British motorsport could end due to EU ruling

[PhilDawson8270]

You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.

This used to be the case. Regardless of fault in motorsport, you fix your own stuff. It's how it's always been. It never caused any issues. Personal Injury is unfortunately part of motorsport, as much as it is part of a contact sport. And organisers have cover for this in place if there can be proven negligence or blame. There was a choice to take your own injury insurance out also.

However, it's now you pay your money, you don't get a choice. Compulsory insurance will result in the same issues of normal motor insurance, with inflated claim values, and inflated legal costs, as it's insurance companies paying.

 

[S-Express]

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?

My point was that it sounded very much like you were.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My point was that it sounded very much like you were.

Then you need new ears.

If you want to participate in motorsport FILL YOUR BOOTS. It isn't my bag anymore but if it floats you boat go ahead.

Just don't moan, and moan in a cycling forum at that, that the costs might, possibly, perhaps, maybe, be about to go up on the basis of an alarmist press release. Because it makes you sound a tad whiney and entitled.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This used to be the case. Regardless of fault in motorsport, you fix your own stuff. It's how it's always been. It never caused any issues. Personal Injury is unfortunately part of motorsport, as much as it is part of a contact sport. And organisers have cover for this in place if there can be proven negligence or blame. There was a choice to take your own injury insurance out also.

However, it's now you pay your money, you don't get a choice. Compulsory insurance will result in the same issues of normal motor insurance, with inflated claim values, and inflated legal costs, as it's insurance companies paying.

and in a world of compulsory insurance? You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.

No one forces anyone to take part. The choice is free, even if the fee to take part isn't.

Compulsory motor insurance for vehicles used on public roads is a VERY.GOOD.THING.

If I had my way compulsory third party insurance would be levied by a duty on fuel to remove the uninsured from our roads.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The issue with ignoring this as you're unaffected is that the "I'm alright Jack" attitude just leads to more and more legislation. IF this does get applied to e-bikes, that are slower than somebody pedalling. It is a very easy argument to make to expand it to bicycles. After all, if an e-bike at up to 16mph requires insurance for third parties. Why shouldn't a pedal bike at 20mph require it?

Nothing in it directly affects me, I've not done any form of motorsport since breaking my arm. And have no intention either. The stuff this applies to can be the thin end of the wedge that affects most of us on here.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

and in a world of compulsory insurance? You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.

No one forces anyone to take part. The choice is free, even if the fee to take part isn't.

Compulsory motor insurance for vehicles used on public roads is a VERY.GOOD.THING.

If I had my way compulsory third party insurance would be levied by a duty on fuel to remove the uninsured from our roads.

I'd agree with the insurance. But you cannot disagree that for all the good it does, insurance companies are in the majority corrupt. Have you seen the cost of a hire vehicle after an accident when it's charged to an insurance company? The costs are extortionate between them, and this is passed on to policy holders.

Third party insurance built into fuel price, or into VED would be a good plan also. I'm admittedly more of a free-market capitalist kind of person. But I do believe, compulsory purchases, insurance, energy, etc. Should be publicly owned and operated. I don't think giving private companies control of a compulsory product is a good thing to do.

But compulsory third party insurance on private land, that is NOT accessible to the public is unnecessary.

Like I said though, if this applies to e-bikes, what argument is there for not require third party insurance for a pedal cycle?

 

[S-Express]

Then you need new ears.

If you want to participate in motorsport FILL YOUR BOOTS. It isn't my bag anymore but if it floats you boat go ahead.

Just don't moan, and moan in a cycling forum at that, that the costs might, possibly, perhaps, maybe, be about to go up on the basis of an alarmist press release. Because it makes you sound a tad whiney and entitled.

The thing is 'GrumpyGregry', I haven't been moaning about it. Maybe check back on my earlier posts to see for yourself how you have got that bit wrong. Ironically, the post of yours I called out earlier, I did so specifically because you were coming across as a tad whiney and just a bit disenfranchised. There's irony for you.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The thing is 'GrumpyGregry', I haven't been moaning about it. Maybe check back on my earlier posts to see for yourself how you have got that bit wrong. Ironically, the post of yours I called out earlier, I did so specifically because you were coming across as a tad whiney and just a bit disenfranchised. There's irony for you.

Bless.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The issue with ignoring this as you're unaffected is that the "I'm alright Jack" attitude just leads to more and more legislation. IF this does get applied to e-bikes, that are slower than somebody pedalling. It is a very easy argument to make to expand it to bicycles. After all, if an e-bike at up to 16mph requires insurance for third parties. Why shouldn't a pedal bike at 20mph require it?

Nothing in it directly affects me, I've not done any form of motorsport since breaking my arm. And have no intention either. The stuff this applies to can be the thin end of the wedge that affects most of us on here.

I have third party insurance for my cycling activities. Would not bother me one jot if it were compulsory.

 

[S-Express]

Bless.

Haha, the patronising response of someone who has no valid intellectual counter. Bless indeed. You just lost, fella.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Haha, the patronising response of someone who has no valid intellectual counter. Bless indeed. You just lost, fella.

It isn't a competition.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

But you cannot disagree that for all the good it does, insurance companies are in the majority corrupt. Have you seen the cost of a hire vehicle after an accident when it's charged to an insurance company? The costs are extortionate between them, and this is passed on to policy holders.

I can, and I do, disagree, quite strongly, that insurance companies are in the majority corrupt. Inefficient, badly managed, badly lead, they suffer all the woes likely do dog any man-made institution which is based on processing money and assessing risks. But corrupt? No, I find I can't agree.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I am currently sub-contracted to one of the UK's largest Personal Lines insurers. The majority of my working life has been spent working in insurance and re-insurance. I've seen little evidence of corruption at work, amidst a whole lot of dysfunction.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I can, and I do, disagree, quite strongly, that insurance companies are in the majority corrupt. Inefficient, badly managed, badly lead, they suffer all the woes likely do dog any man-made institution which is based on processing money and assessing risks. But corrupt? No, I find I can't agree.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I am currently sub-contracted to one of the UK's largest Personal Lines insurers. The majority of my working life has been spent working in insurance and re-insurance. I've seen little evidence of corruption at work, amidst a whole lot of dysfunction.

Maybe corruption was too strong a word. But surely you cannot agree that the charges made to insurance companies for vehicle repairs, and hire during the claim process are reasonable.

 

[srw]

I can, and I do, disagree, quite strongly, that insurance companies are in the majority corrupt. Inefficient, badly managed, badly lead, they suffer all the woes likely do dog any man-made institution which is based on processing money and assessing risks. But corrupt? No, I find I can't agree.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I am currently sub-contracted to one of the UK's largest Personal Lines insurers. The majority of my working life has been spent working in insurance and re-insurance. I've seen little evidence of corruption at work, amidst a whole lot of dysfunction.

You might want to add there is corruption in the credit hire market - but it's corruption that the insurance companies would love to get rid of because it costs them, and their policyholders real money.

Declaration of interest: I work for one of his competitors.

 

[srw]

Maybe corruption was too strong a word. But surely you cannot agree that the charges made to insurance companies for vehicle repairs, and hire during the claim process are reasonable.

If you can find someone who works for one of the insurance companies you've just described as "corrupt" who believe that the amount they're charged for hire charges is "reasonable" then I'll eat my hat. Charges made for repairs are usually much more reasonable, because it's the insurance companies themselves who commission that work, not some dodgy demi-monde semi-lawyer operating out of a room above a flat.