for ACC.)

[ManDownUnder]

This post will be major flame-bait, but I have to say: I can see why rugby players are happy with Bikers being picked on.

My apologies for a first post so full mind-numbing drivvel but I am trying to use enough slang to portray I'm hip and one of the gang, rather than just someone here to gather information. Please read the whole post too, that way you can see all the things I want responses too, nested among enough pleasantries to convince you that I am actually an all right guy. I really want intelligent, reasoned information so I can best prepare rebuttals to it all.

I'm pretending I don't have access to the same public data and sources everyone else using the internet does, so I'll pretend I am seeing that motorcyclists are upset at the increase in levies they have to pay.

I'm up to speed with what the media is saying because it's actually my job, and these seem to be the lines of argument I'd like to put back to you, yet again, so I can both develop my rebuttals, and use the age old technique of saying anything often enough... until it becomes the truth.
* a disproportionate amount of ACC payments go to motorcycle riders, due to more serious injuries – and possibly more frequent injury accidents
* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists
* even with the proposed increases, motorcycle owners will still be contributing less to the ACC fund than they will be receiving in payments
* the levies have to be increased in order to be able to cover projected payments

I know I left a bunch of other stuff out, but Woodhouse is so 1960's, and the other facts don't really suit my agenda here.

If I say something like "Let's assume the above statements are true", then it encourages you all to just accept and run with it, that way I can insult you en masse by implying you think that bikers should be carried by the system, that you also think it is the natural order, and that you're a bunch of cheap bastards that don't want to have to pay their own way.

I see lots of mention on this site of how bikers are being unfairly targeted or even "victimised" (NB incorrectly spelt with a 'z' – a la American – on the web page), but I haven't noticed the answer to my questions above anywhere. Am I the only one that finds this odd? I'll further insult you by implying you are a bunch of spoilt children stamping your feet and crying that you don't want to do your chores to again provoke you into reponding .

Would you mind providing me with a concise, and of the minute list of your arguments? It makes it so much easier for me to refute them and prepare my next campaign. Provide me with all the informationand statistics you intend to use.

Here are a few baubles I want to include to garner your sympathy and support - we're getting toward the end of my message so I'd like you to start thinking of me as a good guy and support me... so :
* the average annual ACC payment to people injured in motorcycle accidents vs car accidents
* some statistics relating payouts to engine rating – I imagine moped riders can be hurt as easily as big bike riders
* information on the proportion of accidents involving motorcycles where the fault was with the rider (premiums should be charged to those responsible for the accidents, rather than the victims).

It makes sense that the highest levy should be paid by the people who are most likely to cause a claim. As an alternative option, perhaps the levy should be not on vehicles but on the drivers. Perhaps the levy could take into consideration the level of demerit points the owner has at time of vehicle licensing. After all, there should be some relationship between the risks a driver / rider takes and the number of times they have been caught.

If you want to put a good case to government, do it by providing something that the public can agree with – and not by trying to inconvenience as many people as you can just because you're not getting your way. Remember: riding a motorcycle is a choice you made. It's not a right and it's not something which was forced upon you.

Just in case you are still not convinced I am one of you, and to add credibility to my requests, I'll tell you I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and bicycle and am I GLAD THERE's NO ACC ON THE BICYCLE!. My training is as an actuary, I pay my taxes, don't pirate music or software, and even though I've never made an ACC claim, I am happy to pay $700 per year if it is shown to be a fair amount becaue I'm not too far from the seat of Jesus, and in fact I want to be his replacement if He ever gets sick of the job.

I can't resist having a last dig (although it easily shows I don't a tually ride a bike). Many (not all) people I've observed who ride big bikes ride like idiots. They dress themselves up in leather to feel safe, but split lanes on the motorway, overtake on blind corners, speed like the law doesn't apply to them, and just act as though they are above the laws of physics. I can understand why the government would be wanting that whole category to contribute more to the system that will likely be supporting them in the future.

So, flame away if you must. But try to justify your comments with a sign that you've put some thought into it and appear to be more than an upset child.

Thanks for that.

[kave]

People are protesting because we gave up the right to sue for a no fault compensation scheme. If we retained the right to sue, and had instead gone down the path of insurance and lawyers for motorvehicle claims then levies based on risk would be palatable (but we would all be a lot worse off).

The fact is, that where third party health and liability insurance are managed privately as opposed to being run by the state, motorcyclists pay less than cars because we are less likely to injure other people. What is being proposed in these levy hikes is that those at risk should pay more, and most of us feel that this is inherently unfair.

[Reflex]

We're challenging the assertions that ACC is broke and that motorcyclists are all that you say they are. 4 Motorcyclists you saw one weekend do not make for a vast fleet of "idiots", just as 2 boy racers in Nissan Cefiros doesn't necessarily mean all Nissan Cefiro drivers are diesel spreading midnight drift cowboys.

