DulwichLondoner

Sue Wrote: > And I can't help but wonder what the primary age > children think when they see a completely clear > road and a load of adults standing like sheep > waiting for a red man to turn green. In Great Britain jaywalking is not an offence (it theoretically is in Northern Ireland, but is hardly ever enforced AFAIK). IMHO it should be. The fact that the US made it an offence due to pressure from the car lobby doesn?t mean the concept is wrong. In many European countries it is an explicit offence to cross against the red man, or to cross away from a designated crossing, if one is within a certain distance. Look at what the French came up with (brilliant, methinks): Realistically, nowhere in the world are there policemen stationed at every corner with the sole intent of catching out jaywalkers. These rules exist to deter dangerous behaviour, because people cannot be trusted to determine themselves what is safe and what isn?t ? that?s why we have rules in the first place. Oh, and also to help determine blame if a collision does occur. Lots of adults standing like sheep waiting for the green man are no different from cars standing like (pick your analogy?) waiting for the green light, even when the road is completely empty and it would be safe to run through the red light ? this is a scenario which does happen, not in central London at rush hour, but it does happen, even in London. When I am with my little daughter, I ALWAYS wait for the green man, even when the roads are empty, because I think it?s very important to set an example. When I am by myself, I admit I might sometimes cross against the red man, but only if visibility is excellent and no one is approaching. Practical example: do you know the corner between Dog Kennel Hill and Edgar Kail Way? Going from the East Dulwich station towards the Sainsbury?s, left side of the road, just after the small park, there is a traffic light. Lots of people cross when it?s red, but that?s dangerous, because they can?t see cars turning left from Dog Kennel Hill, and cars cannot see them before turning.

Looking to sell current property, but most likely next year. Why?

* The police have ended up facing charges for chases that ended in fatalities and this is as much for their own protection. * I get that, and I get that the police needs to protect itself. All I'm saying is that maybe the laws should be a little bit less scumbag-friendly. How does the rest of the world go about it? Genuine question. I'm hoping there is a more reasonable balance between the US, where the police can shoot you for no reason (especially if you're not white...), and here, where they basically never chase you.

Thanks!

As a motorcyclist (who uses a 10 kg Pragmasis chain at home - google it) I wouldn't be against making it compulsory to lock your scooter/motorcycle with some kind of chain or ulock, and fining people who don't. Fixing a motorcycle to street furniture is another matter, though. Motorcycle bays with anchors are very rare, and parking wardens have zero tolerance for those who park motorcycles even just an inch away from the bay, in order to secure them to some fixed object. How much would it cost the councils to equip more central London bays with anchors? Some bays in Chelsea and near Paddington have them already. Oh, and Westminster charges ?100 per year for the privilege of parking a motorcycle in their bays - maybe a small portion of that money could go towards the anchors? None of this will deter those who carry portable, battery-operated grinders to cut through chains, but at least it would be a start. Not chasing these distinguished gentlemen for fear they might hurt themselves is ridiculous; what is real and not ridiculous, however, is that chasing them may end up harming innocent bystanders.

The ED station isn't too bad because AFAIK all the trains that pass by stop there, so if you're next to the station they will be either accelerating or decelerating, ie slow either way. Plus being close to the new Charter secondary will be a plus for many. I have seen properties next to stations on the Clapham Junction to Croydon line, and those tend to be cheaper because they're much noisier from all the fast trains speeding by without stopping. However, this new build is literally next to the station, so there is a chance of hearing all the announcements. Oh, well, it's a free world, if others want to pay close to half a million for a one-bed there, it's their right! :) Also, asking price doesn't necessarily mean sale price!

