Motorcycle Accidents
Did you know?
- The number of ACC claims for motorcycle injuries has increased 637% since 1999 – from 684 to 5044
- The number of claims per annum per 100 motorcycles has increased 352% from 1.2 to 5.2. Yes there is an ACC claim for 1 in 19 motorcycles.
- In 2008 1314 motorcycle drivers were injured and 48 died.
- The injury rate per 1000 motorcyclists is 14.4 and fatality rate is 0.52
- For all vehicles (incl motorcyclists) the injury rate is 4.7 and fatality rate 0.11.
- Motorcycle riders (and a small no of passengers) account for around 13% of all fatalities and 9% of injuries, despite making up just 3% of the vehicle fleet
- That of the 211 drivers killed in 2008, almost 25% or 48 were motorcycle drivers.
- In 2008 there were 1,237 motorcycle drivers hospitalised with injuries for 8,571 days and only 2,764 car drivers hospitalised for 13,795 days.
- There are 2.63 million passenger cars and vans registered in NZ and only 71,648 motorcycles (plus 25,304 mopeds).
It amazes me that the same people who support banning pies from tuckshops on the basis it may extend someone’s life by a few months in 60 years years time, don’t think incentives to reduce the number of motorcycle accidents are justified.
Now don’t get me wrong. If people want to ride motorcycles, good on them. Unlike Labour/Greens, I don’t believe in banning things just because they may be bad for you.
But if you choose to drive a motorcycle, then you should at least cover the costs of the greater accident risk. At the moment car drivers massively subsidise the cost of ACC for people who choose to drive a far more risky form of transport.
We already have the rationale with employers levies. You don’t make employers with clerical staff pay the same ACC levy as employers in dangerous occupations like construction.
Now as I have said before, the exact levies proposed by ACC are open to legitimate scrutiny and criticism. You don’t want to ping owners of multiple motorcycles (or multiple vehicles of any sort). But the principle of motorcyclists paying more than car owners is sound. Not to do so, actually subsidises motorcyclists and means we end up with more people dead and injured, because safer modes of transport were subsidising the more dangerous modes.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Like Phil Goofy they are insisting on their right to bludge.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:11 am
All those numbers are useless without a reference to the growth in the number of motorcycles and increases in their use, or distance travelled, or comparisons to other events or occurrences (such as mountain bike riding or playing rugby for example).
The truth is, motorbike riders (and motorists) have been targeted by a cowardly bureaucracy merely as an easy means to raise money for what is really another pie in the sky unworkable socialist scheme.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Yes David But let’s not stop there. How many drownings? Should we levy surfers? What if you work in A&E? surely that’s a risky business? How about weekend Rugby and Soccer players? Should we increase the levy on people who go tramping in the mountains? What about people who drink so much wine that they have a frikkin ‘cork’ collection and you can enter a raffle to estimate how much they’ve quaffed this year? Surely that would tip them into a higher-risk category? Hell why stop there? Let’s single out smokers, casual joggers and those who regularly risk their lives on treadmills.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:21 am
True, someone on TV mentioned this the other night, but gave no numbers. Haven’t found anything via google so far, anyone got some figures?
November 19th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Here’s all I can find.
http://www.guide2.co.nz/politics/news/bikers-acc-fees-will-go-up-but-not-as-much-as-flagged-smith/11/12598
November 19th, 2009 at 9:25 am
How about this. If a motorcyclist is not at fault (ie – gets knocked off by a car driver who ‘didn’t see them’) then that driver pays an increase in ACC levies for the rest of their lives, not the rider they caused to be injured..I call it Not My Fault Funding.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Lee: Personally it would be good to assign ACC levies more to reflect risk. It is by people paying (either through levies or the direct costs) the costs of activities, that they make more rational choices. That is why (for example) cigarettes are taxed – to cover their external costs.
However it is not practical to do this for the employees levy which covers non work and non motor accidents. The bureaucracy would cost too much. But it is practical to do it for employers and it is practical to do it for vehicle owners – as we already have different size levies for different vehicles. The only argument is should car drivers subsidise motorcycle drivers. And when the whoel point is to reduce accidents, the answer is of course not
November 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
LeeC, the NZRFU has a deal with ACC that presumably covers club rugby players. It’s not quite analogous.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I remind everyone that CTP (which has to come from a private operator) on a 1600cc roadbike in NSW is approximately $350 per year – around about half of what the ACC will be charging for the same bike in NZ. And that is in a jurisdiction that has no at-fault protection, where insurers can be stung for several million $ out of one accident.
