ACC

From Southernrider Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Please be advised that since this is a wiki and any one can edit and add to it... and becomes mixed opinons on the subject...

Contents

Accident Compensation Corporation


The Crisis

Please read this article, it explains clearly what is actually happening with ACC. Article from: The Standard [1]


So ACC is not broke or broken, nor has it ever been, and has enough money to pay the all bills and claims, as well as enough to put into investments for the future. The main reason they are wanting to up the levies is so we can met their deadline of 2014 to be fully funded way of operating.

There is no need to raise the levies at all, let alone a hike that breaks the fundamentals of ACC's "no fault" and the community fund. When the funder of ACC Sir Owen Woodhouse as it breaches the principles of the scheme [2] you should listen.

No Faults

You need to understand that the founding principle of ACC is a no fault system. Targeting motorcyclists with these hikes goes against everything ACC stands for. Sir Owen Woodhouse the founder of ACC says it breaches the principles of the scheme. [3] ACC is not an insurance scheme. The National government are trying to have a bob each way, treat motorcyclists as if it were an insurance scheme, and leave it as a compensations cheme for everyone else.

To read Sir Owen is to understand how far we've strayed from many of the principles on which ACC was built. Like community responsibility, which goes against the idea that you should levy one section of the community more heavily than others, as proposed by the current government. Sir Owen held that as we all benefit from risky activities, we should all bear the cost equally. [4]



'Hon Rick Barker said;

"How is it fair that a motorcyclist is knocked off their bike by a car and then charged much higher levies for the experience? This means the victim pays."

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that motorcycle riders are facing levy increases of up to 300 percent; if not, will he work with Labour to ensure that that massive increase in costs faced by bikers will be substantially reduced?

Hon JOHN KEY: I guess the first thing I would say is that Mr Goff should rest assured that people do not have to pay that big increase if they only borrow a motorbike, and do not actually own it. The second point I might add is that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is proposing what it is fair enough to say is quite a significant increase for owners of larger motorbikes, with a proposed levy increasing by about $500, to $781. As I said yesterday at my press conference, it is worth remembering that on the advice we have had from ACC, a full cost recovery levy for motorcycle-only accidents is $2,215 and if we take into consideration accidents where a car is involved, the levy should increase to $3,770. Yes, it is a big increase, but other New Zealanders should know they are already substantially cross-subsidising motorbike riders.

Motorcyclists are expected to pay that as well in a no faults system when 67% of motorcycle accidednts involving a car is the cars fault and it is a no fault system... so its victum pays

No faults means no faults, no blame, no finger pointing. If we are to keep this, then we need to keep the no faults systems a true no faults. Making a price hike of any kind is a form or blame and finger pointing. It is then no longer a no faults system and becomes an at fault system. If we have an at fault system then we will start suing. New Zealand does not want to go down that track.

Motorcycles should not have to pay any more levies than any other vehicle on the road, and we must fight for that. Remember your ACC in your PAYE covers any thing your do as a private citizen including drivng and riding a bike.

Under a no faults there will always be a minority group that appears to be propped up but the majority. Trucks subsidise cars, cars subsides, bikes, we all subsidise cyclists and pedistrians. Yet how many bikes have hit pedistrians. Stats show last year there was one.

No Faults vs Higher Risk

Motorcyclists are not disputing the fact that motorcycling is more dangerous. We are disputing the claim 16 - 18 times when it is more likely on 3 to 4 times more likely to have an accident. Because motorcyclists know these dangers we take every percussion to limit the risks, most are wearing protective clothing, from leathers riding suits to the codura, boots, gloves, and helmet. Most riders will take every precaution out on the road to be seen, and are responsible riders.

We are not disputing there the Squids (biker slang for boy racer, hero on a bike etc) they are a minority of a minority group overall, however their actions are the ones that get seen an give all bikers a bad name. You see one bad action but you do not see the 500 other bikers on the same road that day obey all the rules.

Bikers do face many elements that car drivers don't even think about, from them throwing cigarette butts and apple cores out the window to the quality of the actual road, unmarked grit and new seal. Flying debris. See the story page.

There is a common saying among bikers, ride like nobody has seen you and they are all out to get you.

Why is ACC Flawed?

ACC is supposed to be a no fault system. The idea we all put money into a grand pool fund, if you have an accident you are covered to get fixed up. No fault, no questions, no finger pointing, no blame. In general it sounds good, and can work, if the no faults stays true, “A no faults, no matter how stupid the accident is”, as the ACC Minister Nick Smith said and called it.

Once you start pointing out one group is costing X amount, and then increasing their levy's based on that it becomes a “No fault system, except for you...” No faults means, “No faults”, if we start to finger point at minority groups then the system becomes flawed.

