Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyPowers
I agree that it sucks, but honestly, do you blame them?
Ive been on track a number of times and it is absolutely more dangerous / more accident prone than regular driving. Zero doubt about it. Expecting a regular insurance policy to cover this type of extreme driving is unrealistic and unfair IMO. I don't blame the insurance companies at all.
Tracking is much more risky. Especially a place like TWS, which you also know, that has extremely dangerous and bad runoff areas where if you go off, bad things will happen.
|
I'm not saying I blame them -- except USAA for dropping people just for asking. That's just wrong. I do wonder whether those other carriers reduced their rates when they reduced their risk by excluding all track driving though. Somehow I doubt it.
As for relative safety, I have absolutely no data to substantiate this conjecture, but I would wager that there are fewer accidents at the track than on the road
even per capita. Yes speeds at the track are higher and yes there are some tracks like TWS that have some nasty runoff areas, but on the other hand, traffic only goes in one direction, there are no intersections, there are corner workers to warn you of issues ahead, there are no pedestrians or kids/animals suddenly leaping out into the road, there are almost never any collisions with other cars, and most importantly,
everyone out there is focused on actually driving rather than trying to balance a smartphone and a latte. I think those factors go a long way toward offsetting the increased risk from the other factors.
But again, I don't have any hard numbers. It'd be fascinating if the dedicated HPDE insurance carriers shared their average payout per insured party so we could compare against the average for regular insurers' payouts on comprehensive coverage from moving accidents on public roads, but I don't see that happening.