You pricks are costing us taxpayers too much money

[skippa1]

The way that the stats are recorded makes it impossible to be absolutely accurate, but in round figures between 30% and 45% of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle events. Of the remainder, most of which involve bike vs car, about 70% have the primary fault attributed to the car driver. I say primary fault because in very many of these cases, the rider was doing something which contributed toward the prang.

Hmmmm interesting.
i guess when it all boils down, no matter who is at fault, on a bike you are less likely to to come out unscathed. You take the precautions, wear the gear, try to learn from any training etc but the outcomes of an impact, regardless of fault, can be very serious.
The rider type targeted as the at risk group must be based on statistics, i wonder if similar profiling is done on the 70% of the 55% that have the primary fault in initiating accidents?

[Duncan74]

I could have sworn I just paid an acc levy that calculated based on my income... Earner levy I believe it is called (companies pay into it directly, 'on behalf' of their employees). It almost makes sense for all lost income due to being injured, to come from the fund you pay into with income; then just leave activity specific levies like the motor vehicle account to par the cost of treatment.

As linked earlier, you do pay earners levy. That is a fund that ACC uses for paying any non work accident, except those as a result of a motor vehicle crash. Work related injuries are funded from the employer levy. And anything as a result of motorvehicle crash is from the fee that is part of the rego payment (or paid at the same time).

Regarding the 'returning rider' phenomenon and lack of data, then I wonder if there's a way of having an annual 'license' charge for acc. Advantage of this is that then you pay to use, and if you've 2,3, N+1 bikes, you still only pay for the one contribution. Equally, if people are taking 20 years off riding then they can put their bike license on hold, and then on return do 6 months of LAMS and a silver course to reactivate. Biggest issue is the likely abuse with the police needing to stop bikes to check licenses whereas ANPR can currently confirm the vehicle (bike) is registered. As opposed to the bike next to me yesterday with a rego that expired September last year with the rider with no protective gear other than a motorcross helmet. Sigh.

But as said, ACC is a bloody cheap insurance. My private income insurance which has ACC offset (ie excludes anything that is covered by ACC, so really just natural illness) is over $100 a month.

[AllanB]

What he said re earners levy. Office job like mine is cheap (but ignores the mental impact of my stressful job!!!) - tree feller guy pays a fortune.

I'd be very happy with a global ACC funding out of income tax. I have no idea really but I suspect it would be no more than my current earner levy and combined vehicle ACC levy. I may be wrong. Government plays it right they could earn more and blame less.

[Oakie]

. I won't be happy until ALL ACC funding is taken directly from income tax. This is the ONLY way to bring equity back into the system.

But then only people who earn would pay for it. That's not equitable...

[bogan]

As linked earlier, you do pay earners levy. That is a fund that ACC uses for paying any non work accident, except those as a result of a motor vehicle crash. Work related injuries are funded from the employer levy. And anything as a result of motorvehicle crash is from the fee that is part of the rego payment (or paid at the same time).

Perhaps I was being overly subtle, I know how things 'work' currently, but cannot fathom why payouts for lost earnings, don't come from the earning pay-ins.

[swbarnett]

But then only people who earn would pay for it. That's not equitable...

Roughly speaking, earn $x, pay y% of $x in tax. This is equitable.

Just make x = 0. Still equitable.

[Banditbandit]

Perhaps I was being overly subtle, I know how things 'work' currently, but cannot fathom why payouts for lost earnings, don't come from the earning pay-ins.

ACC actually invest the money - and then pay out from what that money earns ...

At the end of 2014 ACC had $27BILLION (yes billion) invested ..

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overv...prd_ctrb110932

They state they set the levy fee based on what they think they will have to pay out - and how much money they can earn from investing the fees ...

[bogan]

ACC actually invest the money - and then pay out from what that money earns ...

At the end of 2014 ACC had $27BILLION (yes billion) invested ..

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overv...prd_ctrb110932

They state they set the levy fee based on what they think they will have to pay out - and how much money they can earn from investing the fees ...

Irregardlessly, it still would make sense for earnings payouts, to come from earnings pay-ins, not from the MVA

[Banditbandit]

Irregardlessly, it still would make sense for earnings payouts, to come from earnings pay-ins, not from the MVA

That would be too obvious for the bureaucrats in Wellingtown ..

[ozjohnno]

I live in victoria australia and we have had 28 riders die since jan 1. No sign of them banning bikes here

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

[AD345]

I live in victoria australia and we have had 28 riders die since jan 1. No sign of them banning bikes here

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Maybe...

THAT is the sign

[Berries]

It would be interesting and somebody here may be able to tell me....
how many serious accidents or fatalities involving motorcycles are initiated by the actions of a motorcyclist as opposed to the actions of another vehicle, truck, car bus whatever......