Go figure.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Thanks for that Llew. Now if we had comparable figures for motor vehicles or other users of ACC…
November 19th, 2009 at 9:35 am
“I remind everyone that CTP (which has to come from a private operator) on a 1600cc roadbike in NSW is approximately $350 per year – around about half of what the ACC will be charging for the same bike in NZ.”
Damn right and same in many other places.
ACC are just trying to spread the cost of accidents they cannot charge premiums for (skate/ snowboarding for example) onto those users they can force an increase on.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I have private medical insurance and private income protection insurance. Can I opt out of this nanny state imposed theft, DPF?
Edit: Funny. Looking at the karmic results in this thread so far it appears that those advocating for personal choice, responsibility and equality in the eyes of the government are being voted down.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am
As I blogged over at the Fairfacts Media show the other day, the bikies should be given the choice to go private.
If a private supplier can offer ACC cover for less then we know the state is gouging them.
If a private provider cannot, then we know the bikies are getting a good deal.
If they bikes don’t want to pay for the ACC they say they want, then there is no ACC.
Simple really.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Of course bikers should pay more, but then there’s the other side to the equation…..
Why do radio hosts have to pay extreme leves as there only option is to say they are journalists?? And of course a journalist may have to go off to a war zone.
The biggest risk a radio host has of injury is breaking a finger nail on the computer, or maybe getting messed up hair.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:57 am
The real interesting figures would be 1. How many of those claims were registered road motorcycles i.e. not the farm quad or sports dirtbike. 2. How much of the increase of claims corresponds with an increase in accidents. I suspect much of the increase is because ACC covers so much more than 10 years ago by way of physio, councilling, pet care, manicures… Costs have also increased with better medical care and hence survival rates, the dead make smaller claims.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:00 am
“The only argument is should car drivers subsidise motorcycle drivers.”
If you’re going to be concerned with “subsidizing” why stop there. Isn’t that the whole point?
I’m beginning to understand why Whale banished you from the VRWC.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“Edit: Funny. Looking at the karmic results in this thread so far it appears that those advocating for personal choice, responsibility and equality in the eyes of the government are being voted down.”
The inarticulate socialist kharma givers are here in vast numbers these days.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“I have private medical insurance and private income protection insurance. Can I opt out of this nanny state imposed theft, DPF?”
There are no Private Medical Insurers in NZ who will cover you for accidents. If it’s ACC it’s excluded.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:05 am
You could at least attribute your guest Post to Nick Smith.
Wrong . The ACC figures give just over 101,000 motorcycles for 2008
Wrong . The number of new claims 2008 is more like 1200 then 5000 ( double counting ongoing claims ?)
You will get done like a dinner over the flaky numbers from Smith
[DPF: Only the first two numbers came from Nick's PR. It got me interested so I then spent around an hour going through LTSA/Transport's 200 page 2008 accident statistics]
November 19th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Does anyone know if these stats include offroad and on road?
Everyone that I know that rides motorcross has made at least one ACC claim in the last 24 months.
Just visit your local motorcross track on the weekend and see which has the longer queue, the First Aid tent, or the hot chips stand.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am
How about we put a tax on pedestrians, they’re always getting hit by cars too.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Redbaiter – ‘ACC are just trying to spread the cost of accidents they cannot charge premiums for (skate/ snowboarding for example) onto those users they can force an increase on.’
That’s incorrect – levies collected from road users can only pay for accidents on the road – ACC aren’t allowed to cross-subsidise their accounts like private insurers. If there was an increase in skate/snowboading accidents, the levies employees pay through PAYE for non-work, non-road accidents would have to go up instead.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am
As the riders spokesperson said little old ladies proportionately cost ACC a lot when they fall over and break hips – so should there be a little old lady levy?
I wonder would their individual levys be lower if they can prove they drank lots of milk as children.
And on it goes.
I think we should either have a no fault system as was originally intended, or move totally to a risk based system. At the moment we have an inquitable system in that some people benefit from no fault cover, others like motorcyclists as a group effectively don’t.
Leave the employer levies and the accredited employer systems as it stands that works really well.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Lets tax the arse off smokers, heavy drinkers and morbidly obese citizens they carry a higher risk than most other Kiwis by the choices they make and I bet it cost a shit load more to care for them through the health system and the knock on effects in has for their families than a rider that gets taken out by a car that didn’t see them. Whats that saying there’s lies dam lies and statistics or something to that effect.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:22 am
There is a problem for owners of multiple motorcycles. Physically, they can only ride one bike at a time — yet the ACC levy is on each machine. How can they be levied once only, without opening a loophole, eg a group arranges for all their bikes to be “owned” by one person, but are ridden by the real owners?
