ACC Levies. BRONZ meeting

[Eng_dave]

OH and according to there own Stats only 9.2% of all traffic related injuries in 2008 were from motorcycles and 13.7% of deaths. So why are they singling us out to pay for the rest.

[Ixion]

At the top of that page it says 'This section includes accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle (for example cycle only accidents).'

Now I'm confused.... In fact the whole statistics section of ACC's site is bloody confusing (probably on purpose, like most bloody Govt. websites)

From your post you obviously have a better understanding of ACC's statistics, could you explain to us dweebs?

This section shows claims met from the motor vehicle account. Any claim where a motor vehicle is involved are paid from this account (that's unfair in itself, but probably not to us). So, if a cycle and car collide, the injuries to the cyclist are paid from this account. That's why there are sections on pedestrians and cyclists in the motor vehicle accounts.

But, if no motor vehicle is involved (ie the cyclist just falls off), then the claim is paid from the general account (not funded from regos)

[Ixion]

Not picking on you personally, but if people are going to be using ACC figures, they'd better be damn sure they know what the data means.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800020 Scroll down to Driving/Passenger Motorcycle- $62,545,000

Correct. That shows the cost of ON ROAD motorcycle crashes. The other one, the $7mill, is the cost of injuries involving a motorcycle, but not on a public road (eg someone crashes at Paeroa races)

[Azalrac]

I suspect that there may be Bill of Right arguments that can be used to try and thwart this nastiness. I also note that National does not have the numbers. I think that Maori Party is a safe bet but ACT is the wild card. Fishing and Hunting and Gun Right groups are linked to ACT and they may help us convince ACT to go against the oppressor.

[Expert]

Has some one already brought up bringing in compulsory third party insurance to replace the flawed acc system for vehicles?
Acc is a socialist ideal and everyone knows socialism is flawed. This was bound to happen.
The only fair system is highest user, or the highest drain on the system pays the most.

[abcontractors]

I'm sure if every bike owner in the country put his/her foot down the government would have to act. Doe's anyone think an organised bike ride around the country would voice our distain for the ACC?

[scumdog]

Has some one already brought up bringing in compulsory third party insurance to replace the flawed acc system for vehicles?
Acc is a socialist ideal and everyone knows socialism is flawed. This was bound to happen.
The only fair system is highest user, or the highest drain on the system pays the most.

My take on third party insurance is that it only covers the PROPERTY of the other party.

If you somehow included it to cover INJURY to the other party how are you going to cover for the situation where due to your speed you speared off the road at a great rate of knots into a tree and mangled yourself??

The tree won't have third party insurance.....

[R-Soul]

This is what I wrote to my North Shore councillor. a few valid points. They are trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

Dear Wayne

If National persists with the planned motorcycle ACC levy increases, it will definitely lose my vote. This issue has been a massive stab in the back especially for North Shore people. We do not have the option of bicycling into the city as there are no lanes (or even plans for a bicycle lane clip on) on the harbour bridge. The Ferries and busses are slow and expensive, and inconvenient to use if you need to travel during the day as well. And parking in the city is ludicrously expensive (while motorbikes can generally park free). Further, the winds encountered over the harbour bridge are not conducive to smaller and less stable motorbikes.

Motorcyclists traditionally pride themselves as being
- thinking people who realise that they did not have to lug a ton and a half of metal and four armchairs with them wherever they go, instead preferring to leave a small traffic and congestion footprint;
- environmentalists who leave a relatively small pollution footprint;
- supportive of the general trend to try and minimise fuel usage (and hence offshore fuel payments) in support of NZ’s financial health;

We have in the past made use of the incentives given by government to use the bus lanes, in the interests if safety and reduced travel time.

Now after we have adapted to the governments incentives, made life better for others (while in return taking on added liabilities of reduced safety weather protection) and in effect are behaving as model citizens, the ACC wants to turn our lifestyles upside down and lay our investments to waste? And not to a small degree either!

