Gareth Morgan in the Herald on ACC levies for bikers

[caseye]

Trust you to bring balance to this bun fight! .
Well I'm glad that happened for you, but I was asking a senior A&E nurse who worked long hours and who saw lots of "helmets" that's what she told me at the time.
I had no reason to not believe her and a lot of reasons to want to know as at that time I was heavily involved in stirring this whole mess along.

[MrKiwi]

In direct response to Gareth Morgan,

Thank you for your enlightening and moderated thoughts (I understand you don't tolerate fools gladly).

I actually don't disagree with either the logic (and for the most part) the basis of calculation for the levy increase. I also accept that the targeting of bikers over other high risk activities is more likely a simple matter of expediency in respect cost of the application and collection of similar levies, rather than because we smell bad.

To complete my understanding and acceptance of the basis for the justification for and calculation of the levy I would ask clarification of only one simple statistical fact used in the calculation. That is the apparent lack of evidence to support the theory that the motorcyclist injury accident statistics do not include injury accidents statistics for off road sporting activities (such a track racing, motorcrossing etc). Surly with all the statistics that ACC have collected, they should have a separate set of figures for injury accidents for non road registered motorcycles?? As costs associated with those costs are not supposed to be met by road bike riders but rather by the earner levy.

Only road based accidents are included in the stats, farm accidents and off road are not included. But wait, I hear some say nonsense. So let me amend my statement, off road accidents where known are not included in the stats. The trouble is there is likely to be some pollution of the stats with incorrect reporting by doctors and patients. I'm not sure that pollution runs to any more than a few percentage points and as such the relativities of the analysis done by Gareth in his article hold true, in my view. I have some familiarity with the Mot/NZTA statistics (Crash Analysis System) and a reasonable understanding of the ACC stats, having had to work with them in my professional day job.

[Swoop]

Would someone please explain to me how these people even came to be our so called "representatives" and why

They are a quango organisation that was formed to divert attention from the government. Supposedly appeasing bikers and pretending to do "something" (make up statistics, pretend to be "representing us" to other faceless departments and organisations while getting to play with a few NZ Roubles) under the banner of "representing all bikers".

[flyingcrocodile46]

Only road based accidents are included in the stats, farm accidents and off road are not included. But wait, I hear some say nonsense. So let me amend my statement, off road accidents where known are not included in the stats. The trouble is there is likely to be some pollution of the stats with incorrect reporting by doctors and patients. I'm not sure that pollution runs to any more than a few percentage points and as such the relativities of the analysis done by Gareth in his article hold true, in my view. I have some familiarity with the Mot/NZTA statistics (Crash Analysis System) and a reasonable understanding of the ACC stats, having had to work with them in my professional day job.

Thank you MrKiwi. I have heard much the same thing said before and have spent quite some time checking statistics over the preceding years, but I can't find any evidence that off road accidents have been identified and recorded in any other category. I find it difficult to believe that the statisticians who compiled the data from accident and hospital reports would have simply have disregarded the cost cause records and tossed them to one side (not counted them in somewhere). Such a scenario is very unlikely. Ergo no separate record of accounting strongly suggests that they were counted as part of the closest catergory (road bikes)

This question has been raised (incl directly with Nick Smith who undertook to clarify the issue) since the protest in Wgtn and has still not been satisfactorily answered. Therefore the credibility of the claim is dubious in my view and as such undermines any justification for the levy increase.

[MrKiwi]

Thank you MrKiwi. I have heard much the same thing said before and have spent quite some time checking statistics over the preceding years, but I can't find any evidence that off road accidents have been identified and recorded in any other category. I find it difficult to believe that the statisticians who compiled the data from accident and hospital reports would have simply have disregarded the cost cause records and tossed them to one side (not counted them in somewhere). Such a scenario is very unlikely. Ergo no separate record of accounting strongly suggests that they were counted as part of the closest catergory (road bikes)

This question has been raised (incl directly with Nick Smith who undertook to clarify the issue) since the protest in Wgtn and has still not been satisfactorily answered. Therefore the credibility of the claim is dubious in my view and as such undermines any justification for the levy increase.