The way that the stats are recorded makes it impossible to be absolutely accurate, but in round figures between 30% and 45% of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle events. Of the remainder, most of which involve bike vs car, about 70% have the primary fault attributed to the car driver. I say primary fault because in very many of these cases, the rider was doing something which contributed toward the prang.

Well here are some sobering figures. Last year there were 52 fatal crashes and 384 serious injury crashes involving motorcyclists. 204 of the total 436 crashes only involved the bike, that’s 47%.

I have always followed the third/third/third philosophy in that one third of crashes are the rider on his own, a third are the riders fault in a multi vehicle crash and a third were caused by the other party. Might have to change my mind after looking at this small sample. Out of interest I have had a closer look at the 28 fatal crashes where another party was involved and fuck me no wonder ACC have it in for us.

In seven of the 28 fatal crashes involving a second vehicle the rider was not at fault. In a couple you could say that the rider might have been able to do something about it but unless you were there you don’t know. Wrong time, wrong place etc etc. I am familiar with one of these crashes and the guy had no chance.

In three crashes the other party was at fault for pulling out on the rider at an intersection but if you are doing 50km/h over the speed limit at the time you haven’t really left them much chance, or if you are riding at night with no lights.

What surprised me was that in 17 of the 28 crashes the other party was minding their own business. The most common crash type was crossing the centreline on a left hand curve into oncoming traffic (all on dry roads) followed by overtaking on crests or left hand curves straight in to the path of an oncoming vehicle. There were also a few rear end crashes in the mix where the other vehicle looked to be doing everything by the book before being slammed in to.

I was tempted to have a look at the serious injury crashes as well to see if the same pattern emerged but you quickly lose any enthusiasm when you see how easily people are willing to throw their lives away doing dumb shit.

Anyroad, don’t shoot the messenger, just putting it here for discussion. Data comes from the national crash database.

[skippa1]

Well here are some sobering figures. Last year there were 52 fatal crashes and 384 serious injury crashes involving motorcyclists. 204 of the total 436 crashes only involved the bike, that’s 47%.

I have always followed the third/third/third philosophy in that one third of crashes are the rider on his own, a third are the riders fault in a multi vehicle crash and a third were caused by the other party. Might have to change my mind after looking at this small sample. Out of interest I have had a closer look at the 28 fatal crashes where another party was involved and fuck me no wonder ACC have it in for us.

In seven of the 28 fatal crashes involving a second vehicle the rider was not at fault. In a couple you could say that the rider might have been able to do something about it but unless you were there you don’t know. Wrong time, wrong place etc etc. I am familiar with one of these crashes and the guy had no chance.

In three crashes the other party was at fault for pulling out on the rider at an intersection but if you are doing 50km/h over the speed limit at the time you haven’t really left them much chance, or if you are riding at night with no lights.

What surprised me was that in 17 of the 28 crashes the other party was minding their own business. The most common crash type was crossing the centreline on a left hand curve into oncoming traffic (all on dry roads) followed by overtaking on crests or left hand curves straight in to the path of an oncoming vehicle. There were also a few rear end crashes in the mix where the other vehicle looked to be doing everything by the book before being slammed in to.

I was tempted to have a look at the serious injury crashes as well to see if the same pattern emerged but you quickly lose any enthusiasm when you see how easily people are willing to throw their lives away doing dumb shit.

Anyroad, don’t shoot the messenger, just putting it here for discussion. Data comes from the national crash database.

It is interesting. I Am now part of the serious injury stats for this year and unfortunatly will be significatly affected for the balance of my life. The whole ACC, at fault or not, cost to provide ACC help vs private insurance, 80% of wages vs levy paid via rego vs a bigger tax......and on it goes, directly impacts me (and those that pay their regos..).......
right about now I am pretty pleased I paid my levys, also grateful for The levies paid by others. Incidentally, breathing is pretty awesome too right now.

[AllanB]

It is interesting. I Am now part of the serious injury stats for this year and unfortunatly will be significatly affected for the balance of my life. The whole ACC, at fault or not, cost to provide ACC help vs private insurance, 80% of wages vs levy paid via rego vs a bigger tax......and on it goes, directly impacts me (and those that pay their regos..).......
right about now I am pretty pleased I paid my levys, also grateful for The levies paid by others. Incidentally, breathing is pretty awesome too right now.

Bloody Skippa coming on KB talking sense and proving the worth of the system ........ good on ya.

[Bass]

Well here are some sobering figures.

Thought you'd be along with some more accurate data eventually.

Sobering indeed - alarming even - indicates we are getting worse and by a big margin. However, small sample as you say.

Thanks for that

Would be really interested in that similar analysis of the serious injury stats.