Important EU Consultation Re Insurances

[Peter Mallett]

We've discussed this before but I received the following from Motor Racing Legends. Anyone with an interest in Motorsport in the UK and EU may be wise to submit their thoughts. The message is self explanatory.

Originally Posted by Motor Racing Legends

Urgent Action Required
Help save our Sport from EU directive
There is a truly serious threat to our sport looming out of the EU very soon – that will result in all forms of motorsport in Europe being forced to shut down. This threat is very real and is no joke. It is imperative that we all respond to the EU Survey on this issue to make our views known. The deadline for submissions is October 20th. Chris Aylett of the MIA has put together an extremely useful guide explaining how to respond, exactly what to say, and which sections to ignore. It takes less than 10 minutes to complete if you follow the MIA guidance.

If you are a company active in motor sport, please amend the figures for staff etc at the relevant point. If you are an individual, I suggest you just substitute ‘we’ for ‘I’.

It is vital that we all respond to this survey right away.

Here is the message from Chris Aylett, Chief Executive of the Motorsport Industry Association:

Subject: URGENT ACTION - to save motorsport in all EU Member States your personal action is needed before October 20th - THIS IS A GENUINE THREAT
Importance: High

Dear Motorsport friend and colleague,

I do not apologise for the dramatic title to this message as our industry and sport face a serious, immediate problem which you can help resolve.

We have until October 20th to respond to this important EC consultation, details of which are attached - if we fail to secure the amendment we seek then the likely outcome is that all motorsport activity, in every EU Member State, will cease.

All involved in the business and organisation of European motorsport need to act NOW to overcome this genuine threat to our own future and that of our employees and sport, from the unintended consequences of action taken by the European Commission (EC).

The Motorsport Industry Association (MIA), along with others including the UK Department for Transport, has been fighting to resolve this issue for more than two years, on behalf of our members and the wider EU motorsport community. Now, with your personal leadership and action, it is possible for us to resolve this.

In simple terms, the EC plans to issue a new Motor Insurance Directive, as a result of which all EU Member States must put into their National Law compulsory and unlimited third-party liability insurance to cover personal injury between motorsport competitors and car-to-car damage during any competition – from Formula One, Moto GP, World Rally to karting, historic and grass roots, whether regulated by the FIA or FIM or not.

However such widespread unlimited new insurance is not currently and, we understand, will not in the future be available - so motorsport will be unable to continue anywhere in the EU.

Please respond BY OCTOBER 20th to the EC Review Consultation - https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultati...r-insurance_en by using the simple ‘MIA Response Guidelines’ which can be downloaded here. This will take LESS THAN TEN MINUTES – a short time commitment to keep motorsport alive, and the jobs it supports, in place.

It is most important that you estimate, if motorsport were to cease, how many jobs will be lost directly from your organisation and indirectly by your suppliers or the sport, as this significant economic impact will influence the European Commission.

We really must work together to make the European Commission fully aware of the economic importance of motorsport and the employment which our sport and industry provides across the European Union. Please forward this email to fellow drivers, friends, car preparers and other motorsport contacts.

If you have any questions or comments then please email me and I will respond immediately as we must meet the deadline of October 20th.

Thank you most sincerely – your immediate help is invaluable and much appreciated

Best regards

Chris

[chunder]

If you look at it, this is a very broad document covering insurance of all types and kinds.

And to be honest, what is the likelihood of this affecting the UK post Brexit?

It would perhaps affect people competing abroad obviously.

[Peter Mallett]

Just because we are leaving the EU doesn't mean things won't be harmonised, although this may be something that doesn't get harmonised.

[midgetman]

Chunder, we haven't actually left the EU yet, and this directive will be imposed before we do. Chris Aylett isn't one for scaremongering, and as my livelihood comes 100% from motor sport I really need to get this stopped. so wish me luck, I'm going in!

[chunder]

Agreed, apparently it was something to do with a guy in a tractor knocking down a ladder! And Mr Vnuk tried to sue the tractor driver, he was obviously not insured, and here we are. All powered vehicles might need insuring.

For those that do now know, and please correct me if I am wrong, this will possibly mean it would be law to insure any vehicle that is not already insured for road use.