Hold on, that's not quite what I said? To try and clarify. Off road stats where known are included in other categories. Only road stats are included in the vehicle account other than for a minor amount of assumed pollution of the stats. Any database of any sort has some pollution. Where the accidents are reported as recreational or farm they are included in the non-worker (recreational) and farm in the worker account.

[rocketman1]

"In fact research we've done at the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council indicates that the risk of serious and expensive injury on a motorcycle is around 45 times higher per person-kilometre travelled as it is for occupants of other vehicles."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10818457

Read the article by Gareth Morgan, well written, totally agree, me thinks it may take a bit of admin $ to administer a scheme where the rider is licenced not the bike.
But at the end of the day this thinking could apply to alot of things in life where the user should pay, ie not the asset.
I own 4 cars and 3 motorbikes, the whole family use them, this way mainly for insurance purposes, so it would suit me to only licence just myself.
It would seem unfair that I should just register myself for all these vehicles, when others are using them, how would that work?
Hey the cars dont cost much , Im not that rich.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Hold on, that's not quite what I said? To try and clarify. Off road stats where known are included in other categories. Only road stats are included in the vehicle account other than for a minor amount of assumed pollution of the stats. Any database of any sort has some pollution. Where the accidents are reported as recreational or farm they are included in the non-worker (recreational) and farm in the worker account.

Surely a sport by sport comparison exists that can verify that claim. In the absence of such a record and unless you compiled the stats from the raw data yourself, how could you possibly know that?

[tnarg]

Here is a place to start looking. Stats a bit old. There used to be a better section that broke down the stats a bit better but can't find it now.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/index.htm

[Berries]

I have some familiarity with the Mot/NZTA statistics (Crash Analysis System).

I'd say I am pretty familiar with CAS. From experience I am aware that if someone decides to take their MX bike out for a quick thrash on the local roads and loops it, or a farmer on his Big Bear/AG/quad whatever gets twatted while crossing between paddocks, the actual crash report will define them as motorbikes because that is what they are. If that classification then gets entered in to CAS, which happens, the data will always be there and it will always be classed as a motorbike. Any simple analysis on vehicle types is then polluted. Some of these bikes will correctly be classed as 'Other' when entered in to CAS, but I am afraid that unless the data is looked at closely it won't be accurate, if you are looking at on road crashes involving road registered bikes. For the majority of use that CAS gets this distinction isn't important, an on road crash is an on road crash regardless of whether the bike is legal. It all comes down to what the data is being used for.

Considering the differential levies on engine size I should now rant about the inaccuracy of that part of the database and all the CBR 1250 learner bikes out there, and my dream bike the GSXR 7500, but that would take it off topic. The concern often raised regarding the ACC database is that when someone who crashes their MX bike while having a day out in the boonies eventually makes their way to A&E to get stitched up and, because they have had a motorcycle accident, are recorded as having a motorcycle accident, this impacts on that particular bucket of funds. I have no idea how prevalent this is, but I do know that I see many more motocross bikes on the back of utes and trailers each weekend than I do bikes on the road during an average week.

[bogan]

Here's part of a comment from the motonz site I feel is worth reposting:

The problem here is that the chairman is an economist "I’m an economist after all, so I turn to the numbers when there’s an argument raging and the different sides are all wound up." (http://motonz.org.nz/join-the-debate/past-debates/)
What we need is a SAFETY SPECIALIST running the Motorcycle SAFETY Council. You can't make people safer by charging them more, but you can cost the ACC less by reducing injuries. The chairman's toolbox is equipped primarily with economic tools so why is it a surprise when he goes there for answers. Round hole square peg. Some of his suggestions in the Herald are effectively useless and out of touch except to make the ACC happy. It's not his fault, they are his tools and you can only use the tools you've got. If I wanted economic advise I'd go to him in an instant, if I wanted stitches I'd go to a hospital, but it has now become apparent why I wouldn't go to an economist for safety advise/legislation. I don't mean to be personal and I don't want a war, but when stupid things are said publicly that effect me personally (and I'm paying for it) then I think a review of his position is appropriate.

Hit it bang on I think.

[MrKiwi]

Surely a sport by sport comparison exists that can verify that claim. In the absence of such a record and unless you compiled the stats from the raw data yourself, how could you possibly know that?

