Marine insurance, going naked.

[atmartin]

So this can of worms is still open.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I agree. Most people seem to view mathematics as a foreign language, and way too many have no real understanding of basic statistics or probability. Of course, this ignorance is fostered by those who benefit: governments, various businesses like casinos, and insurance companies, just to keep this on the thread.

I doubt that this kind of disagreement can be settled through a better understanding of probability. For starters, there are always unreported or misreported incidents. Then there's the human element. No one here is as coolly rational about their own boat or well-being as a third party insurer playing the long game.

Once you get to the skinny tail of the distribution and the consequences are suitably dire, even a very low chance of such an outcome is terrifying. Meanwhile, your monetary loss in premiums over time pales in comparison. As you and others pointed out, insurance is essentially gambling, except it's driven by fear rather than hope. The "A" side of the mean, rather than the "B" side. Either way, it's an emotional subject.

Silly, but simple example: You are at a bar and a very tough-looking customer (biker, gangster, whatever) enters and you make eye contact. Most of us are going to look away and avoid a staring contest with such a person. What are the chances of them harming you? Probably very low. Likely, they're simply dressed that way and not a threat at all. Still, it's easier to swallow your pride than risk the tiniest chance of a beating.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You don't want to see data, you simply want to argue. I don't think any "data" is going to change your (closed) mind.

Wow … now you can read my mind . I think anyone reading this can see who has the closed mind.

I didn’t create reality. As terrible as it appears to seem to you, it’s not as bad as you think. Unless you’re suggesting to me and the USCG have somehow colluded to present the boating world as less scary that you keep saying it is.

I ask you, I beg you, I double-dare you … show me your datas that supports your assertions. I will look at them. If they are lacking, I will criticize them, but if they are good data they will stand the criticism.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by atmartin

I doubt that this kind of disagreement can be settled through a better understanding of probability. For starters, there are always unreported or misreported incidents. Then there's the human element. No one here is as coolly rational about their own boat or well-being as a third party insurer playing the long game.

Ah… a rational discussion. Thanks atmartin.

On the question of improved understanding of probabilities … no, probably not. But one can hope and strive for rationality over emotion.

I don’t expect anyone to be rational in the face of their own personal disasters, but before the fact I think we certainly can be. But I think you’re right; all we need to do is take our cues from the insurance rates for certain risks. Third-party liability is quite cheap. It’s priced that way b/c the risk is quite low.

Originally Posted by atmartin

Once you get to the skinny tail of the distribution and the consequences are suitably dire, even a very low chance of such an outcome is terrifying. Meanwhile, your monetary loss in premiums over time pales in comparison. As you and others pointed out, insurance is essentially gambling, except it's driven by fear rather than hope. The "A" side of the mean, rather than the "B" side. Either way, it's an emotional subject.

Yes, fully agree. It is driven by fear not hope. And it’s known we homo sapiens rate loss far greater than gain, so the fear of loosing something triggers a stronger emotional response than the prospect of gain. Insurance companies know this, but so can we. This is why we should look critically at any claim made by those who benefit from this fear of loss.

We may not always be able to resist it, or remain cooly rational, but we can know we’re being played.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Wow … now you can read my mind . I think anyone reading this can see who has the closed mind.

I didn’t create reality. As terrible as it appears to seem to you, it’s not as bad as you think. Unless you’re suggesting to me and the USCG have somehow colluded to present the boating world as less scary that you keep saying it is.

I ask you, I beg you, I double-dare you … show me your datas that supports your assertions. I will look at them. If they are lacking, I will criticize them, but if they are good data they will stand the criticism.

Pretty much proves my point!

[NevisDog]

I get it. Some want us all to have liability insurance because 'they' don't want to run the risk of 'them' being harmed by 'us' uninsured deadbeats. That's a perfectly rational and reasonable wish - 'they' want to minimise 'their' exposure to risk, however small, and they will never accept that 'us' being careful will eliminate that risk - correct again.

I can well understand that more uninsured boaters = greater risk for 'them'. 'We' are irresponsible because 'their' risk of financial loss is increased. It may well be a risk 'we' are prepared to take but 'they' are not, hence this endless argument.

However,
- parts of the world, there is no liability cover available;
- parts of the world, liability only is not available and the cost of comprehensive cover is out of all proportion to the perceived risk (at least for those able to assess risk rationally);
- parts of the world, the state takes care of the major part of the risk, leaving only a small financial exposure which can mainly be handled by self-insuring;
- parts of the world are so darned litigious that no one in their right mind would consider stepping outside their front door without maximum insurance cover.

