Crash stats

[mashman]

Sorry I should have said, My wife is one of NZ's highest and most qualified Health and safety experts, and she think it sucks as well. Why, because it is not about accident prevention is is about cost management.

Absolutely, so why won't they listen... "I suppose it's easier to make people pay rather than return to the source and find out where all the money's going..."

The whole system needs an overhaul and that means starting from scratch. Identifying a single source of truth (the best data source) for each facet of the claim process, from crash to completion of treatment... and comparing it to the paper based documentation to ensure that's it as close to perfect as you can get it... this would include everything from the police reports to the payment slip for a physio/doctor... From what i can tell ACC should be no more than a funding/payment body, primarily as the crash stats will be logged in the police system, and most likely some other systems... There shouldn't be more than 1 system holding a certain piece of information, it's too much of a nightmare to administer.

The money is there to do it too... someone mentioned that the new software that ACC are going to implement would likely cost 131 million dollars over its life time (10 years i think)...

Give me 50 guys, 3 years and 50 million (most likely would only need half of that) and you'll have a system that fits the process, not a process to fit the system (fucking rediculous idea)... then stats can be used for injury prevention and not setting policy or levies (more stupid ideas)...

My heart goes out to your wife Jeffs, i'd hate to be in a position of actually watching it happen from the inside...

[R-Soul]

Sorry I should have said, My wife is one of NZ's highest and most qualified Health and safety experts, and she think it sucks as well. Why, because it is not about accident prevention is is about cost management.

sure it is- the bean counters always have teh last say in government.

But they know that for a given number of falls, X% will cost above $Y, Z will cost above $Z, and so on. The actuaries work it out for them.

So they know that if you reduce the number if accidents in general, you will reduce the cost.

[mashman]

So they know that if you reduce the number if accidents in general, you will reduce the cost.

Bullfuckingshit... how can you be so blinkered? If a bus full of politicians goes over the edge of the road and injures all of them beyond repair, shhhhhit that's gonna be a hefty bill until they're all dead... You can't calculate it, it just happens...

X x Y does not equal Z, the probability of X x Y equals Z... actuarial bullshit with human lives v cost as the parameters... WTF!!!!

[MSTRS:Me]

Bullfuckingshit... how can you be so blinkered?

Ya what? Less accidents IN GENERAL will mean less costs. Which is what R.Sole said.

If a bus full of politicians goes over the edge of the road and injures all of them beyond repair, ...

We used to dream of that happening.
Trouble is, the only pollies that'll all get together in a bus is the Labour lot...and we need them just now.

[R-Soul]

Bullfuckingshit... how can you be so blinkered? If a bus full of politicians goes over the edge of the road and injures all of them beyond repair, shhhhhit that's gonna be a hefty bill until they're all dead... You can't calculate it, it just happens...

X x Y does not equal Z, the probability of X x Y equals Z... actuarial bullshit with human lives v cost as the parameters... WTF!!!!

I see, so why dont you show us how you propose ONLY reducing those accidents that cause injury? You cannot!! The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved. The only thing you can look at is that high energy crashes have the capacity to do more damage (having said that, even in a low energy fender bender, there is still more than enough energy to hurt a person).

9 out of 10 times, fender bender does nothing. But one out of 10 times, it causes whiplash becuase the driver was sitting in a strange posture, or unprepared for teh bump, or whatever. You cannot predict when teh cost will be increased. So you do stuff to reduce accidents in general, because (logically somehow) that will reduce ALL payments.

And yes you CAN calculate the probability of a serious accident having a massive payout in a number of given accidents, based on history. And over time, all other things being equal, that probability will be reasonably accurate.

[jeffs]

And yes you CAN calculate the probability of a serious accident having a massive payout in a number of given accidents, based on history. And over time, all other things being equal, that probability will be reasonably accurate.

One of the problems with living is a small country is " Economy of Scale".

100,000 registered bikes sounds a lot, but as has been shown at some of the rallies, you will only have a small number of those on the road at one time.

In wellington 6,000 bikers turned up that is 6%.

