Crash stats

[MSTRS:Me]

And now that some of those that were 'dragged away' are finding the call back to bikes irresistable, the average age of crash victims is increasing. These BABs maybe finding it hard to make the adjustment onto today's bikes, compared to what they are used to, or think they remember...

[Berries]

Ok just 1 quick question. How many motorcycle incidents where reported as avoiding another vehicle? Maybe avoiding a road hazard might be a better way of describing it.

"I swerved to miss an XXXXX officer, honest"

Insert your own object, animal, mineral or vegetable. A big black dog running across the road is the famous one. Dead possum, sheep, rabbit, rock, pothole, tractor, car on wrong side of road, swarm of bees, puddle, pedestrian, bag of chips.................... I don't think the information is worth much as it has the potential to be grossly inflated.

[candor]

Submitters just got a few docs "explaining" ACC.

I note this spiel;
"There is no data available within New Zealand to support or refute the comment on engine power. ACC is unable to use power-to-weight ratios as the power and weight data for each motorcycle is not available.
ACC uses data from its claim system and estimates of the future costs of claims, together with data from the Ministry of Transport’s crash recording system, to determine whether the risk for various sizes of motorcycles is similar. This information is then used to build various relativity factors. These relativities are based on the injury cost per vehicle to ACC, and are used to determine what levy each subclass of motorcycle would need to pay to ensure the expected levy is collected.
The idea behind the different subclasses is to reduce the degree of cross subsidisation between different types of motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).

Well why aren't drivers of Barinas charged more then - is it because they die more so futureless they cost less for future liabilities than the seriously injured subaru driver?

Wonder if ACC keeps injury data on small vs big or newer vs older cars or Euro/Yank vs Jap crap and can charge accordingly. Stay away from those Barinas I tell ya' but ACC fees likely won't.

[jeffs]

And now that some of those that were 'dragged away' are finding the call back to bikes irresistable, the average age of crash victims is increasing. These BABs maybe finding it hard to make the adjustment onto today's bikes, compared to what they are used to, or think they remember...

And now you have sort of hit on the crux of the matter. Older bikers can be higher payed due to working up the work chain.

If we ( yes me inclusive ) crash and have to make lost time injury claims, it is at 80% of our wage.

So one higher wage earner could ( and often does ) cost ACC 4 times a youngster.

So the crash rate does not need to be high to hit ACC in the pocket.

Hence if you look at cost, ( and that is what ACC have done ) the cost has gone up irrespective of the crash rate.

What ACC have done is try to find a way of charging for this without saying it out loud.

How

By introducing bike engine bands.

The philosophy is simple.

To them, if you can afford a bigger bike, you must be earning more money.


If you take out the high risk individuals ( people who think they are bullet proof and ride like it ) and go for the mean.

The risk has not changed, the young are at the same risk as the old.

Its just that the old cost the ACC more.

Sorry I should finish this of with " this sucks, because I am getting older" and already pay more tax.

[mashman]

"I swerved to miss an XXXXX officer, honest"

Insert your own object, animal, mineral or vegetable. A big black dog running across the road is the famous one. Dead possum, sheep, rabbit, rock, pothole, tractor, car on wrong side of road, swarm of bees, puddle, pedestrian, bag of chips.................... I don't think the information is worth much as it has the potential to be grossly inflated.

but still no golden unicorn... Kind of answers the reading between the lines question anyway. Though, this leads me to wonder... if that simple question can bring on such a response, then to me it sounds like the stats that answer the question have never really been produced. That being the case, the injury prevention etc... being toted by the gobmint and ACC is not actually undergoing any serious analysis... and is just more smoke and mirrors... wonder why...

[mashman]

As nice as it may be to 'prove' that we are seldom responsible for our bins, it's a forlorn hope to try and do so. Also I'm not sure that there is any use in garnering that info. ACC is still (apparently) a no-fault system, so they are only interested in crash injuries.
Still, if the breakdown exists, and shows a large percentage of bike-only are result of avoiding BadStuff (TM), perhaps that would spur more training schemes to promote rider awareness/control.

