British motorsport could end

[Asp]

Yes, a bit of a sensationalist headline perhaps, but I'm copying from the ACU (equivalent of the MSA but for two-wheels)

Joint statement from the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA), the Amateur Motor Cycle Association (AMCA) and the Auto-Cycle Union (ACU)
The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.

Yesterday, the Government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.

The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.

In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.

Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*

MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.

Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:

“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.

“If the Government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the Government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on Ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”

Sign the Petition by Clicking Here
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.

It's getting a lot of attention in the bike world - Isle of Man TT Clerk of Course Gary Thompson has given an interview about it - but there's nothing on the MSA website and no threads about it on this humble forum.

Personally, I don't think it is the ACU and other bodies who have produced that statement over-reacting in anyway. EU law requires third-party insurance for use of motorised vehicle and whilst the British Parliament interpreted it one way (Road Traffic Act insurance); the ECJ have now interpreted it differently.

Extending insurance obligations to cover things like mobility scooters I agree with - but it needs limitations such as motorsport which is very efficiently self-regulated.

At least the Government are consulting and there is the opportunity to any extension of the Road Traffic Act to avoid motorsport - but perhaps it is time for a 'minority' sport to have its voice heard and make sure the Government do actually realise what contribution to the economy motorsport is?

[MGDavid]

why does motor sport and its associated bodies not link up with the lawnmower sellers and the electric bicycle sellers etc in resisting this piece of stupid EU bureaucracy en masse?
Surely a bigger wider voice would have more clout?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

why does motor sport and its associated bodies not link up with the lawnmower sellers and the electric bicycle sellers etc in resisting this piece of stupid EU bureaucracy en masse?
Surely a bigger wider voice would have more clout?

Essentially you have a major industry, the insurance industry; using politicians who they have bought and paid for; to push their fingers into everyone's pockets through government legislation.

There will have to be a massive backlash, to stop this you need to identify and expose the insurance industry shills! They of course are well protected by privacy legislation.

[chunder]

Let's be honest there, motorsport is on borrowed time, especially in this country. Governments have never really supported it, the wrinklies detest it and they are the ones largely with the attitudes and power to protest.
And insurance companies have been responsible for some truly awful things such as blame culture, claim culture etc.

The big ones like Aviva and Lloyds will be employing teams of people who are trying to exploit anything that is uninsured currently. From bicycles away from home, clothing, to off road bikes and quads.

Basically anything you can incorporate into a monthly scheme they can charge interest for and get you into a loop of payment.

That way same as with car, house, recovery they can, without really telling you obviously slowly increase the prices of these services as you sit back, say you are covered and sometimes not check your renewals. My A cover has gone up from 39 quid a month to 77, I only realised because I checked the letter, cover has not changed, they just are allowed to increase the price for no reason yearly and not really tell you why. Same as car and house insurance, the pot gets passed round to each coverer and they get the deals, then it gets passed on so your premiums go up massively if you don't check.

Look at the women drivers thing, once they got a discount, realised they were losing out in the end, got rid of the discount. You used to get away with SP30's on your car, now some even try and charge you for going on speed awareness courses. They are ruthless profiteers, a hideous way of earning a living if you ask me.

They are the most ruthless corrupt and mercilessly targeted group of business people I have ever come across, and they are very clever because they make their policies seem legal and necessary like law.

As soon as you move away from the statistical norm they are not interested. (I had an empty house after my mother died, I lived 150 miles away, her insurance company would not cover the empty house, I had to go specialised), I had quotes of nearby man made drains, rainfall, anything to make me not use them. As soon as you do anything different they charge you, as soon as you want to make a claim a bunch of loopholes, ways of getting out of it and charges appear. Change a postcode to house next door, 35 quid admin fee for 10 seconds work. How is that allowed legally?

As I say, if this comes in, it will be for every single off road vehicle. Someone somewhere has realised there is millions to be made and will use MP's Lords, Councillors to get it through. There is some merit in it as off road motorcycle theft is utterly rife and they are not traceable. But we all know the real reason they want to push it through.

Do no forget, they are salesmen, nothing more. And there is no difference between them and double glazing sales, mobile phone sales. Other than insurance companies cover their greed by making it law!!

