Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Death of all uk motorsport
FightBack Forums > Discussion > Government Policy
Fredd
Given the glacial pace at which government works, you wouldn't think it would be that difficult to string out amending the law for for a couple of years so it becomes irrelevant what the EU does?

Mind you, the idea that motorsport should insure against third party risk doesn't seem that outrageous.
bill w
There's a couple of useful links towards the end of this article, including one to the consultative document, and another to the survey.
It does seem to have rather wider implications, but I must admit I've not ploughed through all 60 odd pages of it.
A Game-changer for UK motor insurance ?
roythebus
Vintage trams have probably always been insured for third party risks. All are operated by various charitable organisations who who would by means of their status and under their Light Railway Order have insurance.

I don't see motor sport being challenged by this proposed change. As an owner and operator of historic buses for the last 47 years, I've always had third party insurance that cover me for on the road and off the road use at bus rallies; there is an exclusion for motor sport, but my brokers can arrange that for owners of racing type vehicles. No doubt F1 has quite extensive insurance bearing in mind what damage could be caused by a very high speed crash. No doubt the organisers of rally events have public liability insurance too that covers all risks.

Maybe this is another anti-EU scare story?
Churchmouse
It's both a bit of an underappreciation and an overreaction. First, the Vnuk ruling by the ECJ would--if relevant EU law is not amended in response--effectively ban all motorsports activities everywhere in the EU, not just those taking place in the UK. Perhaps this was a "Heavy Fog In Channel. Continent Cut Off" kind of thing?

Secondly, the EU Commission is reportedly actively pursuing the amendment of the Insurance Directives in response this ruling, so it is unlikely to be left alone.

--Churchmouse
buttonpusher
Knowing how daft governments can be I can forsee that lawnmowers, childs toys, electric cycles and farm vehicles would all need insurance. Who's got shares in insurance companies?
Monster 900
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 09:15) *
Knowing how daft governments can be I can forsee that lawnmowers, childs toys, electric cycles and farm vehicles would all need insurance. Who's got shares in insurance companies?



Most Government Ministers I would expect.
bill w
Her's another link, this time from the ACU amongst others; British Motorsport Could End Due To EU Ruling

Yes, you're probably correct, in that this would affect all motorsport in the EU, but the ACU et.al. are only concerned with UK events.

My understanding of the concern, depending on which option was taken, is that the requirement for 3rd party liability insurance wouldn't just be for spectators; but also between competitors, and it's this aspect that would make it just about uninsurable.

e.g. take another bike/car out on a corner at Silverstone or Mallory Park, in an ACU or MSA authorised event, and the other driver can claim off your insurance, that same way they could on a public highway whilst out shopping.

QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 09:15) *
Knowing how daft governments can be I can forsee that lawnmowers, childs toys, electric cycles and farm vehicles would all need insurance. Who's got shares in insurance companies?


Yes, from my first link, they would be scoped in

WHAT ARE NEWLY-IN-SCOPE VEHICLES?
If the Government were to go ahead with the Comprehensive option or the amended Directive option, the definition of a motor vehicle (classed as the Newly-in-scope vehicles) could be broadened to include:

Electrically assisted pedal cycles
Construction vehicles
Agricultural vehicles
Segways
Ride-on lawnmowers
Motor sports vehicles
Mobility scooters
Golf buggies
Motorized ride-on children’s toys
Fairground rides (e.g. dodgems)
Fork lift trucks
Dumper trucks
Engineering plant
Quad bikes (off-road construction)
This means that the vehicles listed above will require compulsory insurance.
(I take this latter comment to include use on private land, depending on which option was taken up)
roythebus
I'd suggest a lot of those vehicles may already be covered under household insurance for injuries against third-party claims; others ought to covered under Employers liability insurance or public liability insurance, though not as separate vehicles.
666
When I attended the odd motorsport event in my youth, there were always notices to the effect "Motorsport is dangerous - spectators attend at their own risk". If I read one of those with the wisdom of age (don't laugh) I would immediaitely think of insurance.

Don't the organisers already insure against risks to the public? Don't they or the teams insure against death or PI of the competitors and support staff? If not, why not?
buttonpusher
QUOTE (bill w @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 13:31) *
Her's another link, this time from the ACU amongst others; British Motorsport Could End Due To EU Ruling

Yes, you're probably correct, in that this would affect all motorsport in the EU, but the ACU et.al. are only concerned with UK events.

