Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

[Winston001]

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!

No Fault does not equal No Risk. The levies on employees are rated on risk and have been for decades. Builders pay lots more than office workers. The proposed introduction of risk rating on motor-vehicles comes as a shock but it isn't a novel idea. Messy and wrong though.

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.

.

Try this thread http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=109890 There are a lot of links.

It's worth knowing that the LTSA has different figures to ACC and doesn't support their proposals.

Ixion is the font of knowledge - he may have other links.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

No Fault does not equal No Risk. The levies on employees are rated on risk and have been for decades. Builders pay lots more than office workers.

But the principles of ACC is that risk should not be part of the calculation as we all benifit from it and that comes from Sir Owen Woodhouse himself. We all do risky activities every day, including walking across the road, to riding or driving...

The only reasoon they bough the risk calculation is to make it easy to privitise as they tried back in the 90's and failed...

At the end of the day my levy I pay in my PAYE covers me for anything and I mean anything I do as a private citizen (including yes driving or riding a motorcycle) The rego levy should only be a top up. Technically I have paid more than the true figure of $3770 ACC say bikers levy's should pay... Why should I pay more???

Finally ACC was never ever designed to have the seperate accounts, and I should not need to be paying seperate levy's here and there to seperate accounts... Biking is the most dangerous thing I do so I want all my ACC to cover that...

We have a population of 4.2 million, ACC made 4.5 billion dollars you do the math...

[XP@]

Forget the $$$'s none of us are in possession of all the numbers, We cannot fight on a battlefield that we cannot see.
Personally I am fighting to keep NZ free from private insurance companies and lawyers.

The pain a country goes through when a big part of the infrastructure is privatised is hard hitting. The sale of Telecom would be nothing compared to ACC. We would then need to we introduce litigation so that the competition between insurers could function.

What we end up with is a system like in the UK or worse the USA where the health care companies and the lawyers rule supreme. Ask yourself:

• Do you really want to see our hospitals turning away accident victims because their personal insurance is not paid up?
• Do you really want to leave hospital only to have to visit the lawyer?
• Do you really want to be turned down for treatment because you are not cost effective?
• Do you really want someone else to profit from your mis-fortune?
• Do you really want live under the fear of being sued for every action?

How to sort it out? I don't mind paying my dues so charge me for what i use put it on the petrol (I do 45,000+ a year on my bike, so I will get hit)
Or put it on GST you pay what you spend, affecting all equally. There are other ways than by creating an insurance company on the sly.

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

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.



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.



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.

If you are as smart as you are portraying you are and you genuinely think you can help in raising awareness to the inacurracies published by the ACC and Nick Smith using your acutary skills, please use those smarts to research the figures we all have and request a meeting with the presedent of BRONZ to stratagise a rebutle to those figures.

Mr Ixion is a fountain of knowledge and it would be best you correspond with him directly rather than doing it here.

[Reflex]

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

…

Let us know what figure you come up with?

Gave it a go. Came up with a figure of $825. So I guess I'm coming out ahead then? :-)

One question: how come the base premium on this form was $500 (in my case) when on the other version of the form I came across it was $5000?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Gave it a go. Came up with a figure of $825. So I guess I'm coming out ahead then? :-)

One question: how come the base premium on this form was $500 (in my case) when on the other version of the form I came across it was $5000?

hmmm i only got $135

[Reflex]

No Fault does not equal No Risk. The levies on employees are rated on risk and have been for decades. Builders pay lots more than office workers. The proposed introduction of risk rating on motor-vehicles comes as a shock but it isn't a novel idea. Messy and wrong though.

Try this thread http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=109890 There are a lot of links.

It's worth knowing that the LTSA has different figures to ACC and doesn't support their proposals.

Ixion is the font of knowledge - he may have other links.

Thanks for the links. I was only able to find one piece in there with actual numbers, but it didn't support the protester's cause. Essentially it said that the average car driver is paying an extra $77 to cover bike riders.

The flip side of that is the smallest category of bike is getting subsidised by $1000 per rider, up to over $3000 per rider for the big bikes.

Apart from conspiracy theories, how does that show bikers are being unfairly targeted?

[scissorhands]

We can never win with the media, some journalists are aiming high in life....must keep...wiping..the..brown..off my ...nose.... Please dont hang on their words, they are poison, and you will only be manipulated and destroyed.