[MGDavid]

well that descended to rant level quickly!
Meanwhile back in the real world.....

[Asp]

Thing is with directing blame at the insurance companies is that they too would lose out if Vnuk is interpreted in full. They have already said that full Third-party insurance is not insurable for motorsport. But motorsport is an insured industry - all the circuits have public and employer's liability; both the MSA and ACU have insurance for death and personal injury; and you can insure your racecar for theft etc but not (as a rule) for damaging it by running round a circuit!!

So, if the sport fails - the insurance companies lose a revenue stream.

[NaBUru38]

The Vnuk judgment covers the whole European Union, not just Britain.

[JohnD]

This has been 'in the works' for a year now. While the ACU et al seem to be panicking, the MSA is extremely cool about it in their Annual Report for 2016.

Quotes of that, links to explanatory papers and to the Gov.Uk "Discussion document", which invites your comments, are here on the TR Register. I think you can read it if you are not a member: http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/...sport/?hl=vnuk

John

[coppice]

I really can't see what the fuss is about; it certainly is NOT news that people racing cars, mowing lawns, shooting clay pigeons or ploughing fields are potentialy liable to third parties if they hurt them through their own negligence . All those 'motor racing is dangerous signs, here at own risk'? Haven't been legally effective for decades .

[chunder]

Don't you also think though that this might be a possible route to legal problems with the sport though?

That is all I was worried about. Once you start allowing legal precedents into spectators and the like, some crappy lawyers will always find a way of trying to make a living out of complainants.

[coppice]

If X is hurt by Y's negligence then Y - or his insurer - has to pay up. Nothing new about that and motor sport has never been exempt from the basic principle that people owe duties of care to third parties . That doesn't mean X is automatically liable for everything and anything that may happen, only if he has screwed up by being negligent.

[chunder]

Can there really be negligence when you are made aware of the risks or should be aware of them when you buy a ticket?

That has been the way motorsport has been insured for decades. If you get hurt spectating you are there at your own risk.

I really can't see much beyond that.

It is not as if there are no warnings, barriers, safety areas etc.

Different in rallying and lesser forms of the sport, but most motorsport is very safe for spectators.

But this is the legal world, and they are always looking for avenues to make money, and have fingers in the type of pies you will never be able to get into

[coppice]

Not that simple and hasn't been so for the best part of fifty years. Being somewhere at one's own risk is never entirely possible - and nor should it be in most civilian circumstances. But that doesn't mean that if you get hurt somebody is automatically at fault in every situation- far from it, despite what some pond life PI firms may tell you.

Let's suppose you are at a race meeting , buy a burger and choke to death because you are a messy eater. Vendor liable to your estate? No, why should they be - it's entirely your fault . But you buy a burger which poisons you - because vendor selling cheap , past sell by crap? Of course you want and should get damages.

During a race a car skids of the track in the heat of the moment, kicks up some grit and damages your eyes. Liable? Doubt it- normal incident, nobody at fault (people are known to spin ) . But same driver , except this time his car loses a wheel which hits you and hurts you severely; inquiry finds that the driver's team hadn't properly secured the wheel in the first place . You will probably be entitled to compensation the team had a duty of care to prepare the car and failed to do so.

Or another scenario - you are walking through the paddock , minding your own business but keeping alert (as you should ) , and some young buck in his race car , contrary to all the rules, does a practice start without warning , loses control and runs you over. Compensation ? Damn right.

These are just examples and I stress every case is slightly different and is judged on what happened and why. In some cases it's tough- if your ears hurt at Santa Pod don't say the organisers didn't warn you repeatedly to wear ear protection.... But if a mechanic in a dragster team get careless with their rocket fuel by having a quick Woodbine Tipped where they shouldn't and you get fried - I think you'd get some compo .

[Asp]

Completely agree coppice - and the potential problem with Vnuk is that it goes further than that.



Motorsport is insured for those sort of risks that cannot legally be excluded. Vnuk (if interpreted absolutely) would require complete third-party insurance. So two cars make contact going into a corner and a wing is damaged - there's a claim! Yes, we're generally a non-contact sport and someone may well be more at fault than another. But insurers won't touch it because it's hard to investigate and there is a greater probability of it happening. That's the potential problem, not insurance against negligence.

