As an insurance guy, can you explain why the insurance market doesn't really adjust for variances in rider training and equipment? For example, a policy for an untrained rider should cost substantially more than one who has undergone training. Or clauses in which riders who are injured without wearing a helmet pay a higher deductible etc.? Are there legal reasons for this or is it easier (cheaper) to administer policies that only adjust for age/displacement/type of bike.
One would think that market forces in the insurance industry would be enought to modify rider behavior, or recoup expenses for those ride less sensibly and crash. I understand there are small discounts for MSF training etc., but they are usually not much.
Thanks.
One would think that market forces in the insurance industry would be enought to modify rider behavior, or recoup expenses for those ride less sensibly and crash. I understand there are small discounts for MSF training etc., but they are usually not much.
Thanks.