Lawyers fighting claims so ACC doesn't have to pay... more eviedance that it already a user pay and at fault system. (Heard on the radio over 5 million alone spent on this... in some case it may have been cheaper to just pay the medical costs.

Government department. We all know it happens that if you here that the government is paying you automatically add 50% and it does happen. ACC need to stop the waste spending.

If we go down this track Motorcyclists will want the right to Sue. New Zealand as a whole does not want this.

One of the other flaws is it ACC pays out to things that are not "ACCIDENTS", that should out the courts and fines others that should come from the mental health etc

Minority food chain

Trucks subsidise cars, (just doesn't show up because trucks aren't separated in the levy system). Cars subsidise bikes and we all subsidised cyclists and pedestrians...

The Cliff

Put an a manned ambulance at the bottom of the cliff 24/7 to catch the jumpers and those that fall or build a fence at the top to stop them from falling or jumping... The ambulance is the not the answer to the core issue, it the band aid to clean the after-math.

Simple logic really which is better and cheaper.

Simply putting up ACC levies will not solve the underlying core issue, its a plaster that covers the after-math. But better driver education is at the core, and is cheaper to implement.

We need to stop putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and build the god dam fence.

Knowledge of bikes

Higher CC Rating Equates to Higher ACC

Increasing the ACC levies on the bases of CC rating is as flawed as ACC is itself. This shows how stupid the politicians really are and goes to show they don't do any study into the industry or culture of motorcycling or modern motorcycles in general do not listen to the public and just nod their head to make it look like they are.

They have no understanding of engines or power out put. Bigger is not always faster. Bigger can equate to more torque, but torque does not equate to more speed.

  • ACC has no evidence that large motorcycles mean more accidents. The CAS database is woefully deficient in recording accurate data.
  • Of a total of 420 accidents (i.e. all motorcycle and other vehicle accidents in Auckland and Canterbury in 2008), 181 (43%) failed to record the CC rating of the motorcycles involved. There is no reason to assume the remainder of the 2008 data base is any more accurate. Interestingly the mode of the Auckland/Canterbury sample was 250cc (250cc was reported the most). So this does not lend weight to charging a higher levy on bigger capacity motorcycles.
  • The simple fact, a bike traveling at 100kph on the open road, (regardless of size) will do the same amount of damage to the rider no matter what size engine, bike, or cc rating.

The proposal that engine cc rating of a bike makes the difference is absolutely ridiculous and actually makes no sense at all. Examples. There are some bikes as small as 250cc that are faster many larger bikes including some 1000cc bikes in a straight line and through the twisties. There are bikes with smaller engines yet higher speed and horse power output than larger cc rated bikes. Weight to power output ratio have to be calculated.

This same argument can be used on the Learner Licensing for Motorcycles. A learner can only have a 250cc and under motorcycle. Yet as above that a learner can have a high powered 250 that are capable of 200kph. This is absolutely outrageously stupid. Allowing learners on these machines can and is deadly.


ACC Levies

  • Motorcyle: $252.69
  • Moped: $58.97
  • Car: $168.46

Proposed increases

  • 0-125cc motorcycles (including mopeds) $292.93
  • 126-600cc motorcycles $546.78
  • 601+cc motorcycles $781.12

Under these levies we are targeted, and we are subsiding Mopeds. Most motorcyclists agree with raise in levy for mopeds and we have been saying this for years.


Statistics

Google DOC spreadsheet showing some interesting figures. [5]

The ACC, MoT and LTSA datasheets are all different conflicting each other. The problem with Statistics is that not all info is clear displayed or avilable and or gathered properly... They are also a very fluid thing and always changing. Anybody with a bit of brains can turn the stats around to say what they want to say. And the trick is to start with the number you want and go from there.

Motorcycle accidents only make 8% to 10% of the total carnage on our roads.

This is where the data from the MOT is being misreported. In the annual Vehicle Fleet Statistics for 2008, compiled by the MOT, they state there are 111000 motorcycles (including mopeds). BUT when they (the MOT) compile the accident statistics (expressed per 10,000 motorcycles on the road) they publish a figure of 95,000 motorcycles.