[JimW]

Brexit - that's all.

Jim

[bauble]

In the landmark ‘Vnuk’ case, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that the EU’s 2009 Motor Insurance Directive required insurance policies to cover all possible third-party accidents in all places and at all times. In some countries, including*the United Kingdom and Ireland, governments had interpreted the law as meaning*that it only applies to vehicles driven on public roads, however it is now clear that the*judgment means that national laws must be changed to ensure that all mechanically propelled vehicles are insured for third-party losses regardless of type of use, in all places, at any time. This applies to everything from Formula One racing cars, to mobility scooters, to antique trams and everything in-between. Industry experts have already claimed that the risks associated with providing insurance cover to all motorised vehicles mean that they would be prohibitively expensive to insure, thus effectively outlawing all motorsport activities across the United Kingdom.
HM Government opened a consultation on Wednesday 21st December with two clear options. First, to pursue the “Comprehensive option” which would involve changing UK motor insurance law to comply with the Motor Insurance Directive as interpreted in the Vnuk judgement. Second, the Government’s preferred “Amended Directive option” which would involve changing UK law on motor insurance to implement the Motor Insurance Directive as amended, should the European Commission pursue its proposal to amend it.
While the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, the UK is obligated to make this change. We, the undersigned petition HM Government through*the Secretary of State for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, M.P., asking that*HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgement in a way that*encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities.

www.fightvnuk.co.uk

Mod note - merged into existing thread as not just a marshalling issue

[WJM]

Originally Posted by Asp

Yes, a bit of a sensationalist headline perhaps, but I'm copying from the ACU (equivalent of the MSA but for two-wheels)

Personally, I don't think it is the ACU and other bodies who have produced that statement over-reacting in anyway. EU law requires third-party insurance for use of motorised vehicle and whilst the British Parliament interpreted it one way (Road Traffic Act insurance); the ECJ have now interpreted it differently.

Extending insurance obligations to cover things like mobility scooters I agree with - but it needs limitations such as motorsport which is very efficiently self-regulated.

That is not what te EU directive says and that is also not how the ECJ interpreted it. The problem in this situation is that your own UK government uses this EU directive as an excuse to propose something far more sweeping and farreaching than was ever intended by the EU.

If you actually read the Vnuk case you will see that has nothing to do with the hysteria that is displayed in some of the posts in this thread. In the Vnuk case Vnuk was run over by a tractor on his farm. The tractor had to be insured under the RTA and it was. But the Insurance company of the tractor tried to weasel out of its obligation to pay arguing that the accident did not happen on the public road. The ECJ did the only correct thing and ruled that is does not matter where it happened but how it happened. Think about it, if the ECJ had ruled the other way there would be no end of bickering about when, what and where the public road is.

So how would this judgement implicate motorracing. Well, most motorracing takes place on closed circuits with cars that under no reasonable circumstance would be required to have road insurance. As a result they would never be affected by this legislation.
For road-going race-cars like for example rally-cars it becomes slightly more complicated. The ECJ ruled that 'normal use' of the vehicle is always insured. Would racing be considered normal use? In my opinion the ECJ leaves enough room to seperate the 'racing' part from the normal, insured, 'traffic' part.
So for example when a rallycar slowly drives to the startline and runs someone over, that would be a normal traffic situation so insured. Would he then start the stage and run someone over, that would not be a normal use so not insured under this legislation. That is at least how I would read this judgement.

Of course, as with everything, all this requires a thoughtful consideration by your elected officials to make a well-balanced, clear and concise new law which addresses all these different aspects.

[Mike Harte]

Here is the RAC MSA current position: https://www.msauk.org/assets/msavnukjan2017.pdf

[midgetman]

Given the insurance industry's skills at turning a profit, won't someone pick up the baton and introduce a policy? It'll be expensive at first of course, but over time will just be another cost to be absorbed. One hopes the MSA will have it as a plan B.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[SouthportFC Fan]

I contacted my MP and got an extremely detailed and positive reply back. Basically, the government are looking at this ruling and are looking at changing the EU law.

They have published a consultation document stating that they are uncomfortable with the ruling. Presumably 'uncomfortable' means dislike it intensly and want it changed.

Don't know where things stand in the meantime....