in a previous post, i discussed some of the issues and problems with assessing risk in a formal sense. i also threw out some zany ideas. jim over at unholy roleur (a blog i happen to like by the way) has a sharp eye and captured one of the more interesting ones.
>>>Scott writes:
>>>maybe the same concept would be applicable to racers themselves using the portable car insurance model
That's a pretty neat idea, but you'd have to be careful with how narrowly you assess risk. At some point, insurance stops being insurance, and simply becomes a mandatory savings fund in anticipation of accidents. It sort of defeats the purpose of insurance to do that. And while the actions of the individual are paramount in achieving safety, there wouldn't be such a thing as a 100 rider field without the other 99 riders. It's not a case for strict enterprise liability, but *all riders in a race* bear a little responsibility for the safety of others, and I think that in this case insurance reflects it. That said I wouldn't object to having a couple tiers, but making it more along the lines of "perfect record" and "everybody else." I haven't been at it long but it appears to me there are only two types of racers - those who've crashed, and those who haven't *yet*.
Jim has some very insightful comments and shows a good appreciation of the issues involved. jim, we shoudl grab a beer together. that being said, i think there's an error in the train of thought at the beginning of his response. if you think about car insurance or health insurance, you'd surely agree that there are some drivers or patients out there who are underutilizing the system. they are essentially subsidizing the people who are overutilizing the system.
this is the defining characteristic of most casualty operations, the pooling of risk. here's another way to think about it. imagine a driver who has never had a single accident. they have had to pay insurance premiums for years and years and years. if you were to calculate a ratio of the money they have paid to insure themselves against liability vs the money that they have taken out of the system for accidents, it would be clear that they are subsidizing other people who present much higher risk. the insurance companies present a varying array of rates to all of their customers to be sure that they are able to cover all outlays the company must make. but implicit in this, is some socialization of cost. driver who have never had an accident must pay some minimum amount for insurance. in part, this reflects the chance that they will have an accident, even if it is not their fault. but it also reflects the fact that some drivers are so egregiously bad, that thye cannot be charged a rate that is commensurate with their risk. so the good drivers must necessarily cover the bad drivers in order for all drivers to be covered.
this was my point with USAC insurance. there is a single rate per racer per field per event. in my post, i was musing over whether this is appropriate. we likely wouldnt' do business with a company that charged flood insurance per square foot of house regardless of whether you lived in a flood plain or a mountain top. we likely wouldnt' do business with a company that charged car insurance day you drove regardless of your past driving history, mileage, driving environment or your make and model of car. yet we don't seem the least surprised that usac sees all racers as presenting a common risk. i readily acknowledge that i am oversimplifying the issues here but i believe you will see the point i am making.
bicycle accidents in races rarely generate the kinds of costs we see in car, home, life or social insurance settings. a vanisingly small percentage of incidents result in the actual litigation that the insurance is meant to cover. this is an important point and I likely did not describe it sufficiently. when a racer races in our district, the promoter pays $2 per racer to the USCF and $1 per racer to mabra (or $0.50 per racer for series races). the mabra fee is administrative in nature, and entirely separate from fees charged by officials for working the race. the mabra fee funds all sorts of things including the finish line cameras and kits, paperwork for races, mailings, etc. mabra has a budget which is public and can be viewed if you are interested. the mabra fee is generally waived for collegiate promoters and may be waived for special events.
the fee (and insurance) from uscf is different, at least on it's surface. the stated purpose of that insurance is to cover the rider and promoter in the event of an incident that generates liability. it's regrettably helpful to picture the worst case scenario here. imagine some tragi-comic scene where a motor mistakenly leads a whole field off the course and through the storefront of some mom-and-pop restaurant operation. as the dust clears, and the poor diners crawl out from under piles of sweaty riders, you get that sinking feeling that there some poor person is gonna' have some 'splainin to do.
this insurance is considerably more of a black box**. i don't know what the actual uscf incident rate is per 1000 riders, but there is a very interesting inference that can be made. the uscf fee has not changed in a long time. it has held steady while medical insurance rates and liability insurance cases have increased geometrically. so whatever is going on, it's cost structure is not responding to the cost increases seen in the general insurance environment, liability awards and the economy as a whole. in simple terms, compare and contrast that to what has happened with license fees from USAC; increasing dramatically over the last few years. it's impossible to know for sure whether those increases are being used to underwrite general policies. i believe that there was correspondence from biseglia to this effect at some point before he hit the eject button.
we're working on some tools to help people infer the actual risk of entering a single race and racing an entire season. look for them in the near future.
okay. now that that's over, some pictures from the ride out to greenbelt last week. the trip out from dc is alwas a trip. traffic and pedestrians everywhere.
i owe a huge debt of gratitude to a kindly soul who saw me drop my wallet out of my courier bag on lincoln near rhode island and s street and turned her car around to let me know. that coudl have been a catastrophically bad turn in luck and she went out of her way to let me know. i am now under the obligaiton do something equally nice. it won't be easy.
there are many surreal sights on the way out rhode island avenue. i have talked with several other people who ride to greenbelt on wednesdays and we chat about routes that are safer or faster or more scenic. this was actually a giveaway (see the blue tupperware lid which doubles as a sign) but it is more amusing to me to think that the people along rhode island avenue near the dc/md line are creating dada-ist art installations in their front yards. the following piece, which i have dubbed "santa's workshop fish fish fish" seems to say a lot. and to say nothing. at the same time. brilliant!
just past hyattsville, i like to jump up into riverdale. it's family friendly...
and must be a very affluent area. this is a typical residence in riverdale. i wasn't allowed to get much closer.
i like to take the stream valley park from riverdale, along the northeast branh of the anacostia up to good luck. it's a nice route. this is often where you bump into others who are headed to greenbelt. this past week i saw scott from route 1 velo and a yellow blur that passed me int he park. it's a good thing my camera was set to an exceedingly fast shutter speed. only later did i recognize the friendly face behind the blur.
after the race, i was entirely dependent on the kindness of strangers. eric marshall very generously offered to ride mehome from greenbelt which is saying something because he's not exactly close to me. he's good people. all the more so because i think i got post-race nutella all over the inside of his volvo.
- - - posted by scott
** for anyone who is interested in following up on this, i'd suggest starting with todd sowl at USAC who is the chief financial officer. he answers his phone and provides useful information. he was recently very helpful in clarifying some issues related to the coverage provisions and requirements for the auto and moto insurance that mabra requires promoters to carry.