British motorsport could end due to EU ruling
- Thread starter Dirk
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Potentially it prevents anyone driving a motor vehicle anywhere, even on private property, without third party cover, so depending on how it were implemented it mat well indeed. Section 1.4, 2.7, 2.11, 3.3, and most particularly the table in 3.4 of the summary, but 3.7 really shoves it up us. The ruling uses the EU definition of motor vehicle, not the UK one, so in essence if it has wheels and is self propelled by its own engine it could, depending on any final implementation, fall foul of the proposed legislation. Motorsportists are complaining, but they wouldn't be the only people affected. Hell, if you're restoring a classic car and drive it out your own garage onto your own private driveway you'd need third party cover.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Yep, that's why I use the caveat 'depending on any final implementation'. Nevertheless, as it stands right this minute, the EU have decreed as I have described, regardless of what our Government may ultimately do about it.
Another good reason for Teresa May to go to the bank tomorrow, cancel the Direct Debit to the EU, and simply wave bye byte.
Another good reason for Teresa May to go to the bank tomorrow, cancel the Direct Debit to the EU, and simply wave bye byte.
Last edited:
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
My experience is irrelevant. The costs of competing have increased over the years and will continue to increase. This measure will increase costs. People will continue to compete despite that. The costs of motor sport are a 1st world problem.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
So are many things. Cycling included. What do you think would happen to grass roots cycle racing if every competitor needed to be insured against being financially responsible for causing a pile up in a peleton. But it doesn't matter. Sport is a luxury. Sport shouldn't be accessible to all at its amateur entry level.
U
User482
Guest
Cycle competitors do require insurance...
Yes - the same as motor sport competitors. It's the proposed level of insurance that is under consideration that is causing the controversy.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Sport is a luxury. It requires leisure time, it often requires surplus income. My heart bleds, copiously, that folk with time and money to burn in motorsport are going to have to find a little bit more money to burn to continue to take part (fuel their addiction). How much more will the poor dears have to lay out as a % of their annual costs I wonder?
Sports that require significant outlay on equipment have never been accessible to all, whatever that means, at entry level. And never will be.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
No. It is fear of the cost of the proposed level of proposed compulsory insurance that is causing outrage.
S-Express
Guest
Is this a jealousy thing? sounds like it. All sport costs money and takes time, the only differentiator is how much money and time. Who are you to be setting limits on that?
No. It is the fear that the level of insurance being proposed will be unobtainable.
If the extended risks in motorsport are deemed 'uninsurable', then cost doesn't come into it; it ceases to exist as a legal sport.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Regardless of whether the proposal as a whole is a good idea, I'd be gobsmacked if participants and organisers of motorsport don't have a shed load of 3rd party insurance already so changing the structure such that the vehicles are insured - after all it's the vehicles generating the majority of the risk - rather than the event being insured shouldn't make a whole load of difference. Admittedly there is case law such as the Cheltenam cycle club (motorbikes in this instance) case where a bike wnt of the track and hit someone but it was deemed to be bad luck.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
Let's just be clear about one thing. There is no requirement to extend the structure of any insurance to ensure that damage to vehicles is covered - as the idiotic motorbike article implied. What's implied by the legal case is that it is a legal requirement to have insurance when participating in motorsport on private land rather than, as everyone thought, a prudent precaution mandated by the people who organise races. It will change precisely nothing for people who take part in properly organised races.
What it does change is that people who ride e-bikes, or mobility scooters, or who drive tractors or lawnmowers on private land are now captured by mandatory insurance laws. Which could be problematic for the disabled, for farmers and for gardeners.
And any extra money isn't going to come from racers, it's going to come from the rest of us, who have to pay for the MIB to cover uninsured drivers. The potential number of uninsured drivers and what they do has just shot up.
Organisers already have to have public liability insurance, as do competitors.
Both are indemnified against claims by third parties.
The risks are obviously manageable, at present.
The problem arises when that cover is extended to 'on track' incidents which are currently understood to be at the participants own risk.
I'd hate to think of the payouts, and therefore premiums, that would have occurred from some of the incidents I've been involved in.
I don't think any racer would ever get a No Claims Bonus!
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Whilst not defending the proposal as such, farmers would doubtless have 3rd party insurance and employer's laibility insurance already. This would cover risk arising from tractors and so on. And anyhow most agrigultural vehicles would be road legal already. Ok maybe the sit on lawnmower in someone's garden might be included and my caving clubs rarely used dumper truck - but still - seems like a tidy up rather than as big a deal as being made out. And usually i'm in the "down with this sort of thing" camp