One possible solution: make the ACC levy a compulsory personal insurance (in a similar vein to compulsory 3rd party insurance), but linked to the person rather than the vehicle. You have to prove that you have the appropriate cover every time you get a WoF or Registration, and you can be prosecuted if found to be riding a motorcycle without cover. (Perhaps link it to a drivers licence record.)
Those who have an accident without the appropriate cover go to the back of the queue at A&E. (Dying is cheaper than months or years of rehabilitation!)
Aside: I heard of a guy who attended the motorcyclists anti-ACC protest in Auckland, but ironically crashed on his way home and broke both legs.
[ex-motorcyclist]
November 19th, 2009 at 10:25 am
“ACC aren’t allowed to cross-subsidise their accounts like private insurers. ”
Rubbish. If they weren’t “cross subsidized” there would be no point in the whole scheme, or any insurance scheme. Low risk subsidizes high risk. That’s how it works.
(and you admit yourself that snowboarders levies are paid by employers. Employers??? What’s that if its not “cross subsidizing”.)
November 19th, 2009 at 10:25 am
“Unlike Labour/Greens, I don’t believe in banning things just because they may be bad for you.”
I see, you believe in taxing things higher if they’re bad for you .
Also, boring Peter Dunne and Jimmy Anderton who banned BZP. And the Greens (with Nandor) were always talking about decriminalising cannabis (before it became un-PC). I don’t see ACT (the ‘libertarian party’) easing drug laws!
November 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I agree 2boyz. How to do it though is the problem.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am
The question about distance travelled by motorcycles is a good one. But the answer would make motorcycles look even worse on an accidents per km basis. Motorcyles do much less km’s per year than cars – just look at the km’s for used motorcylces on TradeMe. They don’t call them murderbikes for nothing. And I say this as a former rider and hopefully a future one.
National need to give the whole scheme a review, starting with the entitlements. There are obviously too many which are unfunded.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:30 am
They theoretically have a policy of decriminalisation, though.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:33 am
EmployEES Redbaiter, not employERS. Employers only pay for accidents that happen at work. Employees pay for accidents that happen outside of work, so all employees, some of whom are snowboarders, collectively pay for snowboarding accidents. (apart from kids or retired people, where their accidents are paid for out of taxes). So to say that snowboarders (surfers, rugby players etc) don’t pay levies is a fallacy, they pay through PAYE.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:43 am
OK, employees. Doesn’t matter a damn seeing the end cost is born by employers anyway.
What’s whether someone works or not got to do with snowboarding?? Paying through PAYE? People who might never use snowboards or indulge in any high risk sport are subsidising the risk of unemployed snowboarders who do not even pay tax. Leaving aside the question of whther its real tax or not. What a damn farce.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:44 am
MajorBloodnok:
Good idea. But why pick on motorcyclists? Apply it to everyone.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Longtime reader first time writer.
The thing that annoys me about the whole motorcycle debate and ACC is the confusion between risk and fault.
ACC is a no-fault scheme, yet as David’s stats clearly show, there is a markedly higher risk from riding a motorbike in comparison to other forms of transport.
For me it comes down to two questions. Should people who engage in statistically risky activities face some incentive to change their behaviour? – Hell yes!
Is it fair that my ACC costs as a non-motorcyclist increase given their exceptionally poor saftey record? Hell no!
As for the bleating that many bike accidents are caused by car drivers – irrelevant in a no-fault scheme, and if you don’t like that, don’t criticise the levy, advocate for the right to sue.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:49 am
We need a poll tax for ACC. We could deduct it from their dole, DPB, interest-free student loans, or give them a WINZ grant to cover it.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Odd how the usual “individual rights” brigade seem to want motorcyclists to bludge off other peoples ACC premiums. I’m all in favour of levies reflecting relative risk, they already do for employer levies as others have noted, and where feasible I think it is appropriate.
All the wittering on about cars causing crashes is a side issue, currently motorcyclists pay through their ACC levies only a fraction of the costs associated with accidents where they are effectively at fault. Get the numbers in public work through any disputes on the numbers and do it. Why the hell should I have to pay extra through my vehicle levies for superannuated road warriors injuring themselves at a ridiculous rate through choices that they themselves made. ACC is not and should not be a welfare scheme, Sir Owen’s idiotic pronouncements not withstanding. If he wants to now claim that he intended that it should so then he grossly misrepresented the scheme when originally presented, and he should be stripped of his knighthood in disgrace.