Average cost per Claim

In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report

Cyclists:

  • 567 active claims
  • ACC payout - $12,573,000
  • $22,175 per claim

Pedestrians:

  • 1115 active claims
  • ACC payout - $24,494,000
  • $21,968 per claim

Car Occupants:

  • 8525 active claims
  • ACC payout - $208,305,000
  • $24,435 per claim

MOTORCYCLIST's

  • 3173 active claims
  • 1336 Current claims.
  • ACC payout - $62,523,000
  • $19,705 per claim


Increase in claims

Did you know that between 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 that the cost per active claim for car injurys increased by 9.52% while the cost per active claim for motorbikes increased by only 5.55% [6]

  • Cycling 5.57%
  • Driving/Passenger--Bus 11.80%
  • Driving/Passenger--Car 9.52%
  • Driving/Passenger--Motorcycle 5.55%
  • Driving/Passenger--Other Veh 6.25%
  • Driving/Passenger--Truck 18.74%
  • Other 11.06%
  • Pedestrian 13.30%
  • Unknown -0.12%


Crash Probability, Cars vs Bikes

Cars

  • 1.1 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
  • 47 injuries per 10,000 vehicles
  • 34 injury crashes per 10,000 vehicles
  • 8.6 deaths per 100,000 population
  • 356 injuries per 100,000 population

Bikes

  • 5.2 deaths per 10,000 motorcycles
  • 144 injuries per 10,000 motorcycles
  • 142 crashes per 10,000 motorcycles



A contact in ACC has suggested that $62million is possibly the cost of existing claims Pre-1999 + this years worth of new claims and that $252mill may represent the actual cost of new claims. Or maybe $252million is the amount needed per year till 2014 to put us in the green? Answers are needed and they're not forth-coming! We have no idea how many farm, trial bike, quad bike and or race track bikes are involved in these statisics. The database used tags any mention of Motorcycle (including farm bikes and quads) to the dimensions of the reports run to pull the figures. We have heaps of farm bike and quad accidents rolled into Nick Smiths stats! It all comes down to how accurat the data was put in, if all data was collected about the accident etc

However Motorcyclists still work out to be cheaper than cars per claim, as well cyclists and pedestrians. So motorcyclists as a minority are susidering the majority on the other way round. (Don't you hate statisics)

One thing the stats don't show is how many of these accidents were farm bike, unregistered trail bikes or race track bike injuiries. ie; Farm bike injury should be covered by the farm business ACC & fuel. The trail and track bike injuiries etc should be covered by your PAYE ACC as well as fuel.

How many motorcycles have hit cyclists, or pedestrians compared to cars, statitics are showing cars are more dangerous... since the Pedestrians & Cyclists are mainly hit by cars they could even be combined and the average claim is still $24,039.58 per claim. (it could have gone either way)

The bulk of Kiwi's are not brainless sheep and just believe every thing they hear and see. (especially from government) Most truly don't believe the statics they hear and do their own research as we all know that anyone with a bit of know how can make the stats say anything they like, especially if don't show all the info, or say the wrong info.

It appears that the only people that do believe them are the politicians.

2,788,938 / 130,213 = 21.42 cars. 4.67% of the fleet, yet we are at 8% of accidents taking into aaccidents (not couting commercial utilities and trucks) given then the number of accidents involing a car and a bike this ratio is about right.


Misleading

However the 62 million figure is correct but very misleading.

That figure is for 2008. It covers the cost of 3173 active claims. BUT - only 1336 of those claims were for accidents in 2008. The 12 million, as quoted ,was the collection for 2008 registrations by bikers only. Because ACC is now a full funding model, the claims for previous years will have been fully funded in those years. That is, if a claim occurs in 2007, then in 2007 ACC will put aside enough to cover the cost of that claim in 2007 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS.

So, cost of claims prior to 2008 HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR. They don't have to be paid from the 2008 revenue. They are paying for pre-1999 claims though which is when the switched to become fully funded.

Doing a bit of maths, based on the avergae cost of those 3173 claims, and extending it across the 1336 NEW claims, gives 26 million as the cost of 2008 claims. Using a bit of school math, 1336 x the average claim $19,704.70 = $26,325,473.68

Finally they are trying to put more money in the bank to fully fund... so effectively we are pay for past, present, and future claims.




Motorcycle accidents have been on steady decline (with aslight increase in the last couple of years), yet there are more motorcycles and vehicles on the road. This can possible be because technology of bikes, better brakes, suspensions, handling, better tyres etc... The the fatal accidents reduced as well again possibliy due to better helmet technology, better protective gear with armor etc.

The Ministry of Transport’s report [7] makes for interesting reading, perhaps ACC should have a closer look. It shows that injuries to motorcyclists and pillions in 2008 are at same level as 1957 (1397 vs 1396), but the number of car drivers injured has almost trebled (2964 vs 8536). What about passengers of motor vehicles? They do not pay an ACC levy to be in the car, yet last year there were 3365 motor vehicle passengers injured. Note as well that motorcycle injuries made up only 9% of all motor vehicle related injuries in 2008. While not all injuries may result in an ACC claim, these numbers point to an unbalanced view from ACC in apportioning blame to motorcycle riders.

