Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

13,687 motorcycles.

13,687 x $252.69 = 3,458,568.03 $9 million short of the $12.3 million gathered by ACC

12,300,000 / 252.69 = 48,677 registered bikes required

My guess is that table is newly registered bikes for the year. As the total fleet of cars and vans is around 2.9 million and biles and mopeds about 130 thousand

[Reflex]

The problem is your assumption that the statements are true.

Just taking one point quickly:

* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists

So what about the many bike owners who own multiple bikes and pay multiple regos? Let alone the majority of bike owners who own a car also?

This is something I agree with. As someone who uses two bikes, in an ideal world I think it would be fair to only charge one lot of premiums as you will only be using one vehicle at time. And if you are able to come up with a practical way of implementing this then I'll be backing you.

Not sure about numbers, you don't want them anyway, but if you around at the stats threads that show the actual maths, right at this moment the number of registered bikes x the current ACC levy actually exceeds the payout motorcyclists have needed.

That's the problem... Nick Smith has pushed completely false numbers into the media, and that is what you're working from.

Why do you say I don't want the numbers anyway? I'm asking to see the (original) numbers.

And I (sincerely) don't wish to imply that you're uneducated, as is normal I expect you are have learnt just what is necessary to do your job. But if people had more experience in the risk industry they'd realise that it's not about current cash flows. It's about having enough reserves now to cover the future cash flows.

[Reflex]

The bottom line is that ACC is meant to be no-fault accident compensation. That means that the road-user levie is actually supposed to be the same for everyone who uses a vehicle on the road in private use. It is different for commercial vehicles etc though. The changes the Government is intending to make will move away from no-fault accident compensation and more towards a user-pays scheme like you have with insurance. Also, it is unfair that motorcyclists have to pay more than car drivers do - especially when cyclists, rugby players, gardeners, et al don't pay anything and yet still make a large proportion of ACC claims.

I think there is some confusion about the term "no-fault". I have taken that to mean that the compensation is paid out to irrespective of whether the person was at fault. This isn't the same as everyone paying the same.

FYI All businesses are rated according to their risk category. And cyclists, rugby players etc do pay an ACC levy as part of they P.A.Y.E.

[Grumpy]

Why do you say I don't want the numbers anyway? I'm asking to see the (original) numbers.
.

Check out www.bikersagainstacc.co.nz

Should find the answers to most of your questions there.

You keep saying "premiums" ACC is not a insurance company ........ yet.

[NONONO]

However, there is no one here, apart from your good self talking about risk or premiums.
This is exactly what we are, and intend to keep on, opposing.

[mashman]

I think there is some confusion about the term "no-fault". I have taken that to mean that the compensation is paid out to irrespective of whether the person was at fault. This isn't the same as everyone paying the same.

Granted there is an assumption that "no-fault" means everyone pays the same and why wouldn't you if you want a "no-fault" system. Otherwise there's someone subsidising someone else! and we're asking for parity!

[Reflex]

Gee for someone with a single post to your name - you know a lot about the site.

If you cant work it out then fuck off - you are obviously not smart enough and not worth arguing with.

P.S. Hope you dont drive a car, play rugby, ski, or get out of bed in the morning.

If you do - remember you could be next. Perhaps then you will understand.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Evaluate the argument, not the history. And you're right – I don't know a lot about the site, which is why I haven't been successful finding (accurate) information here. But that's about as relevant as what I had for lunch as far as this topic goes.

I take it from the lack of anything useful you've got to add that you agree motorcyclists sustain worse injuries than drivers? That's just subjective observation, but do you claim otherwise?

And yes, if I am next, that's when I'll be grateful for the system we have and that everyone has paid their due to keep it going. Perhaps you prefer to live off other people's contributions and 10 years down the track you'll be in hospital because someone changed lanes in front of you, wishing that crowd wisdom wasn't so short sighted.

[Reflex]

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

Now this is the first intelligent reply I've come across (still working my way through the responses though). This is what I was hoping would be typical of responses to my post. This kind of information is relevant and helpful in figuring out what is fair.

I would still be wishing to see the actual data before I could be confident about these figures, but if they were true then it dispels one of my assumptions.

