The Lean - A statistical factsheet

[mashman]

I've explained Sir Owen's recommendations above. What we all need to understand is that Parliament never accepted the whole report. ACC was created and morphed into a government insurance scheme.

Parliament established risk categories and ACC levies were variable, just as they are today.

So, to be clear, the social contract where society paid as we go (annual taxation) was never adopted. ACC has always been a compulsory accident insurance scheme.

Now you and I may not like this but that's the way it is, and has been since 1972. Talking about Woodhouse Principles is as useful as talking about Eugenics, which was a hot concept in the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics. Its time has passed.

The theory was never properly tried? If that's the case, perhaps they should try it, they may be surprised by the outcome. Obviously the system isn't fair. And that was the poremise for the Woodhouse principles. Over the years govts have tweaked this, on the premise that motorcycle cause the higher costings. The above facts seem to suggest otherwise, having a fair system and all...

If it hasn't been tried. I'd suggest that the government of the day try it to see if it'll work.

[mashman]

ACC would have us believe it is for 'ongoing treatment and ERC for injuries starting in the year of collection'...

If that's what the cost is for motorcyclists, what's the actual cost for cars/passengers? considering they have, across the board, 70+% more accidents than us and 9 times more vehicles on the road. Are they too being POTENTIALLY "ripped off" to subsidise something else (albeit it may be ACC related)? If that's the case, would they be interested in sharing the costs and therefore sharing the savings. Instead of throwing money at a govt that will, in all likelihood (nats or labs) keep pushing towards privatisation?

[MSTRS:Me]

If that's what the cost is for motorcyclists, what's the actual cost for cars/passengers? considering they have, across the board, 70+% more accidents than us and 9 times more vehicles on the road. Are they too being POTENTIALLY "ripped off" to subsidise something else (albeit it may be ACC related)? If that's the case, would they be interested in sharing the costs and therefore sharing the savings. Instead of throwing money at a govt that will, in all likelihood (nats or labs) keep pushing towards privatisation?

I like what you did with figures before. Woodhouse based his entire principle on social cost weighed against social benefit. ie someone who 'costs' here, adds value there.
Contrary to Winston's post, ACC as an entity came into being in 1974, and as I recall (was young and not really interested then) was funded from general taxation. It wasn't long before the govt of the day started 'making it better'.
However, ACC don't give a toss about any of that...now, it's all about risk groups. And as a group, we motorcyclists cannot ignore the fact that we do get injured in greater numbers than car drivers, percentage-wise. Whether we pay enough levy to cover that cost, as a group, is academic and open to such huge interpretation that maybe we will never know.
Woodhouse was better than what we have now. In all areas of collection.

[mashman]

I guess what i'm trying to say is.

Serious injuries, are serious injuries. Wether caused by bike, car, truck, pedestrian , cylist (another), other etc... (the last 3 not paying ACC road levy at all).. Yes? They are just serious injuries. They probably ALL end up with ACC payments too couldn't resist. No, they're just serious injuries. I think the figures, from a point of view, give some quite shocking reading. Cars do cost society more in terms of accidents and therefore social cost. And there are a shitload of them out there doing dumb things, or not paying attention. They are at least 78% more likely to be involved in a collision than anyone other road user. Look at the numbers.

A crash being a crash. Injuries being injuries. Lots of different people on the road. 9 times more cars?

Cars have some scarey numbers. I'm sure we have equivalent total crash numbers? tui? we have relatively high ones as motorcyclists, in comparison to motorcyclists and noone else. Socially, cars type vehicles are responsible for 78% of the total injury crashes recorded for 2009. That kinda stuns me. Motocyclists pay more ACC Levy, yet, cars cause 78% of the total injuries. They pay less ACC levy, yet cause the most "car"nage.

That's just the injury crashes. What would the percentages be in relation to all crashes (crash being car v EVERYTHING else) for 2009?