Is that a reasonable assessment we can all agree on?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I get it. Some want us all to have liability insurance because 'they' don't want to run the risk of 'them' being harmed by 'us' uninsured deadbeats. That's a perfectly rational and reasonable wish - 'they' want to minimise 'their' exposure to risk, however small, and they will never accept that 'us' being careful will eliminate that risk - correct again.

I can well understand that more uninsured boaters = greater risk for 'them'. 'We' are irresponsible because 'their' risk of financial loss is increased. It may well be a risk 'we' are prepared to take but 'they' are not, hence this endless argument.

However,
- parts of the world, there is no liability cover available;
- parts of the world, liability only is not available and the cost of comprehensive cover is out of all proportion to the perceived risk (at least for those able to assess risk rationally);
- parts of the world, the state takes care of the major part of the risk, leaving only a small financial exposure which can mainly be handled by self-insuring;
- parts of the world are so darned litigious that no one in their right mind would consider stepping outside their front door without maximum insurance cover.

Is that a reasonable assessment we can all agree on?

Accurate summary. Works for me .

[JPA Cate]

Mike, et al,

One thing about those stats you posted is that while risk of fire was only at ~5%, half of the deaths occurred in the incidents with fires. Maybe this is why we have so many fire extinguishers and a fire blanket!

Ann

[atmartin]

I don't like being called a "deadbeat"

I doubt rwidman will accept that he isn't "able to assess risk rationally"

Trigger words!

[model 10]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Accurate summary. Works for me .

Us too.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by atmartin

I don't like being called a "deadbeat"

... or a fool, or any of the other terms used in this sometimes emotional discussion, but hey, we're all friends here! We all go boating.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by atmartin

I don't like being called a "deadbeat"
............... !

You are what you are. If you are never liable for an accident, you are not a deadbeat. If you are liable and do not or cannot make good your responsibility (pay the claim), then you are, in fact, a "deadbeat", deadbeat being defined as a person who walks out on his/her responsibilities.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.......... I ask you, I beg you, I double-dare you … show me your datas that supports your assertions. I will look at them. If they are lacking, I will criticize them, but if they are good data they will stand the criticism.

Here is your data:

You cruise into a nice anchorage, set your anchor and go ashore in your dinghy. While you are gone, your anchor breaks loose and your boat drifts towards another boat. The guy in the other boat tries to fend off your drifting boat but in the process, his arm is crushed. He not only needs $20K in surgery, but he worked as a piano player so now he is out of work and may never be able to work as a piano player again. He cannot support his pregnant wife and two children.

Will you be able to write that check?

At this point, that $100 per year for liability insurance is beginning to look pretty good isn't it?

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by rwidman

If you do not or cannot make good your responsibility then you are, in fact, a "deadbeat", deadbeat being defined as a person who walks out on his/her responsibilities.

Oh...so, my ex-wife.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Here is your data:

You cruise into a nice anchorage, set your anchor and go ashore in your dinghy. While you are gone, your anchor breaks loose and your boat drifts towards another boat. The guy in the other boat tries to fend off your drifting boat but in the process, his arm is crushed. He not only needs $20K in surgery, but he worked as a piano player so now he is out of work and may never be able to work as a piano player again. He cannot support his pregnant wife and two children.

Will you be able to write that check?

At this point, that $100 per year for liability insurance is beginning to look pretty good isn't it?

And if I never have an event, then that $100/year looks pretty bad, doesn’t it?

Ron, I ask this exactly as this reads. No judgement or insult intended: Do you understand the difference between anecdote (or made up) events vs statistically valid data?

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You cruise into a nice anchorage, set your anchor and go ashore in your dinghy. While you are gone, your anchor breaks loose and your boat drifts towards another boat. The guy in the other boat tries to fend off your drifting boat but in the process, his arm is crushed. He not only needs $20K in surgery, but he worked as a piano player so now he is out of work and may never be able to work as a piano player again. He cannot support his pregnant wife and two children.

Isn't that exactly why the piano player/sailor should carry insurance? To cover his risks while sailing? He's the only one able to accurately asses the risk and value of his sailboat and employment.

This actually happened to me. A large power boat lost control and smashed into my sailboat while I was at a fuel dock. The fuel was flowing, so I could not move my boat. I tried to fend off, but his boat was 40 feet of flybridges in a big wind. When I asked him about paying for damages, his reply was something like "not my fault" and "you've got insurance". Now I use gas cans to top up my tank.