This is sobering news

[ralphy]

From a fellow motorsport enthusiast:

 

I've just received an email from the ACU regarding some proposed legislation regarding compulsory 3rd party insurance for all forms motor vehicles (including electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme), the text of which is below.

If this goes ahead then motor sport in the UK could well be finished and your insurance bill could skyrocket. What say ye?


https://www.acu.org.uk/News/2016/12/British-motorsport-could-end-due-to-EU-ruling/


Joint statement from the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA), the Auto-Cycle Union (ACU) and the Amateur Motor Cycle Association (AMCA)  
British motorsport could end due to EU ruling
The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the Government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*  
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.  
“If the Government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the Government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on Ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes 
• You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-insurance-consideration-of-the-vnuk-judgment
• The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/13&language=EN
• *Figures come from MCIA industry commissioned report.

Gulp.

R
 

[Mark (smokey mow)]

Yes that post makes for grim reading but I would suggest also reading the gov.uk link at the end to get the full overview.

In section 3 they have specifically identified the potential impact of the propsal on UK motorsport.  therefore the draft regulation (section 4) has specifically been written in a manner that would mean that the proposed legistation would not impact on UK motorsport in any way.  its limitations are to accidents on land where the public would have access and given that the public are prevented from freely wandering onto a race track it would not apply in those instances and the MSA's and circuit operators insurance would continue to cover all other third party liabilities in the usal way totally unaffected by the new legislation.

[ralphy]

13 minutes ago, Mark Wendon (smokey mow) - WSCC Club Secretary said:

Yes that post makes for grim reading but I would suggest also reading the gov.uk link at the end to get the full overview.

In section 3 they have specifically identified the potential impact of the propsal on UK motorsport.  therefore the draft regulation (section 4) has specifically been written in a manner that would mean that the proposed legistation would not impact on UK motorsport in any way.  its limitations are to accidents on land where the public would have access and given that the public are prevented from freely wandering onto a race track it would not apply in those instances and the MSA's and circuit operators insurance would continue to cover all other third party liabilities in the usal way totally unaffected by the new legislation.

I'm wading through the document now.  If we were to follow the Vnuk judgement as it stands then insurance would be needed on land to which the public have no access.  Insurance wouldn't be needed if the government were to effect a proposed change to the Directive by modifying current domestic legislation.

R

 

 

[Mark (smokey mow)]

13 minutes ago, ralphy said:

I'm wading through the document now.  If we were to follow the Vnuk judgement as it stands then insurance would be needed on land to which the public have no access.  Insurance wouldn't be needed if the government were to effect a proposed change to the Directive by modifying current domestic legislation.

R

 

 

The Vnuk Judgement isn't a piece of legislation that can be adopted though.  It was a case heard in the European Courts.  The outcome of this case now is that the member state of the EU must consider and re-write their domestic laws according to the findings of the courts.

 

Mr Vnuk was knocked off a ladder by an uninsured tractor working on a farm.  The courts ruled that there was a risk to a member of the public in this case and therefore the tractor should have been insured. This is not being disputed in the UK govement consultation, and their propsal is to extend the requirement for insurance to places where public and vehicles have access (think farms etc).  a race track is a different scenaro to that which the courts considered as the public and vehicles are separted, this has been identified specifically for exclusion from the new legislation.  See my previous post and the gov.uk link.

[ralphy]

13 minutes ago, Mark Wendon (smokey mow) - WSCC Club Secretary said:

The Vnuk Judgement isn't a piece of legislation that can be adopted though.  It was a case heard in the European Courts.  The outcome of thus case is now  the member state of the EU to consider and re-write their domestic laws according to the findings of the case.

 

Mr Vnuk was knocked off a ladder by an uninsured tractor working on a farm.  The courts ruled that there was a risk to a member of the public in this case and therefore the tractor should have been insured. This is not being disputed in the UK govement consultation, and the propsal is to extend the requirement for insurance to places where public and vehicles have access (think farms etc).  a race track is a different scenaro to that which the courts considered and this has been identified specifically for exclusion from the new legislation.  See my previous post and the gov.uk link.

The European Court of Justice ruled on the Vnuk in 2014.  We now have a Motor Insurance Directive as a result of the widening obligation of the ECJ's ruling.

See my previous post referencing 'insurance would be needed on land to which the public have no access' and this from the gov.uk link (page 19):

 

[ralphy]

Quote

The increase in scope of the Directive under option 2 would have the biggest impact on the motor sports sector, which currently adds in excess of £10bn to the UK economy each year directly employing 60,000 people in over 9,000 businesses. In both the two-wheeled and four-wheeled sectors of the industry collisions between competitors are common but there is no third party insurance requirement covering these collisions; the competitors simply take on the risk as an integral part of their participation in the activity. 

Under option 2, the competitors in the motor sport industry would be required to purchase compulsory insurance cover that would cover competitor-to-competitor liabilities including both property damage and personal injury. Discussions with stakeholders suggest premiums for such insurance products would be very high especially taking into account the minimum level of cover needed under the Directive. Experience from the Netherlands and Finland is a helpful starting point. Here the cost of such a product is around 5,000 Euros per driver per annum. When compulsory competitor-to-competitor third party liability insurance was introduced in Finland it effectively ended grassroots motorsport in the country because this cost became prohibitive for the amateur motorsport enthusiast.

