Jump to content
Forum upgrade is live! Read more... ×

ResidentNeville

Quark
  • Content count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About ResidentNeville

  • Rank
    Initiate
  1. ResidentNeville

    Bitcoin trading.....

    Stagflation does not belong there. Stagflation is inflation. It describes the situation when there's inflation in a stagnant economy. There's inflation, deflation, which just describe opposite sides of the same 1-dimensional scale. Deflation can lead to a deflationary spiral (you DEFINITELY do NOT want that). And crypto is most certainly not deflationary.
  2. ResidentNeville

    Bitcoin trading.....

    Want to buy a bridge? How is transport relevant? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i+have+a+bridge+to+sell+you&defid=7173649
  3. ResidentNeville

    Bitcoin trading.....

    Want to buy a bridge? That's not a reason to trust that it will stabilise. Bitcoin/crypto is vastly different from the AUD in some fundamental ways that prevent that logic from working. For starters, AUD has an entire nation of 30M people and a government that enshrine its value, not to mention a $1.2Tn economy. you took this woefully out of context. my point was, the simple fact of mass adoption of any well established currency for day to day use lends it a certain degree of stability (regardless of whether government backing made this possible to begin with, and keeps it possible in an ultimate sense), and that over time a higher proportion of non-speculative ownership of bitcoin and more G&S based transactions will have a natural dampening effect on instability. ie. one factor aiding stability that i expect to increase quietly in the background amid many working against it in the foreground, for a long while yet. I didn't mean to take it out of context - rather I intended to question your assumption/assertion that the proportion of entities that own Bitcoin for its actual utility will grow. Admittedly I did a shitty job of expressing myself. Bootstrapping a currency is hard. It's made harder when the majority of early adopters are speculators and not users. The AUD has a functioning economy built around it, crypto does not. Edit: The other thing I meant to mention is that 'real' currencies today have some form of supply control mechanism. Bitcoin/crypto does not, and this makes it fundamentally unsuitable as a currency (under all forms of thinking that I've ever been exposed to, willing to entertaining sources that say otherwise.)
  4. ResidentNeville

    Bitcoin trading.....

    Commonwealth Bank accepts Bitcoins. Source?
  5. ResidentNeville

    Bitcoin trading.....