My understanding of the concern, depending on which option was taken, is that the requirement for 3rd party liability insurance wouldn't just be for spectators; but also between competitors, and it's this aspect that would make it just about uninsurable.

e.g. take another bike/car out on a corner at Silverstone or Mallory Park, in an ACU or MSA authorised event, and the other driver can claim off your insurance, that same way they could on a public highway whilst out shopping.

QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 09:15) *
Knowing how daft governments can be I can forsee that lawnmowers, childs toys, electric cycles and farm vehicles would all need insurance. Who's got shares in insurance companies?


Yes, from my first link, they would be scoped in

WHAT ARE NEWLY-IN-SCOPE VEHICLES?
If the Government were to go ahead with the Comprehensive option or the amended Directive option, the definition of a motor vehicle (classed as the Newly-in-scope vehicles) could be broadened to include:

Electrically assisted pedal cycles
Construction vehicles
Agricultural vehicles
Segways
Ride-on lawnmowers
Motor sports vehicles
Mobility scooters
Golf buggies
Motorized ride-on children’s toys
Fairground rides (e.g. dodgems)
Fork lift trucks
Dumper trucks
Engineering plant
Quad bikes (off-road construction)
This means that the vehicles listed above will require compulsory insurance.
(I take this latter comment to include use on private land, depending on which option was taken up)

Yet chainsaws, inherently more dangerous, are not included.

https://motomatters.com/analysis/2016/12/23...orsport_in.html

Worth reading
Fredd
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 17:48) *
Yet chainsaws, inherently more dangerous, are not included.

Outside 1970s US horror films, not posing that much of a danger to third parties, though.
bill w
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 17:48) *


Thanks for that one; a sensible and measured read.

That's why I added the link in my first post; It came from within the insurance industry and was about the possible implications for UK Motor Insurance in general, not just Motorsport.

Thet Heritage Insurance article provided links to the consultative document and the survey, rather than just to a petition.
(I have no connection with Heritage by the way, not even as a customer, but they do publish the odd quite informative article on their web site)

Cheers, and Happy New Year to all
Bill
bill w
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 18:13) *
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 17:48) *
Yet chainsaws, inherently more dangerous, are not included.

Outside 1970s US horror films, not posing that much of a danger to third parties, though.


Buttonpusher; I guess one reason they're not included , is that they're not classed as vehicles, though I've seen a video of one powered by a V8 . wink.gif

Regarding 3rd party danger, many years ago I was invited to a party, on condition that I brought a chainsaw. We had fun parties then.
The party owner was housesitting a borrowed house whilst the owners were away for a year or so; the only condition was that he arrange for a tree to be felled in their absence.

I was duly commissioned by my mate, as he knew I'd previously been trained to use a chainsaw whilst working for the Parks and Gardens Dept of my local council; this was before the days of certification and fancy chainsaw trousers etc.

I insisted that the work was completed before alcohol was served, and everyone not directly involved in the operations, was instructed to keep their distance, for their own safety and mine.

One lass clearly knew better and started trimming the edge of the lawn with edging shears, whilst walking backwards; I had goggles and ear defenders, and only became of her presence when her Achilles heel was about 6" from the back of the saw I was using.
I pointed out the error of her ways, but apparently it was entirely my fault for not watching what she was doing.
In a public place, she might have a point as I'd not put up barrier tape, signs etc, but this was a private garden, with a specially briefed audience.

Regards
Bill
mickR
So she nearly got her bush trimmed for free then!
spanner345
https://www.acu.org.uk/News/2017/01/Threat-to-Motorsport/
bill w
Folks, see pages 4/5 of the latest MSA briefing.
Don't know if it will open correctly on portable devices.

