you're wrong AGAIN, Nick. Critique please

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

Pick your bottom lip up Les.

Just remember, you won't be able to run off and hide in any 'invite only' group when ACC start asking the really hard questions.

And of course you'll be right there fighting the cause eh Steve,

I'm just never sure what 'side' your on!

[Squiggles]

So surly the ACC must have these figures/stats to work out their $77 sum??

I suspect you'd find the $77 is if you take into account the cost of Motorcyclists in Earnings Related Compensation and the rest of it, not just in the treatment of injuries...

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

1. Even with the proposed levy increases every car driver will be subsidising motorcyclists by $77.

$77.0 x 2,919,151(fleet) x $224,774,627.00 (using current fleet as for now for next years levys)

The short fall supposedly is $50,000,000
$50,000,000 / 77 = 649,351 vehicles required to cover it (there are currently2.9 million)

The true levy figure is suppose to be $3770 per bike

$3770 x 130,213 = $490,903,010 nearing half a billion the combined car and bike claims in 2008 were only $270,000,000 (the whole traffic account is only 650 million)

[FastBikeGear]

$77.0 x 2,919,151(fleet) x $224,774,627.00 (using current fleet as for now for next years levys)

The short fall supposedly is $50,000,000
$50,000,000 / 77 = 649,351 vehicles required to cover it (there are currently2.9 million)

The true levy figure is suppose to be $3770 per bike

$3770 x 130,213 = $490,903,010 nearing half a billion the combined car and bike claims in 2008 were only $270,000,000

It's one thing you or me proving the figures wrong. It's another thing when they have to explain it. If the reasoning in their expalantion is faulty and we can show it, suddenly they prove themselves to be fools which is much more powerful than us proving their figures wrong! And suddenly their faulty maths becomes a BIG story for the press.

[MSTRS:Me]

It's one thing you or me proving the figures wrong. It's another thing when they have to explain it. If the reasoning in their expalantion is faulty and we can show it, suddenly they prove themselves to be fools which is much more powerful than us proving their figures wrong! And suddenly their faulty maths becomes a BIG story for the press.

You live in Utopia. Got room for another?
The thing is, many of us have been putting the figures and the interpretation of those figures in front of the press for ages. They simply aren't interested.

[FastBikeGear]

You live in Utopia. Got room for another?
The thing is, many of us have been putting the figures and the interpretation of those figures in front of the press for ages. They simply aren't interested.

No. what you have been putting in front of the press is your interpretation of the figures. You like me have been trying to prove their figures wrong. What we need is their workings so that we can point our where they prove themselves wrong.

There's a very big difference.

[mashman]

I'd happily accept an apology and if possible an explanation

[cowpatz]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

So therefore if Nissan Skylines make up for the bigger percentage of car wrecks (as a percentage of the road fleet ) should their owners pay a bigger levy?
Should under 20 yr olds pay a higher levy?
Where would it end?
This is the thin end of the wedge.
We all subsidise one another in practically everything we do.
I pay bucket loads of tax..to subsidise those on a benefit as well as those that pay less tax.
To fully appreciate this issue requires sticking close to the reason ACC was established in the first place and not get tricked into spin doctors playing with dubious and out of context stats.
The accident stats I saw (and stuff it if I can't find where I saw it) had motorcycles only marginally higher per 10000 vehicles. There seems to be a great variance in the stats depending on the original source and the factors recorded when compiling them.

[mashman]

There seems to be a great variance in the stats depending on the original source and the factors recorded when compiling them.

If you want to see how the stats are to be read, go and read the "How to read ACC statistics" page on their website.

"Categories with fewer than three claims

For privacy reasons, if the number of claims reported is between 1 and 3 actual claims, this is displayed as ‘≤3’ claims."

"Presenting cost of claims

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000, and percentages to the nearest 0.1%. Costs less than $500 are reported as ‘<$500’"

You could class the above as variances. But you'd need to see it with your own eyes and with the data or it's worth nothing!

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00066

[Howie]

Devils Advocate.

Why do we make up 10% of accident statistics if we only make up 2% of the road using fleet?

So Katman are you saying we are 10% of the total accident statistics, or are you saying we are 10% of the recorded INJURY accidents. As those are too different things. As a Incident involving a Motorcycle is much more likely to result in an injury accident, than an incident involving just cars. I read somewhere that trucks are involved in 18% of all fatal vehicle Accidents is that above where they should be?

[Katman]

So Katman are you saying we are 10% of the total accident statistics, or are you saying we are 10% of the recorded INJURY accidents. As those are too different things. As a Incident involving a Motorcycle is much more likely to result in an injury accident, than an incident involving just cars. I read somewhere that trucks are involved in 18% of all fatal vehicle Accidents is that above where they should be?

Total accidents stats.

(According to LTNZs figures).

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

(According to LTNZs figures).

10% more like 8% and in the 40% of the total accidents are cars fault and in total 51% are not the riders fault... stats suck

[MSTRS:Me]

No. what you have been putting in front of the press is your interpretation of the figures. You like me have been trying to prove their figures wrong. What we need is their workings so that we can point our where they prove themselves wrong.

There's a very big difference.

Yes, there is a difference. However, their 'workings' are not likely to be wrong. The errors made are not in the ADDING of the figures, but in the figures themselves. And in some important assumptions that the, no doubt non-motorcyclist, actuaries have made. Which is all we have to fight with.

But if errors could be found in their workings, that would be dynamite.

[FastBikeGear]

Yes, there is a difference. However, their 'workings' are not likely to be wrong. The errors made are not in the ADDING of the figures, but in the figures themselves. And in some important assumptions that the, no doubt non-motorcyclist, actuaries have made. Which is all we have to fight with.

But if errors could be found in their workings, that would be dynamite.

Good comment. I absolutely agree that their maths won't be the problem. But if the base figures and assumptions are wrong so much the better!

GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Lets get them to tell us what base figures and assumptions they made. They must have an internal working document that explains how they came up with their numbers. We need it not the just the raw numbers we have!

[MSTRS:Me]

Good comment. I absolutely agree that their maths won't be the problem. But if the base figures and assumptions are wrong so much the better!

GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Lets get them to tell us what base figures and assumptions they made. They must have an internal working document that explains how they came up with their numbers. We need it not the just the raw numbers we have!

I doubt such a thing exists. Why would it, when they just need to go into their computer and extract the injury/accidents that they have recorded to get the number/s? That we can prove that number is wrong hasn't made much headway.