Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

[Reflex]

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.

In the PDF called Key Points - MV (let me know if you can't find it and I'll see if I can trace where I got it from) the last line of the table says that for 601+cc motorcycles, the levies if calculated according to claim would be $3770 per bike. The proposal was for levies of $781. That's a difference of $2989. It also come close to the next two columns if you were to divide the total cross subsidy ($163 million) by the number of vehicles (54 thousand) – $3020 with rounding.

Where were your figures from? It will help me to compare the numbers to form a good argument – possibly even for the protest.

Honestly, I've seen so many figures quoted around the place my head's spinning. So the closer to source material the better. I'm not comfortable using numbers which are from sources who are trying to persuade rather than educate.

[Reflex]

Thanks for that.

Actually, I found that quite amusing :-)

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

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.

You to lazy to look for it

* a disproportionate amount of ACC payments go to motorcycle riders, due to more serious injuries – and possibly more frequent injury accidents

Yet still works out cheaper per claim... hmmm I wonder how may of those car claims at present also actually own bikes.

* currently, other vehicle owners are subsidising motorcyclists

Most bikers also own cars many own 2 or 3, including 2 or 3 bikes. It also does not take in consideration of the fuel. I can only drive or ride one vehicle at a time.

Trucks are subsidising cars, cars subsidise bikes...bikes also subsidise pedistrians and cyclists. I am also subsidising rugby players and most sports players yet I don't play sport... But that is what ACC is suppose to do, the more it subsidises the better it works.

ACC was setup to cross subsidise, the more it cross subsides the better the scheme works and thats the way it is suspose to work. It was never designed to have the seperate accounts. I pay ACC levy in my PAYE which covers me for anything I do as a citizen including driving and riding.

The ACC levy I pay in PAYE is to cover me no ifs or butts about it.

The sooner the combine all the accounts to the single super fund again the better.

I added up all my levies I paid last year and soory to say it was more than enough.

* even with the proposed increases, motorcycle owners will still be contributing less to the ACC fund than they will be receiving in payments

In total the amount of levys bikers fully pay you would not be able to work it out... if you add all levy's collected including PAYE, which has to be included because esentially that is what it is for.

* the levies have to be increased in order to be able to cover projected payments

While technically correct how can you accurately project tomorrows possible costs as well as possible number of claims... 2 unknowns

Have I left anything out?

one of the biggest trolls I have seen in a long time...

On the assumption that the above statements are true, it would imply that the protests are actually about bikers having the attitude that being carried by the system is the natural order, and 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 this comes across as a spoilt child stamping its feet and crying that it doesn't want to do its chores.

If you want to appeal to the thinking public, I'd suggest coming up with reasons why you believe bikers are being unfairly treated. Provide some information. Give some statistics. And the note about ACC reserves being higher now than ever has little significance. It's not about how high they are in comparison with history, but how they compare to projected expenses.

Again look closer... think about what ACC is about the fundamentals of why it was set up. What ACC actually is. Personally I don't think you actually know. And no ACC is not insurance. Never has, and never should go down that track.

ACC is also not about risk, it never has been (even if the work account is based on this.) as we all have various risks, from sports to riding horses and motorcycles, hell crossing the road, getting older and falling breaking their hip, kids are higher risk, so parents should pay more, I don't have kids so why should pay the same ammount as some one that does... So where does it stop. and as we have been saying Who is next?

ACC is not about risk. And the comes from Sir Owen Woodhouse, and since you don't know much about ACC he designed it all.

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
* 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).

Again you to lazy to find them yourself... then I am to lazy to find it for you...

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.

So are boy racers going to pay more? since they poor diseal on the road for their burn outs and some poor biker has an accident on this.

Are learners going to pay more?

Are much older drivers going to pay more because their reflexes are not as fast as they use to be, and eye sight and hearing slowly failing...

Are those that have older cars in the fleet going to pay more since they don't have air bags or a 5 star rating and can not afford the latest model car?

After all, there should be some relationship between the risks a driver / rider takes and the number of times they have been caught.

Above ACC is not about risk.

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.

In case it makes any difference to the validity of my opinion, I have never owned a car. My main forms of transport are motorcycle (750 & 1000cc) and 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.

blah blah blah

And from personal observation, 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.

From my point, and i have been riding for 25 years it is only few that do this and just as there are cage drivers and boy racers that do the same thing as well.

But if they cause an accident, do we go down the track of suing or do we keep the "No fault" system.

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.

blah blah blah


At the end of the day, there are much better ways of collecting the levys required

[Reflex]

I see you work in actuaries and therefore calculate "things" using a probability model as your method of choice, pretty pessimistic, but hey!

I agree that in the grand scale of things, IF there is an accident involving a car and a bike, the bike rider is more than likely (probably) going to come off worse right? WRONG.

