Liability only or full coverage

[daletournier]

I'll stick with the land transport theme as the riskiest part of my travels.

While cruising asia it's very common for yachties to hire motorbikes, 5 bucks a day and your away.

I've owned 14 high powered bikes and those scooters terrify me in Asia, I've seen bad accidents, it's very common. Cruisers are way to nonchalont when it comes to the risk involved with getting around on these things.

The other problem in some parts of Asia while riding these scooters is, if you have an accident, even if it's not your fault,its your fault! You are a foreigner, if you weren't there the accident wouldn't of happened......dont try to apply western logic, that's not how it works.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed. It’s just business. And yes, the analogy is not perfect. In fact BOTH parties in the insurance bet don’t want the event to happen. It’s just that one party (the insurance company) has much better knowledge of their actual risk, and so can usually ensure they win.



And that’s fine for you. You are someone who’s risk tolerance is low. Most people take far greater risks on a routine basis without even thinking about them. But it all depends on the individual. And of course personal circumstances make a huge difference.

........

I find that an interesting conclusion to make about me. Guess it could be correct, but being 40,000 miles into a double-handed circumnavigation (2/3 complete and still sailing) not many of my land acquaintances seem to come to that conclusion.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by daletournier

This is sort off topic ,but we are talking risk.

IMO the greatest risk I take while cruising is public transport while ashore.

The first bus I got on in Trinidad 5 weeks ago crashed in the rain, other than sore leg I was fine. Today another crazy mini bus driver in the rain drove in such a way that i got of earlier than intended.

Whenever someone asks me what's the most dangerous encounter we've had cruising, I always tell them about the Panama City taxi driver watching a Spanish sub-titled Western on a flip down screen while driving in insane traffic.

The island scooter thing amazes me that more cruisers/tourists don't get killed or injured.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I find that an interesting conclusion to make about me. Guess it could be correct, but being 40,000 miles into a double-handed circumnavigation (2/3 complete and still sailing) not many of my land acquaintances seem to come to that conclusion.

Yup … who’s funnier than humans .

But this is kinda my point. Many of us (too many) seem to have a decreasing ability to assess actual risk. Our rich societies teach us we can usually avoid many risks through safety and techniques. And then we’re taught we can buy ourselves out of many through insurances. We get distorted views of the world through the boob-tube (or the yoob-tube), so we think things like crime and terrorism are actual risks, while completely ignoring the real risks like driving or even walking in a typical North American urban area.

Originally Posted by daletournier

I'll stick with the land transport theme as the riskiest part of my travels.

While cruising asia it's very common for yachties to hire motorbikes, 5 bucks a day and your away.

I've owned 14 high powered bikes and those scooters terrify me in Asia, I've seen bad accidents, it's very common. Cruisers are way to nonchalont when it comes to the risk involved with getting around on these things.

The other problem in some parts of Asia while riding these scooters is, if you have an accident, even if it's not your fault,its your fault! You are a foreigner, if you weren't there the accident wouldn't of happened......dont try to apply western logic, that's not how it works.

Yup, these sound like real risks to me.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m really surprised by the proportion of liability-only in the poll. I know the numbers of respondents are too low to be statistically sound, but when I ran my insurance poll a couple of years ago the number of liability-only was down around 15%. Here it is almost 42%.

Makes me wonder if the apparent increasing cost of boat insurance has people abandoning full coverage in favour of the far less expensive liability-only option.

I would imagine it has absolutely nothing to do with cost but more to do with the insurance companies policies.

For example many international insurance companies based in the EU will not offer hull insurance if the boat travels outside of the continental Europe, and some won't even cover islands such as Maderia, Azores, Canaries etc...

Those that will insure outside the EU won't do it for boats worth less than a set amount, usually between £100,000-150,000. Then they won't insure for crossing the Atlantic, those that will, provided the boat is worth over the set amount, want a survey and rig check once you reach the otherside.

Hence it is pretty easy to be in a situation where it is impossible to buy hull insurance

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yup … who’s funnier than humans .