The proposed increase is adjudged according to arbitrary rules and has not been well thought out. Relating ACC payouts to engine size is arbitrary and disingenuous (frankly lazy), as some smaller capacity bikes are a lot more powerful than larger ones.

Further, it makes no sense that a “no-fault” insurance scheme is doing just that – adjudging fault at the door of the motorcyclists!! The blame for high levels of injuries of motorcyclists can at least partially also be laid at the feet of poor car drivers. Why should we be penalised financially for their ineptitude? The idea that it is only the motorcyclists that are being singled out for punishment is infuriating: Can you imagine the outcry if all rugby players were singled out in the same way because they are the next most expensive ACC payout?

A more dramatic and extremist argument would be that if less cars were on the road, the entire system would be safer for bikes. Therefore all cars should be taxed so hard that they all turn to bikes. But this is simply not realistic.

If the ACC wants to reduce the payouts for accidents, the government should put in schemes that deal with the main causes of the accidents. I have looked at the stats on LTNZ’s website and there appear to be three main problem areas:
- Riders losing control of their bikes
- The effect of speed, alcohol and drugs.
- Bikes not being seen by cars

A significant proportion (35%) of motorbike accidents are because of the rider losing control of their own bike and/or head on collisions. This can be remedied by requiring compulsory attendance to medium and advanced level training and refresher courses (preferably at a local track). Most riders will actually welcome this, since most would actually like to do this, but cannot afford it, and compulsory attendance will mean larger classes, and reduced costs for such courses.

39% of bike injuries occur at intersections- presumably because bikes are not seen by cars. This can be at least helped by requiring compulsory wearing of high visibility jackets by motorcyclists, or large reflectors to be attached to bikes.

Alcohol, drugs and speed are associated with about half of all motorcycle (and car) accidents. If any particular group is to be targeted, these abusers should be it. Currently vehicle rego’s cannot be paid without attending to outstanding fines or other offences. I propose this: ACC levies can be increased or decreased on a sliding system (like the current points system) depending on the number of recent speeding fines and/or alcohol related offences.
This system would do more to hit the root cause of injuries than arbitrarily penalising all motorcyclists for the recklessness of a small percentage of them. Also, the alcohol legal limit for motorbikes can (quite justifiably and reasonably) be reduced to zero – I know for a fact that I would not want to be riding any bike after even one beer. Further, fines for alcohol related offences can (justifiably) be increased by an ACC levy.

Simply hammering the motorcycle riders with increased costs will result in many not being able to afford the cost of running one, meaning increased congestion, reduced fuel savings for NZ, and a VERY unimpressed voting public. Some might prefer just to ride illegally, reasoning that they can be caught three times in a year before it is the same cost as paying the registration costs.

I hope that you will put forward my suggestions to your party as a much more reasonable and useful alternative to the frankly, badly thought out alternative you have planned. Don’t let the ACC levy issue be the equivalent of the Labour anti-smacking bill.

This proposal by National smacks of laziness and lacks forethought and an understanding of your voter’s day to day realities. Something we would have expected from Labour actually. I hope that adding my voice and suggestions to the growing clamour will help focus National’s willingness to focus on the real issues.

Best regards,

[R-Soul]

and before anybody bitches about high vis jackets, and not drinking, think of teh alternative. At least my proposals address the real problems.

Besiodes, compulsory track days twice a year are hardly unbearable...

[cs363]

This section shows claims met from the motor vehicle account. Any claim where a motor vehicle is involved are paid from this account (that's unfair in itself, but probably not to us). So, if a cycle and car collide, the injuries to the cyclist are paid from this account. That's why there are sections on pedestrians and cyclists in the motor vehicle accounts.

But, if no motor vehicle is involved (ie the cyclist just falls off), then the claim is paid from the general account (not funded from regos)

Correct. That shows the cost of ON ROAD motorcycle crashes. The other one, the $7mill, is the cost of injuries involving a motorcycle, but not on a public road (eg someone crashes at Paeroa races)

Thanks for clarifying that Ixion, why do government departments seem to love having the worst possible websites? Obfuscation seems to a prominent pastime in the public service. I don't think I've ever found a government webiste that is either easy to navigate or easy to understand at first glance.