You can't tell, what kind of crash is it? head on, side on, where did the motorcyclist land when the motorcyclist came off, how did the motorcyclist land when they came off... I can level all of these things at the car in the accident... What kind of crash was it? where did the car end up? what's the ncap rating? Never ending parameters for a calculation!

Yet, the motorcyclist is not inside a cage, therefore the motorcyclist is free to roll to safety, the motorcyclist has body armour so the worst thing that could happen to the motorcyclist is that they need new gear. Ouchy, it's a head on... The motorcyclist could see what's happening and leave the bike in a direction of my choosing, no seatbelt to undo, soft patch of grass to the right, cliff face to the left... exit stage right!

Basically the accident has a myriad of outcomes. People who calculate probability are looking at accidents that are going to happen, without knowing exactly what kind of accident it is and without knowing what the outcome will be (i know there are other variables)... essentially making things up as they go along. Because it's in the future, you have no idea what accident will occur, you only think that there will be an accident because you have calculated its probability... So your planning for the future that may never happen!

Chance is also in your future, to me Chance beats Probability PERIOD! Because it takes EVERYTHING into account that Probability does and then takes everything else into account that Probability doesn't.

The Probability of Chance is 50 - 50!!! Same as anyone in the world!

Your turn!

Well, I don't know where to start with that one :-o

So let's start with saying yep, statisticians don't know the future. Only weather people know that :-P

However, what they do in an attempt to cover up their inadequacies is to say "from past experience, I'm predicting that over the next year we shall witness n number of accidents. Of these accidents, x% will be of type a. And from past experience, a type accidents have resulted in $y of costs. So to predict the costs for the next year, we just multiply n by the sum of all our (x% times $y) to get the total figure.

There will be variations in the number and breakdowns of accident, and a distribution of claim costs for each type. But over the years the goal is to have them all balance out.

And I've only ever witnessed a few bike-car accidents. Each time the driver was distressing over the rider lying on the road in front of them. And their plastic lid and animal skin armour wasn't much competition for a steel cage or tarmac surface. I think in at least two of the cases, it happened while a rider was travelling down the left side of a queue of cars which had stopped to let another car turn. But perhaps this is the exception.

As for "The Probability of Chance is 50 - 50!!!" – I've still got no idea of what to do with that. No idea what it's supposed to mean?

And what's with the PERIOD thing? This isn't America. We say FULL STOP over here!

[Reflex]

While technically correct how can you accurately project tomorrows possible costs as well as possible number of claims... 2 unknowns

You can't accurately project tomorrow's costs, just as businesses can't predict tomorrow's sales. But you have to estimate them based on past experience and some predicted influencing factors. If the number of individual instances is high, then over the long term you have a good chance to be close.

To say "I don't know the accurate answer" isn't justification for doing nothing. So you make the best projections you can and adjust them as new information comes available (one claimed reason why the ACC jump is so large – past rates were too low).

So are boy racers going to pay more? since they poor diseal on the road for their burn outs and some poor biker has an accident on this.

Are learners going to pay more?

Are much older drivers going to pay more because their reflexes are not as fast as they use to be, and eye sight and hearing slowly failing...

Are those that have older cars in the fleet going to pay more since they don't have air bags or a 5 star rating and can not afford the latest model car?

Above ACC is not about risk.

Well, actually yes boy racers would pay more because they are more likely to have been issued tickets. Learners and old people won't because – although they're frustrating to be stuck behind – they don't actually cause many injuries at 20 kph.

And the people with unsafe cars should be contributing more. However it is the accepted way of the state system where those with money support those without (the basis of the graduated tax system, benefits and most forms of government spending).

And as for ACC not being about risk, that's what the whole purpose of it is. Just like insurance. Just like carrying a spare tyre (in a car) or a puncture repair kit on a bike, a fire extinguisher on a boat. You spend money in the hope that you will never make use of it – just because of the small risk that you will.

[Reflex]

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.

I would be happy to do so. I must confess it hasn't been easy to get the mentioned figures. Everyone tells me the figures are everywhere, but almost no-one has pointed the way. And my searching has been frustrating.

I must warn you that I do not take a side then find the facts to match. I hope to spend a week looking through the data and then coming to my own conclusion. If it suggests that the protesters are justified, I will provide time and energy to backing your cause. If I find they are not, I will provide time and energy trying to persuade BRONZ that the cause is invalid.

I just wish that people here would be more willing to provide information rather than criticism if they really believed they had the facts on their side.

But being optimistic, apparently when I made my first post my opinion was not valid. Now that I'm up to 20 in this thread, does that mean I'm more knowledgeable? ;-)

[jrandom]

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.

A side point, here, but either the motorcyclist was travelling at about twice the legal open-road limit through the traffic (unlikely), or you simply failed to maintain situational awareness before commencing a maneuver.

