planes vs cycles

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
[...] As for an insurance underwriter, depending on the policy, there
will be more people paying for policies in airplanes than in motorcycles,
so
the costs is spread out too.

How do you figure that? Generally speaking, an insurance policy goes with
an airplane or motorcycle, not specifically the driver of that vehicle.
That is, you don't wind up with more policies for airplanes just because
there are more people riding in an airplane.

However, having the state spend money to address
road safety vs airway improvements would be an example of where the raw
numbers
rather than the "relative risk" is more important.

Yes, that would be another example.

Pete

Generally speaking, an insurance policy goes with
an airplane or motorcycle, not specifically the driver of that vehicle.
That is, you don't wind up with more policies for airplanes just because
there are more people riding in an airplane.


The insurance that each person aboard buys (i.e. health insurance, life
insurance, stuff like that, which covers some of the costs) spreads the cost
out, as does the insurance the airplane owner buys (which is partly based on
number of seats).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
The insurance that each person aboard buys (i.e. health insurance, life
insurance, stuff like that, which covers some of the costs) spreads the
cost
out, as does the insurance the airplane owner buys (which is partly based
on
number of seats).

Since the owner/operator/pilot of the vehicle most often winds up being
liable for passenger damages, passenger insurance doesn't spread the risk
out nearly as much as you appaer to be claiming.

As far as the number of seats in the airplane affecting the cost of the
insurance, that's exactly the kind of "passenger" risk calculation that the
insurance companies are doing that I'm talking about. You are just making
my point with that statement.

Pete

As far as the number of seats in the airplane affecting the cost of the
insurance, that's exactly the kind of "passenger" risk calculation that the
insurance companies are doing that I'm talking about. You are just making
my point with that statement.


Maybe we're saying the same thing different ways. I thought it would go
without saying that a crash that kills 300 is 300 times worse than a crash that
kills 1. My point was that it doesn't increase the likelihood by itself.

Now, if I were going to fly a jetliner, and one airline uses 30 seat airplanes,
and the other uses 250 seat airplanes, and they fly the same number of
passengers per year, and they each have one crash per year, I'd fly the smaller
planes. But this comes right out when you look at trips per year.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)