ACC ad rebuttal

[Azi Dahaka]

Here is what i have so far i will update this first posts with updates

Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
They’re not. ACC;s proposed levies are going up for a number of groups not just for motorcyclists

it is true that motorcyclists are not being singled out but a increase of $30 for cars and $500 for motorcyclists is not fair because on adverage motorcyclists cost approximatally $5000 less per claim.

ACC is also running advertising marketing campaigns against motorcycles spending several thousand dollard to place adds in newspapers.

Also Motorcycles are the only vehicle group that has its levy set based on c.c rating.

Motorcycles are accounted for separately - this is not done with small cars, medium cars, large cars, forward control vans, or four wheel drive vehicles, all of which, if separated out would display different degree of crash vulnerability.

Accounting for motorcycles separately is the essence of "singling out"

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies the preciously paid weren’t enough to cover the cost of the injuries the suffered.

Will motorcyclists now be paying the full cost of their injuries?
No. even with the levy increase we are proposing they will only be meeting 21% of their claim costs

If motorcyclists weren’t paying enough, who’s been covering their costs?
Other motor vehicle owners. Even with the proposed changes, most other motor vehicle owners will still contribute $77 to cross subsidise motorcyclists

In 2008 the total number of Cars, Trucks, Vans and Utes was 3,308,930 if you multiply this by $77 this becomes $254,787,610 ($254 million)
The entire motor vehicle ACC account was $341 million
In 2008 the total number of motorcyclists was 130,213 multiplying this against the registering costs of approximately $250 is $32,553,250
If you add the $254,787,610 and the $32,553,250 you get $287,340,860 based on this acc claims that motorcyclists make up 84% of all claims where they only equate to 23% of all claims

Source http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...-motorvehicle-
account/IS0800157
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...%20version.pdf

But motorcyclists say the crashes aren’t their fault
Figures show that in almost 60% of cases motorcyclists bore some or all of the responsibility for the crash.

In 2008 71% of crashes involving motorcyclists were collisions
Motorcyclist primarily responsible for 35% or 1/3 of these collisions
i.e. 2/3rds of collisions are caused by the motorist not the motorcyclist
Of all crashes including non collision accidents, the motorcyclist was primarily
responsible for 51%.

Source http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...orcycle-Crash-
Factsheet.pdf

How much more at risk are motorcyclists?
Motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to make an acc claim that other road users. And they’re more likely to seriously injured

Between 1951 and 2008 there has been a 220% decrease in the number of accidents involving motorbikes. In fact between 2007 and 2008 there was a 7% decrease in crashes.

Source http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...%20version.pdf

It is 16 times more likly to have an accident id motorcycles covered the same distance as cars. ACCs own figures show that they use an annual travel distance for bikes one quarter than that of cars. One quarter the distance travelled one quarter the risk.

How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
For $750 you can insure a big bike, perhaps worth $15,000 to replace. The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident.

ACC is not an insurance scheme. It is a compensation scheme. Insurance companies give no claims bonuses, and have to face comeptition.
IS THIS A ADD FOR PRIVITISATION?????????????

Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims, or bikes used on farms?
No. we're only asking motorcyclists to pay for injuries on public roads.

ACC may only be asking us to pay for injuries on public roads, but the costs they claim include off road injuries

Waikato Hospital did a study, and found that 80% of motorcycle injuries they treated came from offroad, but the claim form generally stated 'motorcycle accident' and not location.

Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more that one bike?
They can only ride one bike at a time.
Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes and ride them, whether or not they had paid an acc levy themselves. In fact, ACC needs to collect the same amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective of whether that amount is collected per bike or per rider.

That is to make motorcyclists pay for ACCs inability to levy people fairly. The reality is that a motorcyclist who has a bike and a car will only use one at a time. If ACC are concerned about hypothetical situations then they should change their collection method.

[Ixion]

Couple more points

Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
They’re not. ACC;s proposed levies are going up for a number of groups not just for motorcyclists

No other group is going up by 400%. Car levies go up $30 , motorcycle levies go up $500. That's not being singled out?


Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies the preciously paid weren’t enough to cover the cost of the injuries the suffered.

Yes they are. ACC want to collect more, to pay for old claims going back to 1974 and to build up their reserves. Motorcyclists should not be singled out to singlehandedly make up for ACC's bad investment decisions.

(not quite true, they did better than most, but truth is the first casualty of war).

How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
For $750 you can insure a big bike, perhaps worth $15,000 to replace. The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident.

