Comments for Progressive Turmoil http://www.progressiveturmoil.com it's all around us Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:21:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on my ACC submission by Thornton http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/11/03/my-acc-submission/comment-page-1/#comment-372 Thornton Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:21:30 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=452#comment-372 The comment from Peter S seems to indicate he (and apparently it's the same for ACC) doesn't get that ACC is meant to be a no fault scheme where everyone chips in a bit to pay for cover for all, not one where some pay more than others just because they choose to take a higher risk. If (as National are clearly angling towards) NZ had private insurance then yes motorcyclists would no doubt pay exorbitant fees, but that is not how ACC works, or at least is not how it's meant to work. If Peter S feels that motorcyclists should pay a higher levy does he also think that older people should pay more as they are more likely to fall and injure themselves and the costs to rehabilitate them would be much higher than compared with a young person? What about rugby players, or cyclists, etc, etc. Cyclists have nearly as many accidents with nearly as many serious injuries and fatalities as motorcyclists, yet they pay no extra ACC levy at all. I recommend Peter S goes to www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz or www.ACCworks.org.nz (try to forget political leanings and just read the facts page). The comment from Peter S seems to indicate he (and apparently it’s the same for ACC) doesn’t get that ACC is meant to be a no fault scheme where everyone chips in a bit to pay for cover for all, not one where some pay more than others just because they choose to take a higher risk.
If (as National are clearly angling towards) NZ had private insurance then yes motorcyclists would no doubt pay exorbitant fees, but that is not how ACC works, or at least is not how it’s meant to work.
If Peter S feels that motorcyclists should pay a higher levy does he also think that older people should pay more as they are more likely to fall and injure themselves and the costs to rehabilitate them would be much higher than compared with a young person? What about rugby players, or cyclists, etc, etc. Cyclists have nearly as many accidents with nearly as many serious injuries and fatalities as motorcyclists, yet they pay no extra ACC levy at all.
I recommend Peter S goes to http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz or http://www.ACCworks.org.nz (try to forget political leanings and just read the facts page).

]]> Comment on my ACC submission by Peter S http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/11/03/my-acc-submission/comment-page-1/#comment-369 Peter S Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:58:14 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=452#comment-369 In respect of the increase to motorcycle levies I would make the following comments. I drive frequently on the open road. On every trip I am overtaken by high powered motorcyles travelling in excess of the speed limit. As often as not the riders are weaving in and out of traffic and overtaking in tight circumstances. The point I would make is that motorcyclists are indulging in an adrenalin sport - lets face it they could buy a lower powered, safer car and drive it at less cost. In the pursuit of their sport they are putting themselves at high risk by, (1) driving at the edge of safe limits, and (2) using a vehicle that has no protection and is unlikely to be able to be stopped safely when the rider is confronted with an dangerous obstacle. I would equate the risk with rock climbing without a rope. Add to this the fact that injured motorcyclist are very, very, expensive to repair. That is why they should pay a higher ACC levy. In respect of the increase to motorcycle levies I would make the following comments. I drive frequently on the open road. On every trip I am overtaken by high powered motorcyles travelling in excess of the speed limit. As often as not the riders are weaving in and out of traffic and overtaking in tight circumstances. The point I would make is that motorcyclists are indulging in an adrenalin sport – lets face it they could buy a lower powered, safer car and drive it at less cost. In the pursuit of their sport they are putting themselves at high risk by, (1) driving at the edge of safe limits, and (2) using a vehicle that has no protection and is unlikely to be able to be stopped safely when the rider is confronted with an dangerous obstacle. I would equate the risk with rock climbing without a rope. Add to this the fact that injured motorcyclist are very, very, expensive to repair. That is why they should pay a higher ACC levy.

]]> Comment on my ACC submission by Blog Bits | Kiwiblog http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/11/03/my-acc-submission/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Blog Bits | Kiwiblog Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:21:37 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=452#comment-368 [...] Small blogs his ACC submission. He has many questions about the motorcyclist proposed [...] [...] Small blogs his ACC submission. He has many questions about the motorcyclist proposed [...]