Add to that the overall reduced distance these bikes travel compared to cars
the predictive calculations become harder. ( I said harder, not imposable )

What has not been done in NZ is a study on rider training and its effect on accident reduction. ( this has been done in other countries )

Why, because until now costs have been manageable by ACC, and ACC has not lost money on investments due to a global downturn.

Now that ACC have been asked to reduce costs,and biker pressure, they are finally coming to the table with skills training to reduce accident rates.

The problem is it has taken to long to get here, and too many adrenalin fueled riders will see little value in it to make an immediate effect.

It will take time to adjust rider attitude, but let us at least embrace anything that is offered and try and start the ball rolling.

To measure how this is going, will require better book keeping than is presently being done by the different agencies.

[Katman]

It will take time to adjust rider attitude,

Here's hoping you're here for the long haul.

Believe me, it's a thankless task.

[mashman]

Ya what? Less accidents IN GENERAL will mean less costs. Which is what R.Sole said.

He also says

I see, so why dont you show us how you propose ONLY reducing those accidents that cause injury? You cannot!! The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved. The only thing you can look at is that high energy crashes have the capacity to do more damage (having said that, even in a low energy fender bender, there is still more than enough energy to hurt a person).

9 out of 10 times, fender bender does nothing. But one out of 10 times, it causes whiplash becuase the driver was sitting in a strange posture, or unprepared for teh bump, or whatever. You cannot predict when teh cost will be increased. So you do stuff to reduce accidents in general, because (logically somehow) that will reduce ALL payments.

If you don't know when it's going to happen, what sort of accident it will be, how much the resultant costs are going to be, then i can't accept the statement made, hence the strong bullshit...

Even the gobmint use the example of the guy crashing his bike, earning 80000a year and then us having to foot the bill for that. If you have 10 minor accidents that total 80000 then fine the statement looks true, but it only takes 1 to tip the balance... what if there's 10 @ 80000... how the hell will they cover that? More levy hikes? I wonder how many they're actually catering for... what does my extra 500 bucks a year cover?

There is a probability that less accidents should mean less cost (and that's probably what you mean by IN GENERAL), and if there was that correlation then we would have been beaten black and blue with it for the full hike, but the correlation doesn't exist and so any statement that could or should make sense just doesn't stack up in real life. It's all just speculation...

It's statements like that that give credence to the use of probability. After all probability is just a future projection, but with a weighting added for risk, nothing more, nothing less. It's a bullshit mechanism for predicting the future and actually then telling us we need to pay for it... screw the present for the future because the probability calculation says so... WTF!!!

[jeffs]

Sorry Guys if this is off thread, I'll try to keep it in, in future posts ( probably ).

Here's hoping you're here for the long haul.

Truth is Katman, Anything I do is purely selfish.

All I want to do is survive a method of transport I have chosen to get to work on, and not see the pain in my family that my Nephews death by bike 2 years ago caused our family.

If ACC offer training, I will take it. There are many who thinks they are too good to even give it a try ( and by looking at a lot of the posts on KB, there are lots ). But unlike you I will not loose sleep over it, if they do not.

If people do not turn up to free training ( if ACC deliver on their promise ) it will soon be canceled.

So collect the stats and crunch them to get a base line and with luck it will show a reduction in the accident rates.

We will probably get one shot at this. Do nothing and the levies go up again.

[quickbuck]

You are right, it is really hard to convince people they don't know it all, and need training...
Motorcyclists are particularly bad at admitting they could do better... Part of the make-up of a motorcyclist.....

Another thing... ACC will never be in a position to offer FREE training. That will cost way too much! However it will be subsidised....
The training will be offered by LTSA approved instructors, and they don't come cheap.
They have to make a living too......

Oh, and StoneY, I was a kid on a farm once, and used to race around on Trikes... before the Merkins deemed them too dangerous.
Yes, it was very easy for mum and dad to forget how much those weighed... and how fast they went when you weighed 40kg dripping wet... Then the whole "No Fear" thing!

It was a bit of a recipe for disaster BUT again, it came down to education.... (says the guy who has been on 2 wheels since he was 6).