Firstly, ACC is not an insurance scheme. It is a compensation scheme. if it is an insurance scheme, give us back the right to sue. Secondly, insurance companies give no claims bonuses ,and have to face comeptition. ACC has a monopoly (which they are abusing) .

Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims, or bikes used on farms?
No. we're only asking motorcyclists to pay for injuries on public roads.

They may only be asking us to pay for injuries on public roads, but the costs they claim include off road injuries

Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more that one bike?
They can only ride one bike at a time.
Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes and ride them, whether or not they had paid an acc levy themselves. In fact, ACC needs to collect the same amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective of whether that amount is collected per bike or per rider.

That is to make motorcyclists pay for ACCs inability to levy people fairly. The reality is that a motorcyclist who has a bike and a car will only use one at a time. If ACC are concerned about hypothetical situations then they should change their collection method .

How much more at risk are motorcyclists?
Motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to make an acc claim that other road users. And they’re more likely to seriously injured


This statement is untrue. It is 16 times IF BIKES COVERED THE SAME ANNUAL DISTANCE AS CARS. they don't ACCs own figures show that they use an annual travel distance for bikes one quarter that of cars. One quarter the distance travelled one quarter the risk.

[Ixion]

Colelct this into a coherent form and I'll send it as a Letter to the Editor of each paper form BRONZ.

[Ozzie]

Mr Goff,

I am a biker and was at the Manukau protest last weekend when you indicated that Labour would be behind us in our fight for fair ACC across the board.

I understand that the figures stated are full of holes, and a complete misrepresentation of reality. This is further frustrated by the fact; as broke as ACC is, they can still afford to boost the Government's bottom line with it's "returns on investment" and fund 1/4 page adds in every major paper in NZ today, restating their propaganda.

I also note, although the impact in the public eye is singling out bikers, the reality is that it will impact everyone. If by bike numbers dropping, multiple rego's reducing, putting rego on hold for the wet months or whatever, this all will reduce their forcasted earnings without having the slightest impact on the km's travelled, or the accident rates. That being realised, what next? Joe public does not get this, nor the idea that an extra 75,000 cars on the road, as bikers and uni students opt for the cheaper way (car), will absolutely nail the already stretched transport system

I am wondering, given this battle also has political impacts, if the Labour party can assist us, or if we can work together to rebut the ACC and National's claims in the Herald at least.

Perhaps Labour put an add in pointing out the holes in ACC's (read National's) claims.

I for one am disappointed to say I did vote National at the last election, but their ignorance of public opinion and straight out fudging of figures is infuriating. Consequently I will not be voting National again, and I expect my opinion would be shared by a great number of New Zealanders if the full, real story could be told. Unfortunately, the bikers don't have the money or public image to do that alone.

I eagerly anticipate your reply

Your Sincerely,

[Mystic13]

If motorcyclists weren’t paying enough, who’s been covering their costs? Other motor vehicle owners. Even with the proposed changes, most other motor vehicle owners will still contribute $77 to cross subsidise motorcyclists



Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims.

ACC have used a figure for next years claims of $252 million. On this basis if these claims come to fruition then motorists would be cross subsidising us by $77.65. (This excludes all of the other mis-information.).

I refer you to page 29 of "Levy Consultation 2010/11" "Levy Rates for Motorists"

I decided not to post the PDF because of it's size but here's the link.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/...+for+motorists

Of course if the claims aren’t $252 million we can all expect a refund cheque in the mail.

So ACC are right... on the basis of these absolutely sound figures produced with a large sprinkling of fairy dust. And no they're not out to get us just to justify the fee increase

If someone would like to do some bed time reading they can tell us how they got to $252 million. It'll be imbedded in earlier pages.

What I wonder is if ACC decided to use a claims figures for cars next year of four times what it was last year and then announce the new car levy would be $750 would motorists be upset. The AA would be the first to scream.

[Azi Dahaka]

i have made some changes thanks Ixion not 100% on the insurance comment as it sounds like an add for privitisation and personally i dont want to go down that track

[MSTRS:Me]

Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
They’re not. ACC;s proposed levies are going up for a number of groups not just for motorcyclists

Notice how quiet they are on that subject? Keep the country focussed on those nasty bikers and they'll never see what else is coming.

Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
Because the levies they previously paid weren’t enough to cover the cost of the injuries they suffered.

It's (supposed to be) a No Fault road fund. Do small cars pay/cost more because of their vulnerability?

