Response from the AA

[p.dath]

Is anyone?
Seems their concerns are not diametrically opposed to our own...

Yes, I suspect I may have started a ball rolling by simply talking to them.

[duckonin]

I do understand, but it is better to be armed when in your meeting. This may be your agenda, but if AA are "Flying in 2 people", they will have there own agenda.

Just do not loose sight of the facts

AA have already been very active in lobbying for the shift of ACC levies to be moved onto bikes, or you would not require to have a meeting.

AA are primarily funded by cars, to them it is better to loose the bikes than the cars.

AA are reading this thread.

So " Hello AA "

Yes but most bike riders have cars, and confusion sets in when the biggest number of accidents and injurys are created or caused by motor vehicles so why would AA take a stance against bikes?..

[jeffs]

Yes but most bike riders have cars, and confusion sets in when the biggest number of accidents and injurys are created or caused by motor vehicles so why would AA take a stance against bikes?..

Because the world is a big screwed up place, full of people with personal agendas Sucks doesn't it

AA's view is simple.

ACC want to increase the money they charge car drivers, AA think that this is partly due to Car levies subsidizing bike accidents. So if you stop subsidizing bikes, AA naively seem to think ACC levies would be reduced on cars.

The fact that cars in part knock bikers off is a factor best ignored if you only advocate for cars as AA do at this time.

So the sum is simple, for both the AA and ACC. If there are no bikes there are no bikers to knock off.


Pdath is attempting to educate AA about the real world The one were a lot of their members ride bikes, and don't like AA's stance.

[Berries]

....was there any acknowledgment that AA NZ accepted the main incident rate was Car on bike ? Whoever's statistic you use it is still over 50%

.........Bike Rider education is very important, but it must be in conjunction with car driver education, or you will not substantially reduce accident rates.

The crash rate will never reduce unless we get our own house in order and stop pushing the blame on to car drivers. Yes, they may be the cause of a number of bike crashes, but how many of them could have been avoided by the rider ? Lots in my opinion. Never seen that 50% stat before, where's that from ?

Soory for butting in, nice work p.dath.

They said their vision is to have 5 star riders/drivers on 5 star machines on 5 star roads.

That's taken directly from the Safer Journeys/2020 proposals, although misses the fourth one - 5 star roads with 5 star speed limits, pointing to a return to speed zoning and the introduction of lower speed limits on both urban and rural roads.

[jeffs]

The crash rate will never reduce unless we get our own house in order and stop pushing the blame on to car drivers. Yes, they may be the cause of a number of bike crashes, but how many of them could have been avoided by the rider ? Lots in my opinion. Never seen that 50% stat before, where's that from ?

Interesting, this seems to be quite a common thread in kiwi biker.

A lot of people on this site seem to think the only way of reducing bike crash rates is to train the bike riders.

Well, education of bikers will reduce the crash rate, and its a bloody good start. But if you believe that by education, a biker will be able to avoid all accidents, then sorry you are wrong ( and I don't believe that is what you really do think )

You are right 50% is a silly made up number, AA's own figures in the UK state the rate at 80%. FACT look at their UK WEB SITE. Unfortunately you will find no similar statment on the NZ AA site.

I used this low 50% just to make a point, as the real number is not collected in the ACC stats.

If we used the UK stats then training riders would reduce the accident rates, but training car drivers would have a greater effect.

This is not pushing blaim on cars, this is just maths

[p.dath]

That's taken directly from the Safer Journeys/2020 proposals, although misses the fourth one - 5 star roads with 5 star speed limits, pointing to a return to speed zoning and the introduction of lower speed limits on both urban and rural roads.

Funny you should mention speed limits, as we discussed that briefly as well. The AA thinks there should be changes in this area as well. I don't recall the specifics of that conversation (I really just wanted to discuss ACC), but the jist of it is they feel the focus on using speed to achieve safety on somes roads wont achieve the desired outcome, leads to the use of inappropriate ticketing (aka, trying to tax a problem out of existance), and that some roads could have high speed limits.