That's wasn't really my intention with the question, but in order to devise a targeted safety campaign or training scheme, these questions need to be asked and as berries highlights above, how can you make it effective when everyone lies? Just another waste of cash...

As far as ACC goes, there are shitloads more car crashes and resultant claims than bikes and yet the bikes get hit with a levy hike... not exactly fair, unless of course you're not trying to make it fair and thus doing the complete opposite of what it takes for a no-fault system, and i'm fully aware that no amount of statistical analysis is going to change that (primarily as it's only a small part of a probability calculation)... then again, once ACC is opened up fully for competition purposes, a pocket full of gravel or a raft of useful stats will go a long way...

[Berries]

Though, this leads me to wonder... if that simple question can bring on such a response, then to me it sounds like the stats that answer the question have never really been produced. That being the case, the injury prevention etc... being toted by the gobmint and ACC is not actually undergoing any serious analysis... and is just more smoke and mirrors... wonder why...

Don't get me wrong, objects in the road can and do cause people to lose control and get horrifically injured or killed. Shit, just have a look around the forum. In one of my old jobs I would happily have taken the time to try and provide you with an answer as well. In my current job though I don't get paid to muck round in CAS, and I know this is one of those timeconsuming ones because you need to weed out the insurance jobs.

The stats can be easily produced but like the majority of them you've got to look behind the big numbers to really find the issues.

[mashman]

Don't get me wrong, objects in the road can and do cause people to lose control and get horrifically injured or killed. Shit, just have a look around the forum. In one of my old jobs I would happily have taken the time to try and provide you with an answer as well. In my current job though I don't get paid to muck round in CAS, and I know this is one of those timeconsuming ones because you need to weed out the insurance jobs.

The stats can be easily produced but like the majority of them you've got to look behind the big numbers to really find the issues.

Heh, i wasn't having a go at what you were saying, but there are those that will think that way... i'm a definate target fixation candidate so know what you meant...

I've also been in a similar position back in the UK where i had access to the dvla, police and ABI data... fantastic to crunch against (geeky as it may sound), some quite stunning results, but no time to really dig through the reports to get any "true" results...

There really is no need for a pleb like me to know what's behind the stats (other than curiosity, or for future reference), i'm just surprised that there seems to have been no QA in regards to the ACC stats, especially since it's driving policy and we are being asked to take the stats as gospel and swallow the associated levy bump... I suppose it's easier to make people pay rather than return to the source and find out where all the money's going...

[R-Soul]

Isn't it a more noble and important objective to reduce the hurt, suffering and cost of accidents rather than haggle over the price of the bill to clean the mess up?

A 50% increase in bike only accidents as a percentage of the total is appalling and speaks much about the reckless mindset of bikers.


Here's your missing statistics re bike numbers. If you had spent more effort researching rather than vocalising cranial echoes in these threads you wouldn't need to ask others for help in your fruitless pursuit. I know this because rather than wank on about how unfair things are without any factual basis, I actually did the research that you are attempting in an attempt to ascertain facts before I ran off at the mouth. There is little in the statistics that bikers can be proud of.



http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/1.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/2.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/3.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/4.jpg

I am blocked from seeing them at work, but will check at home. I was under the impression that we were studying these stats to understand the stats, not to save a few bucks (although I would have been pissed at $750 a pop). Besides looking at the stats makes you realise where we are going wrong.


This discussion is after the fact that the levies are what they are.

See my other thread about how to save lives:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=114978

[MSTRS:Me]

Besides looking at the stats makes you realise where we are going wrong.

What page 2 actually does is prove the lies about massively increasing accidents...

[R-Soul]

I am blocked from seeing them at work, but will check at home. I was under the impression that we were studying these stats to understand the stats, not to save a few bucks (although I would have been pissed at $750 a pop). Besides looking at the stats makes you realise where we are going wrong.


