Eu Ruling Could Kill British Motorsport

[totalshell]

thankfully at least one member of the cabinet is a grass roots motorsport nut and he ll not let this through.

[guys]

Really? When is he coming to the EU?

I'd like to be there in case he needs some support. Or is he a lone ranger?

[rabie]

as i understand it (could be wrong)

in the UK, we currently require third party motor insurance (plus tax, MOT, driving licence) for road work. if the event is not on the road then you don't.

the various federations (eg ACU, AMCA, etc) buy "public liability" insurance (among other polices) to cover the eventually of say a rider hitting a member of the public.

as i understand it, the "vnuk" judgement transfer that liability from public liability to motor insurance (which we are already buying) - but critically it adds the need to have "competitor to competitor" cover - something no insurance company offers worldwide (as best as we know). also the "new" insurance would have to be a validated motor insurance policy with limitless cover (rather than the limited public liability we know have).

other problems arising from this is that all "vehicles" (ride on lawn mowers, every motorcycle ever, mobility scooters, etc, etc) will have to be insured, somehow identified, somehow checked they have insurance, etc.

the final key problem is that if you have a claim against an unknown or uninsured driver, then the motor insurance slush fund pays out - suddenly everyone can claim some oik on a minibike run them over - if you follow this though (with our no win no fee culture) then there will be a run on the slush fund - which is compulsory filled by all legit motor insurance payers (you and me)

thus to comply with the vnuk judgement

a) we'ld all have to buy an insurance product that doesn't exist (and probably never will)

were probable end up with number plates / licences /etc

c) we are going to bankrupt normal motor insurance *or* raise everyone across the EU polices through the roof

as to the politics - if you read the consultation the best we can hope for is the EU commission re-does the motor insurance directive to somehow exempt motorsport - worst case scenario is that we have comply with vnuk as is

[turbofurball]

Given how widespread motorsport is across Europe I can't see this getting any traction as a blanket ruling; especially since the example case was a work injury and mounting a legal challenge that requires workplace insurance instead would appear to be an easy path to take.

[timdog]

I have just sat and read the public consultation docs and impact assessment on the Euro directive re insurance.

It's apparent that the Government do not have the option to ignore it (eu law!) and they list 2 options, the preferred one, in a nutshell would limit the number of vehicles it applies to. They acknowledge the likely collapse of motorsport if it's a requirement for 3rd party insurance across the board and the preffered  option is to exclude motorsport but the frightening thing for Trials is that they talk about it being on land to which the public do not have access, I.e racing etc on a circuit. As trials courses are open to people to walk round we could be in trouble! 

No doubt the ACU etc are in the talks, fingers crossed for common sense! 

[2stroke4stroke]

I think you'll find that even a race circuit is regarded as a place to which the public has access.

Two or three years ago someone was successfully prosecuted on those grounds for riding without insurance (I think the charge of riding whilst under a ban, having had his licence removed, failed) when he was seen riding in the pits and reported to the authorities by someone who must have had an axe to grind.  He had not signed in as required so the event cover did not apply, he had no personal cover.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by 2stroke4stroke

[rabie]

when you do wade through the consultation you can see there are various scenarios with different effects.

 

critically the current (pre vnuk) arrangements (where the ACU buys public liability insurance) have now been deemed inadequate.

Vnuk means (if the UK gov and/or EU don't take action) we will need motor insurance rather than public liability - now this is in two parts i) hitting joe public (which the current public liability covers) and ii) hitting another rider (this is something that isn't currently covered).

Its this second factor that is the killer as no insurance company worldwide offers (or will ever offer) "competitor to competitor" cover. But under vnuk everyone now has the right to claim motor insurance cover from such accidents.

 

the other scenarios might help a bit;

i) excluding certain type of vehicles (eg motorsport machines) from scope of vnuk

ii) using the phrase "in traffic situations" - apparently this is used elsewhere in europe. we use the phrase "the highway" and since 1988 "the public place"

 

 

its a real tough one, and its hard to tell how our legislators will respond, the EU commission will respond and how the other 27 EU members intend to respond

[dadof2]

Firstly - Can this topic be moved to and continued on the original post.

Secondly

5 JAN 2017 — Dear Supporter, 

Thank you so much for signing our petition, the response over the Christmas period has been incredible and we are really starting to make progress. 

Writing in 'The Telegraph' over the weekend, Boris Johnson MP has argued that the Vnuk ruling on compulsory motor insurance for any mechanically propelled vehicle is "insane". 

In a striking attack against the European Court of Justice, the Foreign Secretary defends the right of "every free-born Brit to pootle blissfully on his own quad bike on his own private land" in his unique characteristic style. 

Despite the strong opposition to the 'Vnuk' ruling, while the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, HM Government is bound to implement the Directive which will affect motorsport across the country. 

We are asking that HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgement in a way that encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities.

You can help us by sharing the petition amongst your friends, family and fellow motorsport enthusiasts!

Yours in sport, 
Tristan Robinson 
Dan Summers

Fight 'Vnuk' 
www.fightvnuk.co.uk

[dadof2]

5 JAN 2017 — Dear Supporter, 

Thank you so much for signing our petition, the response over the Christmas period has been incredible and we are really starting to make progress. 

Writing in 'The Telegraph' over the weekend, Boris Johnson MP has argued that the Vnuk ruling on compulsory motor insurance for any mechanically propelled vehicle is "insane". 

In a striking attack against the European Court of Justice, the Foreign Secretary defends the right of "every free-born Brit to pootle blissfully on his own quad bike on his own private land" in his unique characteristic style. 

Despite the strong opposition to the 'Vnuk' ruling, while the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, HM Government is bound to implement the Directive which will affect motorsport across the country. 

We are asking that HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgement in a way that encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities.

You can help us by sharing the petition amongst your friends, family and fellow motorsport enthusiasts!

Yours in sport, 
Tristan Robinson 
Dan Summers

Fight 'Vnuk' 
www.fightvnuk.co.uk

[jj65]

Signed it, but surprisingly on 7000 odd signatures so far :0(

i guess, when the sh*t hits the fan, that's when people might wake up, but it'll probably be too late.

does anyone want to buy my bike, might aswell get shot of it before it's worth swfa ;0)

[micm]

Another hit from the European Court, not.

The UK is leaving the EU, luckily.

Other EU (remaining for now) members will do what they always do with legislation they don't agree with which is to ignore it.

Fags and Spanish bars etc.

Mind you the notion of Boris on a quad!

 

[Andy]

Seperate topics merged into this one.

[shedracer]

Also signed petition. I would of thought this is in the interest of virtually every person in the UK, as it's likely to effect either directly or indirectly themselves or someone they know!

[timdog]

Just read an article on an insurance law site which listed four options to deal with this, seems 3 are written as a paper exercise as the commissions preffered one, the one the government wants, is to limit the requirement of 3rd party cover to vehicles used "in traffic" suggested meaning of that is while  used in transportation of people or goods, so don't use your trials bike to carry someone a can of petrol if they run out!  I.e not sport/recreational use. Partly due to impact on sport and business but also as it could mean police having to deal with increased incidents as normal road accidents and the uninsured loss section of motor insurance bureau could cover the low number of claims.

 

[2stroke4stroke]

I see Boris is on our side - we're sunk now.