Recently, I stopped reading the papers and watching the news like I used to, and experienced a reduced feeling of frustration, less anger, a sense of freedom and clarity of mind, once those reinforced messages became less prevalent in my day to day life.

The newspaper like TV is a conditioning vehicle. Why expose yourself to conditioning?

[Reflex]

One question reflex - who do you work for?

Hello ManDownUnder. Nice to meet you.

Who do you work for? I'm not sure of the relevance of this question to the discussion. Unless you're heading along the lines of questioning my impartiality.

Irrespective of who I work for, it should be the facts and reasoning that is the issue here, not the background.

But since it's not an issue for me, I work for a small company providing consulting services to other small to medium-sized companies. I'm not involved with the government at all, so if I was to suffer from any bias, it would be as a biker who is also subjected to these increases (for two bikes in the most pricey category what's more). And if that bias was so strong to cause me to spout forth emotional and unjustifiable claims, I would surely be mirroring the sentiment of the other posters on this site, and not trying to bring reasoning to the table.

So no, I have no secret agenda. It is a shame that the majority of the posters (not including your post in that group) are unable to step back and be a little more objective.

[Reflex]

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.
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.

Awesome. This is what I've been looking for. I would never have thought of looking for the statistics under "about ACC" :-o

I do some crunching this week and see what I come up with.

Sorry it's taken so long for me to get this far. I'm trying to respond to each person who's made a valid point or posted a question (or made an invalid point that needed to be rebuffed).

Thanks for your assistance :-)

[Jantar]

....The flip side of that is the smallest category of bike is getting subsidised by $1000 per rider, up to over $3000 per rider for the big bikes.

Apart from conspiracy theories, how does that show bikers are being unfairly targeted?

Could you please show how you have arrived at these figures? $62m divided by 130,000 motorcyclists and mopeds equates to $476. motorcyclist already pay $252 levy plus $90 on fuel levy which comes to $342, so the shortfall per motorcyclist is $134. Divide this among the 260,000 cars and vans and the subsidy is $6.70 from each car driver.

Nowhere have we seen any indication that big bikes cost more when the data provided shows that 250 cc bikes have the largest rate of claims.

[Reflex]

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!

Hmm. Confused here. You're saying that we should be aiming for parity, and there shouldn't be some subsidising others?

Then that suggests you are all for the biggest beneficiaries of the system (whoever that may be) to contribute the largest amount to it. Is that a fair interpretation?

So if cars are the cause of most of the claims (which they may well be) then they should pay more? And conversely for motorbikes?

[Reflex]

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.

…

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.

Well, we are in agreement for at least part of this. It would be much more equitable if people who play sports that cause injury contributed more. But – as you already know – in reality perfect measurement is not practical. I may be cynical, but I suspect that in a land where most people wouldn't even pay their income tax honestly if they had to do it themselves, a system where all our sporting and leisure activities were measured would result in protests about living in a totalitarian state rather than paying our share.

But yes, if I look at the figures and find "a mistake" regarding the calculations, I would be offering much of my time to assist in the protests. I have already emailed a submission to the email address given, asking that allowance for fault recognition in accidents to be included in calculations (so that if cars cause most accidents, they should pay most of the levy).

I am not optimistic though. The figures are already calculated by actuaries at the top of the profession, and checked by other organisations. If I were to find something amiss, it could only be explained by some of these conspiracy theories I see floating around here.

[Reflex]

Eghm.

I guess lanesplitting looks pretty dangerous to a cager, which you obviously are, in fact I highly doubt you ride at all.

I would have never, ever personally have thought more motorcyclists rode recklessly than car drivers drive. Even well before I started riding.

Numerous times have I been travelling along the motorway – either in a car or on a bike – and I have started to change lanes only to have a motorcyclist thunder past me at speed. Had I been less aware or more careless, that motorcyclist would be under the wheels of more than one vehicle (and so would I if I had been on a bike).

This is just my personal experience, but when I have spoken to other people, they frequently have similar experiences.

I'm doing my best here to respond to your posting with some respect. And it is respect due to courtesy. You have not earned any through your postings. You behave like I suggested your parents weren't very well acquainted. All I'm doing here is making the crazy claim that we bikers should be able to justify our complaints with facts (which is what I'm researching).

[Reflex]

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.

Thank you for posting a reply that shows some wisdom. While I realise you're not coming out in support of me, I've been finding a depressing lack of intelligent conversation on this site. I've seen it frequently on overseas fanatic sites, but had hoped for a little more from New Zealanders.