Now these percentages have a social cost. What is it? 78% of the number of people claiming long term ACC benefit could well have had their accidents whilst being the driver or the passenger of a vehicle that isn't a motorcycle.

what's wrong with actually attempting to bring the social costs down at the expense of sharing the financial cost. They were responsible for 10 of "rural" road deaths, 2 for motorcyclists. If high speed or bad cornering is the cause of the accidents on the "rural" roads. Then, out of the 12 vehicles that have that "rural" crash (those that cost more), 10 were car/vehicles, bike were 2... motorcylcists have a 17% chance of it being them. My wife, has an 83% chance of being involved in that crash. A serious injury is a serious injury and has a huge knock on social cost. The numbers speak fo themselves.

Just because TPTB decide to measure their figures as a proportion of our population, doesn't mean that it will yield the best social results.

You wouldn't say that that isn't a discussion to be had with TPTB? Or is it too much of a vote loser (earner)? In which case, why doesn't someone run for office .

You need to start "asking" car drivers to put some thought into their driving. Not penalising a minority and think that the job is done. Because it really isn't done. that's bad policy, both financially and socially.

Just one of the reasons why i won't vote.

[mashman]

I like what you did with figures before. Woodhouse based his entire principle on social cost weighed against social benefit. ie someone who 'costs' here, adds value there.
Contrary to Winston's post, ACC as an entity came into being in 1974, and as I recall (was young and not really interested then) was funded from general taxation. It wasn't long before the govt of the day started 'making it better'.
However, ACC don't give a toss about any of that...now, it's all about risk groups. And as a group, we motorcyclists cannot ignore the fact that we do get injured in greater numbers than car drivers, percentage-wise. Whether we pay enough levy to cover that cost, as a group, is academic and open to such huge interpretation that maybe we will never know.
Woodhouse was better than what we have now. In all areas of collection.

Agreed. The history doesn't matter really at the moment, because we can see that the system is going in the wrong direction(s). It's the challenge that matters. If you get it right, you could potentially get the vote.

I propose the following restructure to the political offices of New Zealand.

The role of Prime Minister is to be abolished. And in it's place there will be. The Financial Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Social Prime Minister of New Zealand.

John Key becomes the Financial Prime Minister and we decide who the front wo/man we appoint for the Social Prime Minister. (labor and the nats can fight for that position too)

Nothing else changes.

The Social Prime Minister will be responsible for the reading of submissions posted by the public of New Zealand. Find out what the financial cost is from JK, then figure out if it can be done. The Social Prime Ministers Office will be down the pub if necessary.

I will then vote.

[mashman]

If you could see your way to passing on this petition. They may actually see us coming too. Cheers

[Winston001]

Contrary to Winston's post, ACC as an entity came into being in 1974, and as I recall (was young and not really interested then) was funded from general taxation. It wasn't long before the govt of the day started 'making it better'.

I'm afraid you're misremembering: ACC has always been funded by levies. Mostly from employers, until quite recently when a uniform employees levy was added.



In 1967 the Royal Commission produced the Woodhouse Report, named after its chairman, Mr Justice Woodhouse (now the Right Honourable Sir Owen Woodhouse). The Woodhouse Report signalled a significant shift in how New Zealand dealt with the consequences of injury. It proposed a move away from a litigious, fault-based system, toward a completely new ‘no-fault’ approach to compensation for personal injury.
The report recommended a scheme that covered:

• all injuries to earners whether occurring at work or not, funded by a flat-rate levy on employers for the cost of all injuries to their employees. A levy on the self-employed to pay for injuries occurring at work or outside of work was also proposed
• all motor vehicle injuries, funded by a levy on owners of motor vehicles and drivers.

[Winston001]

The theory was never properly tried? If that's the case, perhaps they should try it, they may be surprised by the outcome....

If it hasn't been tried. I'd suggest that the government of the day try it to see if it'll work.

