ACC should be looking at people-movers

**Max Headroom** · 3rd November 2009, 08:43

Not sure if anyone else has noticed the emerging phenomenon of people-movers in recent years. I've considered them as road-lice for as long as I can remember, but lately their increasing appearance in road accident statistics is become a big concern. Most are based on commercial vans with little more than extra seats & carpet, and are popular for large families. They are ideal for the school run, but are woefully inadequate on many of our rural roads and are potentially lethal in the hands of inexperienced drivers.

The fact that there is no special licence requirements to drive one, nor any special WOF procedures to own one is something which both LTSA and ACC should be considering IMHO. The number of these vehicles featuring in single-vehicle accidents is an increasing concern, along with the potential for killing up to 11 people in one hit yet with only one ACC levy to cover injuries. Few of these vehicles have anywhere near adequate crumple zones to protect front or rear passengers, and few have anything like the cabin strength of even a medium-sized car.

Since ACC seem to have an excess of time on their hands, here's a worthwhile cause for them to pursue . . . .

**vifferman** · 3rd November 2009, 08:50

Burn them! and all that...

**FROSTY:Me** · 3rd November 2009, 09:28

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

Not sure if anyone else has noticed the emerging phenomenon of people-movers in recent years. I've considered them as road-lice for as long as I can remember, but lately their increasing appearance in road accident statistics is become a big concern. Most are based on commercial vans with little more than extra seats & carpet, and are popular for large families. They are ideal for the school run, but are woefully inadequate on many of our rural roads and are potentially lethal in the hands of inexperienced drivers.

What rock have you been hiding under? its not a EMERGING at all --Those box vans are decreasing in number thanks to aunty helen

**The Stranger:Me** · 3rd November 2009, 09:40

Originally Posted by FROSTY

What rock have you been hiding under? its not a EMERGING at all --Those box vans are decreasing in number thanks to aunty helen

But he does raise an interesting point.
Cages have the capacity to generate significantly more claims per unit that we do. A single cage with 4 occupants may generate 100k (at the average claim for cars of about 25k) worth of claims yet they pay significanlyt less than us, who may generate 1 or at most 2 20k claims.

**avgas** · 3rd November 2009, 09:59

And some are full of shit.....

Let me just re-quote you
"Let me talk to you about a vehicle I have no idea about. Its quite ugly, so much so I have given it a nickname. I have seen it in crashes - therefore it must be bad. I will never drive one, and have never been in one....I propose that I ban something I have no idea about.
ACC ban this thing I know nothing about, as I guess using the power of estimation and the internet that it is a bad thing."

Next time you feel like spinning BS on here answer me these questions 3:
- What is the crumple zone of a bike?
- How many people have died in MPV's?
- What are their saftey ratings in comparison to any other cars? bikes?

Its knobs like you who work for ACC and state the most dangerous things on the road are motorbikes. I don't like MPV's but I know for a fact they are using driven by people who are not as dangerous as "young workers in diesel utes..." or "blind office workers in small run abouts..."

**FROSTY:Me** · 3rd November 2009, 10:20

Originally Posted by The Stranger

But he does raise an interesting point.
Cages have the capacity to generate significantly more claims per unit that we do. A single cage with 4 occupants may generate 100k (at the average claim for cars of about 25k) worth of claims yet they pay significanlyt less than us, who may generate 1 or at most 2 20k claims.

Sorry mate his point loses impact purely due to his "facts" being incorrect.
Something those involved in the ACC campaighn need to be VERY careful oF. Like a staffy in bite mode the press will focus on ONE incorrect "fact

**RC1** · 3rd November 2009, 10:54

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

The fact that there is no special licence requirements to drive one, .

yes you do need a licence, and since were on the car bashing wagon, what about remuera tractors, most of those reqire a ht licence bein so heavy how many soccor mums have them without an ht ??

**Ixion** · 3rd November 2009, 11:03

I always understood that the casualty rate for forward control vans (which i assume these are) was much worse than other four wheelers?

**MSTRS:Me** · 3rd November 2009, 11:11

The OP needs to clarify...does he mean Passenger Vans or People Movers? They are two very different types.
In the event of either type having a head-on, I know which one I'd rather be in the front of.

**Max Headroom** · 3rd November 2009, 11:13

Actually, neither of the vehicles you've mentioned have the capacity of a 12-seat minivan, and both have crumple-zones. And considering the potential these vehicles have to maim up to a dozen people in a single-vehicle accident yet only attract the same ACC levy as a small car, this is clearly outside the ACC's stated intention of applying User Pays.

I have (reluctantly & briefly) owned and driven an 11-seat minivan in the past. The handling characteristics when empty are quite different to how they handle when full of people and gear, and I believe that they require skills to operate which are beyond many drivers, particularly on country roads at open road speeds due to the high centre of gravity. That's the environment where they regularly get into strife.

There have been three people-movers involved in single-vehicle accidents in the last six weeks, causing as many deaths as cellphones have in the last three years. Those three accidents alone have generated ACC claims worth six figures based on average ACC costs.

If you're comfortable with that AVGAS, that's fine. If you want to get personal instead of offering constructive criticism, go ahead. That approach seems fairly typical of kiwibiker contributors. i have never, and could never work for a government department or anything remotely resembling one. I can't follow your reference to diesel utes and small runabouts, nor does much of your other content add up to much of value. Let me paraphrase the essense of your post: "I disagree".

Motorcycles can't injure or kill a dozen people in a single vehicle accident but a minivan can, and it requires less red tape to obtain a licence to drive a minivan than the red tape to ride a motorcycle.

Originally Posted by avgas

And some are full of shit.....

Let me just re-quote you
"Let me talk to you about a vehicle I have no idea about. Its quite ugly, so much so I have given it a nickname. I have seen it in crashes - therefore it must be bad. I will never drive one, and have never been in one....I propose that I ban something I have no idea about.
ACC ban this thing I know nothing about, as I guess using the power of estimation and the internet that it is a bad thing."

Next time you feel like spinning BS on here answer me these questions 3:
- What is the crumple zone of a bike?
- How many people have died in MPV's?
- What are their saftey ratings in comparison to any other cars? bikes?

Its knobs like you who work for ACC and state the most dangerous things on the road are motorbikes. I don't like MPV's but I know for a fact they are using driven by people who are not as dangerous as "young workers in diesel utes..." or "blind office workers in small run abouts..."

**mashman** · 3rd November 2009, 11:22

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

Motorcycles can't injure or kill a dozen people in a single vehicle accident but a minivan can, and it requires less red tape to obtain a licence to drive a minivan than the red tape to ride a motorcycle.

The can if they crash into said minivan!!! I drive one of these MPV things you're talking about. I feel safer in it than i do in a car that can accelerate at least twice as fast... The high centre of gravity doesn't come into it unless you're raggin the ass of the thing and going around corners on 2 wheels (no ideal when your family is in the car)...

I find the whole argument a moot point... no matter what the vehicle is (see Tour of Southland) injuries are a part of road life!!! Singling any vehicle type out is pointless as next year noone may crash an MPV or a motorbike or any vehicle for that matter... In fact, if there are no crashes next year, does our ACC fall... or would that just be luck!!! see, pointless

**Max Headroom** · 3rd November 2009, 11:31

Originally Posted by Ixion

I always understood that the casualty rate for forward control vans (which i assume these are) was much worse than other four wheelers?

Yep, they are.

I bought a business almost five years ago, and there were two delivery vans included with the chattels. One was a Toyota Hiace, and the other was a Mazda E1800. I ditched both of them as soon as I could afford to, and replaced them with european vans with extended noses.

I resent my knees being part of the crumple zone . . . .