Golf trollies, go karts, any race car in ANY category either MSA or not, so bangers, autograss etc. Any off road vehicles quad, bike.

Imagine the costs, imagine the impact on ALL motorsport throughout the UK.

So follow Peter's link and sign (not all of it as it is lengthy), especially if you are a competitor or directly involved in industry related to motorsport.

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Chunder, we haven't actually left the EU yet, and this directive will be imposed before we do. Chris Aylett isn't one for scaremongering, and as my livelihood comes 100% from motor sport I really need to get this stopped. so wish me luck, I'm going in!

Ab-SOLUTELY if that lot in Brussels can come up with any idea of how to stop/change/upset/ any free thinking individual from enjoying their selves
in an activity especially in one so classed as being ''Anti'' anyway the other lot in the House of Comedians are bound to endorse it whether we are in or out of Europe's Nasties Alliance.

[one-two]

Alternatively, someone could offer an insurance product that satisfies the regulations? If we put the numbers to one side for a minute - I have no idea what they are, incidentally - is it self-evident nonsense that we should be insured?

[chunder]

It is based on new DRAFT legislation that resulted in a case brought about by a guy in Slovenia who was knocked off a ladder by a guy in a tractor that was never used on the road, or that in Slovenia never needed to be insured.

The resultant case brought about this vnuk ruling.

Although whether it actually gets to be a rule is not necessarily the case.

But the basics are that ANY powered vehicle in ANY location has to be insured.

Whether it is used on the road or not.

That is as it stands in the state it has reached right now which is nowhere near law, but obviously insurance companies want it, as it makes them millions and allows them to then take claims from every single thing involved in powered motion be it electric wheelchair to a Top Fuel dragster if it runs over your foot in a paddock. Plus they can have policies on everything, and you can be sure pushbikes, horses will not be far behind if this goes through.

What effect this has on venues I am not sure. Might mean that like UK stage rallying, spectators will just be prevented from attending a lot of motorsport like bike enduro, motocross, anything where you can get close to a location. If this insurance based thing becomes law.

In the same way you could sue someone in a mobility scooter for running into you. Which seeing as how often in happens is a good thing. AS they can be horrendously badly driven and cause great damage. So you can see scope for why it is happening.

Long way off, but you can see why the pressure groups are being active around motorsport as most of that is uninsured.

[midgetman]

I think you've glossed over the fact that it would have to be insurance for UNLIMITED damages, and no insurance company is prepared to pick up the risk. This is why Chris Aylett is particularly worried - because there will be NO product at ANY price to enable us to comply with the law.

[one-two]

Do you work in insurance Midgetman?

[MGDavid]

1-2, in case you haven't read Chris Aylett's statement this is the important part:

"In simple terms, the EC plans to issue a new Motor Insurance Directive, as a result of which all EU Member States must put into their National Law compulsory and unlimited third-party liability insurance to cover personal injury between motorsport competitors and car-to-car damage during any competition – from Formula One, Moto GP, World Rally to karting, historic and grass roots, whether regulated by the FIA or FIM or not.

However such widespread unlimited new insurance is not currently and, we understand, will not in the future be available - so motorsport will be unable to continue anywhere in the EU."

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by one-two

Do you work in insurance Midgetman?

What made you think that? Because I read (some of) the small print? No, I make my living 100% from motor sport, both as a supplier and a team operator.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

1-2, in case you haven't read Chris Aylett's statement this is the important part:

"In simple terms, the EC plans to issue a new Motor Insurance Directive, as a result of which all EU Member States must put into their National Law compulsory and unlimited third-party liability insurance to cover personal injury between motorsport competitors and car-to-car damage during any competition – from Formula One, Moto GP, World Rally to karting, historic and grass roots, whether regulated by the FIA or FIM or not.

However such widespread unlimited new insurance is not currently and, we understand, will not in the future be available - so motorsport will be unable to continue anywhere in the EU."

It's only a consultation document, asking for input.
This is just a starting point with some suggestions for the areas it should cover.
It will be passed back and forth over many years with suggestions and amendments being made to it by the elected representatives (governments).
Any final directive will have to be approved by all member states and will include their changes before each country then incorporates it into their own laws (the EU do not make laws).
Given the effects on motorsport businesses throughout the EU that aspect will disappear.