But this is kinda my point. Many of us (too many) seem to have a decreasing ability to assess actual risk. Our rich societies teach us we can usually avoid many risks through safety and techniques. And then we’re taught we can buy ourselves out of many through insurances. We get distorted views of the world through the boob-tube (or the yoob-tube), so we think things like crime and terrorism are actual risks, while completely ignoring the real risks like driving or even walking in a typical North American urban area.



Yup, these sound like real risks to me.

Mike I would argue to some degree that our nanny states are dumbing down society which possibly results in greater risks?

Due to a indoctrinated "non responsibility " mind set we no longer assess risk well.

What I enjoy alot about traveling in non western countries is I have to be responsible for my well being.

Here's an eg, in Australia if you are walking down a foot path you know there is no 6 ft holes suddenly going to appear, you lose the awareness nessacary to asses non perfect walk ways. When I was first in Labuan Bajo in 2010 there were many very big holes in the pavement, I'm talking leg breaking drops, if you fall in theres no one to blame, you should of looked, theres no signs, no one to sue.

From experiences like the above I'm much more competent at assessing risk. When walking around the boat yard etc here in Trinidad I find myself being aware of my environment without actually knowing it. Getting off the bus yesterday 2 stops early because he was driving to fast in the wet and none of us had seat belts is another eg, I've already had one bus crash here my assessment was its safer to walk the last km.

We are losing vital skills due to the state taking responsibility or "it's someone else's fault".

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Whenever someone asks me what's the most dangerous encounter we've had cruising, I always tell them about the Panama City taxi driver watching a Spanish sub-titled Western on a flip down screen while driving in insane traffic.

The island scooter thing amazes me that more cruisers/tourists don't get killed or injured.

I'm not sure how accurate the below is:

You can expect therefore that about 6,000*motorbike*drivers are severely injured every year in*Bali. Minor injured ( d.i.y. bandage, one visit to clinic or doctor) comes at a rate of 2 to 1 to that number, so there are about 12,000 minor injured*motorbike*drivers every year in*Bali.Oct 19, 2018

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Mike I would argue to some degree that our nanny states are dumbing down society which possibly results in greater risks?

Due to a indoctrinated "non responsibility " mind set we no longer assess risk well.

What I enjoy alot about traveling in non western countries is I have to be responsible for my well being.

Here's an eg, in Australia if you are walking down a foot path you know there is no 6 ft holes suddenly going to appear, you lose the awareness nessacary to asses non perfect walk ways. When I was first in Labuan Bajo in 2010 there were many very big holes in the pavement, I'm talking leg breaking drops, if you fall in theres no one to blame, you should of looked, theres no signs, no one to sue.

From experiences like the above I'm much more competent at assessing risk. When walking around the boat yard etc here in Trinidad I find myself being aware of my environment without actually knowing it. Getting off the bus yesterday 2 stops early because he was driving to fast in the wet and none of us had seat belts is another eg, I've already had one bus crash here my assessment was its safer to walk the last km.

We are losing vital skills due to the state taking responsibility or "it's someone else's fault".

Completely agree, and good examples . I do think many of our societies have gone way overboard in their attempt to protect their citizens. And on the flip side, our societies way overblow some risks.

The former is mostly done out of some misguided sense of doing good. The latter seems purposely designed to drive certain public policy, and/or corporate profit.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Completely agree, and good examples . I do think many of our societies have gone way overboard in their attempt to protect their citizens. And on the flip side, our societies way overblow some risks.

Ain’t that the truth!

In New Zealand there is an almost overpowering desire amongst the authorities to have all deaths in the country attributable only to old age. If one person dies from an accident or disease in 10 years, the government will happily spend millions of $ to avoid that event happening again.

E.g. if a road accident happens on a section of road, there will be an enquiry to determine whether the speed limit should be dropped from 100km/hr to 80km/hr even though the accident may have been the only one on that section of road in 10 years caused by an unlicensed 16-year-old driving a high-powered vehicle whilst under the influence of narcotics, driving on the wrong side of the road.

And that desire cuts across all walks of life including boating.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Ain’t that the truth!

