British motorsport could end due to EU ruling

[nickyboy]

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!

Let's just for a minute assume that the insurance industry apparatus operates at nil cost. It is therefore there to take premiums and then redistribute these to those who suffer a loss

Motorsporters will pay premiums for "on track" incidents insurance. These premiums will pay for losses incurred by motorsporters "on track". All that happens is all the participants pay a bit and those that suffer a loss get recompensed. So overall it's a nil cost equation, just redistributing money amongst the participants depending on who suffers losses. If a participant suffers an average level of loss then his premiums will be the same amount.

Of course the insurance industry has costs of operations so the above does not quite happen in reality, but you get the idea? The insurance shouldn't be seen as just a cost. It isn't. It provides for compensation for the participants losses which presumably he has to pay for out of his own pocket now

 

[Profpointy]

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!

And yet, if a, lets say crippled, participant did sue a fellow competitor who had been negligent, he'd have a case now even if the Cheltenam Cc case would put the negligence bar pretty high given both are willing participants in a dangerous acctivity - what's the term "violenti fit injuria" if I remember rightly. Not sure this would change.

 

[srw]

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

Oh yes - little change for farmers and gardeners.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Sports that require significant outlay on equipment have never been accessible to all, whatever that means, at entry level. And never will be.

You do know that there are motorsports in which you can compete for the outlay of less than a good road bike? You can go kart racing in the 90s class with F100 for less than £1k outlay, then around £75 per month. There are things like Club 100, where the race club owns and maintains the karts, and you just pay and race.

You can go bike racing with Formula 400 with a bike that cost you less than £1k, there's the 90s steel frame, where you can get bikes for £600. Fair enough you won't win at clubman level with that budget. But the fact is you can still go out there, and race with others at this price. There are a few rich guys out in amateur motorsport. But it is far more accessible than you appear to believe.

It's not even about private guys going racing at the weekend. It will affect business. Ever been to an arrive and drive karting session with mates? Even though they own all their own karts, they will now have to insure them all too, even though the only thing they will damage is their own property.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Cycle competitors do require insurance...

What level of insurance? I genuinely don't know as I have never had an interest in cycle competitors.

If a guy crashes at the front of a peleton, and then causes a pile up. Will their insurance cover all the damage to the race bikes, and injuries to everybody involved in it?

 

[Dirk]

And yet, if a, lets say crippled, participant did sue a fellow competitor who had been negligent, he'd have a case now even if the Cheltenam Cc case would put the negligence bar pretty high given both are willing participants in a dangerous acctivity - what's the term "violenti fit injuria" if I remember rightly. Not sure this would change.

Agreed, and this scenario has happened at least once before in motorcycle sport to my knowledge.

 

[Profpointy]

Oh yes - little change for farmers and gardeners.

Are you agreeing or being sarcastic? Happy to be convinced if you think what I'm assuming is wrong

 

[Profpointy]

Agreed, and this scenario has happened at least once before in motorcycle sport to my knowledge.

By this do you mean sucessfully sued, or unsuccessfully (like the cheltenham case). The latter did suprise me when I read about it, and I suspect the outcome would have been different these days - but it is a precedent now

 

[Dirk]

....... anyhow most agrigultural vehicles would be road legal already.....

Thanks. Best laugh I've had so far today!

 

[srw]

Are you agreeing or being sarcastic? Happy to be convinced if you think what I'm assuming is wrong

Agreeing.

(My employer used to run the insurance scheme for one of the big farming organisations, and we also sell liability policies for gardeners).

 

[Dirk]

By this do you mean sucessfully sued, or unsuccessfully (like the cheltenham case). The latter did suprise me when I read about it, and I suspect the outcome would have been different these days - but it is a precedent now

I seem to recall a case resulting from a sidecar crash at Oliver's Mount, Scarborough about 15 or 20 years ago, which was settled in favour of the claimant.

 

[craigwend]

It's okay ....
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...iven-universal-right-to-greggs-20160519108927

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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?

I'm neither jealous nor setting limits on what people spend to take part in the sport of their choice.
So what is your point?

 

[craigwend]

I seem to recall a case resulting from a sidecar crash at Oliver's Mount, Scarborough about 15 or 20 years ago, which was settled in favour of the claimant.

I remember when young-ish seeing Barry Sheene at Oliver's Mount, (Scarborough) crashing & I can only assume some (well a lot of) of his faring broke off into pieces & a bit of the 'glass-dust' went in my eye - nobody 'litigated' anyone & it was my claim to fame on Monday at school :

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

What evidence is there that the risks in motorsport are to be deemed uninsurable? None.
What evidence is there that adequate cover will be unobtainable? None.
The ACU are being utterly alarmist.

The costs of motorsport will (continue to) go up. You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.