The Lean - A statistical factsheet

[Katman]

Is it possible that over two thirds of injury causing on road motorcycle accidents go unrecorded by the proper authorities?

I'd say there's a damn good chance of that.

[bogan]

I'd say there's a damn good chance of that.

yet ten years ago the claims were less than the number of recorded injuries, how does that work?

[Katman]

yet ten years ago the claims were less than the number of recorded injuries, how does that work?

I don't know. I thought by "proper authorities" you meant the police.

I'm sure there's a huge number of motorcycle accident ACC claims that never come to the attention of the police or NZTA's statisticians.

[bogan]

I don't know. I thought by "proper authorities" you meant the police.

I'm sure there's a huge number of motorcycle accident ACC claims that never come to the attention of the police or NZTA's statisticians.

yeh I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant number, it's just the change that confuses me, a minor increase in injuries over the last ten years 900-1400 (increased bike numbers account for this), yet the claims have gone from 800-5000. Something smells a bit off here, perhaps an investigation into how the records work on both sides is in order.

[Katman]

yeh I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant number,

Can you imagine how bad all those unreported motorcycle accidents (many of which are making ACC claims) could make our stats recorded by the NZTA look?

[bogan]

Can you imagine how bad all those unreported motorcycle accidents (many of which are making ACC claims) could make our stats recorded by the NZTA look?

I can imagine a lot of things, but a 4x (aprox) increase in the accident rate of bikers over ten years is less imagininable than creative accounting from ACC tbh. But imagining shit gets us nowhere, figuring out what this discrepancy arises from will prove insightful one way or the other.

[Katman]

But imagining shit gets us nowhere,

I agree entirely.

Significantly reducing the number of accidents we have could get us everywhere though.

[bogan]

I agree entirely.

Significantly reducing the number of accidents we have could get us everywhere though.

indeed, how about we fix the ACC levy issue (its stopping a lot of potential bikers from getting into it I reckon), and encourage a heap of new riders to get into it, this means other motorists will be more aware of bikes due to increased presence, and we can ensure all the newbies learn how to ride defensively and responsibly. It'll be like a biketopia of sorts

[Katman]

It'll be like a biketopia of sorts

I like that idea.

How about we go about it this way though - sort our shit out, improve our appalling statistics, make people see that motorcycling can be an accepted and responsible form of motoring, attract loads more people to motorcycling and therefore be a far greater force to be reckoned with by the powers that be.

[mashman]

One thing I have noticed today, the ACC new claims currently are over 3x the recorded injuries, which may throw out your analysis as the average injuries would need to be changed to a much higher amount to fall in line with the ACC's figure. But I just can't see why the number of new claims is so much higher than the number of new injuries recorded, anyone have any ideas? Is it possible that over two thirds of injury causing on road motorcycle accidents go unrecorded by the proper authorities?

You can get multiple claims for a single injury. So i've read

[mashman]

There also this

Information excluded from ACC statistics

* Injuries that resulted in less than one week off work are largely excluded from the Entitlement claims reported in Sections 2-21 of ACC Injury Statistics 2008. This is because ACC is not liable for costs incurred during the first week of incapacity.
* Claims for medical fees only (where the health provider was reimbursed directly) are excluded from the Entitlement claims reported in Sections 2-21 of ACC Injury Statistics 2008.

[Winston001]

I can't help noticing a delicious irony in this discussion on statistics: many of you would also cry long and loud about the high cost of health administration and ACC management. Not to mention police, NZTA etc. Its almost a given that the public think administration - paper pushing - in these areas is a waste.

Yet here we are looking deeper and deeper into statistics and asking why certain figures don't make sense or cannot be found at all.

Personally I'd rather a doctor/nurse/police fixed me up instead of filling out myriad forms in triplicate working out whether I fell off a bicycle or motorcycle, whether it was on a trail ride, playground, or a road, and whether maybe I'd had a pre-existing condition and the cause was medical instead of inattention......

[mashman]

I can't help noticing a delicious irony in this discussion on statistics: many of you would also cry long and loud about the high cost of health administration and ACC management. Not to mention police, NZTA etc. Its almost a given that the public think administration - paper pushing - in these areas is a waste.

Yet here we are looking deeper and deeper into statistics and asking why certain figures don't make sense or cannot be found at all.

Personally I'd rather a doctor/nurse/police fixed me up instead of filling out myriad forms in triplicate working out whether I fell off a bicycle or motorcycle, whether it was on a trail ride, playground, or a road, and whether maybe I'd had a pre-existing condition and the cause was medical instead of inattention......

Funny, i don't see the irony (not really). Anyone that takes a look at ACC, police, NZTA etc... and the running costs, future claims cover, policing strategy etc... will have to undergo exactly the same process... but they will do that in the context of how the current system is run and not by looking at the figures and seeking solutions to "unfair" levying. Paper pushing is inevitable, all you can do is look at it in terms of efficiency.

In light of the numbers not having been made available, what would you have people do? Just leave it and suck up the bullshit? Or figure out why the numbers are far enough out of whack and try to do something about it (if that's possible)

Agreed 100%. But you can't do that with the current system of levy calculation. I would venture that that levy (a single levy in my eyes) would drastically cut the amount of paperwork needing to be pushed. Essentially you pay your ACC levy money and you're "covered", no quibbling, you need fixed up, not a problem, you need help for the future, no problem... as long as you can balance the books at the end of the year, where's the problem. Ohhhhh to have a crack at the ACC database...

[MSTRS:Me]

yeh I wouldn't be surprised if it was a significant number, it's just the change that confuses me, a minor increase in injuries over the last ten years 900-1400 (increased bike numbers account for this), yet the claims have gone from 800-5000. Something smells a bit off here, perhaps an investigation into how the records work on both sides is in order.

I think you will find that the 5000 figure includes all those claims begun in previous years, that have an on-going nature. Claiming 5000 injury claims in 2009 is double-dipping by Nick the Prick.

[bogan]

I think you will find that the 5000 figure includes all those claims begun in previous years, that have an on-going nature. Claiming 5000 injury claims in 2009 is double-dipping by Nick the Prick.

no it's quiet clearly stated as new claims. Though if there is evidence that is a misrepresentation, obviously that'd be very useful.