In New Zealand there is an almost overpowering desire amongst the authorities to have all deaths in the country attributable only to old age. If one person dies from an accident or disease in 10 years, the government will happily spend millions of $ to avoid that event happening again.

E.g. if a road accident happens on a section of road, there will be an enquiry to determine whether the speed limit should be dropped from 100km/hr to 80km/hr even though the accident may have been the only one on that section of road in 10 years caused by an unlicensed 16-year-old driving a high-powered vehicle whilst under the influence of narcotics, driving on the wrong side of the road.

And that desire cuts across all walks of life including boating.

I get your point, but as a foreigner using New Zealand roads as an example doesn't work too well for me. In most countries of the world when they build the road they build the shoulder at the same time. In NZ road shoulders just seem like a rare after thought on many of the countries road.
😒😒😒

[a64pilot]

Insurence is, beyond any shadow of a doubt gambling.
With life Insurence your gambling in dyeing, they are gambling on you living.

Now what drives boat Insurence and I believe auto Insurence to be so costly and so profitable is the vast number of vehicles that have money owed on them, and the creditor requires full coverage Insurence to insure their investment, no matter the cost, you must purchase it.
With boats I believe one factor that drives the rates so high is the fleets of charter boats that sit square in the middle of a hurricane zone and do little to prepare for a hurricane.
You would think that a Charter fleet would have a plan as in places on the hard with chain tie downs etc., but as I guess they often don’t actually own the boats, they don’t have as much to loose?
Never considered it before, but that would explain what to me seems a strange way to operate.
Their enormous losses are spread around to everyone, because the Insurence Co can’t lose money, if it does, it won’t be solvent for long.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

...And that desire cuts across all walks of life including boating.

I can’t comment on the specifics of NZ roads, but I think your point is well taken. As the old saying goes: Always be skeptical of people’s best intentions.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Insurence is, beyond any shadow of a doubt gambling.
With life Insurence your gambling in dyeing, they are gambling on you living.

Now what drives boat Insurence and I believe auto Insurence to be so costly and so profitable is the vast number of vehicles that have money owed on them, and the creditor requires full coverage Insurence to insure their investment, no matter the cost, you must purchase it.
With boats I believe one factor that drives the rates so high is the fleets of charter boats that sit square in the middle of a hurricane zone and do little to prepare for a hurricane.
You would think that a Charter fleet would have a plan as in places on the hard with chain tie downs etc., but as I guess they often don’t actually own the boats, they don’t have as much to loose?
Never considered it before, but that would explain what to me seems a strange way to operate.
Their enormous losses are spread around to everyone, because the Insurence Co can’t lose money, if it does, it won’t be solvent for long.

This is definitely true, my old insurance company literally told me this. Quite unfair I feel.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Insurence is, beyond any shadow of a doubt gambling.
With life Insurence your gambling in dyeing, they are gambling on you living.

Now what drives boat Insurence and I believe auto Insurence to be so costly and so profitable is the vast number of vehicles that have money owed on them, and the creditor requires full coverage Insurence to insure their investment, no matter the cost, you must purchase it.
.......

I don't see the gambling analogy as adding anything to the understanding of insurance. The companies are planning on making a profit and the customer is reducing their financial risk. Also, saying that the insurance companies are so profitable is just not consistently true - see Lloyds losses, one of the largest marine insurer.

Hurricanes, typhoons and wildfires drove Lloyd’s of London to steep losses for the second year running, though its chief executive said he expects a sharper focus on performance will bring the market back into profit this year.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ll...-idUKKCN1R80IF

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

...You would think that a Charter fleet would have a plan as in places on the hard with chain tie downs etc., but as I guess they often don’t actually own the boats, they don’t have as much to loose?
Never considered it before, but that would explain what to me seems a strange way to operate.
Their enormous losses are spread around to everyone, because the Insurence Co can’t lose money, if it does, it won’t be solvent for long.

Pretty typical of how most big business operates. Privatize the profits while passing the burden onto the general public or broader customer base. Seems like the perfect example of creating an externality for the business.