They pointed to the recent survey that found the average speed on open roads was now 94km/h (could be wrong, but close to that), and say that even though the average speed has been reduced the accident rate has not.

They said you also need to look at driver education and roading (aka tar bleed, engineering, etc) - and not just consider speed on its own.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that was the jist of what they were saying. As I say, I mostly wanted to discuss ACC, so didn't dwell on the subject.

[p.dath]

That's taken directly from the Safer Journeys/2020 proposals, although misses the fourth one - 5 star roads with 5 star speed limits, pointing to a return to speed zoning and the introduction of lower speed limits on both urban and rural roads.

Funny you should mention speed limits, as we discussed that briefly as well. The AA thinks there should be changes in this area as well. I don't recall the specifics of that conversation (I really just wanted to discuss ACC), but the jist of it is they feel the focus on using speed to achieve safety on somes roads wont achieve the desired outcome, leads to the use of inappropriate ticketing (aka, trying to tax a problem out of existance), and that some roads could have high speed limits.

They pointed to the recent survey that found the average speed on open roads was now 94km/h (could be wrong, but close to that), and say that even though the average speed has been reduced the accident rate has not.

They said you also need to look at driver education and roading (aka tar bleed, engineering, etc) - and not just consider speed on its own.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that was the jist of what they were saying. As I say, I mostly wanted to discuss ACC, so didn't dwell on the subject.

[p.dath]

The crash rate will never reduce unless we get our own house in order and stop pushing the blame on to car drivers. Yes, they may be the cause of a number of bike crashes, but how many of them could have been avoided by the rider ? Lots in my opinion. Never seen that 50% stat before, where's that from ?

When speaking with the AA I was careful not to use arguments that attribute blame. That's how we got into this problem in the first place, because ACC managed to pitch one group of users against another.

And funnily enough, what is best for bikers is actually best for all road users (and the AA *does* like an outcome which is better for everyone).
For example, going back to the Woodhouse principles (and dropping pre-funding) results in the ACC and engine classificatoin fee being dropped - but it also means *every* road user gets an immediate ACC fee cut. How can they say no to that?

I told the AA we need to drop the "what's best for me" attitude, which is how me got into the "what's best for car drivers" (which is to screw over bikers) issue, and consider what's best for the community - as in all road users. It's the community that pays for the road network for the communities benefit.
I think they like this viewpoint. It's broad, and results in the best outcome for all AA members - not just the car users. And when they get some disgruntled car driver ringing up, it's something you can explain easily as well.

The AA also pointed out that their membership consists of not only car drivers, but also bikers, cyclists, truck drivers, pedestrians - all manner of road users. Once again, I think this is why they liked the community view of things I put to them.

[p.dath]

You are right 50% is a silly made up number, AA's own figures in the UK state the rate at 80%.

They mentioned this number in the meeting as well. I told them, in the context of ACC, not to focus on just the accident rates. I said what makes the difference if the cost of the accidents to ACC - as opposed to the number of accidents (number of accidents on its own is a misleading statistic in the context of ACC).

The fact of the matter is that motorcycle accidents are cheaper on average than car accidents. This means that although we have a higher accident rate, the effect is not as high as it might seem on ACC.

[Pedrostt500]

Funnily enough, that is exactly what the AA thought. They consider that motorcycle clubs would be better positioned to offer advanced courses of real value.

Pragmatically, do you think 50 motorcycle clubs across NZ would approach the Government in a unified manner to get funding approved for their courses - or a single nationwide body with the AA who employes their own political lobyists?
That is what I put to the AA. I think that unless the AA starts the ball rolling on this one it wont happen. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to communicate with (say) 50 clubs, versus one organisation.

Perhaps if Motorcycling NZ got into the picture - but they are very racing focused, which is bound to give the Government shivers (racing group running road rider training!).