Fair enough but you have to accept the consequences. If ACC becomes funded as a social contract, just like other social welfare payments (the dole, DPB, National Super etc) then the weekly loss of earnings will be a standard payment. Say 35 hours @ $12.50/hr less 20% to encourage claimants to return to work.

A lot better than the dole but also a lot less than some people currently earn.

[mashman]

Fair enough but you have to accept the consequences. If ACC becomes funded as a social contract, just like other social welfare payments (the dole, DPB, National Super etc) then the weekly loss of earnings will be a standard payment. Say 35 hours @ $12.50/hr less 20% to encourage claimants to return to work.

A lot better than the dole but also a lot less than some people currently earn.

I agree, fair point. It doesn't work if people don't "play the game"... That's the point. If the people don't want to try it, don't do it. But you have to ask everyone if they think your idea is acceptable... and implement it as long as the social cost does not outweigh the financial cost.

It's a win win in the potential social gain. No financial loss, potentially more relaxed and attentive drivers.

[Ocean1]

A lot better than the dole but also a lot less than some people currently earn.

All fair eh?

What do you suppose ACC pays sole traders and small business owners by way of lost income compensation?

Y'know, those responsible for about 27% of their total income.

Eh?

Eh?

[MSTRS:Me]

... Socially, cars type vehicles are responsible for 78% of the total injury crashes recorded for 2009. ...

Forgive me if I'm not au fait with this type of figure, but...
Is this injuries to car drivers and passengers only? Or all injuries where a car was involved? Don't forget that 98% of all road vehicles are 4 wheeled...
I don't like ACC's risk-based policy for setting levies (who does) and we definitely won't like where it leads. Pedestrians and cyclists pose a significant risk, in terms of cost of injury to themselves, so sooner or later there is likely to be a levy imposed on them too. Unless ACC moves away from risk assessing. And that will take a(nother) act of parliament.

[Winston001]

I need to say that I admire and support the efforts of people challenging the ACC calculations and systems. I've been putting counter-arguments because that is what you will face from ACC, and being aware of other interpretations helps to be ready with more answers.

I believe ACC is a good system, should not be privatised, and is superior to private insurance.

It is healthy to challenge ACC to keep them honest. Keep up the good work team.

[MSTRS:Me]

Challenging them is good. But, have we really achieved much? The ACC juggernaut rolls on with it's bollocks increases here/there/everywhere. They've done little more than blink at our efforts to expose the bullshit, and then carry on.

I have kept up a 'program' of Letters to Ed locally, in an effort to open people's eyes to what is going on. I know they are read, because people who know me come up and say 'Good job...isn't it terrible what ACC is doing?' For the most part, the public still seem to be asleep. I have had 3 different ACC minions respond (with more/new lies) in an attempt to shut me up. Goody - more ammo to chuck at them publicly.
The ONLY thing that will turn this issue around is for the public in general to stand with us.

[mashman]

Hopefully this'll help... shout out if it doesn't, i'm sure you will lol.

Does that seem right to you? They cause more injuries, yet get away with murder, literally.

EDIT: i made a mistake in the play columns. I added 604 extra motorcycle, instead of 4 in the total injuries for motorcycle play column. Hence the large jump in Levy, they still only went up 10 bucks for their extra 1000 injuries .

[mashman]

I need to say that I admire and support the efforts of people challenging the ACC calculations and systems. I've been putting counter-arguments because that is what you will face from ACC, and being aware of other interpretations helps to be ready with more answers.

I believe ACC is a good system, should not be privatised, and is superior to private insurance.

It is healthy to challenge ACC to keep them honest. Keep up the good work team.

I understood what you were doing.

If the figures in the above spreadsheet are even close. Using the social cost we'd have a HUGE levy cut at no cost of Total ACC road account funding.

In fact, put 50 bucks on the social cost and you'd have a $100,000,000 budget for safety campaigns. I know who i'd direct mine at the 78% of injury causers.

A vote winner?