*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.

And this relates to my original suggestion that this statistic should be accounted for in where the charges should be borne. I must say though, it does contradict another report (in the Herald) a few months back saying that very few accidents were due to the cars (which surprised me at that time).

…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.

Amen to that. This has been my point from the start. The decision needs to be based on research and reasoning. My (apparently inadequate) research to date has been unable to find this information from a reliable source.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I would still be wishing to see the actual data before I could be confident about these figures, but if they were true then it dispels one of my assumptions.

Widely availble on the net on ACC and LTSA website, and on here...


go search for it, and use some school yard math yourself

[Mom]

I think there is some confusion about the term "no-fault". I have taken that to mean that the compensation is paid out to irrespective of whether the person was at fault. This isn't the same as everyone paying the same.

FYI All businesses are rated according to their risk category. And cyclists, rugby players etc do pay an ACC levy as part of they P.A.Y.E.

Your logic is all well and good mate, but...

No fault should apply everyway, not just in treatment.

I pay levies on the wages I pay to my staff, I pay levies on the money I earn personally, I pay on my fuel, I pay on my car and van registrations and I pay on my bike. How about you go off and do a bit of homework for me. Find out the cost of sports injuries payouts versus the earnings levy they attract. Go on I dare you. They can not tell who plays sport when they collect the PAYE portion of the levy. They have no way of knowing that. We are simply an easy target. I have no doubt they (or whatever ACC is planned to morph into) will find a way to do that, and they will pay too.

[FastBikeGear]

Reflex I appreciate you getting invoved in this discussion and I hope you can contribute some of your acutary skills to the analysis of what would be a fair personal injury premium IF ACC was an insurance company.

FYI All businesses are rated according to their risk category. And cyclists, rugby players etc do pay an ACC levy as part of they P.A.Y.E.

Yes but none of the high risk categories that you listed in the sentence above (Except businesses) pay a risk rated premium.

My mum doesn't cycle, play rugby, play netball, do motorcross or any other high risk activity. Nor is she at the age where we can expect her to fall over because she has forgotten where her feet are.

Why should she be subsidising you or me?

Rugby Union and Rugby league players cost $50,000,000.00 in ACC claims in 2008. ACC statistics clearly show that Rugby players are many, many, many times more likely than car drivers to make an ACC claim!

If motorcyclists are to risk rated, then to be equitable so should other high activities like Rugby.

Most people on this Forum are not advocating that this justifies making Rugby Players pay an ACC levy but I am because I prefer soccer and as long as soccer players are OK then making Rugby players pay $500 extra in ACC levies suits me just fine.

It's time the culture of New Zealand got away from looking after each other. I can afford to look after myself.

[Reflex]

never posted , though. Odd.

The reason for this is I avoid wading into the arguments that normally propagate through forums. Too much mud slinging without any actual enlightenment going on.

But once in a while I'll feel that mass opinion has become hysteria and it is time to remind people that hype isn't the best basis for moving forward.

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.

Actually, no. My actuarial training taught me how to look at numbers and be aware of what information to interpret – and what to be cautious of.

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?

Well, that's the first time I've been made aware that that's what all this is about. I always thought it was that bikers didn't want to have to pay (much more) money. I guess you've answered my original question then.

[scissorhands]

'''The reason for this is I avoid wading into the arguments that normally propagate through forums. Too much mud slinging without any actual enlightenment going on.

But once in a while I'll feel that mass opinion has become hysteria and it is time to remind people that hype isn't the best basis for moving forward.''''''

Thanks for the timely reminder, I've been feeling hysterical all day

Seriously though, there has been hysteria lately. If we are in this for the long haul, I'd suggest plenty of rest and dont even think ACC for a few days, every now and then. Seriously, we need to stay in good mental shape

[MSTRS:Me]

I always thought it was that bikers didn't want to have to pay (much more) money. I guess you've answered my original question then.

That was very much the case in the first few days after the hike was announced. What we realised we were up against, and why, changed very early in the piece. I think the "Who's Next" become the call after maybe 2 weeks...

[k2w3]

And then he said... "pretentious? Moi?"