Statistics are a flawed thing if all infomation is not collected and then shown. Factors that need to be considerd;

  • Whether.
  • Traffic.
  • Experience.
  • Safty gear worn.
  • Road Conditions. (was there grit, ice, crud on the road that contributed to the mishap)

ACC would have you believe motorcyclists are being subsidised by car drivers

Collection

Last year, ACC paid more than $62 million to care for people injured while on their motorcycles, but collected only $12.3 million in motorcycle levies. [8]

This has also been quoted by both Nick Smith and John Judge and means there is a $50m shortfall which must be funded from other means. (ummm P.A.Y.E thats why I pay it, and my fuel ACC)


Fleet numbers and levies total for 2008 [9] There are two tables the lower table appear to be the one the stats as the top Vehicle fleet as at 30 June.

ACC levies for Motorcycles were $252.69 in 2008 and for Mopeds $58.97. (Bikers have been saying for a long time that mopeds should be pay the same ammount)

These levies assume for the full year

Vehicle fleet as at 30 June

Mopeds: 28,756 levy $58.97. Total = $1,695,741.32.

Mopeds: 28,756 levy $$252.69. Total = $7,266,353.64. and extra $5,570,612.32


Motorcyles: 101,457 levy $252.69. Total = $25,637,169.33

Total bikes: 130,213 total levy $27,332,910.65


Figures use for stats

Mopeds: 25,304 levy $58.97. Total = $1,492,176.88.

Mopeds: 25,304 levy $252.69. Total = $6,394,067.76. and extra $4,901,890.88

Motorcyles: 71,648 levy $252.69. Total = $18,104,733.12

Total bikes: 96,952 total levy $19,596,910

So what happened to the other $7,296,910. This could be due to bikes only registered for part of the year. $12.3m the reverse the stat there are only 48,676 bikes. Classed as being on the road all year. We have no way of knowing how many bikess were, on hold for part year ie; during winter.

Also remember this registration fees only. 90% of bikers also have cars, so your could argue that at least 96,500 of the 2.7 million cars or vans can be added to the bikers ACC as can oly drive on at a time arguement. $168.46 x 96,952 = $16,332,533.92

You also pay ACC in Fuel and the a percentage of ACC in your P.A.Y.E which covers you for any thing you do as a citzen. How many of those vehehile owners own 2 or 3 plus vehicles plus own a bike.

Fuel

According to the MOED's figures NZ used 3,170,900,000 litres of petrol and 2,780,200,000 litres of diesel in the year ending June 2009. At 9.9c/litre ACC on the petrol that earned ACC $313 million (+GST) - almost covering all ACC's accident costs. So where is the money leaking!

Petrol has a 9.90c +GST/litre ACC levy but diesel contains no levy and nor does RUC. Larger diesel vehicles, particularly trucks, cause carnage in many accidents but currently pay only $302/year ACC in their rego, end of story!

Part of the ACC proposal is for a levy rise to 12.87c +GST on petrol but still no levy on diesel or RUC.

It is estimated and averaged that every bike payes $90 per year in ACC in fuel average the problem is that the error on this is a +/- 20% there are no more accurate figures as they simply don't know. But also adding into this that 90% of bikers own and drive cars.

2008 fleet 71,648 x $90 = $6,448,320.00 (is is not part of the 12.3m collected by ACC nor is it counting mopeds)

Current fleet 101,457 x $90 = $9,131,130.00

Short Fall

Now lets try it the other way which makes it look bad for bikers and good for government. Dr Smith said "Motorcyclists were 16 times more likely than car drivers to be involved in accidents yet car owners were currently subsidising their ACC bills by $77 each." The MOT Annual Vehicle Fleet Statistics for 2008 states there are 2,584,509 light passenger vehicles in New Zealand, light passenger vehicles are defined as cars and vans. [10]

So here is the problem $77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193 which means car drivers are paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists. Latests stats show the fleet at 2,788,938 so these number are $214,748,226

Using $50m Short Fall

Using those same figures "$50,000,000 short fall / 2,584,509 feet vehicles = $19.35"

$50,000,000 / $77 = 649,351only registered vehicles required.

Latests stats show the fleet at 2,788,938 so these number are $17.93 [11]

Every vehicle is subsiding motorcycles by $77 is a lie and a fabrication. First off these numbers were only using the cars and vans fleet, not counting 519,992 Goods vans/trucks/utilities, buses, motorcampers or any of the other road registered vehicle if we did include these vehicles our $19.35 would be a lot lower. 649,351 vehichicles are required to make 50m

We are un-sure since the changing pay as we go to fully funded if some of these numbers go to previous claims or not. Judge's statement that every car driver is subsidizing a motorcyclist to the tune of $77 per vehicle is a clear attempt to create a prejudice against motorcyclists.