This discussion is after the fact that the levies are what they are.

See my other thread about how to save lives:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=114978

Besides you have to question figures like why previously 1 in 64 bikes made claims, but now 1 in 20 bikes make claims, despite the number of serious accidents staying the same.

Does that imply a pussy biker's mindset, or a target for bludgers?

[jeffs]

If you really have access to the real raw data, I think looking at the data is a very useful thing ( so don't get me wrong ).

It will allow you to see if the stats proclaimed by ACC are well out or just marginally out.

If well out, they are important.

If Just out by a factor of 10% then they will not provide a silver bullet to the biker cause.

If they are 100%, start polishing the bullet.

But my point is the crash rates are not the root cause to the ACC levy increases ( yes I know this will upset some people ).

COST IS !!!!

You can have 100 accidents with injury claims costing $1000 each and that is $100,000.

You can have 2000 accidents with no injury claims and it will cost ACC nothing.

Or you could have 2 accidents with ACC lost time injury wage payments costing $50,000 a year each, That is still $100,000

To ACC it is the cost of servicing Bikes that is causing the raises.

This sucks, as real income protection allows you to adjust your payment to protect higher wage earners.

ACC is not an insurance company and as such is not really set up to do this.

Your bike insurances does not allow you to cover your income, as it is protected by ACC.

So in the case of accidents you are screwed, and if you crash riding a bike your are screwed harder.

ACC levy hikes are not about Road safety they are about cost.

And the 2 are not mutually inclusive.

I honestly believe that if the cost to ACC had not increased, but the Accident rate had, ACC would not have done anything
Because it is not interested in reducing accidents rate, but only in reducing costs.

That is why I believe to ACC the overall accident stats are not as important as some think.

What I and other want to see is a reduction in accidents, irrespective of whether it costs ACC money.

[R-Soul]

If you really have access to the real raw data, I think looking at the data is a very useful thing ( so don't get me wrong ).

It will allow you to see if the stats proclaimed by ACC are well out or just marginally out.

If well out, they are important.

If Just out by a factor of 10% then they will not provide a silver bullet to the biker cause.

If they are 100%, start polishing the bullet.

But my point is the crash rates are not the root cause to the ACC levy increases ( yes I know this will upset some people ).

COST IS !!!!

You can have 100 accidents with injury claims costing $1000 each and that is $100,000.

You can have 2000 accidents with no injury claims and it will cost ACC nothing.

Or you could have 2 accidents with ACC lost time injury wage payments costing $50,000 a year each, That is still $100,000

To ACC it is the cost of servicing Bikes that is causing the raises.

This sucks, as real income protection allows you to adjust your payment to protect higher wage earners.

ACC is not an insurance company and as such is not really set up to do this.

Your bike insurances does not allow you to cover your income, as it is protected by ACC.

So in the case of accidents you are screwed, and if you crash riding a bike your are screwed harder.

ACC levy hikes are not about Road safety they are about cost.

And the 2 are not mutually inclusive.

I honestly believe that if the cost to ACC had not increased, but the Accident rate had, ACC would not have done anything
Because it is not interested in reducing accidents rate, but only in reducing costs.

That is why I believe to ACC the overall accident stats are not as important as some think.

What I and other want to see is a reduction in accidents, irrespective of whether it costs ACC money.

What you are saying is factually true, but practically is ludicrous. For a set number of accidents most of them will fall along a bell curve of seriousness and cost. That is chance for you.

[jeffs]

What you are saying is factually true, but practically is ludicrous. For a set number of accidents most of them will fall along a bell curve of seriousness and cost. That is chance for you.

Yes ACC don't care if you fall off, they only care that it costs them money. sucks doesn't it.

[jeffs]

Sorry I should have said, My wife is one of NZ's highest and most qualified Health and safety experts, and she think it sucks as well. Why, because it is not about accident prevention is is about cost management.