My thinking was more in the line of Motorcycle Clubs like HOG, Ulysseys, WIMA, & even BRONZ, being able to have riding instructors with in their clubs, who can offer riding training / education, Not nessisarily the likes of the racing clubs though the would be the best in the lines of an advanced riders course, so I wouldn't count them out.

[p.dath]

My thinking was more in the line of Motorcycle Clubs like HOG, Ulysseys, WIMA, & even BRONZ, being able to have riding instructors with in their clubs, who can offer riding training / education, Not nessisarily the likes of the racing clubs though the would be the best in the lines of an advanced riders course, so I wouldn't count them out.

Yeah, I think that might work. If the Government only has half a dozen entities to deal with. I know Ulysseys attended the ACC meeting with the AA. I would say the more groups that join in those meeting and band together, the more likely the outcome would be.

[Conquiztador]

Yeah, I think that might work. If the Government only has half a dozen entities to deal with. I know Ulysseys attended the ACC meeting with the AA. I would say the more groups that join in those meeting and band together, the more likely the outcome would be.

What the Government does when it comes up with a job they need done is to tender it out. You can subscribe to the mailouts. If they wanted someone to run rider/driver education they would have to tender it out. It is then open for all and anyone to reply to the tender and try to win it.

[p.dath]

For those following my AA thread; I've had some more communications from the AA. This one is probably more interesting than most, as it signals to me some intent.

They are still being very cautious, but I think they are starting to make the right sounds. They haven't fully committed to abolishing pre-funding, but I think they are now seriously investigating the effects of pre-funding, and personally I think some more research in this area might be a good thing. Nothing like having some numbers when talking to Government.

...although as we have indicated we are meeting with both National and Labour to ascertain their position and to signal that the AA would like the debate opened up as to whether full-funding is appropriate.

We have meetings arranged with Nick Smith on 18 February and David Parker on 24 February to discuss this, and we will also be meeting with ACC to gather data on cost projections of future annual motor vehicle levies under a pay-as-you-go funding model versus full-funding. We are interested in understanding what the future levies will be as the scheme matures and the liabilities ACC have identified fall due, as in the short term there is no doubt a move away from full-funding will reduce ACC levies as you suggest, but we have not seen any data on long-term levy projections under either model. One of the flaws in the ACC levy consultation is they only project liabilities and necessary income over a 10-year period (although they estimate lifetime claim costs), which means we have no idea how much income they need to collect annually, either under full-funding or pay-go, beyond that 10 year period and it would be prudent to model this to compare annual motor vehicle levies under both scenarios not just in the medium term but longer term as claim costs are expected to continue rising. Under the full-funding model levies were expected to fall once the deadline was met (now some time after 2019), so it will be interesting to track this against levies under pay-as-you-go which will be more likely to continue rising, albeit off a smaller base.

[p.dath]

This is the major part of my reply:

I’m sure your researchers are very good, but please make sure when looking at the long term future costs they consider the distribution of the aging population (I’ve had this discussion many times before with people).
If you look at the accident statistics you’ll see that those over the age of about 55 are less prominently figured. So I expect that as the baby boomer generation move into this age bracket, you’ll find the actual number of accidents start to reduce, and hence the financial cost of ACC. However I personally “guess” that this group of users will continue to own registered vehicles, so the motor vehicle account is not likely to suffer a sudden reduction in income. So less expenses, same income.

[p.dath]

This is the major part of my reply:

I’m sure your researchers are very good, but please make sure when looking at the long term future costs they consider the distribution of the aging population (I’ve had this discussion many times before with people).
If you look at the accident statistics you’ll see that those over the age of about 55 are less prominently figured. So I expect that as the baby boomer generation move into this age bracket, you’ll find the actual number of accidents start to reduce, and hence the financial cost of ACC. However I personally “guess” that this group of users will continue to own registered vehicles, so the motor vehicle account is not likely to suffer a sudden reduction in income. So less expenses, same income.