UPS lost my Bikeflights shipment
11-03-22, 02:50 PM
#176
Full Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by njkayaker
No.
Insurance exists to reduce risk. Lotteries aren't doing that.
Essentially, the point of insurance is to spread the risk (cost of a loss) across a population. That is, everybody is bearing the cost of small insurance payments to avoid a small risk of a large loss.
That service isn't going to be free.
The other thing you are missing is the issue of liability (reimbursing damage to other people's property).
One major point of requiring automobile liability insurance is to avoid having the person whose property is damaged from having to sue the responsible party to recover damages.
That is, it avoids the requirement of a civil suit and the risk of the person responsible not being able to pay damages.
That's a service too (which isn't going to be free).
Insurance exists to reduce risk. Lotteries aren't doing that.
Essentially, the point of insurance is to spread the risk (cost of a loss) across a population. That is, everybody is bearing the cost of small insurance payments to avoid a small risk of a large loss.
That service isn't going to be free.
The other thing you are missing is the issue of liability (reimbursing damage to other people's property).
One major point of requiring automobile liability insurance is to avoid having the person whose property is damaged from having to sue the responsible party to recover damages.
That is, it avoids the requirement of a civil suit and the risk of the person responsible not being able to pay damages.
That's a service too (which isn't going to be free).
"Essentially, the point of insurance is to spread the risk (cost of a loss) across a population. That is, everybody is bearing the cost of small insurance payments to avoid a small risk of a large loss."
Seriously, do you guys read any of my responses? I fully understand this and have already addressed it, as evidenced by my prior statement, which I will reiterate verbatim:
"Respondents, I am not saying we as a society shouldn't utilize insurance. It's probably better if everyone has slightly less money as opposed to most people having slightly more and a not insignificant percentage having their lives devastated."
"That service isn't going to be free."
Well, obviously.
11-03-22, 02:59 PM
#177
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,613
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3802 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
743 Posts
Originally Posted by amazinmets73
Seriously, do you guys read any of my responses? I fully understand this and have already addressed it, as evidenced by my prior statement, which I will reiterate verbatim:
Originally Posted by amazinmets73
"Respondents, I am not saying we as a society shouldn't utilize insurance. It's probably better if everyone has slightly less money as opposed to most people having slightly more and a not insignificant percentage having their lives devastated."
Originally Posted by amazinmets73
Not sure I follow your reasoning. Yes, obviously I'd like to recover the bikes. Doesn't change the fact the purchasing insurance is a losing proposition.
We are all aware (I would hope) that purchasing lottery tickets is on average a losing proposition by a significant margin. However, we can find numerous instances of individuals who've made a net profit playing the lottery. Does that invalidate the fact that lottery players lose money on average?
Same reasoning applies here. Yes, I may indeed have experienced negative variance, but purchasing insurance is still on average a losing proposition.
We are all aware (I would hope) that purchasing lottery tickets is on average a losing proposition by a significant margin. However, we can find numerous instances of individuals who've made a net profit playing the lottery. Does that invalidate the fact that lottery players lose money on average?
Same reasoning applies here. Yes, I may indeed have experienced negative variance, but purchasing insurance is still on average a losing proposition.
Last edited by njkayaker; 11-03-22 at 03:13 PM.
11-03-22, 03:44 PM
#178
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6058 Post(s)
Liked 9,171 Times
in
3,963 Posts
Originally Posted by amazinmets73
"Essentially, the point of insurance is to spread the risk (cost of a loss) across a population. That is, everybody is bearing the cost of small insurance payments to avoid a small risk of a large loss."
Seriously, do you guys read any of my responses? I fully understand this and have already addressed it, as evidenced by my prior statement, which I will reiterate verbatim:
"Respondents, I am not saying we as a society shouldn't utilize insurance. It's probably better if everyone has slightly less money as opposed to most people having slightly more and a not insignificant percentage having their lives devastated."
"That service isn't going to be free."
Well, obviously.