]]> Comment on Competition for the ACC? by jps http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/27/competition-for-the-acc/comment-page-1/#comment-366 jps Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:31:58 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=380#comment-366 @Steven: These are certainly the big effects. What interests me is whether making some of these markets contestable will create net efficiencies. By liberalising, we could let the market to sort it out, but if we already have a basically efficient structure then why should we incur the costs associated with that experiment? @Paul: Yes but we do elect the government, and we are collectively responsible for the financial performance of ACC. @Steven: These are certainly the big effects. What interests me is whether making some of these markets contestable will create net efficiencies. By liberalising, we could let the market to sort it out, but if we already have a basically efficient structure then why should we incur the costs associated with that experiment?

@Paul: Yes but we do elect the government, and we are collectively responsible for the financial performance of ACC.

]]> Comment on Competition for the ACC? by Paul Walker http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/27/competition-for-the-acc/comment-page-1/#comment-362 Paul Walker Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:01:50 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=380#comment-362 "At present, we Kiwis collectively own & operate a no-fault insurer, the ACC, which has a statutory monopoly in several big insurance markets." Own? As Grossman/Hart/Moore point out, ownership is having residual control rights and I hadn't noticed that "we Kiwis" had such rights. Those rights are firming in the hands of the government and its lackeys. “At present, we Kiwis collectively own & operate a no-fault insurer, the ACC, which has a statutory monopoly in several big insurance markets.”

Own? As Grossman/Hart/Moore point out, ownership is having residual control rights and I hadn’t noticed that “we Kiwis” had such rights. Those rights are firming in the hands of the government and its lackeys.

]]> Comment on my ACC submission by James http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/11/03/my-acc-submission/comment-page-1/#comment-343 James Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:09:37 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=452#comment-343 I'm really enjoying your coverage of this issue. Did you send this letter to ACC or have it published anywhere? I hope this gets picked up on by some of the higher-ups. I’m really enjoying your coverage of this issue. Did you send this letter to ACC or have it published anywhere? I hope this gets picked up on by some of the higher-ups.

