ACC - Here we go again

[rastuscat]

Thats not to say I didn't like to use the Police Offences Act when needed....

Are you an Ernie? I am.

I was more a Fish and Chip Act observant.

[rastuscat]

Just confirming for the lurkers.

At the time of the merger with Police (1 July 1992), there were just over 1000 traffic cops.

The collar numbers assigned were E001 through to F10-something.

So most former traffic cops were "Ernies", with some who got Fs escaping what was regarded as a mark of dishonour by "real" cops.

When I left in 2015 there were still "real" cops who looked down their noses at Ernies. Funny really, given that they had higher numbers, so had been in the police often for far less time.

The collar number is a symbol of credibility within police, as it dates the holders join date. It often tells a story and imparts respect, but only in some circumstances.

If someone leaves then comes back, they get a new collar number. Which doesn't reflect their length of service. Funny when someone who doesn't know the circumstances assumes someone is new, when they have years of prior service.

Just for anyone who isn't sure WTF an Ernie is.

[R650R]

Thanks Rastus that’s quite interesting.That phenomenon happens quite often these days as people change jobs more often. Nothing quite as satisfying as the expert who knows everything coming back five mins later to ask how do you do that?
It would be interesting to see proper arrest stats these days, surely a lot of our “most wanted” are getting nicked after traffic stops and with modern electronic technology making it quick to see outstanding warrants etc

[R650R]

Any insurance underwriters out there? I wonder how much private health insurance would cost if you had the option of forgoing ACC, especially if you have multiple bikes.
I have health insurnace, even though we supposedly have state funded health care, because I want to be treated before I die.

I suspect it would be much higher as the industry up for the entire population. It would be like compulsory car insurance in UK, you pay a lot more for third party on an older car than you would here.
At the moment it’s mostly wealthy (used loosely compared to average wages) that can afford health insurance. Most of those people can afford to eat healthier, more time for exercise and afford to go to doctor earlier to catch things early.

But a seperate accident/trauma insurance could be plausible based on risk profile, but I suspect it wouldn’t end well for bikers if what acc says about our injury costs and earnings profiles is true.
At least all the rugby players and cyclists might pay their fair share though! And if your doing home DIY I’d bet insurance company would insist on you using proper scaffold etc if your painting house roof or similar tasks.

[rastuscat]

As regards the unfairness of people with more than 1 bike having to pay more than 1 ACC levy, I'd be interested in hearing the system that people propose to address that unfairness.

But there are some flags to address. There's no point in proposing a system which does not address these flags, as they matter to the decision makers.

ACC largely pays the bill for motorcycle injury and rehab costs, some of which are ongoing claim liabilities, years or decades after the unfortunate crash happened. So they know how much they are spending on motorcycle crashes.

They then decide how much they need to recover from motorcycle ACC levies, and that figure is around 30% of the cost of injuries and rehab, the rest coming from the general roading fund. I believe the current consultation proposes increasing the percentage that motorcyclists pay, which is what started this discussion.

If we go to a system where each person pays based on their status as a motorcyclists, rather than based on the registration of the number of bikes they own, the amount of money collected would decrease. The money has to come from somewhere, so likely there would be an increase across the board for all riders, to address the balance. So people with 1 bike (most people, I suggest) would effectively be subsidising those with more than 1. This just to maintain the current percentage riders pay.

If we levied people based on those who hold a Class 6, well, that's 450000 people, of which only 130000 actually ride. So that can't work.

So we than levy those who have a Class 6 licence, who have a bike registered in their name. Sounds fair. Until everyone twigs, and registers their bike in the name of a friend or relative who doesn't have a Class 6. If people can, people will.

So come on, tell me about a fool proof system that meets these criteria

1. Collects the amount of money needed to pay the percentage of the cost of injuries and rehab.
2. Is actually practically applicable, from an enforcement point of view.
3. Pie in the sky ideas like "I don't want to pay anything" can't work. Cool to say that, but it's aint going to happen.

Every system I've ever heard, that can actually be applied, has equity issues. We can moan about how fabulous the system in this country or that country is, but New Zealand is not going to disestablish ACC, or similar, any time soon.

So, post away.

P.S. I don't want to pay more either, I just accept that collectively, we probably need to do so.

[roogazza]

Just confirming for the lurkers.

At the time of the merger with Police (1 July 1992), there were just over 1000 traffic cops.