I understand this was briefly discussed a few months back, but not since then (apologies if I may have missed more recent discussions). AFAIK they're building two new developments in the area: one is the so-called Tribeca, by the gym on Crystal palace road, and the other is literally next to the ED station - there will be a M&S simply food on the ground floor. Has anyone been in touch with the estate agent? Thoughts on the two developments? I saw ads of one-bed flats for ?475k at both. I understand new builds tend to cost a bit more, but that seems ridiculous. My benchmark is ? 480 to 550k for 2-bed flats, e.g. I have seen ads of decent 2-bed flats, with communal garden and parking space, in Hayes Grove (a few metres from the ED station) for ?530. That's the asking price - what they really sell for I don't know. Plus, while the Tribeca should at least have some communal green space, the other one is so close to the station -literally next to it - you can probably hear the announcements. Maybe I'm stingy, but I know I'd want a discount to tolerate noise from the station! It will be interesting to see if/when/how these units sell. I have seen other properties (not newbuilds) being discounted by 20% and still not selling. I imagine that, at the end of the day, with newbuilds it will all be driven by the kind of financing developers have in place, and therefore how low they can bear to sell.

It is theoretically possible that a 2015 bike has better security systems than a 2014 one - however it is not the case for the bike in question (Honda NC750X). I know the bike quite well, and I also talked at length with owners and dealers about the differences among the various years. There is no difference between the 2014 and the 2015 model. You really cannot even contemplate the remote possibility that some results may be nonsensical, can you? :) I'm going to ask again just for fun - after all, I asked multiple times without the honour of an answer, so I have no reason to believe this time will be any different: how can you be so sure that there is enough 'history' to justify every one of these results? Why do you place so much blind faith in these results? Even if there is some history, couldn't it be an example of just noise (spurious correlations)? Oh, not to mention that there most certainly was no history to justify why a new model was 3x more expensive to insure than the old one even though they were identical; I compared even the third party only, and it still came out as 2 to 3 times more expensive - note that with third party only any consideration on how likely to be stolen the new one was, cost of parts etc was totally irrelevant. Like I have said multiple times, the fact that insurance is barely profitable means that insurers are not earning squillions at our expenses. However, I simply find your blind faith in these black box models, and your unwillingness to admit that some results may be nonsensical, quite entertaining. I totally understand that results which may make sense st an aggregate level can lead to nonsensical results at the individual level; e.g. one model might penalise residents of a given postcode, because, at an aggregate level, they are riskier. Fine. But this also means that people living on the border between postcodes/boroughs may end up paying more simply if they move next door. There may not be a better approach, but let's please not pretend that the moving next door really makes someone a riskier motorist...

* 3 out of 4 of those examples are explainable * how?

@Penguin68, Did you even read what I have written? I totally understand that a 300kmh motorcycle like a Yamaha R1 will be more expensive to insure than a slow 125, even if I am a more responsible rider than many delivery boys riding around recklessly on their 125s. Or that someone living in Nowhereshire will pay less than a Londoner, simply because he?s less exposed to the risk of collisions and accidents in Nowhereshire. It might seem ?unfair? but that?s how insurance works ? pricing risk. I have never said these things are unfair or unjustified. What I have said is that insurance algorithms may sort of work decently in aggregate, but can and do spit out nonsensical results at the individual level. I have made several such examples (related to 2 rather than 4 wheels simply because that?s my experience): ? Cheaper and less powerful bikes being way more expensive to insure than considerably more expensive and more powerful ones ? The new version of a scooter, with the shape of the lights being the only real change, costing 3x more to insure than the old one. NB: not than the old one last year, but comparing two quotes obtained on the same day ? The 2015 model of a bike being cheaper to insure if declared in a garage than on the road; the 2014, the other way round (or viceversa, I don?t remember). ? The same insurer changing pricing daily. My point is that I very much doubt there is any kind of statistically sound evidence to support these price differences. I also said that I very much doubt there is statistical evidence to suggest that, if I am in a no-fault accident yet don?t claim, my insurance premium ?needs? to go up because I have become riskier. Do insurers really have data to suggest that if someone smashes into my car while it?s on my driveway, this makes me more likely to claim in the future? Even if I didn?t have nor am applying for comprehensive? I would LOVE to get my hands on this data and see for myself. If there was nothing I could have done to avoid it, then surely the accident suggests the area itself is somewhat risky, not that I am any riskier than my neighbour who parked his car nearby and wasn't hit purely because of luck? Don't the two of us present the same risk? You have repeatedly said things like ?it?s true?, that?s the way it is, etc, yet have failed to explain why. Like I said, either you are an actuary and work on this data directly, or you are simply placing some kind of religious faith in insurers. Is there a third explanation I am missing?