]]> Comment on Motorcycle accidents by jeff smith http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/30/motorcycle-accidents/comment-page-1/#comment-334 jeff smith Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:27:02 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=423#comment-334 This is my intended submission on the proposed ACC increases. There are several points I wish to raise, and offer a fairer methodology of funding ACC claims using registration charges than the present proposal of a 300% increase. We recognize you feel that due to the high cost to ACC  for motorbike related claims, motorbikes should pay a greater levy to cover some of those costs and remove the perceived cross charged burden from the general motor car/van fleet in NZ. As a commuter who uses a motorbike in peak traffic, I recognize the risk riding motorbikes in NZ holds. But moving all the costs onto bikers regardless of who is a fault seems to go against the ACC "no-fault" scheme. Where the fault is completely attributable to biker only related claims, levies based on this are understandable. But since no CAS ( Crash Analysis ) data seems to be available in NZ to identify the exact ratio of Car on Bike incidents I can only refer to the UK figures provided by the UK AA's web site ( Automobile Association ) of 80%. I have used these figures because the UK AA being an insurance company have done its figures to ascertain premium levels.  Quote. "Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, says: "Tragically, 80% of all motorcycle accidents are the fault of road users other than the motor cyclist. For car and commercial vehicle drivers it's very easy to miss seeing an approaching motorbike, especially in congested areas." http://www.theaa.com/insurance/news/born-again-motorbikers.html. Given that this number is possibly inflated compared to NZ, let us take a very conservative starting point of 60% Car initiated on Bike incidents. ( see below for alternate figures ) and use the existing fleet of registered motorbikes over 50cc of 106,000. ACC payed Approximately $62 M last year on bike related claims. This would equate to $62M / 106,000 = $584 This figure equates to near your recommended increase for under 600cc bikes should we be completely self funding for the present rate of ACC claims. One of the  problems we have, is these figures ARE FOR COMPETE SELF FUNDING,  base on ACC payouts last year. These do not take into account Car on Bike, which is a large contributing factor. If we look at ACC's original "No-fault charter" and use the 60% Car on Bike numbers as a base line, this would give a fairer calculation based on the ACC charter. This factors in  the added risk of undertaking a perceived dangerous form of transport, and places the appropriate level of responsibility on the motorbike users. So lets do the calculations and cross charges using these simple numbers ( as a low estimate of Car on Bike related claims ). ACC cost $62M - 60% = $25M ( Bike only claim costs, no cross charge applicable ). $25M / 106,000 = $236 ( or nearly what the existing ACC component for bikes is now based on the original 150% weighting recommended in the last ACC review ). The remainder Car on Bike or ($62M  - $25M ) = $37M is the component that logically should be covered by the total vehicle fund, as this number is the essence of the ACC "no-fault charter". This is not Cars subsidizing bikes. This number is reflecting the true cost to ACC of Cars hitting bikes. As this is a "no-fault system" all contributors to the vehicle fund should pay to cover this component of the total ACC claims. Cars, Bikes, and Vans, just as they do for ACC costs to cover pedestrians, cyclists etc . $37M / ( Total Cars reg in 2008 = 2.8M  + Total Bikes over 50cc reg in 2008 = 106,000 ) =  $12 Again $37M / (2.8M + 106,000) = $12 Remembering for motorbikes this $12 is also in addition to the $236, funding bike only related claims. Even if we dropped the Car on Bike to an unrealistic 50% level this would work out a combined charge of $11. Even at 50% would  not a $293  ( sole bike ) + $11 per from the combined vehicle fund cover ACC costs. Ie. (( 293 +11 ) x 106,000 ) + ( 2.8M x 11 ) = 32, 224,000 + 30,800,000 = $62M Data sources ( http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf  ) Total Cars reg in 2008 = 2,789,676 Total Bikes reg in 2008 = 106,454 Number of accidents requiring ACC ( http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020 ) http://www.theaa.com/insurance ACC Motor Vehicle Account 2010/11 Technical Report on Levy Setting Methodology For Consultation This is my intended submission on the proposed ACC increases.

There are several points I wish to raise, and offer a fairer methodology of funding ACC claims using registration charges than the present proposal of a 300% increase.

We recognize you feel that due to the high cost to ACC  for motorbike related claims, motorbikes should pay a greater levy to cover some of those costs and remove the perceived cross charged burden from the general motor car/van fleet in NZ.

As a commuter who uses a motorbike in peak traffic, I recognize the risk riding motorbikes in NZ holds. But moving all the costs onto bikers regardless of who is a fault seems to go against the ACC “no-fault” scheme.

Where the fault is completely attributable to biker only related claims, levies based on this are understandable. But since no CAS ( Crash Analysis ) data seems to be available in NZ to identify the exact ratio of Car on Bike incidents I can only refer to the UK figures provided by the UK AA’s web site ( Automobile Association ) of 80%. I have used these figures because the UK AA being an insurance company have done its figures to ascertain premium levels. 

Quote.
“Simon Douglas, director of AA Insurance, says: “Tragically, 80% of all motorcycle accidents are the fault of road users other than the motor cyclist. For car and commercial vehicle drivers it’s very easy to miss seeing an approaching motorbike, especially in congested areas.” http://www.theaa.com/insurance/news/born-again-motorbikers.html.

Given that this number is possibly inflated compared to NZ, let us take a very conservative starting point of 60% Car initiated on Bike incidents.
( see below for alternate figures ) and use the existing fleet of registered motorbikes over 50cc of 106,000.

ACC payed Approximately $62 M last year on bike related claims.

This would equate to $62M / 106,000 = $584

This figure equates to near your recommended increase for under 600cc bikes should we be completely self funding for the present rate of ACC claims.

One of the  problems we have, is these figures ARE FOR COMPETE SELF FUNDING,  base on ACC payouts last year. These do not take into account Car on Bike, which is a large contributing factor.