The one change I would want to see is a mechanism for reduced levies on multiple machines owned and used by a single rider. That might not be easy accurately police, and sure as hell some people would attempt to game the system. It would also open up the question of why multiple car owners cannot benefit from the same sort of arrangement.
As for levying other sports, road and off-road cycling in particular, if you can come up with a reasonable mechanism, let’s hear it and I might support it. However for now those are covered under the general employee levy deducted from your pay or charged annually to the self employed. That is a separate fund from the motoring fund, and changes to the motoring levy has no impact on that levy, at least not directly.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Plum, just in case you don’t get my full drift, I’m no fan of government run anything, and I think all health and insurance should be privatized. Its the only workable way. Everything else eventually ends in bankruptcy.
State funded health and insurance schemes are really just a means for the hard left to undermine the democratic processs.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:56 am
“Odd how the usual “individual rights” brigade seem to want motorcyclists to bludge off other peoples ACC premiums.”
How the hell can anyone rational get it so wrong????
November 19th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Ed Snack:
In a year on a motorcycle in Auckland roads I have been in three accidents. None have had any ACC claims or injuries associated with them. (Except for a bit of pride)
1. When a motorist (Painters’ van) sideswiped me in normal traffic. I was in the left lane, he didn’t look or indicate and pushed me onto the sidewalk.
2. When a truck did not see me despite me (a) weaving slightly to break the line of sight effect of a headlight and (b) wearing a bright, orange vest for additional visibility and (c) us being on a straight, level road in normal morning traffic. I had to do an emergency stop and in the resulting skid dropped the bike at about 5km/h (How embarassing)
3. When a motorist took offense at a motorcyclist being in front of him and driving at a normal speed, decided to race up from behind and overtake at approximately 80km/h in a 50km/h zone. Unfortunately for me, he did not notice the vehicle parked in the left lane and missed me by about 10cm. And, when I stopped next to him at the lights to ask him what that was about, he decided assault and battery would be a good idea, then ran a red light with me on the ground.
I took the time to do the appropriate safety courses. I went through all the educational programs I could find, because it is a dangerous form of transport – make no mistake about it. If you look at Kiwi Biker, you will see mentor programs and courses run for free, by experienced bikers every week in most of the major centers. There are a lot of options for motorcyclists.
If anything, my time on a bike has made me a better driver and rider overall, because I am now more aware of the general stupidity of cagers who, once they shut the door, lose the ability to indicate, obey the traffic rules and generally think themselves invincible. You learn to react before that dipshit on his mobile phone with a cigarette dangling from one hand changes lanes without indicating. You learn to watch and plan your escape routes.
From personal experience I would contest that motorcyclists are at fault. As a rule, the group I have met and interacted with are fairly responsible and educated riders. There are, of course, the total idiots.
However, I accept the risk of being on a motorcycle. I pay for that risk myself. I do not want to be used as a mechanism for funding other people’s inability to take care of themselves. I make my own choices in life and I pay my own way.
Least, I want to. But, it seems that others want me to cover their costs. I’m not happy about that.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“I don’t believe in banning things just because they may be bad for you.”
Yes, but then proceed to hike the ACC levy so much, making the price unaffordable to some. That’s the brilliant logic from Nick Smith, the Green fifth-columnist disguised as cabinet minister.
Ridiculous.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Pascal.
You and every other biker has missed the point. ACC is NOT and never has been about who is at fault. It is ONLY about who has accidents and claims and how much those claims cost.
I would also add that a surgical theatre nurse I know tells me that they have a different name for motorcycles – “donorcycles”. That says it all about why the higher ACC levies are suggested.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Pascal, as awful as the events sound, anecdotes are not data (though I have temptation to answer, “Hey, was that YOU on that motorbike, bloody fool driver you are, and you can’t take a punch…). I have a few horror stories as a cyclist and a motorist myself, and what’s more a few about motorcyclists causing accidents. I’m of the long term view that competition is good for almost anything (although monopoly suppliers might disagree), but short to medium term we have ACC in more or less the form it is in. Making it better reflect relative risks where feasible makes sense to me.
I believe that the approach has worked to a degree in the Employer levy. Industries with high accident rates like construction and forestry pay higher levies. There is a scheme to sort of self insure, in partnership with ACC, I know companies in that scheme and it really does impact how seriously they view workplace safety and accident prevention. That would not work if everyone paid a uniform rate unrelated to their relative risk.