Thanks!

Asking the insurance company is a waste of time. You can only ever speak to call centre people on minimum wage who are trained to come up with some waffle to explain that the computer said so, so suck it up. It's not like you can speak to the actuaries who make the pricing models, and, even if you could, most algorithms are black boxes where you cannot really quantify the impact of a single parameter. I don't have a car, but other anomalies I have seen with motorcycle insurance were cheaper and less powerful motorcycles being much more expensive to insure than bigger, more expensive and more powerful ones; even for TPFT only (so cost and availability of parts shouldn't have been a factor). Also, some years ago I was considering buying a cheap Asian scooter, a Sym. A new model had just come out (identical to the old one except for some minor cosmetic changes; insuring the old one cost ca. ? 300, insuring the new one more than ?1k (same engine, same power, same everything except for the shape of the lights. Motor insurance has been barely profitable for years, so I'm not saying insurers are making squillions at our expenses. But let's please not say that their pricing is always sound, rational and justified.

@Rubik, glad to hear you're OK! @Penguin68, so you are telling me that enough data is available to suggest that those who have their cars smashed into, through no fault of their own, while they are parked, by some random idiot are riskier drivers, and are more likely to cost the insurer more money, even if they didn't have comprehensive and are not applying for a new comprehensive policy? You talk about the car exploding. How many cars explode after being hit? Especially at relatively low speeds, like those (hopefully) of residential back roads? I am sceptical to say the least. I cannot rule it out with absolute certainty but I am sceptical. The question, however, is always the same: how can you be so sure? Either you are an actuary in an insurance company, and have run the numbers yourself, or you are placing some semi-religious blind faith and trust in the insurers. I cannot think of a third explanation. Or are you telling me there is a statistically sound reason why a 2014 motorcycle is cheaper to insure if declared on the road than in a garage, while the same identical motorcycle, but which came out of the factory in 2015, is cheaper to insure in a garage than on the road? We could go on with similar other examples for ages but I'm hoping the gist of the message is clear. PS I remember an interview with a Fintech lender who said they had found "evidence" that people filling in the application forms all in upper case behaved differently to those who used lower case letters. If you have statistical training, and are used to working with large amounts of data, I believe you'll recognise this as one of the many examples where distinguishing noise from meaningful relationships is not straightforward. After all, if it were, we wouldn't see such huge differences among insurers.

@Penguin68, I think it is not fair because I struggle to understand what statistical evidence supports it. Charging a prudent 18-year old more than a 30-year old may not be "fair" but there may be a statistically sound reason to do it. Same for charging a Londonder more than someone who lives in Nowhereshire. But charging me more because an idiot smashed into my car while it was parked? Especially if I don't have comprehensive, don't claim, and therefore don't cost my insurer a penny more? Insurers should price risk, right? So if I didn't have comprehensive before, am not applying for comprehensive now, what does the insurer care? People could smash into my parked car every 6 hours , and it would still not cost the insurer a penny more! You continue to be convinced it is all statistically sound, yet you have not answered a single one of my questions. How do you know? Have you run detailed statistical analyses yourself? Or do you just "trust" the insurers? Out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with mid-sized to big data at all? Do you know what spurious correlations are? http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Anyone who has ever worked with large amounts of data knows all too well how difficult it is to distinguish noise from meaningful relations, especially when resorting to black-box models.

