you're wrong AGAIN, Nick. Critique please

[Madmax]

Sig 5 posts and already it's a train wreck.

Forget it, I'll run with what I've got.

I wonder if the is a leavy on trains

[FastBikeGear]

I doubt such a thing exists. Why would it, when they just need to go into their computer and extract the injury/accidents that they have recorded to get the number/s? That we can prove that number is wrong hasn't made much headway.

I would be extremely suprised if their actuaries have a document with their workings. It's the way actuaries are trained and work. If you have ever worked with a good one you will have discovered that they are both brilliant and pedantic mathematicians/staticians.

The pedantic bit means that they have written workings.

However if they were come back and say they have no workings how damaging would that be when it hits the press?

[Reckless]

However if they were come back and say they have no workings how damaging would that be when it hits the press?

Shouldn't we already know this in the stats sent to Ixion after the ACC head said on TV we could have all the figures. If we have got them and cannot separate the cyclists road accidents and the off road stuff isn't that case proven??
or am I misreading your direction??

[FastBikeGear]

Shouldn't we already know this in the stats sent to Ixion after the ACC head said on TV we could have all the figures. If we have got them and cannot separate the cyclists road accidents and the off road stuff isn't that case proven??
or am I misreading your direction??

Reckless, You make a good point. Statistics are just the raw data.

What I want to see is how they come up with the numbers they have come up with from the raw data?

For example how did they determine that motorcyclists were 16 x more likely to make a claim from the raw data?

I know we have had some guesses at how they might have manged to use the raw stats to come up with this figure, and our guesses are probably right.

No one should ever equate the quoting statistics as a substitute for statistical research. Their will always be assumptions and gaps in statistics analysis. (E.g. as you have raised, how did they separate the offroad data)

I want to see how they have addressed these and if they haven't adequately addressed these issues I want to expose their failings with their own workings, rather than my explanation of how I think they came up with the conclusion.

My background is in sales and marketing. It is always so much more powerful/compelling when the other party makes a statement than when you make the same statement on their behalf).

To illustrate

Which of the following is more powerful and story worth?
Which has more credibility?


"Our calculations show that the ACC has got it's numbers wrong"

compared to


"ACC's workings clearly show that they have got it wrong....let me show you in their workings where I think they went wrong...what do you think?"



Liam Venter
www.salesfish.co.nz

[mashman]

Reckless, You make a good point. Statistics are just the raw data.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!! Raw data is the raw data, statistics are something that you calculate against a dataset generated from the raw data!!!! Statistics, as have been proven, can also contain weightings, variances etc... You can calculate a finite value from Raw Data!!!! You can't trust the data if it is presented as statistics...

Tomato, Tomarto... NO!

[FastBikeGear]

WHAT!!!!!!!!!! Raw data is the raw data, statistics are something that you calculate against a dataset generated from the raw data!!!! Statistics, as have been proven, can also contain weightings, variances etc... You can calculate a finite value from Raw Data!!!! You can't trust the data if it is presented as statistics...

Tomato, Tomarto... NO!

My stats are:

Height 186cm
Chest 160cm
waist 120cm
Weight 280kgs

Can you tell me what the my raw data is?

...and before you give me a smart reply check out my stats above again!

....OK in this case the stats lie, I am 60Kgs wet, but I do have sharp teeth.

Sorry for getting off topic.

[mashman]

My stats are:

Height 186cm
Chest 160cm
waist 120cm
Weight 280kgs

Can you tell me what the my raw data is?

...and before you give me a smart reply check out my stats above again!

....OK in this case the stats lie, I am 60Kgs wet, but I do have sharp teeth.

Sorry for getting off topic.

I don't know how heavy your internal organs are (and that's not a flippent answer)

You shrink at night, what time of day is it?

If you want the data from statistics, you have to ask the questions!!!!

[Reckless]

"ACC's workings clearly show that they have got it wrong....let me show you in their workings where I think they went wrong...what do you think?"

We will never get to see their workings in a million years because they have lumped all the road cycle, pedrestrian and Off road bike accidents in there, I reckon. I'd bet my wife on it! LOL!!
If you take all these plus the extra ones that the doctors simply put in as bike and are allocated to us, their figures would match much more closely to the LTNZ/MOT stats! They need these extras to get to their $77-00 and 16x figures. It would prove National and ACC are simply liars!
Well thats my take on it!
Its just how do we prove it and market the fact so simply that Joe public gets it immediately is another issue!

$77-00--BULLSHIT because.. 1 liner in here
$16x more likely-- BULLSHIT because.. 1 liner in here

Just a few thoughts, I'll leave the rest to greater minds than I possess.

[Katman]

Just a few thoughts, I'll leave the rest to greater minds than I possess.

Skidmark is busy at the moment.

[Reckless]

MEEEoooowww claws out from the Kat I see!! LOL!!

LOL!! Was that an attempt at Humor!! Not bad! You must be having a better day today!

[FastBikeGear]

We will never get to see their workings in a million years because.....

Hi Liam

Further to our conversation this morning, I have located the manager of the area your email was received on the 4 November 2009.

He was able to locate both of your emails, the first dated the 4 November 2009 and the second 10 November 2009. There was an acknowledgement sent for the 10 November, however, unfortunately, there does not appear to be one sent for the 4 November 2009. It seems this has happened as the email was directed to the appropriate area for the Offical Information Act (OIA ) request.

I have spoken with the department that are handling the OIA request and they have confirmed they are working on this currently and the 20 working days in which they have to provide a response is due to finish on the 2 December 2009.

If you have any further quesitons, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards
Louisa Fellowes, Customer Support Co ordinator, ACC
Tel 0800 650 222 / Fax 0800 750 222
ACC cares about the environment – please don’t print this email
unless it is really necessary. Thank you.