The collar numbers assigned were E001 through to F10-something.

So most former traffic cops were "Ernies", with some who got Fs escaping what was regarded as a mark of dishonour by "real" cops.

If someone leaves then comes back, they get a new collar number. Which doesn't reflect their length of service. Funny when someone who doesn't know the circumstances assumes someone is new, when they have years of prior service.

Just for anyone who isn't sure WTF an Ernie is.

Thanks for that Rasta, I'd never known that ! In my day graduation 1974 I got a number 4590P "P' was dropped after two years and passing probation exam. So I became just 4590.
I resigned in 1985 after getting the shits with the job. Went to Aussie for 13 years and returned in 1998. Rejoined and was given the new number GN868 (initials and number). HQ said I only had to do the physical tests as I had worked at the College for 8 years (instructor ). They slotted me into DPS . Diplomatic squad. Retired 2008.

Lol remember getting into the lift at Central and a middle aged Sgt grinned and said, fuck you still alive !!!! Turned out to be one of my ex cadets from way back. hahahaha

[pete376403]

As regards the unfairness of people with more than 1 bike having to pay more than 1 ACC levy, I'd be interested in hearing the system that people propose to address that unfairness.

But there are some flags to address. There's no point in proposing a system which does not address these flags, as they matter to the decision makers.

ACC largely pays the bill for motorcycle injury and rehab costs, some of which are ongoing claim liabilities, years or decades after the unfortunate crash happened. So they know how much they are spending on motorcycle crashes.

They then decide how much they need to recover from motorcycle ACC levies, and that figure is around 30% of the cost of injuries and rehab, the rest coming from the general roading fund. I believe the current consultation proposes increasing the percentage that motorcyclists pay, which is what started this discussion.

If we go to a system where each person pays based on their status as a motorcyclists, rather than based on the registration of the number of bikes they own, the amount of money collected would decrease. The money has to come from somewhere, so likely there would be an increase across the board for all riders, to address the balance. So people with 1 bike (most people, I suggest) would effectively be subsidising those with more than 1. This just to maintain the current percentage riders pay.

If we levied people based on those who hold a Class 6, well, that's 450000 people, of which only 130000 actually ride. So that can't work.

So we than levy those who have a Class 6 licence, who have a bike registered in their name. Sounds fair. Until everyone twigs, and registers their bike in the name of a friend or relative who doesn't have a Class 6. If people can, people will.

So come on, tell me about a fool proof system that meets these criteria

1. Collects the amount of money needed to pay the percentage of the cost of injuries and rehab.
2. Is actually practically applicable, from an enforcement point of view.
3. Pie in the sky ideas like "I don't want to pay anything" can't work. Cool to say that, but it's aint going to happen.

Every system I've ever heard, that can actually be applied, has equity issues. We can moan about how fabulous the system in this country or that country is, but New Zealand is not going to disestablish ACC, or similar, any time soon.

So, post away.

P.S. I don't want to pay more either, I just accept that collectively, we probably need to do so.

I think what gets most of us (certainly gets me) that motorists (just about any wheeled vehicle used on public roads) are penalised for the apparent risk profile whereas any other activity, is not, even though ACC has any amount of statistics to show these other activities can be equally risky to the person and expensive to ACC. We are hit with double whammy, paying out of our wage/salary/company ownership into the general fund, and then via the registration. Yet you are correct, it is not going to change anytime soon, and will only get worse

[Racing Dave]

As regards the unfairness of people with more than 1 bike having to pay more than 1 ACC levy, I'd be interested in hearing the system that people propose to address that unfairness.

But there are some flags to address. There's no point in proposing a system which does not address these flags, as they matter to the decision makers.

ACC largely pays the bill for motorcycle injury and rehab costs, some of which are ongoing claim liabilities, years or decades after the unfortunate crash happened. So they know how much they are spending on motorcycle crashes.

They then decide how much they need to recover from motorcycle ACC levies, and that figure is around 30% of the cost of injuries and rehab, the rest coming from the general roading fund. I believe the current consultation proposes increasing the percentage that motorcyclists pay, which is what started this discussion.

If we go to a system where each person pays based on their status as a motorcyclists, rather than based on the registration of the number of bikes they own, the amount of money collected would decrease. The money has to come from somewhere, so likely there would be an increase across the board for all riders, to address the balance. So people with 1 bike (most people, I suggest) would effectively be subsidising those with more than 1. This just to maintain the current percentage riders pay.