I’m not sure how much an increased levy will impact motorcycle road safety though. The Employer levy example work because the cost is ongoing and managing costs is a big part of business. Personal responsibility is a bit harder to influence, but maybe it will make some bikers think just a bit more about safety in situations that they are in control of, like that 35 km corner at 100 km/h, or maybe that wheel stand as you overtake me at 160+km/h, just before drifting wide on the next corner and collecting an oncoming car. With that sort of behaviour, maybe not, but it is a start.
To just start on a related thought, I can’t see an easy way to privatize the individual account without a host of issues. At present we pay a relatively low premium of I think 1.7% on average (happy to be corrected, I know it has a ceiling), and that covers all non-work non-motoring accidents. If we allow private competition (mandatory insurance, choice of providers), what is an effective way of assessing risk ? Self declared activities is not, I suggest, very reliable, and how do you enforce compliance. Will almost everyone declare that they are a quiet homebody who hardly ever goes out and is not a “home handyman” or the like ? And what would you do if they injured themselves playing rugby on a bicycle up a ladder insecurely wedged against the side of a barn (apart from congratulate them on their versatility) ? Can you refuse cover, limit the payout, charge them an excess ? Almost any way you do it, the taxpayer picks up the tab unless you take the unrealistic approach of denying treatment. Anyone have any good thoughts ?
November 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
And yet insurers are able to set their premiums for risk when it comes to property insurance, including Vehicles.
DF doesn’t want to subsidise the cost of MC injurys which is totally fair, however he does want responsible low risk owners to subsidise those who have poor skills or judgement.
And that is the problem with ACC. No matter how safe my practice is at work or on the road I have no way to minimise my personal cost and neither does anyone else. So there is no incentive to act responsibly.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This needs a bit of thought rather than the rave you presented. For instance I am sure a big proportion of the motor cycle accidents were actually CAUSED by the unsafe driving of motorists. Therefore I can see a case for the general motoring public to bear some of the costs of accidents with cyclists. On a darker note the deaths of young motor cycling men are a good source of transplant material including hearts. So there is a public good in motor cycle accidents.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I am LOVING this ‘change’. I have to pay an extra $200 to ride my 49cc Moped the 8km daily round trip to work – which I have done for years without a single accident. I am no longer allowed to talk on my phone while stuck in traffic or I face losing my drivers licence. Loving it. My $10 a week tax cut bribe I got in 2008 has been evaporated by of shed load of new taxes. Awesome. Go government go! I’m still waiting for all those promises that were made for diabetics before the election (I have young family members with type 1), but other things are more important than keeping election promises. Keep blaming the gobal economic crisis. That won’t get tiresome at all. Just blame others and do nothing. Either National is going, or MMP is going next election.
I am feeling very let down by this government. I really hope in the next 12 months they can actually show me what they have done, and what they are going to do for me.
And by the way, every single motorcyclist I have spoken to who has been involved in an accident have stated that they have not been at fault. So on this logic, bicycles and skateboards who use public roads should have to pay this tax as well.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
excusesofpuppets:
Most people would seek to escape blame.
However, motorcyclists have a stigma attached to them. Despite being a normal, average citizen with no criminal convictions, no alcohol or drug related issues or any real vices (Smoking doesn’t count, does it?
) you walk into a shop or a mall with your gear on and a helmet under your arm and people look at you as if you’re a criminal and will treat you significantly worse than if you’d walked in wearing slacks and a t-shirt.
Personal observation.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The answer is to bring private coverage into the ACC scheme. If motor-cyclists can find cheaper coverage then they would be free to take it. Otherwise it is unfair to force those make safer choices subsidise those who make less safe ones. This applies to those who choose high-injury sports, too.
One advantage of having ACC is that there could be levies on over-all contributions to accident injury costs in the country, and thus dampen overall premiums charged. The obvious place to start with this is an ACC levy on alcohol which is without doubt a huge contributor to injury costs in the country, through illegal and legal drink driving, through injuries from violence, and through accidents to which alcohol has contributed in other ways.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
And by the way, every single motorcyclist I have spoken to who has been involved in an accident have stated that they have not been at fault.
Every motorist and no doubt every pedestrian, worker or other person involved in an accident says the same thing.
Maybe they are all “accidents”.
So on this logic, bicycles and skateboards who use public roads should have to pay this tax as well.
Damned straight!