They are clearly looking at the impact of so called driverless cars and the potential claims resulting from when they go wrong and there have been issues with un-registered vehicles (e.g. agricultural etc.) operating in public areas which need to be investigated.

[Gerard C]

Do you think they can make an insurance for car-to-car damages mandatory? Or is this the kind of thing people will fight about, forgetting the other rules?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

It's only a consultation document, asking for input.
This is just a starting point with some suggestions for the areas it should cover.
It will be passed back and forth over many years with suggestions and amendments being made to it by the elected representatives (governments).

This is a little niaive if you will forgive me. This is as you say a consultation document, the "only" bit suggests that there is no intention to take it further unless there are compelling reasons. How about this? Green activists will be pleased to find any reason to stop, what they see as a waste of rescources at best, and an environmentally unfriendy pursuit at worst.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Any final directive will have to be approved by all member states and will include their changes before each country then incorporates it into their own laws (the EU do not make laws).
Given the effects on motorsport businesses throughout the EU that aspect will disappear.

I'm not entirely sure where the majority approach to the introduction of a directive comes from, unless you believe that countries still have sovereignty over their laws. It certainly has not been applied to things such as light bulbs, vacuum cleaner power etc. What makes anyone think this would be different? Also the ECJ has ruled on a case which was then applied to the Dutch court rulings. Ergo the EU Commission is trying to standardise the approach and can do so by this directive.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

They are clearly looking at the impact of so called driverless cars and the potential claims resulting from when they go wrong and there have been issues with un-registered vehicles (e.g. agricultural etc.) operating in public areas which need to be investigated.

That may be so, but I'm afraid for all the reasons above and experience (most recently with a construction project), the EU will take the views of the various countries, then make up their minds for them.

This initiative is attempting to put some logic into what is obviously a case of "straight bananas".

[chunder]

I would agree with Peter here.

People have enough experience with the EU to perhaps be very aware of what could happen here.

Plus insurance groups will be lobbying (ie backhanding) hard for this as they stand to make billions from it.

That kind of power is very hard to prevent.

So I can fully understand why even though this is nowhere near law yet, people like Chris and the MIA are up front and clear, and a little over reactionary about it.

As, in the UK particularly, this would have potentially devastating impact.

BUT, it is perhaps, long term a very minor thing that leaving the EU could benefit us from. The EU as a whole do not have a clear motorsport industry worth billions a year as we do, so our government can legitimately fight this corner.

The only problem is, our relationship with them is very sour, and thus is could be seen by those in power as a punishment for us leaving.

All hypothetical and very cynical of me, but you get the drift eh!

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This initiative is attempting to put some logic into what is obviously a case of "straight bananas".

Straight bananas and the other myths invented by Boris Johnson in the newspaper column he wrote (or still writes - I can't be bothered to check all the jobs he does to maintain his considerable income) for a "laugh".

Such consultations cover a huge variety of topics and they have to start with something - which is usually suggested by someone with limited knowledge of all the aspects, hence there are always components that make no sense and are dropped.

Of course if you are in the country that usually goes far beyond what the others do when implementing such directives and then blames the EU for it you might have reason to worry - but the presence of UK ministers at historic car events is possibly more to do with eyeing up the potential benefit to their coffers of things like capital gains on old cars.

[Peter Mallett]

The straight bananas was in fact my poor attempt at humour.

Peter, you appear to have ignored the thrust of my point which is that this is as a result of an ECJ ruling. That is the issue. Once ruled upon the EU won't be able to ignore it until or unless there are compelling reasons. One of which is loss of employment. And contrary to Chunder's point there are a lot of motorsport companies in Mainland Europe so they will have an interest too. Not to mention the journalists who rely on the sport for thier livelihood. Don't forget this will affect E Racing too, not just the traditionally powered racing.

And notwithstanding the traditional approach to directives taken by some countries, if the ruling is applied the FIA, which last time I looked was definitely not a country, will necessarily have to follow it and apply it to circuits in Europe.