If we levied people based on those who hold a Class 6, well, that's 450000 people, of which only 130000 actually ride. So that can't work.

So we than levy those who have a Class 6 licence, who have a bike registered in their name. Sounds fair. Until everyone twigs, and registers their bike in the name of a friend or relative who doesn't have a Class 6. If people can, people will.

So come on, tell me about a fool proof system that meets these criteria

1. Collects the amount of money needed to pay the percentage of the cost of injuries and rehab.
2. Is actually practically applicable, from an enforcement point of view.
3. Pie in the sky ideas like "I don't want to pay anything" can't work. Cool to say that, but it's aint going to happen.

Every system I've ever heard, that can actually be applied, has equity issues. We can moan about how fabulous the system in this country or that country is, but New Zealand is not going to disestablish ACC, or similar, any time soon.

So, post away.

P.S. I don't want to pay more either, I just accept that collectively, we probably need to do so.

Fairness, or otherwise, is the biggest issue.

How can it be fair for an owner of 10 bikes, covering the same annual distance as an owner with one bike, who is expected to pay 10 times the cost for exactly the same risk?

Some years ago, when Nick Smith was Minister for ACC, we had some correspondence on the very topic of multiple motorcycle ownership with only one bike ridden at a time, concluding when he advised me that ‘the system had to be fair for everyone’. Which it wasn’t then and isn’t now.

I can think of a way to (approximately fairly) collect the necessary revenue. Know how much is needed, divide that by the ‘average’ fuel consumption of an ‘average’ bike, and add that cost to the per litre price at the petrol pump. Bigger bikes, generally, use more fuel than smaller ones, and this is more or less in line with the stepped level of levy that we now enjoy.

Likewise, it addresses another unfairness, being that of the fellow who rides 1000km a year being a lesser risk of a claim than the fellow who rides 10,000km per year.

Nothing addresses the issue of the idiot rider who zooms everywhere, compared to the risk of an (possibly) older chap being cautious everywhere. Why should Mr Steady-As-She-Goes pay the same as Joe Rocket?

It is, of course, not fair to car drivers (who currently pay a much lower ACC component), but at least it addresses the issue of multiple bike ownership and cuts across those who ride with their bike’s rego on hold.

It doesn’t need enforcement.

[SaferRides]

I think what gets most of us (certainly gets me) that motorists (just about any wheeled vehicle used on public roads) are penalised for the apparent risk profile whereas any other activity, is not, even though ACC has any amount of statistics to show these other activities can be equally risky to the person and expensive to ACC. We are hit with double whammy, paying out of our wage/salary/company ownership into the general fund, and then via the registration. Yet you are correct, it is not going to change anytime soon, and will only get worse

Exactly. But ACC play similar games with Workplace Cover, and you could question the fairness of charging higher levies just because some occupations are riskier.

ACC has been around for a long time and is probably well overdue for a major review. But successive governments continue to ignore the issues and leave it all in the Too Hard basket.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Berries]

So anyway, I am interested in the engine size breakdown because I think it is a too simplistic way of determining risk and does not match the view I have in my mind of crashes being due to the rider more than it is the size of the engine.

There were 1,371 reported crashes in total last year involving a moped or motorbike where someone was injured. This is a long way from the 4,487 people ACC said were treated. I have just concentrated on the fatal and serious crashes of which there were 574.

20 of these crashes occurred off the public road, on beaches mainly. I have ignored them. 46 of these crashes involved unregistered dirt bikes crashing on a public road. I have taken those out of the following analysis. Quick tip. If you are going to ride a dirt bike on the road and be a dickhead it is probably a good idea to wear a helmet and may I suggest doing it during daylight.

17 crashes involved non-registered quads which I have ignored as I have two farm bikes and a pit bike. So 15 percent of the motorbikes crashing on a public road were not actually registered and contributing to the ACC motor vehicle fund.

There are 15 crashes where the bike details are not recorded so they are of no use so are ignored. Some of these are rubbish data while others are where ‘associates’ turned up before the Police and removed the bike. Finally, there are four crashes where it was not the bike rider who was injured so I deleted them.

So in total we have 470 on road crashes last year where a road registered bike crashed and a rider was killed or seriously injured, what’s that, one every day of the week but two on Saturdays and Sundays. Table below shows make of bike and engine size. To make it legible I have deleted from the table 17 manufacturers who had three or fewer bikes listed however the total across the bottom is still the actual total.