I would like to see the figures with the ongoing weekly payments made to surviving children, spouses etc. taken out (these should be the responsibility of the welfare system not ACC) and the figures broken down into the classifications of ACC tax levels as I suspect the increase in entirely inappropriate motor-scooters due to cheap running costs has distorted these figures.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The problem here is the one size fits all socialist clap trap way ACC is run. No other form of compensation/insurance is based on one size fits all for either funding or benefits.
Simple solution – insure the person not the vehicle. High rish individuals pay more – this stuff is not rocket science.
I have a 1,000CC motorcycle – I love riding it. I have a 3 bicycles – 1 road and two mountain bikes. I have a car…. but hey I can only be on any one of them at a time.
(oh BTW – the 1,000CC motorcycle is not dangerous at all – riding it stupidly is)
November 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The only problem with allowing competition or a CTP system is that there is instantly a problem in identifying who pays – thus we return to “at fault” investigations – not that that is necessarily a bad thing. Also, will we be able to opt out if we can prove we have the means to pay in the event of an accident?
Either we have a reasonable ACC scheme and keep no fault, or open it to competition and get rid of no fault – it works in Australia.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Jack5
Would not be popular and is not status quo – will not happen under National.
You do however touch on the root of the problem, ACC is collected in ways that are easy to administer rather than in ways that actaully make sense. This ‘ease of administration’ is always a feature of state run monopolies. Why would you worry about running the system in a fair way when you have no competition and it’s all about just getting [x] amount of revenue with the least cost.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
On the subject of the 1,000CC motorcyle risk vs the bicycle… I think nothing of passing cars down Alexander road when I ride my bicycle over Mt Vic on the way home. It’s cool to wing past them at about 65kph when they are wondering WTF to do about a bicycle fanging it past them – I simply wouldn’t do that on the mototcycle and yet on the motorcycle I have a shit load more protective gear than when I’m commuting on the bicycle.
Tell me again why motorcycles are getting hit with levy increases – Oh no – cancel that I remember now – it is an easy place to collect the revenue.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
DPF…”incentives to reduce the number of motorcycle accident”
Increasing acc levies here will only reduce the number of motorcycle accidents by reducing the number of motorcyclists. There is no extra incentive to drive safer if you drive a motorcycle. If the nats are going to target groups then they should do it properly by allowing individual underwriting based on risk (eg, driver history, age, cycle type etc), and it should be for all types of transport. This change is an arse, it is in no real way going to change peoples driving habbits, and it is all about targeting a minority group to avoid the wrath of the majority. A typical gutless move by national and john key.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It would certainly help if we actually taught people to drive or ride properly prior to giving them a licence. By doing this we would have far less accidents. Take for example getting a Private Pilots Licence. You have to demonstrate that you can handle the aircraft stalling, be able to perform a forced landing, handle engine failure after takeoff etc etc.
However you are not even taught how to handle a basic slide (Skid) in a car prior to getting a licence, let alone how to brake, accelerate or turn corners correctly etc. Yet they still try and convince us that speed kills, which is rubbish! Incompetent drivers kill and we have far too many of them in NZ.
Motorcyclists also would greatly benefit with some tuition by an experienced rider in a car park to check that they can handle the basics prior to getting a licence.
I understand pedestrians receive a greater payout from ACC in regards accidents than Motorcyclists do, so how do they intend to recoup from this people group?
Finally wasn’t ACC set up as a non fault regime? If so why are we beginning to target sector groups?
I am charged differently from my type of employment, but not according to my means of transport or the sport I choose to pay. Let’s keep it simple and shut ACC down and let private companies pick it up. Anything Govt gets involved in ends up very expensive with only a few paying for the privilege of many.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
gazzmaniac
return to “at fault” investigations – not that that is necessarily a bad thing
It would have the advantage of putting the “cost of risk” on the person who is taking the risk. Not the innocent person who is hurt as a result of the stupidity of others.
I’m all for it.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
GJ
Exactly. People who ride mountain bikes are a classic example of how skill mitigates risk. Like the private pilot example you mention. You learn to handle the machinery in a variety of circumstances.
I was riding my motorbike over the Rimutucka’s a year or two back, Coming around one of the top corners I lost my back wheel on a slippery patch. I wsn’t going hard out and I managed to recover it (heart rate hitting about 300 bpm for a few moments as I climbed all over the bike trying to keep it between me and the road). Later that night I saw on the news that two motorcyclists had been hospitalised because of a diesel spill…. what saved me – luck and mountain bike skills. (oh and the fact I wasn’t going hell out like I might have been if I were 20 years younger)
November 19th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Pascal.
The point is that you CHOOSE to ride a vehicle that is very easily hidden in blindspots. You CHOOSE to ride a vehicle that is likely to do you exponentially more damage in an accident than your caged brethren.
