What you have quoted is the wikipedia definition of risk, which demonstrates that you actually don't understand risk in this context, either, much like kawazoki.

Read down the page a bit and you will see the wiki definition of risk that is related to this context, although even then they talk about cumulative incidence, rather than incidence rate which would be the preferred measure. There could be several acceptable denominators, depending on what risk one wanted to estimate.

No, risk is any negative outcome. You e trying to put a figure on it, which is going beyond the dictionary definition.
What seems to be ignored by the clowns who drive around without insurance is the consequences of their actions on the locals. Not outlandish to come up with a scenario where one biker puts 50 locals in hospital or the grave

Totally agree Tony, but risk in this instance can actually be formally quantified as per my post above e.g. odds of injury per 100,000 km ridden. The odds will increase for various factors - and can also be quantified - e.g. foreign rider, no insurance (YES - why else to insurance companies put up their premium for those previously convicted of riding with no insurance?), speeding, drunk riding, no helmet, no streetlights to name but a few. So, as you can see from this list, which is by no means exhaustive, kawazoki and farquhar either do not understand the concept of risk or don't care. Not good either way.

No, I have not quoted Wikipeda (never even bothered to look up what it says), what I have stated is the risk definition I learnt many, many years ago when I was trained in project management. This is the legal definition of risk and is used by businesses to determine contingency planning and risk mitigation.


As for Tony L's statement, I am sorry but it IS totally outlandish to come up with a scenario where a rider puts 50 locals in hospital. However, even that is catered for by the ' very low probabilility * very severe outcome' side of the risk equation, and I would suggest it falls well outside the scope of any insurance (i.e. would not be covered) you can purchase.

Now this sounds like getting lessons about life and definition off insurance policy and risk ...risk is what I proposed.....is any ting possible to be done in your life without insurance ? Do you ewer take any risk or first you consult you`r insurance agent ,...? Probably yes.

Rade safe

Obviously a severe lack of imagination then. However, whether it is one of fifty is irrelevant, because if you have mandatory liability insurance, all those injured or killed will be covered to the extent mandated, but of course if you have no insurance then i guess it is up to you to make it good.
This hiding behind probability to justify antisocial behaviour and refusal to apply duty of care is naive to say the least. If you choose to drive a car without being covered for its loss then that is quite OK and in fact most overlanders have to do that, but if you choose to not insure for damage you do to others, and there is no absolute certainty you can fully compensate then that becomes criminal

Threads about whether or not insurance should be carried in countries which do not strictly require it tend to devolve into insults and straw-man arguments. In the past, this has resulted in lots of moderator interference, which no one--including moderators--appreciates.

This thread is veering perilously close. Let's keep it civil, respectful, and on-topic. If you find yourself unable to do that, please consider not posting at all.

Thanks.

Mark