@TE44, I don't mean to be rude, but... are you just pulling random links from the internet, or do you have at least a vague understanding of what they mean? The BMJ article is about lack of transparency in scientific trials. The first author is Ben Goldacre, that I had already quoted as the author of Bad Science. You can also read aboutthe "All Trials" campaign. The point is that pharma companies are not transparent when it comes to clinical trials: if a trial fails to give the desired results, they don't say. AllTrials wants more transparency; a way could be forcing pharmas to declare the start of a trial, so that if they don't publish anything anyone can draw their conclusions. I have simplified a bit, but that's the gist of it. Unless I am missing something, I fail to see how this proves vaccines are dangerous. The second link is very generic and is about conflicts of interest. Again, how is it relevant??? Do you know that big pharma has influenced, financed or interfered with major studies on the safety of vaccines? Don't forget that most vaccines are not particularly expensive, and that Big Pharma has the potential to make more money treating unvaccinated people! What next? Any more totally unrelated and irrelevant links you feel the urge to share?

@Penguin68, you are assuming that no-fault accidents are always a statistically sound indicator that one is a riskier motorist and more likely to be involved in other accidents in the future. May I ask why you believe this? Have you run lots of statistical analyses on years of data to reach this conclusion? Common sense would suggest that this is not the case, that no-fault accidents are not always a reliable indicator of greater risk. I am, of course, happy to be proven wrong. I?ll be looking forward, for example, to hearing how an idiot smashing into the car parked on my driveway, or a driver hitting me from behind while texting, explain why I?d be more dangerous, or how these single isolated cases mean that I park or drive in statistically more dangerous areas. Especially if I don?t have comprehensive or decide not to claim, in which case this has not cost the insurer anything. You say: ?it is apparently true?. How can you be so sure? Motor insurance has been barely profitable for years, so I?m not saying that insurers are making extraordinary profits at our expenses (although the system could certainly be improved: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-car-insurance-industry-is-a-disgusting-racket/ ). All I am saying is that, when pricing is driven by back-box algorithms, there isn?t always a clear, statistically sound reason as to why two situations which are very similar are priced very differently ? sometimes it?s just a nonsensical result. None of the examples you mention, for example, come even close to explaining why the same bike would be cheaper to insure in a garage vs kept on the road depending on whether it came out of the factory in 2014 or in 2015. Also, I am not aware of many other industries where pricing can vary so wildly. Banks change their products all the time, one bank may lend to you while another may not, etc, but it?s very unlikely to find a lender that charges you 3 times as much as another for, say, a mortgage, whereas similar, if not greater, differences in motor insurance are not unheard of. PS Another beauty of our system is that insurers can legally refuse to pay for the consequences of a heart attack. Not all countries allow this. I assume you will tell me why it?s OK because it?s a free market, and how premiums would rise otherwise, right?

I suppose I was unclear. The example about the nonsensical price differences between garage vs open road were a simple example of how the pricing algorithms can spit out results which are, well, nonsensical. The algorithms may work decently in aggregate, but nonsensical results at the individual level are still very much possible. Not much we can do about it, TBH - let's just not pretend there is some exact science behind those price differences. As for the legal and regulatory system, well, insurance is a heavily regulated industry. It would be perfectly conceivable for a country to decide that motorists should not be penalised for no-fault accidents, and to enforce this. The UK doesn't do it - this doesn't mean doing it would be impossible, unfeasible, nor wrong.

@TE44, you have not even explained why YOU are against. Because of a gut feeling? Because you think the risks outweigh the benefits? How and why? Because an MIT computer scientist said so? Because a homeopathic ?doctor? said so? Not only do I disagree ? I completely fail to understand what your thought process is!

Here is a list of creationist scientists: https://creation.com/creation-scientists The fact that some people believe it doesn't make it true. There is no evidence to support their argument, and 99% of the scientific community has proven why they are wrong. Same with vaccines. It's a big world out there. Circa 7.5 billion people. Finding a few people that support some unfounded theory is not hard. Finding evidence for it, and finding support in the scientific community, that's what's hard. And for a reason.