It is there, buried. Recreational motorbiking is broken down into three groups, sports, dirt and motocross (although I am going on memory for these so will check them and come back to you with the correct classifications.

[nerrrd]

Apologies, I haven't managed to read this whole thread so this may be off-topic somewhat, given a lot of the argument seems to be centred around this or that statistic.

These are my thoughts: private mobility is a good thing, in fact it's integral to the way the society we're living in has evolved. Private motorists aren't being targeted depending on the relative safety levels of the car they drive, their costs are averaged out whether they're in a 20 year old Daihatsu mini car or the latest Volvo. This makes sense as it means the widest possible choice of vehicles for the largest possible number, regardless of the "risks" involved.

I don't understand why private motorcyclists cannot be included in this equation. It makes more sense to me than endlessly dicking around with statistics, but hey, I'm not an economist.

Nobody plans to have an accident. It's not possible to account for everything. Improve skills by making the licensing requirements much, much harder, whether for cars or bikes - that's the ambulance at the top of the cliff, isn't it?

Or we could all just take the bus, I guess that would be safest for everyone...

[MrKiwi]

I'd say I am pretty familiar with CAS. From experience I am aware that if someone decides to take their MX bike out for a quick thrash on the local roads and loops it, or a farmer on his Big Bear/AG/quad whatever gets twatted while crossing between paddocks, the actual crash report will define them as motorbikes because that is what they are. If that classification then gets entered in to CAS, which happens, the data will always be there and it will always be classed as a motorbike. Any simple analysis on vehicle types is then polluted. Some of these bikes will correctly be classed as 'Other' when entered in to CAS, but I am afraid that unless the data is looked at closely it won't be accurate, if you are looking at on road crashes involving road registered bikes. For the majority of use that CAS gets this distinction isn't important, an on road crash is an on road crash regardless of whether the bike is legal. It all comes down to what the data is being used for.

Considering the differential levies on engine size I should now rant about the inaccuracy of that part of the database and all the CBR 1250 learner bikes out there, and my dream bike the GSXR 7500, but that would take it off topic. The concern often raised regarding the ACC database is that when someone who crashes their MX bike while having a day out in the boonies eventually makes their way to A&E to get stitched up and, because they have had a motorcycle accident, are recorded as having a motorcycle accident, this impacts on that particular bucket of funds. I have no idea how prevalent this is, but I do know that I see many more motocross bikes on the back of utes and trailers each weekend than I do bikes on the road during an average week.

And I am very familiar with CAS. There is the odd mistake on data entry which remains unless detected and corrected. Some of the engine sizes are incorrect, Dr Lamb picked on some of these in his analysis of multiple vehicles crashes when he went back to the raw data. I myself have done the same when working with CAS for several years.

From an ACC perspective, my understanding is if a farm bike has an accident on the road then it is a road accident and sheeted home against the vehicle account, so the location of the accident becomes important for the database entry point. If a farm bike accident happens on the farm then it is entered into the worker account, not the road user account.

I come back the general statement that no database of any sort is 100% accurate. However, they analysis done by Gareth and published on the MotoNZ website (his four article series) has a high degree of care taken in its preparation and the relativities in the outcomes are accurate enough for us to have some confidence in the results. We can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but at the end of the day the general story is not going to change. I haven't any more to add than that.

[Flip]

I only have two things to say to motonz, firstly you are only representing the interest of ACC to the motorcycling community not the other was around, secondly seriously FUCK OFF we are not interested.

[Fatt Max]

My $0.02 cos nobody listens to me anyway......cos I is fat....

All I can say is I have emailed this 'representative' council 3 times on various issues and have heard nothing, not even an acknowledgement. I was all for giving this a go, realising that its a two pronged advance, ie sort our own 'house' out and at the same time ensure those charged with our best interests deliver what we ask for.

Now I see it really is a body of individuals acting on behalf of the Government with no real focus on representing us at all. The national media is a tool they can use to push their agenda over the line cos lets face it, NZ media may as well be a 100% government department (have you seen the film 'Brazil')

Just my opinion, but as I have been told so many times 'what the fuck do I know'.

Aha, microwave has pinged, pie is ready........