Seriously, do you guys read any of my responses? I fully understand this and have already addressed it, as evidenced by my prior statement, which I will reiterate verbatim:
"Respondents, I am not saying we as a society shouldn't utilize insurance. It's probably better if everyone has slightly less money as opposed to most people having slightly more and a not insignificant percentage having their lives devastated."
"That service isn't going to be free."
Well, obviously.
Financially, insurance does NOT leave "everyone" with "slightly less money." This statement that you keep repeating is just plain wrong. Incorrect. False.
Insurance provides benefits NOT JUST to claims recipients, but to ALL PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE IT. That is WHY they purchase it. The fact that you can't recognize it DOES NOT change the logic or reality.
I'm guessing that this lost bike (which could've been insured - d'oh!) might be the most valuable thing you own, in which case it may be an iota more difficult for you to understand why others might willingly insure their $50K cars and $500K houses. But it's really not that hard to understand. At least it's not for most people.
Last edited by Koyote; 11-03-22 at 03:51 PM.
11-03-22, 05:48 PM
#179
Full Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Koyote
You don't understand it, even though it has repeatedly (and in different terms) been explained to you.
Financially, insurance does NOT leave "everyone" with "slightly less money." This statement that you keep repeating is just plain wrong. Incorrect. False.
Insurance provides benefits NOT JUST to claims recipients, but to ALL PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE IT. That is WHY they purchase it. The fact that you can't recognize it DOES NOT change the logic or reality.
I'm guessing that this lost bike (which could've been insured - d'oh!) might be the most valuable thing you own, in which case it may be an iota more difficult for you to understand why others might willingly insure their $50K cars and $500K houses. But it's really not that hard to understand. At least it's not for most people.
Financially, insurance does NOT leave "everyone" with "slightly less money." This statement that you keep repeating is just plain wrong. Incorrect. False.
Insurance provides benefits NOT JUST to claims recipients, but to ALL PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE IT. That is WHY they purchase it. The fact that you can't recognize it DOES NOT change the logic or reality.
I'm guessing that this lost bike (which could've been insured - d'oh!) might be the most valuable thing you own, in which case it may be an iota more difficult for you to understand why others might willingly insure their $50K cars and $500K houses. But it's really not that hard to understand. At least it's not for most people.
Likes For smd4:
11-03-22, 06:47 PM
#181
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6058 Post(s)
Liked 9,171 Times
in
3,963 Posts
Originally Posted by amazinmets73
Nah, I have a couple of bikes worth more and my car is worth 2k or so.
Likes For Koyote:
11-03-22, 06:57 PM
#183
Full Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Koyote
You should come back to this thread when you own something that's worth insuring.
Likes For pdlamb:
11-04-22, 04:14 PM
#185
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,319
Mentioned: 216 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17215 Post(s)
Liked 3,962 Times
in
2,942 Posts
As far as shipping insurance. Most of the shipping damage I've encountered has been due to poorly packed items. And despite selling the insurance, the shipping companies are reluctant to reimburse for damages related to poor packing.
With computers, it is common to have all items controlled so they won't bounce around in the box, and the whole item surrounded by 2" of foam.
Bicycles seem to cram too much stuff into an undersized box.
Unfortunately it becomes a problem for E-Bay purchases where a buyer purchases an item with the expectation that it will be carefully packed and shipped to arrive intact. And a seller claims it was good when it left their control. Although I've had at least one item that I wondered if it was shipped broken. Why on earth would a seller have packed a power supply loose on top of a glass computer screen?
The OP's item was different since the label somehow wasn't scanning properly, and should have been replaced with a valid label.
With computers, it is common to have all items controlled so they won't bounce around in the box, and the whole item surrounded by 2" of foam.
Bicycles seem to cram too much stuff into an undersized box.
Unfortunately it becomes a problem for E-Bay purchases where a buyer purchases an item with the expectation that it will be carefully packed and shipped to arrive intact. And a seller claims it was good when it left their control. Although I've had at least one item that I wondered if it was shipped broken. Why on earth would a seller have packed a power supply loose on top of a glass computer screen?
The OP's item was different since the label somehow wasn't scanning properly, and should have been replaced with a valid label.
Likes For CliffordK:
