Driver crashes through wall at 80mph and into Thames then wanders off

On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

... whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5 million,
your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of a person.
Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is closer to 97.8%.

On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5 million,
your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of a person.
Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

On 26/09/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5 million,
your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of a person.
Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

Your maths would still be wrong.

On 26/09/2017 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5 million,
your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of a person.
Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

Your maths would still be wrong.

Find a car of that value which isn't insured. You are talking about an
old banger offence.

BTW: I wonder why - seriously - the much-vaunted ANPR system isn't
reported as reducing the incidence of uninsured vehicles on the roads.

I do bear in mind, however, as should you, that uninsured vehicles and
uninsured driving are two separate phenomena. One is not always the
other, as I'm sure you will agree.

On 26/09/17 15:28, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5 million,
your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of a person.
Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

Your maths would still be wrong.

Find a car of that value which isn't insured. You are talking about an
old banger offence.

It is still impossible for the maths to produce your number no matter in
what direction you choose to swerve.

On 26/09/2017 19:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 15:28, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5
million, your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of a
person. Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is
closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

Your maths would still be wrong.

Find a car of that value which isn't insured. You are talking about an
old banger offence.

It is still impossible for the maths to produce your number no matter in
what direction you choose to swerve.

Not even limited to cars worth a lot of money as opposed the average
£10,000 - £20,000 prices when new of the typical car seen parked on the
average drive?

How many Rolls-Royces, Maseratis and Porsches do you say are likel to be
driven uninsured, then?

The same proportion as that applying to twenty-year old Vauxhall Novas?

On 25/10/17 19:48, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 19:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 15:28, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5
million, your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of
a person. Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is
closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

Your maths would still be wrong.

Find a car of that value which isn't insured. You are talking about
an old banger offence.

It is still impossible for the maths to produce your number no matter
in what direction you choose to swerve.

Not even limited to cars worth a lot of money as opposed the average
£10,000 - £20,000 prices when new of the typical car seen parked on the
average drive?

No.

How many Rolls-Royces, Maseratis and Porsches do you say are likel to be
driven uninsured, then?

The same proportion as that applying to twenty-year old Vauxhall Novas?

It's a simple maths problem, for goodness' sake.

Here's a starter:
~ If there are 100 people and nobody is uninsured, the percentage of
uninsured is...?
~ If one person is uninsured the percentage is...?

Now, if the answer is 99.99999999%, what is the smallest possible
population?

On 30/10/2017 00:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/17 19:48, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 19:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 15:28, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2017 23:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely
to have been insured against loss by theft or accident.

I never realised the population of Britain was so large...

With the number of licence holders in Britain at about 45.5
million, your number requires the non-insured to be a fraction of
a person. Impossible. Besides, you will find the true number is
closer to 97.8%.

Maybe for bangers. Not for valuable cars.

Your maths would still be wrong.

Find a car of that value which isn't insured. You are talking about
an old banger offence.

It is still impossible for the maths to produce your number no matter
in what direction you choose to swerve.

Not even limited to cars worth a lot of money as opposed the average
£10,000 - £20,000 prices when new of the typical car seen parked on
the average drive?

No.

How many Rolls-Royces, Maseratis and Porsches do you say are likel to
be driven uninsured, then?

The same proportion as that applying to twenty-year old Vauxhall Novas?

It's a simple maths problem, for goodness' sake.

Here's a starter:
~ If there are 100 people and nobody is uninsured, the percentage of
uninsured is...?
~ If one person is uninsured the percentage is...?

Now, if the answer is 99.99999999%, what is the smallest possible
population?

If you believe that the owners of Very Expensive Cars (in the £100,000
class, for instance) drive them without insurance, you will believe
anything.

It's council estate chavs (who would otherwise be on bikes, almost
certainly on the footway) who drive uninsured - in old bangers.

On 30/10/17 01:53, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2017 00:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely

It's a simple maths problem, for goodness' sake.

Here's a starter:
~ If there are 100 people and nobody is uninsured, the percentage of
uninsured is...?
~ If one person is uninsured the percentage is...?

Now, if the answer is 99.99999999%, what is the smallest possible
population?

If you believe that the owners of Very Expensive Cars (in the £100,000
class, for instance) drive them without insurance, you will believe
anything.

I have expressed no opinion about the number of VECs driven without
insurance. You continue to fail to grasp that it is a comment about your
(lack of) ability at simple maths.

Or else it is possible that you wrote down 99.99999999% without thinking
about it (which anyone can do), but, being you, refuse to acknowledge
that you made a mistake.

On 30/10/2017 08:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/10/17 01:53, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2017 00:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely

It's a simple maths problem, for goodness' sake.

Here's a starter:
~ If there are 100 people and nobody is uninsured, the percentage of
uninsured is...?
~ If one person is uninsured the percentage is...?

Now, if the answer is 99.99999999%, what is the smallest possible
population?

If you believe that the owners of Very Expensive Cars (in the £100,000
class, for instance) drive them without insurance, you will believe
anything.

I have expressed no opinion about the number of VECs driven without
insurance. You continue to fail to grasp that it is a comment about your
(lack of) ability at simple maths.

Or else it is possible that you wrote down 99.99999999% without thinking
about it (which anyone can do), but, being you, refuse to acknowledge
that you made a mistake.

That is my estimate of the probability that a VEC is being drive WITH
the required insurance.

Have you a more convincing figure?

And what about a response to this related view?

QUOTE:
If you believe that the owners of Very Expensive Cars (in the £100,000
class, for instance) drive them without insurance, you will believe
anything.

It's council estate chavs (who would otherwise be on bikes, almost
certainly on the footway) who drive uninsured - in old bangers.
ENDQUOTE

I should have added that the bikes would probably have no brakes and
almost certainly no lights. And as for insurance... fugeddabowtit.