Jeff Winchell wrote:
> I said miles is wrong, time is better. I didn't say the "per vehicle" part
> was wrong.
OK, then, here's another pass. Same scenario: mean entries/event = 150,
mean time/run=1 minute, 4 runs/per competitor/event, 10 events/year.
That's 600 vehicle minutes = 10 vehicle hours/event = 100 vehicle
hours/year. 1 incident in 10 years is then 1 incident/1000 vehicle
hours.
> And just so another obvious thing doesn't get misinterpretted, by time I
> don't mean just the time of the actual run - that's not the way the site
> owner or insurer views it. They insure events and taking into account
> some expected number of participants (there is some implied factor
> for the length of a run, but it won't be used to determine whether your
> insurance is cancelled).
Forget insurance cancellation for the moment. How does the above compare
to normal driving on public roads? I know DOT has data on accidents/100k
vehicle miles, and I'd bet they also have the same data based on vehicle
hours.
> Similarly for regular car insurance - you are
> insured for a period of time, not a number of miles
Uhh, and that would be why they always want to know your commuting
mileage and your expected annual mileage? No, they DO consider mileage.
More miles = more time = MORE EXPOSURE. That's not difficult or
controversial. Nor is it statistically questionable.
> (though of course,
> there is some factor there too - but again you don't get cancelled for
> having so many accidents per mile, its a time factor).
You DO, OTOH, pay higher RATES for more annual MILEAGE. And why would
that be, if mileage weren't a major factor?
> Time is the key.
There it is, above. How does that compare with normal street driving?
Jay
|