Originally Posted by MSTRS
Hmmm Cheese cutters love those too
True Blue - Fair Dinkum
Hmmm Cheese cutters love those too
Life is a like a box of chocolates; People are like Onions; The key to success is.......
Fuck it, let's ride!
Scooter boy
They are not the only group ACC are targeting. Those who have needed to make "sensitive claims", those affected by suicide, those injured while committing a crime have also been in the firing line. It looks like any group where ACC believe that they can get the general public to condone their cost cutting discrimination will be targeted. However, ACC’s use of misleading figures and facts has already led to at least one commission of inquiry having to be appointed so far. Let's hope this ACC recommendation becomes a political issue and they don't get away with this one. The ACC Minister must already be starting to be an embarrassment to the party.
Night rider
I believe I have managed to shoot down the risk claim. This is an excerpt from my submission:
Perhaps the largest error is in the claim that “Motorcycle riders are 16 times more likely to make an ACC claim than other road users, and they’re more likely to be seriously injured.” I managed to track this claim down to a comment derived from the New Zealand Ongoing Household Travel Survey http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/LatestResults/. It shows that motorcyclist only ride 2500 km per year. The claim is then made that if motorcyclists were to travel the same distance as car drivers then they would be 16 times more likely to be injured in an accident than car drivers. There are two fallacies here.
The first one is a hypothetical one that says: motorcycles do x km per year, cars do y km per year. If the km per year covered by bikes was raised to the same as that covered by cars then the number of crashes would increase accordingly. But if the data is correct then motorcycles do not cover the same distance as cars, so the risk does not increase.
The second fallacy is caused by the methodology of their survey. If they ask people about their travel habits over a two day period mid week then they have automatically excluded the long distance tourers, most adventure riders and those who use their bikes for weekend touring. It also claims that motorcycles are only 0.8% of the New Zealand vehicle fleet when MoT data shows it as 3%. There are two errors in using this claim: The first error is in the measurement of distance travelled by motorcyclists. They have not used Warrant of Fitness records which would under read because some bikes have hour meters rather than odometers, nor have they surveyed motorcyclists directly. Althouigh there do not appear to be any reliable statistics on the distances travelled by motorcyclists each year compared to car drivers the 2009 National report on New Zealand motorcycle riders (Read 2009) states:
“In terms of open road riding, 45% considered that a long distance to travel in one day meant a trip of 500kms or more. Another 38% said for them, a long distance meant 300-500kms, 12% saw it at about 200-300kms, and 5% indicated 100-200kms.”
A survey conducted by Kiwibiker http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=92027 gives an average distance per year travelled as around 13,000 km which is over 5 times the distance suggested in the Household Travel Survey. If the Kiwibiker survey is correct then this would put the relative risk of a motorcycle accident 3.2 times more likely.
The real determining factor is to look at actual crash statistics and see what proportion of accident crashes are experienced by motorcycles compared to other vehicles. There are two reliable sources of data which enable this risk to be evaluated more accurately. These are the ACC’s own claim data and the Ministry of Transport crash statistics.
The table of Claim frequency on page 28 of the ACC consultation document shows that with passenger vehicles as a base case, motorcycles are between 2.85 and 4.43 times more likely to have an injury accident than a passenger vehicle. Interesting to note that the mode of accidents includes the 250 cc size which of course is the size learners and inexperienced riders are limited to.
The Ministry of Transport YEARLY REPORT 2009 shows that there are 47.8 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles compared the motorcycle crash rate of 147.2 injuries or deaths per 10,000 vehicles. This gives a relative risk for motorcycles of 3.1 compared to passenger vehicles.
Thus, it doesn’t matter whether we use the MoT data, ACC’s own data, or the Household travel survey method corrected with the Kiwibiker data, the relative risk for motorcycles works out at just over 3 times that of a car.
Time to ride
RAMbo
What about a followup (round 2) on close up? Anybody thought of contacting them (Ixon)?
Good work on the replies - can't beleive that the ACC has money for this and to return profits to the government but says that premiums need to increase. This is all starting to get a bit wierd that they would even buy this advert (I think they need to fire their PR person).
Anybody aware of how to lay a complaint against ACC for abuse of funding? I for one am happy to lodge a complaint but just need a bit of direction.
Edit: Just found a link to the ASA complaint form in another thread about the ad. Apologies if posted in the wrong place. I still think Close up is a good idea.
Watchful Old Bird
There are already some activities on threads in here.
Two avenues of attack , first complain to advertising standards association about misleading advertising.
second complain to your mp. ministers and MP's are responsible for the information they send out being accurate. It's all in the Member of Parliaments handbook.
Fair weather rider
Complaint laid...
Have it large
Here's my concern.
ACC and the Gooberment are managing this issue with some tried and tested media communications 101 techniques. The problem is they are proven to work.
1. Prepare your statement.
This is the same as choose your battle ground. High ground, easy to defend, leave an exit to retreat from.
ACC have done this well (despite the fact that it's all lies).
2. Find opportunities to state your case to the widest possible audience.
Again ACC and Nat are hitting this one at every opportunity.
It's volley fire, wide and often. Does not have to be accurate just loud and scary.
3. NEVER EVER rebut an argument. Simply restate your original case.
Always ensure the content of any reply refers to your argument, not the rebuttal.