Thus I've put the notice here for those who may feel they need to make a point. I have no interest in the politics of Brexit or anything else, in connection with this. Just to make sure that the sport Europewide remains open to as many folks as it can.

[midgetman]

Not to mention the law of unintended consequences. Unintended? Maybe intended.

Mobility scooters
Powered wheelchairs
Golf carts
Your powered lawn mower

If, as Chris asserts, the insurance industry are unwilling to pick up the tab, it will be ILLEGAL to use one. How will this be policed? Powered Vehicle Enforcement Officers no doubt, empowered to walk into your private property at any time to check you are not cutting your grass without insurance. Compulsory confiscation of Stephen Hawking's wheelchair.

I foresee a whole new generation of prod nose officials rooting round in barns and outbuildings looking for evidence of illicit powered machinery. "Why have you got a can of unleaded, Herr Morley? Your papers please!"

(I am joking - I hope!)

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[PeterMorley]

The whole straight banana thing was always a poor attempt at humour, just amazing how many people fell for it!

It might be the result of an ECJ ruling but it had nothing to do with motorsport.
Motorsport has been thrown into the discussion along with anything else that someone thought might fall in the same field.

A rather wider issue than that of motorsport is lawnmowers, which would also be affected by such a directive (I'm sure a BoJo type will happily raise that to justify their cause).

Given the size of the motorsport and lawnmowing fraternities and the fact that the EU does not strive to increase unemployment such issues will fall by the wayside along the way.

France and Germany in particular have sizeable motorsport industries and they know how to deal with such issues and will prevent any stupidity.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I foresee a whole new generation of prod nose officials rooting round in barns and outbuildings looking for evidence of illicit powered machinery. "Why have you got a can of unleaded, Herr Morley? Your papers please!"

(I am joking - I hope!)

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

This crossed over with my reply, it's good to see that someone else has found the wider reaching aspects.

As for the papers joke, that's a major reason people here appreciate the EU, they were fed up with their neighbours taking over on a regular basis...

Don't know about the unleaded but I wonder what they would make of the huge stash of methanol and ever diminishing stock of leaded....
Oh and carbon tetrachloride...

[chunder]

Oh dear, as usual nit picking thrives on here with a few people.

I am not stupid Mr Mallett, I obviously realise Europe is a very big place and companies there will be affected by this aswell. My point was that there is a large concentration of companies in the UK, both very large and very small, and probably a bigger share of GDP than in any other European country, so the government might have more of a vested interest in this type of law.

Regarding other points, I don't think this really has a cat in hells chance of being law, some of it will become law clearly, but the point is, it could easily impact a lot of other areas.

Law is often made by a lawyer setting a precedent, if this allows that precedent to be easier to set...

That is the point and why I support the petition in full.

[MGDavid]

For any that wish to become a little better informed before commenting, read some of the background:
http://www.bipar.eu/en/page/motor-in...-ecj-vnuk-case
is a reasonable summary, google 'ECJ Vnuk case' for lots more.

The point is that this is not new; the ECJ ruling was over 3 years ago, various administrations and bodies both public and private have been trying for most of that time to get reasonable exemptions for motorsport or mobility scooters or lawnmowers etc etc and signally failed as the EU doesn't appear to listen to common sense. (Hence Brexit some may say...)

The MIA have raised this urgent request as time is fast running out to get changes incorporated before it becomes law.

[one-two]

That is a commendably clear link - thank you

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chunder

Oh dear, as usual nit picking thrives on here with a few people.

I am not stupid Mr Mallett, I obviously realise Europe is a very big place and companies there will be affected by this aswell. My point was that there is a large concentration of companies in the UK, both very large and very small, and probably a bigger share of GDP than in any other European country, so the government might have more of a vested interest in this type of law.

Regarding other points, I don't think this really has a cat in hells chance of being law, some of it will become law clearly, but the point is, it could easily impact a lot of other areas.

Law is often made by a lawyer setting a precedent, if this allows that precedent to be easier to set...

That is the point and why I support the petition in full.

Sorry wasn't nit picking. But the subject of precedent is quite interesting because according to the rules of the ECJ they don't set precedents and don't use them in any of their cases. Although to read their judgments you'd think otherwise.