If we look at ACC’s original “No-fault charter” and use the 60% Car on Bike numbers as a base line, this would give a fairer calculation based on the ACC charter. This factors in  the added risk of undertaking a perceived dangerous form of transport, and places the appropriate level of responsibility on the motorbike users.

So lets do the calculations and cross charges using these simple numbers ( as a low estimate of Car on Bike related claims ).

ACC cost $62M – 60% = $25M ( Bike only claim costs, no cross charge applicable ).

$25M / 106,000 = $236 ( or nearly what the existing ACC component for bikes is now based on the original 150% weighting recommended in the last ACC review ).

The remainder Car on Bike or ($62M  – $25M ) = $37M is the component that logically should be covered by the total vehicle fund, as this number is the essence of the ACC “no-fault charter”.

This is not Cars subsidizing bikes. This number is reflecting the true cost to ACC of Cars hitting bikes. As this is a “no-fault system” all contributors to the vehicle fund should pay to cover this component of the total ACC claims. Cars, Bikes, and Vans, just as they do for ACC costs to cover pedestrians, cyclists etc .

$37M / ( Total Cars reg in 2008 = 2.8M  + Total Bikes over 50cc reg in 2008 = 106,000 ) =  $12
Again $37M / (2.8M + 106,000) = $12

Remembering for motorbikes this $12 is also in addition to the $236, funding bike only related claims.

Even if we dropped the Car on Bike to an unrealistic 50% level this would work out a combined charge of $11.

Even at 50% would  not a $293  ( sole bike ) + $11 per from the combined vehicle fund cover ACC costs.

Ie. (( 293 +11 ) x 106,000 ) + ( 2.8M x 11 ) = 32, 224,000 + 30,800,000 = $62M

Data sources

( http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf  )

Total Cars reg in 2008 = 2,789,676
Total Bikes reg in 2008 = 106,454

Number of accidents requiring ACC
( http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/2-all-entitlement-claims/IS0800020 )

http://www.theaa.com/insurance

ACC Motor Vehicle Account 2010/11 Technical Report on Levy Setting Methodology For Consultation

]]> Comment on Motorcycle accidents by lance http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/30/motorcycle-accidents/comment-page-1/#comment-329 lance Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:33:54 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=423#comment-329 That second chart is very telling. I've often said that drinking and riding is a good way to die - and there is the proof. The minimum amount of attention and control required on a bike is far higher than in a car, and while there is little to distract you normally (first chart), when you have had even one or two drinks your ability to stay upright is vastly reduced. Perhaps a zero tolerance (0.00) policy for drinking and riding could be in order - it may annoy a few but it might save a few lives. That second chart is very telling. I’ve often said that drinking and riding is a good way to die – and there is the proof. The minimum amount of attention and control required on a bike is far higher than in a car, and while there is little to distract you normally (first chart), when you have had even one or two drinks your ability to stay upright is vastly reduced.

Perhaps a zero tolerance (0.00) policy for drinking and riding could be in order – it may annoy a few but it might save a few lives.

]]> Comment on Motorcycle accidents by Twitted by ridemotocycle http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/30/motorcycle-accidents/comment-page-1/#comment-328 Twitted by ridemotocycle Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:45:18 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=423#comment-328 [...] This post was Twitted by ridemotocycle [...] [...] This post was Twitted by ridemotocycle [...]

]]> Comment on Would you like a bed with that? by steven http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/2009/10/23/would-you-like-a-bed-with-that/comment-page-1/#comment-325 steven Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:41:07 +0000 http://www.progressiveturmoil.com/?p=339#comment-325 I'm pretty sure United were already doing this in the US on domestic flights. there was a big discussion about it on one of the blogs. in particular that the person who gets the empty seat next to them are the people who value it the most leading to a more effecient market. though the bed idea in economy would likely be a world first, and again would lead to better market outcomes :) I’m pretty sure United were already doing this in the US on domestic flights. there was a big discussion about it on one of the blogs. in particular that the person who gets the empty seat next to them are the people who value it the most leading to a more effecient market.

though the bed idea in economy would likely be a world first, and again would lead to better market outcomes :)

]]>