The basic fact is, that every time you get on that bike, you are fully aware that you are taking your life into your hands. Fault aside, why should other people be penalised for your choices?
BTW, In my days as a motorcyclist, I found that steel cap boots were a great antidote to rabid, ignorant motorists.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@GJ
Actually you have to successfully pass a handling course before you are allowed to even sit your learner motorcycle license.
Pretty much this ACC change is the straw that broke the donkey’s back for many motorcyclist, who have for years had to accept anti-motorcycle developments (i.e. cheese cutters).
Also consider that with the new registration fees, a rider would need to get at least three tickets for missing rego each and every year, before the costs of not registering a bike will outweight the benefit of not paying it. I know I won’t be paying it anymore after my next rego expires…
Motorcyclists in general have a healthy disregard for authority, so you can safely assume Wednesday’s protest was not the end, but just the beginning.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Motorcyclists could always register their bikes in Queensland and ship them back to NZ – no warrant necessary for a rego in QLD, as long as you keep the rego up to date. CTP is now half the price of ACC.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
In my years of bike riding I only ever fell off twice. Once on the Desert Road when it got closed a few minutes after I rode through Waiouru. I came up on a corner at about 20kph and just slid off the road on ice. Not really a crash. The other time was corner of Square/Broadway in Palmy. Pulled up at lights and put my foot down onto a big oil spill and it shot out from under me and I fell on my side with bike on top of me. Now that WAS embarrasing.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“over 10 years the number of motorcycles had gone from 60,500 to 97,000 and injury claims from 871 to 5044.”
These figures, if correct, make it pretty plain what is going on. Rising fuel prices have caused a big increase in the number of motorcyclists and it is the inexperienced ones who are crashing and hurting themselves.
That being the case, why are the increased fees not being targeted to the inexperienced?
If you take a look in downtown Wellington on an average working day there are a pretty large number of bikes parked in various place but I’m struggling to think of a news report of a motorcyclist being killed on the way to or from work. This suggests to me that it’s not the motorcycles that are especially dangerous, but the way that some people ride them recreationally.
“The question about distance travelled by motorcycles is a good one. But the answer would make motorcycles look even worse on an accidents per km basis. Motorcyles do much less km’s per year than cars – just look at the km’s for used motorcylces on TradeMe.”
Sure, that is true in a lot of cases but not all. I own two vehicles, a 1995 motorcycle and a 1995 car. The motorcycle I bought new and it now has 120,000 km. The car I bought in 2001 with 100,000 km already on it and it has now done 230,000. It’s true that the car has been accumulating kms a little faster than the bike, but the difference isn’t huge and I’m the only one who rides the bike while a former gf put a huge number of kms on the car.
If you look at…
http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=abmw
http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=agm996
…you’ll see that in the last three years while I’ve been single the bike has done 20,000 km while the car has done only 14,000.
It’s true that there are a lot of low-mileage bikes on TradeMe (and in dealer’s showrooms). But there are also a lot that accumulate the same kind of use as cars and that don’t change hands very often at all.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
On the subject of motorcycle crashes, it’s hard not to laugh at the irony of this one:
http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/local/news/acc-levy-protesters-in-bike-collision/3906571/
Yes indeed. A group of bikers returns from the ACC protest, one misses his turnoff, stops, then pulls out into the line of traffic right in front of a fellow biker, causing both to crash and be transported to hospital! Lousy timing, don’tcha think?
November 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The statistics are here – http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/ – they have crash rates as well as numbers.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
brucehoult
Talking to the chaps in the bike shops from time to time and different people have different opinions. One thing seems constant in the discussion. A lot more scooters on the road, a lot more first time riders. I think you are onto it.
To hard to levy it on a rider, easier to double multi-dip by having all vehicles paying. To apply a learners loading via the bikes would put the burden on the scooters and the small bikes (50cc-250cc). This sends a big bad message – about buying bigger bikes to avoid the learners fees. Of course easily solved if ACC was levied on a person rather than an object a person may use from time to time.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Numbers count right? In this brave new world of personal accountability and responsibility (which MUST have only been invented after 1980 apparently…)
here’s some numbers:
The combined car & bike payout claims for 2008 was only $270,828,000.00
$270,828,000.00 / 2,681,461 = $101 per vehicle
Hell, lets double that to move towards a fully funded model in a reasonable timeframe and we’ll call it good OK?
Oh wait…
We already HAVE!