[Berries]

Submitters just got a few docs "explaining" ACC.

I note this spiel;
"There is no data available within New Zealand to support or refute the comment on engine power. ACC is unable to use power-to-weight ratios as the power and weight data for each motorcycle is not available.
ACC uses data from its claim system and estimates of the future costs of claims, together with data from the Ministry of Transport’s crash recording system, to determine whether the risk for various sizes of motorcycles is similar. This information is then used to build various relativity factors. These relativities are based on the injury cost per vehicle to ACC, and are used to determine what levy each subclass of motorcycle would need to pay to ensure the expected levy is collected.
The idea behind the different subclasses is to reduce the degree of cross subsidisation between different types of motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).

Yes, it is a crock of shit. How cross subsidisation between commuter bikes and high performance bikes can be based on engine size alone I don't know. "Would Sir prefer the RGV this morning or the GN 250 ?" (No disrespect to all you RGV riders out there). And surely there must be cross subsidisation between different cars as well if they are trying to be fair ?? [Ok, we know they aren't. Sorry. ]

The one thing I don't know, which I am sure someone can answer, is what data ACC collect regarding the bike details when there is a claim ? Do they bother with model and engine size or are they relying on other databases ?

I honestly believe that if the cost to ACC had not increased, but the Accident rate had, ACC would not have done anything
Because it is not interested in reducing accidents rate, but only in reducing costs. That is why I believe to ACC the overall accident stats are not as important as some think.

Agree totally.

[Katman]

If ACC offer training, I will take it. There are many who thinks they are too good to even give it a try ( and by looking at a lot of the posts on KB, there are lots ). But unlike you I will not loose sleep over it, if they do not.

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about changing rider's attitudes. I didn't realise you were only looking at the little picture.

Rider training is only a small part of changing rider's attitudes.

[MSTRS:Me]

If you have 10 minor accidents that total 80000 then fine the statement looks true, but it only takes 1 to tip the balance... what if there's 10 @ 80000...

But you are providing your own answer to the 'less accidents = less cost' argument!!!
True - there will likely always be the odd 'spike' in either number of crashes, or injury type*, or personal compensation level...
That just introduces the fact that with less accidents, there is likely to be less of those 'spikes' as well.

* Case in point...I marshal at most m/c race meetings at Taupo and Manfield. The last round of Vic club's winter series saw 5 serious pelvis injuries. That has never happened before. There was no apparent reason for it - other that if it's possible then it could happen, and did in this case. It may never happen again.

[jeffs]

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about changing rider's attitudes. I didn't realise you were only looking at the little picture.

Rider training is only a small part of changing rider's attitudes.

People will not listen to me because compared to some i'm new to biking, so for me, Small steps today The world tomorrow

First I have to learn what it is i'm talking about, before I can preach to anyone.

But even this could be a load of crap, as we have still yet to see what ACC are offering in rider training.

If they only offer new rider training, it will do some good, but what good will that do to change the attitude of existing riders ?

The one that don't listen to you already ?

[mashman]

But you are providing your own answer to the 'less accidents = less cost' argument!!!
True - there will likely always be the odd 'spike' in either number of crashes, or injury type*, or personal compensation level...
That just introduces the fact that with less accidents, there is likely to be less of those 'spikes' as well.

I'm not saying that less accidents = less cost. I'm not saying that couldn't be the case either and logic would say that if nothing changes that could be true... although, if the cost of treating accidents rises yearly, as is usually the case, then less accidents doesn't necessarily mean less cost. Exactly the same thing can be said for the types of crash, as you've pointed out, 5 pelvic injuries is likely unheard of, but if they're bad enough, debilitating enough, then those 5 accidents alone could cost way more than the cost of 50 minor accidents and then the opposite is true... i hate being definitive when it comes to the future... you just never know what's around the corner...

I see what you're saying, but to be so definate in saying "Less accidents IN GENERAL will mean less costs" isn't a true statement... heh, we need to have this conversation next year... hell if nothing else there'll be a new set of statistics to um and ar over