Will motorcyclists now be paying the full cost of their injuries?
No. even with the levy increase we are proposing they will only be meeting 21% of their claim costs

There's that spurious $3700 that Key has bleated on about. In theory that would cover 20+ years worth of pay outs on long term active claims beginning in 2009. In real life, very few people would still be drawing large $ at anywhere near 20 years down the track. And accident/injury figures have been steadily dropping since the 80s.
It's worth noting here that in 2008, ACC paid out $38M in old active claims...those claims are from all years gone by (or at least prior to 1999) collectively. Not just a single year from the past. So, my above 20+ years is not really accurate at all.

How do the proposed ACC levies compare to the cost of insuring the actual bike?
For $750 you can insure a big bike, perhaps worth $15,000 to replace. The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident.

What's insurance got to do with anything? Insurance is based on the individual primarily. And it's non-compulsory, however recommended it may be. ACC is not insurance.

Do the figures include off-road motorcycle claims, or bikes used on farms?
No. we're only asking motorcyclists to pay for injuries on public roads.

This is rubbish. Waikato Hospital did a study, and found that 80% of m/c injuries they treated came from offroad, but the claim form generally stated 'm/c accident' not location.

Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more that one bike?
They can only ride one bike at a time.
Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes and ride them, whether or not they had paid an acc levy themselves. In fact, ACC needs to collect the same amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective of whether that amount is collected per bike or per rider.

Every single vehicle attracts a levy, so why even mention this? As though m/cs are somehow different in this respect.

I'm sure that someone can find the proof of what I say, if I haven't

[Mystic13]

But motorcyclists say the crashes aren’t their fault
Figures show that in almost 60% of cases motorcyclists bore some or all of the responsibility for the crash.

The figures they refer to are from the pie chart on page 4 here.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...clecrashfacts/

In reality 39% of the time it is the fault of the other motor vehicle solely and 7% of the time they are partially responsible.

I had used a general fuigure of 45% and argued that if ACC are wanting to attribute fault and they know that other motorvehilces are at fault 45% of the time then 45% of the cost should be paid from that source.

[Azi Dahaka]

i would like to add the

Waikato Hospital did a study, and found that 80% of m/c injuries they treated came from offroad, but the claim form generally stated 'm/c accident' not location.

is there a source for this

[Mystic13]

Why are motorcyclists being singled out?

They’re not. ACC;s proposed levies are going up for a number of groups not just for motorcyclists

They are. ACC isn't running advertising marketing campaigns against any other group that are facing ACC levies increases. We get special treatment.

[Azi Dahaka]

just speaking to him about how we can get it out. he said one good way was twitter but he said you need to send the whole thing how i have set it up to every media group you can. this of course needs to come from a spokes person for this.

i am going to keep working on it

can i get peoples views on wording. he said there was two methods what i have done as in straight facts refuting it. or a smare campain type rebuttal. ie ACC is lying about the stats [add comment here]

personally i woudl like to raise above the smare thing and state facts. but i also see the value in the smare as well.

[Bald Eagle]

just speaking to him about how we can get it out. he said one good way was twitter but he said you need to send the whole thing how i have set it up to every media group you can. this of course needs to come from a spokes person for this.

i am going to keep working on it

can i get peoples views on wording. he said there was two methods what i have done as in straight facts refuting it. or a smare campain type rebuttal. ie ACC is lying about the stats [add comment here]

personally i woudl like to raise above the smare thing and state facts. but i also see the value in the smare as well.

We need to do both,

Lead with a bold statement that ACC is publishing dis-information to attempt to divide New Zealanders and hide the truth.
Then bullet point fact statements with relevant rebuttal:

ACC says .........

Fact :

Each fact to include direct source info from motor reg etc.

Finish with ACC is not in trouble return 7bilion profit to govt funds.

[davereid]

Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
They’re not. ACC;s proposed levies are going up for a number of groups not just for motorcyclists

Motorcyclists are being singled out.

Motorcycles are the only vehicle group that has its levy set based on c.c rating.

Motorcycles are accounted for separately - this is not done with small cars, medium cars, large cars, forward control vans, or four wheel drive vehicles, all of which, if separated out would display different degree of crash vulnerability.

Accounting for motorcycles separately is the essence of "singling out"

[pzkpfw]

Motorcycles are accounted for separately - this is not done with small cars, medium cars, large cars, forward control vans, or four wheel drive vehicles, all of which, if separated out would display different degree of crash vulnerability.

...or even Black cars versus White cars.

[MSTRS:Me]

And nobody has even mentioned convertibles. Yet.