Interestingly enough;

208,305,000 + 62,523,000 = 270,828,000 total car and motorcycle claim

130,213 + 2,788,938 = 2,919,151 fleet

270,828,000 / 2919151 = $92.78 levy required by each vehicle at present car is $168 and a bike is $253. If the levy were at this then there would be alot more vehicles being registered all year round and probably more money collected. Put the levy's up there will be less money collected.

How much do bikers pay ACC?

ACC say they collected 12.3 million dollars from Biker levies. This is from registrations only. There is no way ACC can determin how much ACC levies bikers pay.

  • Bikers also pay ACC in petrol and P.A.Y.E like every one else which covers anything you do as a private citizen, not matter how dangerous or how stupid under the "no faults system" (Using the words of "Nick Smith"
  • Many bikers also own cars and many own 2 or 3 cars and or 2 or 3 bikes and a car which ACC can not show. This is the "I can only drive one vehicle at a time" arguement. It appears we are also subsidising ourselves...

71,648 x $168.48 = $12,069,822.08 + 12,300,00.00 (M/c levy) = $24,369,822.08 + Fuel + PAYE


Again There is no way ACC can determin how much ACC levies bikers truly pay. But we can estimate.


$2000 true Cost

According to the ACC minister Nick Smith the true cost should be $2000 per year in ACC alone for motorcycles. If ACC was only gathered from registration how much would it cost the motorcyclist.


ACC paid out to motorcyclists $62,523,000 / 96,952 registerd mopeds & bikes = $644.89 I am not sure how he got $2000.00 or the $3700.00 if involved with a car.

If we were to use the current fleet $62,523,000 / 130,213 = $480.16 (supposidly if they were all registered)

Spread evenly (as no faults should)

Not counting pedistrains or cyclists as technically that should be coming out of our ACC from PAYE. For this to work if you vehicle goes on the road then you pay ACC

Passenger cars/vans 2,631,014 Goods vans/trucks/utilities 478,336 Buses 19,708 Motor caravans 21,754 Total bikes: 96,952

Total vehicle fleet supossidly on the road 3,247,764 We know it is more, if the vehicle goes on the road and has to be registered then ACC excluding trailers and caravans as we are not class them as a vehicle examples we see Agricultural machines and Tractors on the road all the time but are not in this stat yet.

Can only drive one vehicle at a time arguement

I am not going to fully do the math here because it is bluntly obvious. New Zealands poplulation 4.6 to 4.7 million. That is every many woman and teenager and child. Now from that how many have a drivers license.

Total number of register vehicles from (not counting trailers caravans or spv etc) 3,247,764 the current fleet that is 3,486,836 (this including if you are a bus driver driving the bus at work or any other work vehicle)

Hidden Agenda

Is this one of the hidden agendas that they trying to still makes us pay this... and we go "wow we won that" when in reality we did not.

Under a no faults system, remembering bikers also pay ACC in other forms, ie Fuel, PAYE, multi vehicle (can only drive one at a time arguement) then all vehicles on the road must pay the same ammount of ACC to be fair, no questions asked.

The first question you should ask any one that tries to waver you from this, is as I biker how much ACC have I paid last year in total, across the board.

Of corse the other hidden agenda is that National want to privatise ACC. National have never liked ACC. If National was going to sell ACC it would have to become a "fully funded system"

The figures these people are trying to push sound like the same figures they tried to push back in 1993 strangly no in flation.

It is just going to take longer to go from a "Pay as we go" system to a "Fully funded" system. World ecconomics come into play and we are still in a recession. Making any of these price hikes are just adding to this making it worse, when they are not truely needed.

If ACC went private then the ACC tax in fuel will have to be dropped as there would be no way calculating how to distribute that money.

You are 16 times more likey to have an accident on a motorcycle.

Nobody is disputing the fact that motor-bikes in the wrong hands are dangerous. But so are cars. We all know biking is more dangerous, we are not stupid. We also admit there are a lot of rider errors as there are car driver errors, as well as biker versions of Boy Racers. But the bulk of bikers are responsible riders.

130,213 bikes / 3173 claims = 42 a 1 in 42 chance

2,584,509 cars / 8525 claims = 304 1 in 304 chance which is still very high chance.

304 / 42 = 7.2 times

Since, according to MoT figures, there were 3,308,930 cars/SUV/taxis/van/trucks in the fleet in 2008. And 12,066 injuries . One injury/fatality per 274 vehicles

And, 130,213 motorcycles/mopeds. With 1409 injuries. One per 92 bikes . Worse than cars, sure, we all know that. But the true ratio is about 1:3 not 1:16.

So bikes are "only" 3 times as dangerous. NOT 16 times.

Now remember most importantly these are the numbers to make a claim with ACC... and the arguement is to have accident. Not all car accidents make an ACC claim insurance companies will vouch for that and most of them will be cars. example; is my co worker has been involved in 3 car accidents in the last 2 years walking a time bomb it won't be long before he is involved with a bike... then there will be an ACC claim. He doesn't see it that way but still.

