ACC calls for “greater awareness of motorcyclists”

[Grahameeboy]

I was saying I wouldn't ride if compelled to wear yet another piece of "safety" gear because I'm considered stupid by the people who are supposed to be our servants.

Well I wouldn't be riding in NZ anyway, because I wouldn't be living here.

Okay but a shame..............

[Max Preload]

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.

Of course, you spread the risk over all licence payers, which means the cost to ACC averaged over EVERY motorcycle licence payer is:

($52,000,000 /43,000)-$166.00 = $1043.30 per motorcyclist.

So, maybe, just maybe, we ARE costing ACC a hell of a lot more than we bring in? The cagers are subsidising us to the tune of more than a grand per motorcyclist. How many car ACC licence fees is that?

Still think they're arseholes for trying to inform the public to look out for you?

Not quite... your equation spreads the $52 million across 1/4 of motorcycles, not 1/4 of the $52M across all 43 000 motorcycles.

[McJim]

FFS can no one see sense?

BAN CARS - we'll all be safer.

[scumdog]

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.


Still think they're arseholes for trying to inform the public to look out for you?

Since when has a ACC type claim for a motorbike crash ONLY cost $4,337????

[Max Preload]

Since when has a ACC type claim for a motorbike crash ONLY cost $4,337????

Probably never. But that's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is how much they take in from levies on motorcyclists, and how much it costs in payouts because of them.

The irony that they call it a no-fault system and then go about penalising different groups differently, is not lost on me. If it was actually no fault, t every person would simply be charged the same premiums, across the board.

[dank]

Make car drivers complete the first section of their license on a motorbike. No need for empathy, they'll actually know what it feels like when someone does a "sorry mate".

[Cynos]

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.

You've just stated that

T = Total cost of motorcycle accidents
P = Proportion of cost resulting from motorcyclists
M = Number of motorcyclists
C = Cost to ACC per negligent motorcyclist (that is, per P*M)
T / (P * M) = C

You're making some extrapolations from that I don't quite understand. Can you explain? I'm a statistics newbie.

[Sam I Am]

And change the oh so fucking stupid give way rules !!!
The amount of times i have nearly been taken out by cars that overtake a car that had stopped to give way for me when they were turning left.... the mind boggles....

[Sam I Am]

Well, if "they" decide we have to be more visible, and wear fluoro etc, I'm not.
In all the incidents I've experienced in D'Auckland, I think only two (3) of them were to do with visibility: the first was the one where I was on my VF500 (in Ponsonby) and a scooter was coming from the right and I didn't see it the first time I looked.
That made me aware how easy it is to not see bikes'n'scooters. (I'm glad I saw it the second time!)

The other one (2) were a scooter and a car colliding at an intersection (again in Ponsonby!) where the car's windows were fogged up, and so was the driver's brain.

then we all need a compulsory Loud Pipe so people hear you !!!

[candor]

ACC recently employed a bike specialist. Name Phil Ryan from memory (but my memories like a sieve - the Ryans right anyway pretty sure.

He seems not burnt out and is quite helpful. Is approachable - so why not give him a ring. He's in the road safety section of injury prevention. And quite happy to chat on a range of road safety things unlike some civil servants most notably LTNZ ones. Speed....speed....speed....

[riffer]

Not quite... your equation spreads the $52 million across 1/4 of motorcycles, not 1/4 of the $52M across all 43 000 motorcycles.

That's because I'm comparing costs of motorcycle victim rehabilitation to actual registrations, which I feel is a more valid comparison.

Your original comparison produced a skewed result.

You've just stated that

T = Total cost of motorcycle accidents
P = Proportion of cost resulting from motorcyclists
M = Number of motorcyclists
C = Cost to ACC per negligent motorcyclist (that is, per P*M)
T / (P * M) = C

You're making some extrapolations from that I don't quite understand. Can you explain? I'm a statistics newbie.

I was trying to illustrate that if we looked at costs based on only at-fault motorcyclists it cost a lot. Yes I know ACC is no-fault.

Since when has a ACC type claim for a motorbike crash ONLY cost $4,337????

Scumdog - the $52M was for rehabilitation costs, not total costs. We'd look a lot worse if we included ALL costs.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Ban all vehicles on the road (including bikes ) they are all dangerous and should be banned.

[riffer]

Ban all vehicles on the road (including bikes ) they are all dangerous and should be banned.

Yes, but human beings are very resourceful. We'd find another way to hurt and kill ourselves that would be just as efficient.

[Grahameeboy]

And change the oh so fucking stupid give way rules !!!
The amount of times i have nearly been taken out by cars that overtake a car that had stopped to give way for me when they were turning left.... the mind boggles....

Well if the following car is going straight the car turning left should not stop and the following car is allowed to overtake the car turning left........unless to do so will impinge on other road users......so if you turn right and there is a following vehicle you should not have turned but if you are stationary and the following car crossed the centre line then that is wrong.

What's the problem....this has to be the most misunderstood part of this rule which is why I agree it should be removed............

Just make all intersections "Stop" and have no "Give Way".

[Grahameeboy]

FFS can no one see sense?

BAN CARS - we'll all be safer.

and our kids will be fitter..................