[jeffs]

Ok Some real numbers. Using data from 2006 from ACC and LTSA.

Read to the bottom before you hit the roof.

Cost per accident to ACC
ACC claims for cars = $208,343,000 in 2006. number of claims to ACC = 8529

$208,343,000 / 8529 = $24,427 Ave cost per car/pass claim

ACC claims for motorbikes/scooters = $62,545,000 in 2006.
number of claims to ACC = 3174

$62,545,000 / 3174 = $19,705 Ave cost per claim Bike/pass

So cost per accident is less than car.

But how many cars compared to bikes.

Cars registered in 2006 = 206,084
Bikes registered in 2006 = 17,248

Number of accidents requiring ACC as a percentage of registered vehicles.

cars 8529 / 206,084 = 0.041 = 4%
bikes 3174 / 17248 = 0.184 = 18.4 %

ACC cost by vehicle type.
Cost of claim / number of registered vehicle
car $208,343,000 / 206084 = $1010
bike $62,545,000 / 17248 = $3636

So here is the problem. Due to economy of scale it costs ACC over 3 times as much per bike revenue over car. even though the cost per claim is lower.

Hence one possible reason why our levies have been hiked so high.


BUT !!!!! what about the 60% of bike accidents that are caused by cars hitting bikes.

ACC is a no fault system, so if a car hits a bike, then surely it is not the bikes fault. So let's crunch the numbers again. Base on ACC claim of a no fault system.


$62,545,000 - 60% = $25,020,000
cost to ACC per bike due to bikes caused accident.
$25,020,000 / 17248 = $ 1450

tRemember form above the cost per car claim was $1010
So bikes are about 150% of the cost per car

If ACC is really a user pays system then bike reg should be 150% of a car reg. Isn't that what it is already ???

So why the hike in reg.

easy
1. it's easier to price bikes off the road than educate car drivers to stop hitting them.

2. Bikes make up less than 8% of registrations. so that's 92% less people to piss off when you hike the costs.

I would like ACC to explain their maths in raising the reg costs to 3 times that of cars. I suspect the answer is simple.
they had my 6 year old do their analisys.


http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/m.../docs/2007.pdf

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800020

[cs363]

nah I don't understand it any more than you do. Thats why we need someone who does. Turning up with the wrong set of figures or misinterpreting them will only make bikers look like uneducated fools, and any points we put forward will be ignored.

At least you're honest!

Thankfully Ixion cleared that one up for us

[aewilliam]

Wouldn't mind getting confirmation that gang members will also be getting their regos checked. Not that an extra $500+/bike will be hurting their net profits from P sales.

Wouldn't mind the option of private insurance.

I'm up for action in protest...get a rolling block on the motorways in Auckland & Wellington and wherever to create the congestion that biking has the potential to reduce.

But as others have said, alienating the car drivers who we kinda want to be on our side as well (esp cos their ACC levies are also going up too...) isnt great...

What happened to the planned increase in truck fuel levies? Did they go ahead? bugger can't remember...
Anyways, there were the rolling truck blocks on motorways that occurred...wonder how much effect those had if the change didnt go ahead?

[Kwakajack]

Ixion,

Can you supply contact details, and BRONZ meeting dates for all venues around New Zealand.

I can't come up to Auckland next week for a meeting, but I will certainly go to Dunedin or Christchurch for something this important.

I will support a nationwide ride on Parliament (clogging the Wellington motorways) as a first step.

Dunedin's meeting is at the St Kilda Tavern on the 29th of October.
Start time is 7:30.

Also note, submission on the levies is November 10!! So get organised to submit as a general citizen!

[Kwakajack]

I'm sure if every bike owner in the country put his/her foot down the government would have to act. Doe's anyone think an organised bike ride around the country would voice our distain for the ACC?

Good luck mate, I would so applaud such a move and happily participate but you are playing against political apathy which NZ is riddled with. Those of us that actively debate the problem are those who are not politically apathetic and we are in the minority I keep discovering.