I apologise if my words did not come through very clearly to you. I hoped my original post was worded clearly enough for people to see that I'm not saying all bikers are like that. But we are talking about statistics (i.e. generalisations). Are my observations wrong that there seem to be more bikers driving recklessly than car drivers? Perhaps I travel a different motorway to everyone else :-\

Would you like a copy of Dr Lamb's speech with tabulated analysis gleaned from ACC's 2008 dataset?

Actually, I would be grateful if someone could post a link to the data. I guess I'm not very good at searching, but all I've been able to find is information interpreting the data, and not the raw data itself. Dr Lamb says he acquired the data by a request to the ACC. It would be helpful to see what they provided so I can understand more.

[ManDownUnder]

One question reflex - who do you work for?

[k2w3]

I see far more reckless drivers than riders. A rider doing, say, 120 on the motorway is breaking the law and is therefore technically "reckless". However I would argue that they are inherently safer than, say, the hundreds of drivers I see (especially here in retirement-central Orewa) that are just about comatose behind the wheel, concentrating on the 3 feet in front of them doing 20 under the posted limit. There's more than one definition of "reckless".

[Jantar]

OK, I'm prepared to give Reflex the benefit of the doubt.

I don't have access to original data and sources, but from what I have observed / heard, it seems that motorcyclists are upset at the increase in levies they have to pay.......

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

Here is what I would like to find out if anyone has a source of information:
* the average annual ACC payment to people injured in motorcycle accidents vs car accidents

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

Cyclists
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim

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

Average Current situation for all accounts
- 14762 active claims
- $341,007,000 total cost
- $ 23,100 per claim

Source is. http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...ount/IS0800157

* some statistics relating payouts to engine rating – I imagine moped riders can be hurt as easily as big bike riders

We asked for this information from ACC, but guess what? They don't collect this data. They did supply an excel spreadsheet that listed a small proportion of motorcycle accidents by size which they cross matched to CAS data then assumed that it would apply to all data.

* information on the proportion of accidents involving motorcycles where the fault was with the rider (premiums should be charged to those responsible for the accidents, rather than the victims)......

This data is available from http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf
It shows that motorcyclists are responsible for 51% of all accidents involving motorcycles (including those accidents where no other vehicle is involved), but are only responsible for around 38% of multi vehicle accidents.

[James Deuce]

I apologise if my words did not come through very clearly to you. I hoped my original post was worded clearly enough for people to see that I'm not saying all bikers are like that. But we are talking about statistics (i.e. generalisations). Are my observations wrong that there seem to be more bikers driving recklessly than car drivers? Perhaps I travel a different motorway to everyone else :-\



Actually, I would be grateful if someone could post a link to the data. I guess I'm not very good at searching, but all I've been able to find is information interpreting the data, and not the raw data itself. Dr Lamb says he acquired the data by a request to the ACC. It would be helpful to see what they provided so I can understand more.

If you don't provide an email address I can't send it to you.

Your post was a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory and you shouldn't try to shy away from its intent. You wrote it, now own it.

You also seem to be unaware that we're discussing proposed increases to levies, not actual increases. Might I point out that ACC have also proposed a 60% increase in ACC levies for motorcars?

In terms of your observations, I really don't think that they are relevant except in the sense that they mark you out as a Victor Meldrew, intent on imposing your reality on others.

[Swoop]

We are protesting against ACC because they can do the impossible...

Try and unite TEN bikers (THAT is impossible under normal circumstances).
ACC has managed to unite THOUSANDS!!!!

Amazing skills. Also, thank you to Nick Smith! Nice work.

[James Deuce]

OK, I'm prepared to give Reflex the benefit of the doubt.



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

Cyclists
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim

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

Average Current situation for all accounts
- 14762 active claims
- $341,007,000 total cost
- $ 23,100 per claim

Source is. http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...ount/IS0800157



We asked for this information from ACC, but guess what? They don't collect this data. They did supply an excel spreadsheet that listed a small proportion of motorcycle accidents by size which they cross matched to CAS data then assumed that it would apply to all data.




This data is available from http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf
It shows that motorcyclists are responsible for 51% of all accidents involving motorcycles (including those accidents where no other vehicle is involved), but are only responsible for around 38% of multi vehicle accidents.

Dr Lamb's figures are significantly different from the ACC's using the ACC's own data, rather than the obviously massaged data the ACC have published on their website.

2008 ACC Claim Payout by Motor Group Levy
Group	Payout per claim
Truck	$17,807
Passenger Car	$14,885
Pedestrian	$13,678
Cycling	$12,626
Motorcycle	$12,013

[pzkpfw]

Dr Lamb's figures are significantly different from the ACC's using the ACC's own data, rather than the obviously massaged data the ACC have published on their website.

He also has way more cyclist claims.

"Lamb said last year there were 1475 motorcycle accidents in New Zealand and 50 deaths.

By comparison, 36 cyclists died in 1170 bicycle accidents but the cycling community paid no levies."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2969...ike-levy-logic

(
Compared to...

Cyclists:
- 289 new claims
- 567 active claims

Motorcyclists:
- 1336 new claims
- 3173 active claims

From http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...ount/IS0800157
)