From the interview (and what was talked about prior to release, I think):
"It makes Onrush feel like a huge breath of fresh air and it’s a great game to play with friends that wouldn’t normally be able to enjoy racing games because of an uneven or unmatched skill level. There isn’t a barrier to playing together here. You can support each other and play to your strengths, and anyone can make the game-winning play. It’s an absolute blast and I really hope you enjoy discovering the depth it has to offer."
After some more time with multiplayer matches I'm of the opinion that this is not much less skill based than the average multiplayer team based shooter (using that genre because Onrush arguably has more in common with those in many areas than with the competitiveness styles of racing games). Which is probably not at all a bad thing for game longevity, but goes a little against the "everybody can make a contribution/game-winning play".
While there is more luck and random chaos at play than in match of Call of Duty or Battlefield, if you remain in a lobby for multiple matches you will usually see the same players scoring most points, lockdowns, takeouts etc. in every match. And just like is typical for shooters, if you end up in a lobby where most players stick around for several matches and one team is clearly better - often just because they have one or two skilled players - they are likely to keep winning every match until you leave.
To my not particularly great surprise I've found myself averaging roughly the middle of the scoreboard (sometimes top if the rest of my team is not particularly good) - pretty much exactly as I find myself doing in most multiplayer shooters.