However, for the UK, the cost could be considerably higher as a result of personal injury claims requiring cover and with medical expenses being recoverable. In context, licence costs and event entrance costs are £60 per year and £30 per event for 2-wheeled sector respectively and up to £200 per year and minimum of £200 per event for 4-wheeled sector. The additional cost of an insurance requirement would significantly add to the costs of a competitor leading to a considerable fall in participation of motor sport events. Views from stakeholders suggest that in practice this would cause the sector to collapse. 

 

[Mark (smokey mow)]

9 minutes ago, ralphy said:

The European Court of Justice ruled on the Vnuk in 2014.  We now have a Motor Insurance Directive as a result of the widening obligation of the ECJ's ruling.

See my previous post referencing 'insurance would be needed on land to which the public have no access' and this from the gov.uk link (page 19):

 

The motor insurance directive has been kicking about for years though and long before Vnuk's accident occured.

 

without wishing to repeat myself it is down to the member nations to determine how they implement this in our legislation.  this is no different to us having the legislation (IVA ) and ability to build kit cars whereas other nations, France for example do not. In that case the UK goverment identified the impact on the UK kit car industry and introduced regulations that would allow these business to continue.

 

this case is not that different.  the risk to motorsport has been identified and legislation proposed that would minimise impact.

[ralphy]

Let's hope we see Option 3 implemented then.

 

R

[Captain Colonial]

I, for one, am all in favour of mobility scooter operators needing third party insurance.  Some of them are lethal out there on the pavements, and also drive down streets as if they were immortal.  And while we're at it, make cyclists have third party insurance as well.

[Deanspoors]

6 hours ago, Scott Young - WSCC Chairman said:

I, for one, am all in favour of mobility scooter operators needing third party insurance.  Some of them are lethal out there on the pavements, and also drive down streets as if they were immortal.  And while we're at it, make cyclists have third party insurance as well.

This would just be another taxable, corporate, profit making, non-necessity. Insurance is only required for someone who cannot afford to pay for the damage they could potentially cause. (I'm talking low speed, low weight things here, obviously a car has the potential to cause an exponentially higher amount of damage) Any damages caused by non-insured persons can presently be claimed through small claims courts if required. Why add more corporations to profit from something we don't need. The TV "Licence" is already enough for me thank you very much!

 

With regards to the initial post, surely this can be bypassed by some sort of track waiver.

 

And lets not also forget we did vote out of the EU.   

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

Whilst I agree with Scott about mobility scooters and bicycles, it is this sort of potential action that made me want to leave the EU. It wasn't anything to do with foreigners in Britain, or whether I could live in Europe or not, but to do with the threat of Draconian laws being foisted upon us by people we cannot vote out. Okay, I may be thick and bigoted according to the irritable people whom the media keep trotting out, so I'll ask my son not to bring his Chinese girlfriend over from Australia and send back my Mensa membership card!  

[Mark (smokey mow)]

5 hours ago, Deanspoors said:

This would just be another taxable, corporate, profit making, non-necessity. Insurance is only required for someone who cannot afford to pay for the damage they could potentially cause. (I'm talking low speed, low weight things here, obviously a car has the potential to cause an exponentially higher amount of damage) Any damages caused by non-insured persons can presently be claimed through small claims courts if required. Why add more corporations to profit from something we don't need.  

Whilst I agree with your assertions about damage to personal property you don't appear to have considered that a mobility scooter can weigh anything upto 250kg with rider and travel at upto 8mph. If a person is hit by one of them (and it has already happened) they can cause serious bodily injury. Just because you can bring a claim through the courts doesn't mean that the defendant would have the means to pay the resulting injury claim which could easily run into tens or hundreds of thousands depending on the injury. 

Im with Scott on this and feel that compulsory insurance for mobility scooters is long overdue.

[dombanks]

Totally agree with you Scott. Years ago when I had a kite buggy I had 3rd party insurance. It wasn't mandatory but after a fatal accident with land yachts in Southport it seemed a good idea. It wasn't much say £60. If I remeber right you also needed it with the horses. 

I'm amazed I don't need it for my bicycle. 

I don't think it is right to blame the eu or any particular govt either.Liability seems an odd thing to prove/defend. I recently had to undergo defensability training for work. Basically how I as a manager should have certain procedures that protect the uni in case of accident. It was very eye opening on how lawyers will twist and turn the truth.

[Deanspoors]

I think it would be awful to take away a disabled/impaired persons possibly only means of transport, OAP's have been on this planet a lot longer than I have and I think they deserve their right to roam. Once they make it a legal necessity to insure bikes, horses, mobility scooters, etc. where will it end? There is always some form of risk with every mode of transport. Skating and running insurance? There will only be one winner in the end and that will be the corporations... Unless of course a non-profit, government funded insurance company was setup.

[Mark (smokey mow)]

Third party insurance for mobility scooters already exists for those that want it voluntarily. We looked at it recently for SWMBO's dad who was buying a scooter and it was less than £75 for a year and that included breakdown recovery for the scooter.  IMO not a massive amount of money and in no way prohibitive and certainly couldnt be seen as taking away a disabled persons only means of transport.

 

insurance is available for most hobies and in the past I've held third party cover for RC car racing, kite surfing, RC flying and Mountain Biking.  Of these I don't recall ever paying more than £50 a year. The chances of ever having to claim are low, but the risk nevertheless still exists and I wanted to make sure I was covered should the worst happen.