November 19th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Heard a good suggestion
Every year a driver should have to purchase an insurance card (could just be a tag on their license), as they could only drive one vehicle at a time it would just cover themselves. If they have had speeding tickets, dangerous driving or drink driving etc. then their cost would rise proportionally if they attended safety training or had a long unblemished record then their costs could drop.
Yes you would still get cross subsidisation but the costs of an individuals actions would be more clearly seen.
This could also cover tourists
November 20th, 2009 at 3:32 am
What about ACC levies and registration charges for the pleasure boat community. Any ideas of the cost of SAR Services, ACC cover and provision of other services for maritime activities. RNZAF Orion SAR costs are mind blowing. Coastguard provides an admirable service on a shoestring.
We don’t even have a registration system for pleasure boats
I can hear the wailing from this pampered community already if any suggestion of user pays is made.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:37 am
I don’t object to registering pleasure craft so long as sailing yachts are excluded. There is a vile conspiracy behind the increases … it is the parking authorities who want a cut becasue motorcyclists mostly don’t pay parking fees. I’m glad my sense of balance is threatened after seventy-five years of accident free riding bikes and motorcycles so I’m not temped to get another bike.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:59 am
senzafine:
They shouldn’t be. Have you been reading my posts?
I do not want other people to be penalised for my choices.
I do not want to be penalised for other people’s choices.
I want to pay my own insurance and not be penalised for other people’s choices by being forced into ACC.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:04 am
GJ:
Before a motorcyclist can even sit their Learners’ license test they must pass a basic handling test. It takes about an afternoon where you are taught basic principles, have to demonstrate your ability to do a precision stop from ~40k/h with your front wheel coming to a rest in a space somewhere between an A3 and A4 page, cone weaves, etc.
Most centers that provide the basic handling test have a low cost learner’s programme as well to take new riders out on the road, with bike to bike comms (usually) and teach them the tips and tricks for being on a bike.
I wonder what cagers have to do to get their learner license at what, 15, and strap into a healthy Aussie V8 or a rice racer? Oh that’s right. Sit a multiple choice pen and paper quizz.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Krist on a stick – ACC proposes to charge motorcycle riders more because they suck more ACC money and the great unwashed protest and then the govt backs off.
Chances of balancing the budget and increasing savings rate in NZ, preventing NZ Inc becoming NZ Farms (subsidiary of the PRC), zero.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:25 am
expat:
Answer is simple. The government stops trying to be the nanny state and pay for everything. Let us do it for ourselves.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am
To people like senzafine who espouse opinions like this “The point is that you CHOOSE to ride a vehicle that is very easily hidden in blindspots. You CHOOSE to ride a vehicle that is likely to do you exponentially more damage in an accident than your caged brethren.” then I ask what car do you drive, does it have a 5 star safety rating? Do you choose to burden everyone else with your decision to use a less than optimally safe vehicle?
If you advocate charging motorcyclists more you have to also support charging more to register cars, vans etc with low safety ratings. Let’s see how car divers bleat when the system is turned on them.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“But if you choose to drive a motorcycle, then you should at least cover the costs of the greater accident risk. At the moment car drivers massively subsidise the cost of ACC for people who choose to drive a far more risky form of transport.”
And I (as a motorcyclist) subsidize the cost of ACCC for people who choose to drive a far more risky form of transport (bicycles); or who skateboard or play casual sports or any other number of activities.
But the risk issue is a red herring: its not supposed to be about risk. Its supposed to be a scheme where everyone pays a little bit equally that combined is enough to cover all the claims.
If this is unaffordable for the state, then let me go to a private insurer, as I have done and still do while living overseas. The insurer will do the risk calculation for my particular circumstances and I pay accordingly. I can fully insure myself (comprehensive) in Singapore for around $400 and while in W Australia, for less.
In NZ I have to pay an ACC levy bluntly calculated on the total number of accidents somehow involving a bike. My skills, my experience, my training, my motorcycle size and type, all this counts for nothing. That’s whats wrong.
November 21st, 2009 at 5:32 am
Many of the statistics you need for Motorcycle crashes can be found here:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf
This includes who was at fault (actually the motorcyclist most of the time, despite their usual claims)
Oh and if it is risk per km or time unit travelled you are after check out this:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Riskontheroad2008.pdf
Which again shows that motorcyclists are by far at the most risk of being in an accident (both per time unit and per km) – even considerably more than cyclists (although they are the 2nd most risky)
So, they are in accidents more, and are often at fault. Seems fair that they pay their way, user pays and all that you know (rather than being heavily subsidized like at the moment).