This is just a pure numbers game the more vehicles on the road the more accidents the greater the chance its going to be you. Also this does not take in in consideration the number of k's travelled, how experienced you are, etc. So it works out to be about 3 times not 16 or 18 times as some say. More scare mongering. And going by the rest of the figures the government is spreading its a wonder any motorcyclist is a live.


Quote from a seasoned Front Line Police

"Speaking as a front line Police officer of 20 years plus I can confidently say that the majority of bike riders are responsible and careful. More often than not they come off second best trying to avoid a situation that is not of their making, but unfortunately come off second best as well. In any case it is far more likely that a learner on a 250 cc bike is going to have a mishap due to inexperience than a seasoned rider on a big bike. The CC argument doesn't stack up. I was about to buy a larger bike again to travel to work to save on petrol but this won't be an option now. What I can see happening is thousands of bike riders not paying their rego's or putting them on hold most of the year. Why wouldn't they, how many times do you get stopped every year by the Police. The fine is only $200, do the maths."

This is where the data from the MOT is being misreported. In the annual Vehicle Fleet Statistics for 2008, compiled by the MOT, they state there are 111000 motorcycles (including mopeds). BUT when they (the MOT) compile the accident statistics (expressed per 10,000 motorcycles on the road) they publish a figure of 95,000 motorcycles.

The Vehicle Fleet Statistics are calculated for CO2 emission and fuel use purposes and by showing larger numbers of smaller capacity engines it is a positive However, when wanting to show the number of motorcycle accidents it is beneficial to policy makers to use a lower number of total bikes.

The table below refers and shows that older riders may in fact be reducing accident and fatality statistics:

File:ACCdecline.jpg

The fact that ACC ONLY took $12.3 m when there are approximately 111,000 motorcycles in New Zealand eligible for registration, indicates they (ACC) are well below the revenue target for the sector.

This would indicate the registration fee is already too high, leading to owners taking out limited registration, if any at all.

Fall Out

  • CONGESTION: With all those bikes off the road, which the government seem to ultimately want, do you really want the extra congestion from extra the cars on the road, which will logically cause more impatiences and more accidents...
  • BUSINESS: How many bike hire business, imports of bike gear, online shops, and bike shops will close and make people redundant, (we have already lost one here in Dunedin in the last year, due the the recession )
  • CHARITY's; Bikers do a lot of charity rides and will loose out including; Ambulance (St Johns) runs, toy runs, food runs, that raise a lot of money. Many of the bike rally's give a huge amount of the profits from the rally to various charity's. These charity's will loose out.
  • How many bikes now will become worthless, I can't afford to ride, nobody can, so nobody will buy my bike, I now have $12,000 worthless bike, that I am still paying off at the bank... thanx
  • There will be more unregistered bikes on the road. Basically the reverse effect of what is required. Some number of accidents but even less money.
  • Those on the lower end of the income scale, will struggle to buy replacement safety gear, ie; helmet, boots, and gloves when required. The same arguement can be said for maintenance.

Accident Faults

ACC is supposedly a "no fault" insurance system. Clearly it is not.

In Morning Report (14th October at 0720) John Judge (Chairman of ACC) made the statement that motorcycle levies were increasing due to "…accidents caused by motorcycles…"

From research conducted at the Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies (AIMS) based at Lincoln University 67% of all accidents involving motorcycles involve other vehicles. Sixty percent of those (or 40% of all motorcycle accidents) are caused by the other driver.

Motorcycle accidents only make 8-10% of the total carnage on roads. Accidents can be very difficult to determin what went wrong. If some one lies, and no witness, if not all the infomation is gathered or simply we don't know.

Motorcycle vs Ligt vehicle or car

67% of the time the other vehicle is in the wrong. Sorry mate I did not see you 


Reminds me of the old biddy I heard on talkback one day.
"Oh those motorcycles are terribly dangerous things. I've hit three of them"...

Sole motorcycle accident

These can be very hard to determin what went wrong. Motorcycle Hazards Hazards of a motocycle are completely different from those in a car.

Motorcycle Hazards

In the last 25 years I have been riding I have not seen one Bike awareness advert from ACC, either on TV, movies, or bill boards, in the Paper or driving magazines, or on the radio... Till recently with Biketober.... do you see the irony of it all.


Motorcyclists face many hazards on the road that unless you are motorcyclist yourself you would think it could be a hazard, especially in your car. These hazards can cause accidents with no other vehicle and many of these could also be classed as not rider fault.

Motorcycle rule of thumb. Every other bastard on the road is out to get you.

