This is data is completely useless. They don't tell you how the "likelihood of a crash" is defined. Is this number of crashes per number of insured motorcycles? Number of crashes per number of riders? Number of crashes per mile ridden? I have a feeling it's the first one, which isn't very meaningful at all. The last definition is the one that's most useful, but I doubt that Progressive has mileage data.
Also, they don't say anything about the severity of the crashes. Sure, New York has a high likelihood of a crash, but fender-benders in slow-moving city street traffic are much less dangerous than fatal highway or suburban intersection crashes that you might see elsewhere in the country.
It's pretty sad that an insurance company, which lives and dies by actuarial analysis did such a *****-poor job of analyzing and presenting statistical data...
Also, they don't say anything about the severity of the crashes. Sure, New York has a high likelihood of a crash, but fender-benders in slow-moving city street traffic are much less dangerous than fatal highway or suburban intersection crashes that you might see elsewhere in the country.
It's pretty sad that an insurance company, which lives and dies by actuarial analysis did such a *****-poor job of analyzing and presenting statistical data...
