Motorcycle accident claims disputed

Press, 19 June 1979, Page 27

Motorcycle accident claims disputed

Christchurch motorcycle dealers disagree with an Accident Compensation Commission report which says that riders of big machines are more likely to be involved in accidents than are riders of machines of less than 125 cu. cm.

Mr Aiian Norfolk, of Norjo Motors, said the findings of the commission were completely opposite to his firm's experience. "T don’t really think that bike size comes into it.” he said. On the basis of work done in the firm’s own workshops, more smaller motor-cycles were involved in accidents than big ones. “The big bikes generally are ridden by older, more experienced men who can afford them,” he said. Mr T. R. McCleary, sen. of McCleary Motors, said that the information put out by the commission was completely contrary to statistics in other parts of the world. The chances of a motorcyclist’s being involved in an accident appeared to increase directly with the size of the cycle, and in terms of levies, owners of small machines might be subsidising those who owned the “big ones,” the commission said

These are among the initia’ findings of a survey of motor-cycle accident victims just published by the commission in its

journal, “A.C.C. Report.” Questionnaires were sent to all persons who had made claims for compensation as a result of a motor-cycle accident during the three-month period from April 1 to June 30, 1978. About 800 replies were received.

Comparing the number o f licensed motor-cycles in three different cu. cm. ratings with the distribution of accident claims, the survey showed that machines of engine size greater than 125 cu. cm. were involved in 63 per cent of the accidents recorded yet accounted for only 40’ per cent of licensed motor-cycles. Translated into accident frequency, this meant that one in every 109 motorcycles of the size was involved in the accidents recorded in the survey while only one in 353 cycles of engine size up to 60 cu. cm was involved, said the chairman of the commission (Mr K. L. Sandford). For 61-125 cu. cm. cycles, the rate was one in 208. The survey also compared the amounts paid out in compensation for the three different sizes of cycles with the amounts received from levies and found that, in effect, the owners of the smaller cycles appeared to be subsidising the owners of the bigger machines. While 77 per cent of the compensation paid was going to the riders of

cycles of more than 125 cu cm they were contributing only 63 per cent of the levy income. The riders of the 61-125 cu cm motor-cj’cles contributed 30 per cent of the levy income but received only 18 per cent of the compensation payments, w’hile the owners of the smallest cycles contributed 7.5 per cent of the levy income and received back 5 per cent.

Mr Sandford said: “The sample W’as admittedly a small one and in no way purported to be representative of the total motorcycling population. Nevertheless, it gives support to the policy of the Government last year in requiring higher levies from the owners of larger-sized motor-cycles. A second survey covering a different period will be needed before we can confirm this.”

Mr Sandford said this had been the first of a series of claims surveys the commission hoped to undertake and, as such, its findings had to be treated with a degree of caution. “While it has provided some very interesting results, we will have to back it up with further surveys before we can make any definite conclusions,” he said.

The survey also found that 50 per cent of acci-dent-compensation claims came from teenagers.