These hazard can range from;

  • Grit on a corner in your apex or line of the corner. If unmarked alot of the time you can not see this till it is too late (no matter what speed you are doing). Councils need to clear any grit afterwards. If there is grit on the road mid corner, and you hit the grit at 100kph it can be a scarey hair raising moment for a new rider and causes a lot of, what motorcyclists call "off's" Grit, loose shingle, rubble that has falling from the cliffs are all dangerous.

Grit can be from; 

* A newly sealed road. If the signs are taken away and the grit is still there can be dangerous.
* The leftover ICE grit that councils lay, the assembles itself in mid corner. 
* Rubble that falls from cliffs.
  • Cars cutting corners motorcyclist takes evasive action, and ends up going wide misses car but ends up in the ditch down the road... car continues on with out realising his irresponsible actions. If the biker is killed, then this goes down as no other vehicle involved and even possible rider error, when in reality its not. (Have seen this many times and we have close calls all the time.)
  • Diesel, oil and petrol spills. Boy racers pouring diesel on the roads for their games and burn outs. A biker hits this next morning on their way to work, and is very splippery and if it rains over night its worse.
  • Any form of mass crud on the road include waste from stock. And again when it rains this turns in to slime and is very dangerous and slippery.
  • Free loose stock, animals, and bird strikes. Hitting a cat or rabbit is dangerous enough a big dog could cause an off, sheep, cattle, deer can be a killer.

Bird strikes are not as uncommon as you think, in the last 2 years I have hit 3 and have been lucky. Small bird may cause a bruising. And I know of a case with a hawk, the was lucky he missed the pole.

  • Trucks. Trucks coming the other way have a trailing slip stream blast. On a fine day these are easy enough to coupe with, however in the wet you can see the blast wave coming. Bikers don't have window wipers are temporarly blinded by these waves if if head on. (If you go a little wider as you pass the truck the slip stream wave is not as intense) Bikers with fairings tend to duck behind through the blast.
  • Rubbish. Car drivers throwing rubbish out the window when you are following them. Apple cores, pips from apricots, cigerette butts and the like.

I have been burnt on the neck from a cigerette still going that hit me a from the idiot in from on me. I will admit I was closing to over take and was a matter of timing.

  • Road markings in the wet. The very markings designed to be a road safety is a hazard to bikers in the wet (sometimes in the dry) They become very slippery. We have noticed around Dunedin much of the markings have been intergrated with grit to make then not as slippery. GREAT Thank you.
  • Pot Holes (and major bumps in the road). Hit a pot hole is a car you may feel it. But hitting one on a bike can make you lurge and then back, which can twist the wrist so you end up cutting power and then a sudden power on. To a learner it can shakey moment.
  • The 70kph law for learner riders on the open road. How many car drivers know this law. I am betting only other motorcycle car drivers do. Most car drivers see a bike and instantly think the bike is doing at least 100kph if not slightly faster. Then bang they are upon the learner... pushing them to the edge of the road which is where the danger starts, the road is not as goos and crumbling and a learner may get into trouble here...

What needs to happen here is other vehicle driver education show the dangers of motorcycles and the actions they do could result in a motorcyclist injuiry.

The Finger Pointing Game

If we want to go down the finger pointing game, then lets do that.

  • Cyclist cost $12,573,000 yet there is no extra ACC levy to be on the road as a road user.
  • Pedestrians ACC payout - $24,494,000, ACC own stats show only 1 or 2 motorcycles were involved with predistrians... since the only levy pedestrians pay is ACC in PAYE (and that is only if they are working) then car drivers should be lumped with this.
  • Why should I pay for every sports injuiry when I don't play a sport. Sports people should pay an ACC levy to cover their injuiries.
  • Why should I pay for every kid that has a injuiry when I don't have any kids or want any kid/s. Parents of children should pay more ACC to cover their children.
  • Why should I pay for any drunk driver, rider or pedistrian or cyclists.
  • Why should I pay for the Cop doing a U-Turn in front of motorcyclists or the tourist the took out a group of motorcyclists on a charity run.
  • Why should I pay for the two cases of drunken car surfing, both cases that has happened lately.
  • Why should I if I get hit by a car that cuts the corner, or didn't see (or look) when its plainly their fault.
  • Why should I have to pay for other peoples stupid actions...

Why should I pay... because we are in a "No faults system" yet there seems to be a lot of finger pointing, and blaming "you cost X amount of dollars... we are not paying that but will pay the lawyer to proof other wise... "

ACC is not really a No Faults system it never has been..

Sorry mate I did not see you

Over the years there has been a steady increase in the number of bikes as well as a huge increase in the number of vehicles on the road, and a decrease in the number of accidents. In the last few years there has been an 0.7% increase in the number of bike accidents.