I've driven plenty of miles in cars around Auckland's motorways over the last decade, have been passed by plenty of filtering motorcycles, and have never had it come as a surprise when I was 'starting to change lanes'.

The average NZ car driver's habits and skills are, quite frankly, appalling.

Not to say that every motorcycling-related injury is a car driver's fault, but what you unintentionally highlight with a description of your own inadequate awareness is a small part of the reason why most motorcyclists resent the current proposals for financial rape.

The question of whether motorcycling levies cover motorcycling claims is not the be-all and end-all of the subject.

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

I would be happy to do so. I must confess it hasn't been easy to get the mentioned figures. Everyone tells me the figures are everywhere, but almost no-one has pointed the way. And my searching has been frustrating.

I must warn you that I do not take a side then find the facts to match. I hope to spend a week looking through the data and then coming to my own conclusion. If it suggests that the protesters are justified, I will provide time and energy to backing your cause. If I find they are not, I will provide time and energy trying to persuade BRONZ that the cause is invalid.

I just wish that people here would be more willing to provide information rather than criticism if they really believed they had the facts on their side.

But being optimistic, apparently when I made my first post my opinion was not valid. Now that I'm up to 20 in this thread, does that mean I'm more knowledgeable? ;-)

I say again.......speak to Ixion (directly) he has all the figures. I suggest (again) you do this via PM or a meeting, you are starting to portray yourself in a poor light claiming you cant find data 'many others' have and now (post above)have stated how poor your awarenss of other road users is when driving your car. This is part or at least 42% of 'our' problem.

[mctshirt]

Remind me – what is everyone protesting against?

What have you got?

[NONONO]

Well Reflex, now you got me thinking.
Your concerns regarding the figures and stats have sort of worried me. What if we are wrong, what if we have mis interpreted the numbers? And I feel a sense of despair creep over me.
But then I go back to two simple points.
1. Bikers are being targeted unfairly. Many other activities carry the POTENTIAL for injury and it is simply not natural justice to single out one of those activities for higher levies.
2. I would like to keep ACC as it is and believe that this current campaign against bikers IS the thin end of the wedge, the beginning of the privatization process.
So, in fact, I'm all good.
If you are the real deal, I apologize for my earlier post and welcome you on board.
If you are here in an attempt to destabilize the campaign, well...I hope and pray you and yours have the resources to keep yourselves well and healthy in a user pays system. Your children, and their children, will be the ones paying in the future

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Simplest way to solve it is to

Recombine all the accounts, as ACC was not designed to have these seperate accounts and the more cross subisiding the better it works. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC we have at present, so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE.

Put ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved... its on petrol, booze every thing you buy and sell, covers yah paper cuts, it covers your tourists and covers cyclists and bikers as you are paying it on every thing you buy for you bike. It covers those that are working, even kids when will be paying ACC out of there pocket money (all the business have to is up GST) the IRD goons do the rest.

A 2.5% increase in GST, to 15%, would then easily raise around $10 - 15 billion which is what ACC requires.

If only 1% was added to GST ACC would be fully funded in 2 or three years. If GST went to 15% ACC would be fully funded in one year and could then be dropped back back to 1% to carry it on.

[Pixie]

Here's a prediction of one possible future:
ACC levies go up.
A percentage of vehicle users don't pay.
ACC levies go up again to cover the shortfall.
More vehicle users don't pay and more protests start to happen.The public start to get really pissed off with the all the disruption and the continual ACC increases.

[FastBikeGear]

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?

The extra '0' was a typo.

For many people the caluculator will give a lower figure. However for me it costs more because I also do a couple of the other high risk activities, e.g. cycling and martial arts (for which I am still to guestimate a multiplier). For people like me with children the cost will also be higher. Adults with Children should of course pay higher premiums otherwise those with no kids are subsidising them.

The nice thing about the caluculator is that the ACC insurance can easily change the base premium or adjust the individual multipliers when their actuaries have more info to work from.

[MSTRS:Me]

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.

You probably won't find a mistake in the calculations. I'm quite sure that actuaries are reasonably familiar with the buttons on a calculator.
The problem lies with the base data being used. It is incomplete, filled with erroneous numbers from non-registered bikes, does not correspond with data from other govt sources (such as MOT crash stats). It's the classic GIGO.
Check the link here
Another problem lies with the assumption (on ACC's part) that big/ger bikes are more dangerous because accidents involving them cost more. We would not necessarily be annoyed with this if ACC was not spouting the 'more dangerous' line, but was upfront about the compensation side. It is very clear to us that it is the EC component at fault in this case. Besides, only MOT collect engine size stats, and then only sometimes.

[Mom]

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.

Maybe you could try reading in here. Not everything will have found its way into the thread, but there will be a heap of information there for you to educate yourself a bit further.



http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=109890