Take from it what you will. Some facts.

472 bikes involved. 247 full licences. 83 learner, 39 restricted. 73 no bike licence at all and 23 disqualified. Table of those by bike as well.

Harley are top of the list re crash involvement. Why are they top of the list? This graph might help –

Registered motorbikes in NZ.

No surprise then if most claims come from this group given they make up such a large part of the fleet and 85 percent of them are >1,000cc. To be honest I never knew a V Rod was such a popular learners bike.

Crash data does not include the rego status of the bikes involved although it was noted that quite a few bikes were not current. WOF data is there though, 78 had expired prior to 2023, the best being 2006, 41 had expired earlier in 2023, 48 were unknown – mainly mopeds that don’t need a WOF, and 304 were current.

ACC are not bothered about fault but I am. My estimate is that 110 riders were (arguably) not at fault, 40 where the rider was partly at fault and 315 where the rider was clearly at fault. Every one of those crashes is a lesson to us all and is worthy of a thread of its own.

Reckless riding, lots of oh shit moments the wrong side of 140km/h, lots of examples where the rider crossed the centre line on a left hander or ran off the road on a right, basic skills stuff. A few group rides in there, a few gang fails in the mix. Some big alcohol readings, generally associated with riding like a twat and missing corners at warp factor nine. Ride Forever courses get a mention more than once which is a little bit ironic. A few people on stolen bikes getting mangled so it is not all bad news. Meth seems to be quite a popular riding aid as well. We could all learn something from knowing more of what actually happened in these events. Could even turn out to be more useful than a pressure gauge.

My favourite comment was “I came round the corner and the next thing I’m in the ambulance” as well as “Put some drugs in me you cunts.”

But I digress. Table below of crash involvement just because I was interested and wanted some background for a submission. A review of the actual crashes confirmed my believe that engine size alone is not a good determinant of risk if you are simply going to ignore the rider and the exposure based on mileage and reinforces some of my long held prejudices about big cruisers. There you go, I said it, and I was really trying hard not to. We are all however part of a minority and in the end this will turn out to be a waste of time as the decision has already been made. Hope someone finds it interesting though.

[SaferRides]

There clearly should be a separate category for >1000 cc.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

There clearly should be a separate category for >1000 cc.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Hmmm. Why? Power to weight ratio says my 1200GSA is far less risky than a 900 race replica Yamaha currently on sale.

Never mind that big beemers don't seem to be the choice for risk takers. More the cloth cap, pipe smoking types.

I'm sure everyone can mount an argument as to why they are less risk, and so should pay less.

[SaferRides]

Hmmm. Why? Power to weight ratio says my 1200GSA is far less risky than a 900 race replica Yamaha currently on sale.

Never mind that big beemers don't seem to be the choice for risk takers. More the cloth cap, pipe smoking types.

I'm sure everyone can mount an argument as to why they are less risk, and so should pay less.

From the data that Berries posted. One third of the crashes were on bikes over 1000 cc.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[R650R]

Likewise, it addresses another unfairness, being that of the fellow who rides 1000km a year being a lesser risk of a claim than the fellow who rides 10,000km per year.

Nothing addresses the issue of the idiot rider who zooms everywhere, compared to the risk of an (possibly) older chap being cautious everywhere. Why should Mr Steady-As-She-Goes pay the same as Joe Rocket?.

I have several mates who are in the low km bracket for various reasons work hours/money/wife/kids etc and I think a lack of kms is higher risk. Although they are exposed less they are not keeping their eye in and maintaining skill level. There’s a reason why the USAF wastes thousands of tons of jet fuel on training when pilots are already at top gun level.


The demerit system and insurance premiums partly address those who go hard everywhere…

[R650R]

Nice work Berries must spread rep although your cc breakdown is a little biased as all other groups stepped by 100cc ish although it’s prob correct that the big baggers are over represented.
Just thinking of making a sudden direction change or effective emergency braking with the mass and geometry of that style of bike mitigates the desire to own something like that purely to experience the big cc twin torque outputs.
Yes perhaps we argue a bigger cc bracket to seperate that lot but trouble is the likes of your big ktms and Africa twins keep sneaking up in cc to pass emissions tests so we’d end up penalising some slightly safer riders also.
Is there any data on riders type and quality of protective wear?