As we all know bikes can be difficult to see especially if you are not looking. A couple of years ago the police were pushing for all vehicles to use daytime running lights and there are still many people who now drive with daytime running lights on. BRONZ warned there would be an increase in motorcycle accidents.

Here is why?

Day time driving lights

For years motorcycles have use their headlight during the day though this was not law at the time, it was just general practise to and a good safety tip. It does help you to be seen. When police started to push the daytime driving lights for all vehicles bikes all of a sudden bikes went into the background again and became just as hard to see if not harder to see... and the"Sorry mate I did not see you..." became a common theme.

Mobile Phones

Since the mobile phone became affordable to every one, more and more people got them, not just business people, now every one has them and people get distracted from them, and its not just car drivers. I have seen someone talking on the mobile in ice and snow and then not stop in time and rear end the car ahead. DUMB yet this is the kind of stupidy out on our roads.

Pedestrians are just as bad. I have seen people texting and just walk out on the road before they realise what they have done, as the car has to brake heavily to avoid hitting. It took governments years to make change here... it will soon be illegial to text or talk on the phone will driving. It will be interesting to watch the stats in the next few years.

Ideas to ease the pain

Including change to the whole system of collection... Now remember ACC is not broke or is it loosing money, and there is enough money to pay bills and claims every year plus bank a millions.

There have been many ideas running about to ease the pain of the transistion.

  • Levy Drivers license - Maybe $50 a per year.
  • We could put flat fee ACC levy on all vehicles bought including boats, trailers and caravans. Even if it is only $50. This is done on change of registration and ownership.
  • Make all farm vehicles warrantable considering they are carry people about the farm.
  • Levy on traffic infrigement which must be paid even if the actual infringement is dropped. (if 100% would generate 650million the entire traffic account in 2008 was 635 million.)
  • Flat fee on WOF's (say $5 or $10) on all warrantable vehicles and trailers. ie 2,919,151 vehicles (again not not counting trucks or the extra above etc and assuming that all these are once a year, but there will be a good percentage that are every 6 months.) 2,919,151 x $5 = $14,595,755 or $29,191,510 if it was $10. If using the whole fleet and trailers and caravans etc this would be $50 million.
  • Increase levy on fuel. Not much even if only 5c a litre.
  • Small 1% levy on riding gear ie; helment, boots, gloves, jackets and trousers. Remember gloves and boots are replaced regularly.

Adding these up would generate 1.4 billion dollars twice as much as the traffic account is now. The above suggestions targets the arguements and means the victim isn't paying. Targeting those that cause the problems on our roads. ie; drunk drivers that we do catch.


Sports

  • Same as bike gear, small 1% levy on sports gear that helps with sports injuiries.
  • We could put flat fee ACC levy on all cycles bought as new.


Finally there should not be any seperate accounts they should all be joined back into the one super account and used the way ACC was suppose to be use it as a fully community fund. ACC was not designed to have these seperate accounts and is just a way to make it easier to privitise.


One simple Idea

Recombine all the accounts, as ACC was not designed to have these seperate accounts in the first place and the more cross subisiding the better it works. Drop evey single levy they have for collecting ACC we have at present, so instantly every one gets a PAY rise since that levy is no longer in your PAYE.

Put ACC levy on GST to compensate there solved... its on petrol, booze every thing you buy and sell, covers yah paper cuts, it covers your tourists and covers cyclists and bikers as you are paying it on every thing you buy for you bike. It covers those that are working, even kids when will be paying ACC out of there pocket money (all the business have to is up GST) the IRD goons do the rest.

A 2.5% increase in GST, to 15%, would then easily raise around $10 - 15 billion which is what ACC requires.

If only 1% was added to GST ACC would be fully funded in 2 or three years. If GST went to 15% ACC would be fully funded in one year and could then be dropped back back to 1% to carry it on.


Driver Education

Overall the main thing that is needed and has been a common theme is better driver education all round for car and motorcyclists as well as cyclists.


Causal Factors of Motorcycle Accidents in New Zealand

There has been a great deal of public comment in New Zealand in recent years about the over-representation of motorcyclists in accident statistics. Not only has it been alleged that motorcyclists are at fault in 87 percent of all accidents in which they are involved, it is also commonly stated that many of these individuals are born again bikers whose mid-life crises have led to them being over-represented in crash statistics, through lack of their ability to ride modern day motorcycles. Such popular misconceptions have had a substantial influence on accident compensation policy and road safety initiatives. Download to read more.

This info has been compiled by:

Charles (Charley) G. Lamb

Associate Professor. Head of Business Management, Law and Marketing Department

Director of Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies (AIMS) project

Download info here

Links

Retrieved from "http://www.southernrider.co.nz/wiki/index.php/ACC"
Personal tools