Rapid fire, pins down the opposition, leave few opportunities for returning fire.
4. If your argument begins to fail, due to new evidence or the persuasive nature of the opposing argument, return to step 1.
Fighting retreat to safer ground, regroup and prepare a counter attack.
If ACC and the Nats continue with the above (and they will) we can't win the propaganda war, not even with the truth.
We need more AFFIRMATIVE action, protests as often and as many as we can. Keep it in the news, daily if possible.
Under these circumstances we can not rely on winning the "hearts and minds" of Joe Public, lets try another route. We need to go on the offensive now before it's too late.
Forum whore
$77 subsidy from every car ? That's $220 million . Total cost is only $60 million. Geez, an eight year old can do the arithmetic. No wonder ACC claim to be broke, they can't do 8 year old arithmetic
Repeat, rinse , lather, repeat.
snot crasher
+1fuckers
Forum whore
I would say 60 minutes, get the full 20 minutes plug
Just ride.
L-Plate Rider
ACC’s Press Ad’s of 5 November are a sign of desperation by ACC, and an attempt to ‘divide and rule’ by posing more spurious arguments.
My recommendation is to not be tempted into responding to the often irrelevant points raised in this advertisement.
Stick to the simple winning arguments so clearly detailed on the web site; www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz.
If anyone does respond, do it by letters to the Editor, to all papers up and down the country and simply pick out key points eg
“In it’s 5 November advertisement ACC say that Motorcyclists aren’t being singles out, yet in 2008 there were 1,475 motorcycle accidents and 50 deaths, and motorcyclists paid approximately $12.3 million in levies. At the same period there were 1,170 bicycle accidents and 36 deaths. Cyclists paid no ACC levies.
In targeting motorcyclists ACC is ignoring the key fact that ACC was established to ensure that ALL those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principles behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme that was set up to avoid fault.”
Keep up the good work folks, we are winning!!
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
Plus Sainsbury and Campbell are both cocks.
Forum whore
A lie can run around the World, before the Truth can even get its Boots on.
Hardcore Biker
My suggestion for ACC's next 1/4 page add in the Herald and Dominion.
I'd like to present an alternative view. Lets not refute their accident statistic figures and their points lets just present the correct ones. (OK let's just refute the $77 dollar one becasue that personal to every motorist). The key issue here for every voting New Zealander is the move from a no fault compensation model to an insurance business model for ACC. Most NZ'ers are not concerned about motorbike community specific grievances. Although I will grant that we all believe in fair play
ACC explains the scrapping of their traditional 'no fault' insurance model
Why are motorcyclists being singled out first?
We needed to start by targeting a smaller high risk group that we felt best demonstrated the need to scrap our no fault insurance model. This allows us establish two important precedents. First that ACC is moving away from a no fault claims model and secondly that groups that present greater risks should pay more in ACC 'insurance'
Why are motorcyclists being asked to pay more?
National wants to align our policies with established insurance company practices. The ACC's current funding models are not attractive to private insurance companies. The Australian insurance companies will pay more to acquire the business of ACC if they can maximise the profits.
Will every other motorists really have to pay an extra $77 even with the proposed levy hike as claimed by ACC ?
You do the math. Total ACC claims for motorcylists were 63 million last year. There were just over 3,308,930 cars, trucks, vans and utes registered in 2008. $77 x 3,308,930 = $254,78,7610. So after paying the 63 million dollars cost for motorcyclists ACC will have made a profit of over 191 million dollars from motorcyclists! That should be very attractive to all of the Australian insurance companies that we are courting.
Who's next?
You don't need us to tell you. Next up it's the cyclists. It's been estimated that in excess of $100 million dollars can be charged in ACC levies to cyclists. There are very conservatively about 200,000 cyclists in New Zealand. Using the same calculations for motorcyclists the levy cost per cycle should be in excess of $500.00. A Report just released by the Wellington regional council show that they are 30 times more likely to be injured in accidents than car drivers (compared to ACC statistics which show motorcyclists are 4 x more likely to be injured). From cyclists it's a logical step to rugby and rugby league players who account for $50,000,000 in ACC payouts. Due to soraing medical costs accident and loss of income insurance is one of the largest growth businesses on the planet.
But motorcyclists say that in more than 50% of accidents aren't their fault. What happens if National privaties ACC?
ACC has traditionally been a no fault insurer. Insurance companies can't support this business model. When a car driver injures a motorcyclist their insurance coverage will need to cover them for the cost of injuries to the motorcyclist. If ACC is privatised car drivers levies will need to increase many fold to cover the cost of injury to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.
How to make a submission?
For information on making a submission, visit www.acc.co.nz/consultation. Consultation closes on 5pm Tuesday 10th of November. Now because you probably don't expect ACC to respond by calling you up for a chin wag consultation.....
...Better still
Write to your local National MP and let them know how the the scrapping of the 'no fault' ACC insurance model will affect how you vote in the future.
From the press desk at
ACC alternative Media Relations
Forum whore
Incidentally , the ACC Act , S262 says
So, here , where they claim to be providing insurance...
2) To avoid doubt, it is not a function of the Corporation or any Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation to provide insurance
..
The same $750 (ACC proposed levy) will insure the rider for perhaps millions of dollars of long term cover for a serious accident
They openly admit to breaking the law, and acting ultra vires.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks