The Lean - A statistical factsheet

[Katman]

74% of ALL serious injury crashes involve cars and 26% of all serious injury crashes are involve motorcycles.

And yet we only make up about 2% of the total road going fleet.

[mashman]

you gotta normalise for population size though, more cars on the road means they will be involved in more total accidents than bikes, doesn't mean they are riskier. Also factor in the rego fees paid, 100k bikes at average of 300? per rego, 3mil cars at bout 120? per rego, gives 30mil from bikes, and 360mil from cars, so yeh, using those figures we aren't subsidising em

As a percentage of the whole car and bike road going fleet. 74% percent of the ACTUAL TOTAL cost, (if ACC can't prove otherwise) is, granted flimsily, down to car drivers. Just because there's more of them, does not mean we should pay more does it? unless that's how you prefer to see it. Using the ACC principles and all.

The Bill for serious injuries = 74% cars, 26% bikes

I think we're subsiding cars on that basis. As members of the road going fleet that is and looking at the potential real costs. It'd be interesting to find out, but a lot of leg work.

And yet we only make up about 2% of the total road going fleet.

You look at it how you choose to, yet happily separate bikes out from being classed as simply as a road user. Why? Perhaps it's the same reason as TPTB? Is it easier because there's less bikes? Do you not believe in the principles of ACC?

[bogan]

As a percentage of the whole car and bike road going fleet. 74% percent of the ACTUAL TOTAL cost, (if ACC can't prove otherwise) is, granted flimsily, down to car drivers. Just because there's more of them, does not mean we should pay more does it? unless that's how you prefer to see it. Using the ACC principles and all.

The Bill for serious injuries = 74% cars, 26% bikes

I think we're subsiding cars on that basis. As members of the road going fleet that is and looking at the potential real costs. It'd be interesting to find out, but a lot of leg work.

you're still confusing the total with per user. In total they are involved in 74% of accidents, and pay 90% of the total cost, from the approximated figures above.

[NONONO]

So, and I want to be clear bout this...
The bill (cost to ACC and therefore the rego payer) is split.74 % cost from cars 26% from Bike related things.
If we take scooters into account and rego'd mopeds probably the motorcycle figures are between 18 and 22%.

What, given that the damage per capita, caused by motorcyles to others, is much less than caused by cars or vans etc, is the average ACC payout for bike related accidents (all parties included in each accident) compared to 4 wheel accidents (all parties included in each accident) ?

[bogan]

So, and I want to be clear bout this...
The bill (cost to ACC and therefore the rego payer) is split.74 % cost from cars 26% from Bike related things.
If we take scooters into account and rego'd mopeds probably the motorcycle figures are between 18 and 22%.

What, given that the damage per capita, caused by motorcyles to others, is much less than caused by cars or vans etc, is the average ACC payout for bike related accidents (all parties included in each accident) compared to 4 wheel accidents (all parties included in each accident) ?

perhaps, serious injuries for the year 2009 were 74% car involvement, and 26% motorcycle involvement. We don't know the bill, though this may be online somewhere, it is difficult to know if the figures have been inflated or massaged a bit as it would have to come direct from ACC. However, last year someone did crunch some numbers and motorcycles were slightly cheaper per claim using the ACC data. So the assumption that the relative accident rates is proportional to the relative bills, is likely to be valid.

[Berries]

The Bill for serious injuries = 74% cars, 26% bikes

Take that as the true figure just for arguments sake. But ACC do not get 74% of their income from cars and 26% from bikes. Due to the number of each that are registered the gap between the two will be much bigger - 90% and 10% ? I don't know, it is probably more than that, but it would appear from the figures that rider injuries are being subsidised by car registrations. I always thought that was the case. Bikes are more likely to crash than cars, two wheels vs four, and in a crash a rider is likely to get more severely injured than a car driver, cage vs no cage. Simple physics.

The whole argument really comes down to the Woodhouse principles. You either believe that all road users should be treated the same, or it should be risk based. Work related ACC is risk based. That is where I lose track of what the Woodhouse principles actually are, but then I am an import. To me if you are going to go risk based on mode of transport then you have to go the whole hog and look at experience and vehicle type, and here I include drivers as well as riders.

[Katman]

That is where I lose track of what the Woodhouse principles actually are,

In an ideal society the Woodhouse principle would work ideally. Maybe we had such a society back when it was introduced.

Unfortunately we live in an entirely different society today. Far too many couldn't give a shit how their actions may negatively impact on others.

It has become a situation where the responsible are continuously paying for the stupidity of the irresponsible.

In the same way, our welfare system has become one where the diligent, hard-working members of our society pay for the lazy to remain in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

[MSTRS:Me]

In an ideal society the Woodhouse principle would work ideally. Maybe we had such a society back when it was introduced.

Unfortunately we live in an entirely different society today. Far too many couldn't give a shit how their actions may negatively impact on others.

It has become a situation where the responsible are continuously paying for the stupidity of the irresponsible.

THAT is THE BEST post I've ever seen from you.
And scarily, it holds a big truth too. Whether Woodhouse or risk-based, the problem of idiots is the same. But with risk-based as we have now, the pool is smaller relative to the idiots (or unfortunates etc) in each class.

[bogan]

In an ideal society the Woodhouse principle would work ideally. Maybe we had such a society back when it was introduced.

Unfortunately we live in an entirely different society today. Far too many couldn't give a shit how their actions may negatively impact on others.

It has become a situation where the responsible are continuously paying for the stupidity of the irresponsible.

In the same way, our welfare system has become one where the diligent, hard-working members of our society pay for the lazy to remain in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

exactly, and if the hardworking can pay for the lazy, which is largely intentional, surely they can pay for ACC, which is accidental.

[Ocean1]

To me if you are going to go risk based on mode of transport then you have to go the whole hog and look at experience and vehicle type, and here I include drivers as well as riders.

Bling raincheck.

[Ocean1]

THAT is THE BEST post I've ever seen from you.
And scarily, it holds a big truth too. Whether Woodhouse or risk-based, the problem of idiots is the same. But with risk-based as we have now, the pool is smaller relative to the idiots (or unfortunates etc) in each class.

And here's another thing about idiots: They'll cost more than they're worth no matter what.

[Winston001]

Take that as the true figure just for arguments sake. But ACC do not get 74% of their income from cars and 26% from bikes. Due to the number of each that are registered the gap between the two will be much bigger - 90% and 10% ? I don't know, it is probably more than that, but it would appear from the figures that rider injuries are being subsidised by car registrations. I always thought that was the case. Bikes are more likely to crash than cars, two wheels vs four, and in a crash a rider is likely to get more severely injured than a car driver, cage vs no cage. Simple physics.

Exactly. Motorcycles make up a very small percentage of vehicles, yet as you posted earlier, contribute a larger percentage to injuries.

The whole argument really comes down to the Woodhouse principles. You either believe that all road users should be treated the same, or it should be risk based. Work related ACC is risk based.

There is a lot of confusion on here regarding the "Woodhouse Principles". Sir Owen Woodhouse recommended that an injury compensation scheme be introduced based on no fault and a social contract. Specifically he meant little/no risk weighting and cover funded year to year by the government.

The comparison is the Unemployment Benefit. Its the same amount whether you had a well-paid job or low-paid. The money to pay is gathered through taxation each year, not built up in a special dole fund.

In the USA by contrast, there is state unemployment insurance which you contribute to in taxes, and pays a percentage of salary for a limited time. Then you drop down to Welfare. We don't have that 2 step system.

[mashman]

Sorry for lack of proof reading (i'll do that later if it's that badly out of whack, or if someone points something out))...

The whole argument really comes down to the Woodhouse principles. You either believe that all road users should be treated the same, or it should be risk based. Work related ACC is risk based. That is where I lose track of what the Woodhouse principles actually are, but then I am an import. To me if you are going to go risk based on mode of transport then you have to go the whole hog and look at experience and vehicle type, and here I include drivers as well as riders.

I do have the Woodhouse principles in the back of my mind. But my calculations are looking at the social cost and not the "financial" cost, as such, i'm just making the assumption that we have the lower social cost based on accident ratios. My conclusions are my conclusions, they may be yur conclusions too...

Total of people killed on the road for 2009: 396
Total of people killed on the road for 2009 in Driver/Passenger Vehicles (DPV): 302
Total of people killed on the road for 2009 on Motorcycles: 50

As a social cost, DPV inhabitants account for 76% of road deaths
As a social cost, Motorcycles account for 13%

Total of people injured on the road for 2009: 14842
Total of people injured on the road for 2009 in DPV's: 11658
Total of people injured on the road for 2009 on Motorcycles: 1396

As a social cost, DPV inhabitants account for 78% of road injuries
As a social cost, Motorcyclists account for 9% of road injuries

Berries Serious Injury stats com in to play here.

Total of serious injuries cars/motorcycles/mopeds for 2009: 2227
Cars resulting in Serious Injuries for 2009: 1753
Motorcycles resulting in Serious Injuries for 2009: 474

As a social cost, Cars account for 79% of serious road injuries
As a social cost, Motorcycles account for 21% of serious road injuries

Hospital admissions that were immediately discharged: 7839
Hospital admissions that require 1-2 day stays: 2824
Hospital admissions that require 3 or more day stays: 1868

The assumption is made that Berries figure of serious injury, will result in a stay longer than 3 days.

Even if all 474 of motorcycle accidents required more than 3 days, that still leaves 1394 serious injuries that need to be paid for. Just because they can spread the cost on numbers and they can apportion "blame", does not reflect the true social cost.

Say the average cost of rehab for a motorcycle rider is the same as a DPV at $20,000 per person. Have fun with the social cost numbers. And then answer who is subsidising who from the social point of view. The FACTUAL point of view.

474 * $20,000 = $9,480,000 at an average of $500 rego per bike, say 50,000 bikes that's $25,000,000.

1394 * $20,000 = $27,880,000. Motorcycles are paying their fair share of serious injury costs and then the rest of the cost is spread?

Someone want to tell me what the other $15,520,000, of motorcycle levy, is spent on? We don't pay our fair share? Who am I subsidising?

[MSTRS:Me]

Someone want to tell me what the other $15,520,000, of motorcycle levy, is spent on? We don't pay our fair share? Who am I subsidising?

ACC would have us believe it is for 'ongoing treatment and ERC for injuries starting in the year of collection'...

[Winston001]

I've explained Sir Owen's recommendations above. What we all need to understand is that Parliament never accepted the whole report. ACC was created and morphed into a government insurance scheme.

Parliament established risk categories and ACC levies were variable, just as they are today.

So, to be clear, the social contract where society paid as we go (annual taxation) was never adopted. ACC has always been a compulsory accident insurance scheme.

Now you and I may not like this but that's the way it is, and has been since 1972. Talking about Woodhouse Principles is as useful as talking about Eugenics, which was a hot concept in the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. Its time has passed.