Jan 20017 MSA Newsletter
Rallyman72
What is ‘Vnuk’?
‘Vnuk’ is a European Court judgement given in September 2014. Mr Vnuk was injured when a tractor manoeuvring a trailer in a farmyard in Slovenia knocked him off a ladder. He tried to claim compensation for his injuries from the insurer of the tractor.
The Slovenian court had to consider how Slovenia had implemented the EU Motor Insurance Directive into its local law. They referred a question to the European Court, to clarify whether the need for compulsory third party insurance should include use of a vehicle as a machine (rather than as a means of transport) away from public roads. Slovenian law only required compulsory insurance for use of a vehicle as a means of transport on public roads.
The European Court ruled that the requirement for compulsory insurance should cover any use of a vehicle, so long as that use is consistent with the normal function of the vehicle.
But we’re in the UK, not Slovenia?
Every country in the EU must reconsider their local law because of the Vnuk ruling. We don’t know precisely when the UK Government will begin the formal process of leaving the EU and we don’t know how long that process might take. In the meantime, the UK remains part of the EU and is obliged to consider how the Vnuk judgement impacts UK law and in particular the Road Traffic Act.
Why have we only heard about Vnuk in the last few weeks?
The Government launched its consultation on 22 December, bringing the matter into greater public focus and leading to media coverage of the issue.
Why does this affect motorsport?
The Vnuk judgement affects all vehicles which are not currently required to have third party insurance. This includes everything from electric bicycles, golf buggies, quad bikes and ride-on lawn mowers, through to forklift trucks, agricultural machines and construction plant. Even static vehicles in museums and SORN’d vehicles would be affected.
All motorsport vehicles from karts, single seaters, saloons, rally, rallycross and cross country vehicles, trials cars, production cars in autotests, and even land speed record vehicles and Formula 1 cars would be required to have compulsory third party insurance. Many competition vehicles are already road registered, taxed, MOT’d and insured, but this insurance is usually limited to their activities on public roads, and not during competitive sections. A similar situation applies to vehicles on trackdays. No insurance policy is available to cover such a compulsory obligation.
What is the MSA’s position?
The European Motor Insurance Directives since 1974 have encouraged harmonisation of rules for compulsory motor insurance across the EU, to provide adequate compensation to victims of accidents. This allows vehicles to move freely across the EU without the need to take out separate insurance policies in every country. It also promotes a healthy and competitive market for insurance companies to provide such motor insurance policies.
It should not be the purpose of the Motor Insurance Directives to regulate compensation for injuries or damage in motorsport. Other sports do not suffer from similar compulsory third party insurance requirements, whether it be cycling, football, rugby, golf or any others.
Motorsport competitors willingly take part in competitions and understand the risks they take. They may insure their vehicles against damage caused, and they may insure themselves against accident or injury. Over 100 years of case precedent in the UK has defined how competitors in sport may be liable to each other for injuries.
The MSA has an umbrella insurance policy which covers public liabilities up to £65million for all events run under MSA permits. All competitors and officials also have the benefit of an umbrella personal accident insurance policy.
The MSA believes that motorsport should be excluded from the Motor Insurance Directive. The MSA supports the UK Government’s preferred option in the consultation, which is to change UK law only when the European Commission has amended the Motor Insurance Directive (referred to as the “Amended Directive option” in the consultation document). Any other outcome runs the very real risk of stopping regulated motorsport for an estimated 200,000 participants, and pushing it into illegal unregulated events. It would also fundamentally damage the UK’s motorsport industry with over 40,000 jobs and worth £10billion to the UK economy.
What has the MSA been doing about Vnuk?
The MSA has been concerned about the possible consequences of Vnuk since late 2014. Since then we have been lobbying in Westminster, Brussels and across Europe to build support for amending the directive. The process to amend the directive has already begun.
The MSA has been working with a wide range of groups including the Motorsport Industry Association (MIA), the Association of Motor Racing Circuit Owners (AMRCO), the Auto-Cycle Union (ACU), the AMCA and the MCIA, as well as other European ASNs, the FIA and the insurance industry. We have promoted a strong joint message to MPs, the Department for Transport (DfT), Ministers and Secretaries of State. The Vunk issue has also been a standing item at Motor Sports Council and MSA Board for more than a year.
Should I take part in the consultation?
The MSA is formulating its own detailed response and will communicate that response to the UK motorsport community in due course. You may prefer to wait until then before submitting your own response.
How can I help in the meantime?
Please write to your MP, bringing this important matter to their attention. You may wish to share
this article and make the following key points:
ƒƒ
Vnuk has the potential to destroy your hobby and/or livelihood
ƒƒ
As a result it could also destroy an industry employing over 40,000 people across 4,500 companies in the UK, with an annual industry turnover of £10billion.
ƒƒ
The UK is a world leader in motorsport and home to one of the strongest domestic motorsport scenes globally, with an estimated 200,000 participants.
Lastly, am I breaking the law if I compete in or organise a motor sport event in 2017?
The Road Traffic Act has not changed, which means there is currently no requirement for compulsory third party insurance for motorsport.
666
QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Fri, 20 Jan 2017 - 13:22) *
The Vnuk judgement affects all vehicles which are not currently required to have third party insurance.


Motor vehicles, surely?
Albert Ross
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/390/contents/made

Probably not going to come to a street corner near me.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/73
Unzippy
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 19:13) *
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 17:48) *
Yet chainsaws, inherently more dangerous, are not included.

Outside 1970s US horror films, not posing that much of a danger to third parties, though.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/148...nsaw-death.html

Sad times.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.