    And yet its more expensive, less convenient. and requires you to transact through a unpredictable and risky medium. That's not a reason to trust that it will stabilise. Bitcoin/crypto is vastly different from the AUD in some fundamental ways that prevent that logic from working. For starters, AUD has an entire nation of 30M people and a government that enshrine its value, not to mention a $1.2Tn economy. And quantifiable economic value that's shown to be more-often-that-not real. A lot of crypto is 'stem cell research', but unfortunately a lot of crypto is 'eugenics'. Blockchains are awesome, and I look forward to them revolutionising some parts of our world, but I've seen very few applications that are on-the-whole better than the existing solutions. Ripple is crypto, but doesn't remotely live up to the things I think you desire in crypto - primarily decentralisation. Banks want to use crypto that they totally control. Why is that a bad thing? There are only two other options (money=goods or money<goods), which would you prefer? It's pretty much most of the currency in the world. Strangely, the first country to use it was China with the first banknotes but it didn't last very long as an experiment. Fiat currency and banknotes are two extremely different things. Only some banknotes are fiat currency.
  6. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    There are practical limits to the information that they can ask. The relevant one here is verifiability. There are various scales for verifiability, but for example: 1) Very verifiable: Your age, gender, car make and model. 2) Mostly verifiable: Whether your car has mods or not. 3) Not really verifiable: How much you drive on unpaved roads. Yes it would be nice if you could tell your insurer how much you drove on unpaved roads, and they took your word for it and adjusted your premiums accordingly, but the business will fail quickly. Shannons and NRMA don't average on factors that you don't want to be averaged on, which is good. But in part that might be corporate attempting to do market segmentation. Shannons is Suncorp (i.e. GIO, AAMI, APIA, JustCar, Bingle) and NRMA is IAG (CGU, SGIO, SGIC, State Insurance).
  7. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Just because bigger brakes don't improve emergency braking performance in regular driving conditions (and therefore doesn't reduce premiums) doesn't mean there aren't other advantages. Did I really have to explain that to you? You were the one that listed out various advantages in your prior posts (albeit irrelevant to emergency braking performance in regular driving conditions).
  8. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    You raise an interesting point, and we start to circle back to the fundamentals of insurance. The two relevant facts of insurance are a) they can't know everything about you, b) they [effectively] operate on averages. They have no real way of knowing (until we get in-car sensors) how much you drive on paved/unpaved roads. They can use other factors to estimate this, like no Ferrari has ever been offroad, and Patrol's probably spend more times off road, but there's a huge class of people that insurers have no idea about and what ends up effectively happening is that the same average gets used for everyone. We've covered that upgrading your brakes doesn't really do much to reduce crashes on paved roads, so telling your insurer that you've got upgraded brakes basically tells them "hey, i spend more time on unpaved roads, charge me more!" If it doesn't tell them that in particular, it can tell them a number of other worrying things, like "i enjoy spirited driving!" or perhaps even "i overestimate the emergency braking performance of my car on unpaved roads."
  9. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Well that's hugely concerning. I just gave them a call to confirm, but it seems like they were out of office. Well, congratulations, it took a few dozen posts, but you finally came up with a decent argument. I wasn't considering unpaved roads in my "regular driving conditions". If you want to consider unpaved roads to be "regular driving conditions" then please mentally replace all prior instances of "regular driving conditions" with "regular driving conditions (on paved roads)". Of course, unpaved roads are regular for some people, and in that case they should turn off ABS (if they can) and when ABS is off then bigger brakes can help. But then, to circle back around to the original question of "why do insurance premiums increase when I upgrade the brakes?"... It probably comes to something roughly like: They've chosen to upgrade the brakes, which only improved emergency braking performance if they're on unpaved roads with ABS turned off. If they've gone to the effort of upgrading the brakes they're probably on unpaved roads a lot. Driving on unpaved roads is risker than paved roads, do the upgraded brakes outweigh this risk?
  10. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Yes. My claim that... in general, "improved" brakes do not reduce crashes. If a car is able to lock up the brakes, like all modern cars do, then improving the brakes isn't going to make the car stop significantly quicker in an emergency situation... applies only to cars with ABS. As I have said many times. If your car doesn't have ABS then better brakes will improve your emergency stopping performance. Its definitely time for you to do another defensive driving course. Are you sure you didn't do some type of track day / performance driving course? Haha, that's a useful skill to learn. "Oh no, I'm about to get in an accident, but 3 of my wheels are on gravel and 1 is on paved road, let me turn off the ABS and then emergency brake!" My bad. I meant "nothing else" with regards to braking. Just maximum force on the brake pedal. I don't recall any of them having a problem with also steering at the same time :P
  11. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Well, better brakes certainly don't increase crashes. And for some driving behaviour can reduce crashes. But regular driving behaviour it has almost no impact on crashes because stopping distance remain the same. That's why insurance premiums don't get reduced. As I said on my very first post of the topic... A further problem that I've since discovered is that some people think that improved brakes reduces emergency braking distance, which probably increases crashes and leads to increased premiums.
  12. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    If you can't see that then you haven't really been paying attention to me, nor the others that have tried to explain this to you. I recommend you open up your own insurance company, since clearly you are far better at choosing business than they are. (Nah, I'm just joking, there's way too many hoops to jump through to start an insurance company. I'd actually recommend providing consulting and taking a cut of the profits, you'll end up a millionaire.) No, because these are all very real factors to a persons driving skill. You are seemingly unable to follow a basic stream of logic here. You said: Better brakes reduce crashes. I said: No they don't. You said: But better brakes are better on the track, and corners, and easier to butterfly. I said: That's irrelevant to reducing crashes [implied that it's in the context of better brakes]. You said: But a driver is a better driver if they are better on the track, corners, and know how to butterfly. Yes, I totally agree with your last point, that is clearly a more skilled driver, but that has nothing to do with better brakes reducing crashes. That has to do with better drivers reducing crashes. It might be time for you to do another defensive driving course. Today's recommendation for emergency stopping in cars with ABS is essentially "maximum brake and nothing else". I've driven down many mountains. The only time I've felt an affect on the brakes was when I was partaking in, lets say, spirited driving. And even then I'm pretty sure that the brakes would still lock. I'm surprised that everyone has so staunchly stood by the fact that better brakes reduce crashes under regular driving conditions (assuming they can lock up the wheels and the car has ABS). I've given the logic and the physics behind it, and dealt with every objection to the logic and physics so far (shout out to the claim that reducing the force required has a material impact). I think we've just ended up "herp derp better brakes stop you quicker" which is true as a generalisation, but not true for emergency braking and therefore its rather difficult to claim that it reduces crashes.
  13. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Even once that is PROVEN to be incorrect (in that persons case) It hasn't proven to be incorrect. They've used historical details with their risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, to determine that they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure. You really need to stop referencing track time, and corners, and butterflying brakes etc. All of that is irrelevant to emergency stopping to reduce crashes. No. You just broke physics. The actual determinator for when it 'just BITES' is the traction between the tyre and the surface. The wheels of the car will lock if a certain amount of torque - lets say 1000Nm - is placed on the brakes, regardless of whether that 1000Nm is being applied via old drums or nice brembos.
  14. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Since we're talking modified cars here; Because Most cars normal factory brakes AREN'T good enough for the main straight. You'll overheat your brakes on the first corner and plough into a wall at the next. I couldn't agree more. Upgraded brakes are for track use, not emergency stops to reduce crashes. The reduced force required doesn't mean bupkis under emergency brake conditions. The time taken for your foot to apply 300 newtons instead of 400 newtons is immaterial when compared to the around 1 second initial reaction time. I know that people want to claim that improved brakes improve emergency stops and reduce crashes, but in general that's simply not the case. It's not a skewed sample, it's just the rating factors chosen by insurance companies, with implicit allowance for other factors. Choosing the rating factors is a lot more complex than just "driving experience is a better factor!" Because driving experience is something that can easily be lied about, and there's no way to verify it. Insurers aren't out there bumbling their way through life. They employ a lot of people with the sole purpose of estimating risks and coming up with rating factors. When there are ways for insurers to identify safer drivers, they take them. It's in their best interest to offer safer drivers lower premiums, so that they get more business. That's true of the insurance industry in general, they need to work out the appropriate premium, because if their premium for a given risk is too high they will lose that person's business to someone's who's a bit lower. They're not saying she's a better driver. They're saying that using the risk estimation techniques, mathematical models, and their business profile, they expect the female driver to be less costly to insure.
  15. ResidentNeville

    Perth drivers - again....

    Unless they've spent some of that $3,000 on the car electronics or the tyres then they might very well have imagined it. By way of explanation: Better fluid, better ventilation, bigger size, more pistons, etc. decreases the force that needs to be applied to the discs for a given amount of stopping power. The thing is, though, that under emergency situations after normal driving, today's cars aren't in need of additional force. For example, reducing the force required to lock the brakes from 5000N to 2500N by getting bigger discs doesn't do shit if the car has no trouble applying the 5000N that was needed in the first place. I'm only engaging with the following points that MS raised (as per below). I assume that's allowed.
×