@TE44, most of your links point to unavailable youtube videos. I'm sure it was the censorship of powerful multinationals, even though vaccines are cheap (UNICEF says it costs a few dollars to immunise a child in developing countries, from memory) and Big Pharma would make more money treating those who caught a disease because they had not been vaccinated. What seems glaring because of its omission, though, is any kind of through epidemiological study. See, the kind of sources supporters of a given argument quote speaks volumes about their reliability; in this thread we have seen links to a homeopath who quotes random comments from people on the internet and random newspaper articles, your link to the delusions of a computer scientist who "published" rants against vaccines in low-impact open access journals, and now these links. This is getting boring. Surely googling is not too difficult? Or, wait, maybe it is, because reliable sources against vaccines simply do NOT exist...?

No one? :(

@DaveR, the legal and regulatory systems are relevant to the extent they allow this (being penalised for accidents which were clearly not your fault) to happen. In some cases, an accident that was legally not your fault might have been avoided had you been more prudent. This is why motorcyclists and cyclists learn to ride defensively, i.e. assuming that every road user is an idiot whose only purpose in life is killing them: arguing it was legally not your fault will do little to help you get up from a wheelchair and move with your own legs. In other cases, it is pure bad luck and the accident was unavoidable. Someone smashing into my properly parked car. A drunk driver changing lane and hitting me. Another motorist hitting me from behind because he was texting. Etc. etc. Being penalised for this is, IMHO, unfair, not to mention statistically unsound: these things could have happened to anyone, there was nothing I could have done to prevent them, they happened to me because of bad luck, not because my behaviour was in any way ?riskier?. Oh, it is also ridiculous if I don?t make any claim (e.g. I don?t have comprehensive), and therefore my no-fault accident doesn?t cost my insurer anything. Again, the legal and regulatory framework allows this to happen. It doesn?t allow other kinds of discrimination (eg by race, religion, etc) but it allows this to happen. Yes, insurers use complex algorithms to price their policies. But they are black box models: it is effectively impossible to assess the impact of a single factor; they may work decently in aggregate, but on individual cases they can and do spit out nonsensical results. If I had had a penny for every nonsensical quote I received I?d be rich! Just recently, I was getting quotes for a 2014 and a 2015 motorcycle (NB: this specific motorcycle didn?t change between these two years). The 2014 model was cheaper to insure if declared in a garage (makes sense), the 2015 one was cheaper to insure if declared on the road than in a garage!!! All of this with the same insurer. This is the last one I remember, but over the years I have seen plenty such examples.

TE44 Wrote: > There is a long list of Doctors and scientists who > speak against vaccines No, there isn't. Like I said, the efficacy of vaccines has been a well-established scientific truth for a long time. Beg to differ? Fine. Could you then please be so kind as to share this "long list"? It is, after all, remarkable that the one and only "scientist" you have managed to quote so far against vaccines is a computer scientist (i.e. from an entirely different field!) who has "published" in "low-impact, open-access journals". Do you even know what low-impact, open access means? Look it up. Hint: not particularly reputable nor reliable. (To be clear: open access isn't necessarily bad, but predatory open access journals do exist). It's a bit like asking what scientist believes the Earth is flat, and quoting a linguist who has "published" something on his blog! Let me try again: how many SCIENTISTS share your "views" against vaccines?

And now, thanks to our brilliant legal system, the insurers of those poor car owners will be entitled to charge them more for years to come for a no-fault accident, even if they didn't have comprehensive and don't claim.

@TE44, Judgemental? I am not judgmental towards those who hold different religious, philosophical or political views. I am judgmental towards people who refuse well-established scientific truths. I am judgmental towards the Flat Earth Society (it does exist, and no, it?s not a joke ? look it up). I am judgmental towards creationists. I am judgmental towards those who believe in homeopathy. I am judgmental towards those who believe in chemtrails and other conspiracy theories. I am judgmental towards those who are anti-vaccines. @Lula, unfortunately you are right. Like I said I am very libertarian in my approach ? not to mention a strong fan of the merits of Darwinian selection :) My gripes are when: a) These beliefs cause harm to the rest of society or to helpless children b) Public money is wasted on any of this voodoo science For example, the Flat Earth Society is totally harmless. The anti-vaccine movement is not.