Jump to content

Legal threat to motorsport


Recommended Posts

A Slovenian farm worker, Mr.Vnuk, was knocked off a ladder by the farmers tractor's trailer.

He sought damages for his injuries, but the Slovenian courts fond that it was unnecessary for a tractor being used on the farm, rather than on the road, to have insurance.

He appealed to the European Court, which reversed the decision. The CJEU found that in Article 3(1) of the First Directive on Motor Insurance (72/166/EEC) the use of the words "use of vehicles" should be extended to include any use of a vehicle that is consistent with 'the normal function' of that vehicle. So, it would seem, racing cars, and bikes should have full, Road Traffic Act insurance, for that is the same as Directive 72/166/EEC.

 

Such insurance would be unaffordable, for anyone, and various bodies like the Auto-Cycle Union are getting very sweaty about it. Maybe we all should but the MSA is on the case. Quote, 2016 Annual Report, p.63,

"Vnuk.

Throughout 2016 the MSA worked closely with other motorsport governing bodies (both two- and four-wheels) across Europe to limit the impact on motorsport of changes to European motor insurance rules. Together with the motorsport and insurance industries, the MSA has lobbied in Westminster and Brussels, reaching out to MPs, MEPs, government departments, the European commission and European Parliament. The MSA will continue this important public affairs activity in 2017 in order to protect the interests of all participants in UK motorsport."

 

Cool, eh? Should we panic?

 

John

PS short legal discussion of the case and it's implications: http://www.weightmans.com/library/newsletters/2015/03/motor-march-2015/the-implications-of-the-vnuk-case/

 

PPS Please don't use this as an excuse to get your knife onto the EC. There are plenty of other examples of 'good' British Law as an Ass, such as that on noise as a nuisance which endangers motor sport. This is a legal not a political problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, a detailed discussion, thank you Paul!

 

It includes the point "At present Motorsports events driver-to-driver incidents are not generally pursued because of consent/volenti/disclaimer points but they would now fall within compulsory Motor insurance."

 

Motorsports. at least all within the MSA's remit, with the exception of Touring Cars, are non-contact sports, but collisions do occur. Collisions with the scenery or track side furniture are more frequent.

In the first, no body claims against another racer, because A/ "It's not done" and B/ they aren't insured.

In the second. circuit owners take the hit too. But they are more and more protective of their property.

If we must all be insured, what's to stop claims from or to competitors?

Like car thefts are seen as a victimless crimes, because the victims must be insured, it will become a conscienceless act to claim for damages.

 

JOhn

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have public liability cover on tractors and mower that are not used on public roads but do sometimes run on a bridleway/footpath. Doesnt the MSA fee provide that cover for racers at MSA-organised race meetings? And TRR provide it at TRR-organised track days? So I dont see much changing except for vehicles that are exclusively used on private land.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MSA fee, Peter is strictly for public liability and personal accident.

Vnuk was not a third party.

 

The proposed insurance would allow claims to be made if cars or drivers damaged each other, a risk that competitors take on themselves at present. The Gov. Consultation Document https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579383/motor-insurance-vnuk-judgement-impact-assessment.pdf estimates that this would cost a minimum of 5000 Euros a year, from Finnish experience, where similar legislation "effectively ended grassroots motor sport in the country"

 

It is a "Consultation Document", and you may give your response.
See the Gov.UK Dept. of Transport page on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
You can send an email to motorinsurance@dft.gsi.gov.uk or write a letter.

The Document sets out what information they especially want to see on page 6.
The writers are aware of the implications for motor sport (pp20-21) and say that, "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". Would that 5000 Euros a year prevent you spending what you do on taking part in motor sport? That might be something to say!

John

Edited by john.r.davies
Link to post
Share on other sites

5000Euro per annum on top of MSA fees would kill most m/sport participation. And they think it will be more than that in UK.

Impact on UK m/sport business would be severe. Only way out I see is for UK to set a waiver for recognised m/s events at private venues ( circuits) where any liability on MIB is also waived by competitors.

In view of the massive impact on motor sport business you'd think they'd press the "wait until after brexit" button.

Peter

 

 

They include mobility scooters and electrically-assisted bicycles, and 'dodgems'. Why not include bicycles too? Its surely an anomaly that bicycles can use the public road with no insurance and no identification.

Edited by Peter Cobbold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not include bicycles too? Its surely an anomaly that bicycles can use the public road with no insurance and no identification.

 

The Directive (and RTA) specifically relates to MOTOR vehicles.

 

 

& cycle racing must rank as a contact sport surely ?

 

Back in the early/mid 70's when I was racing, all competitors carried insurance linked to their Competition Licence. I can't believe the regime is more relaxed now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The latest development is from the MSA: https://www.msauk.org/assets/msavnukjan2017.pdf

 

They suggest that anyone interested in motor sport should join in the public consultation launched by the UK Government in December, by writing to their MP, pointing out the threat to a popular sport, to jobs and businesses in motor sport in the UK and to the £9 Billion pounds that it is worth to the UK economy.

 

In case you don't know how to contact your MP, use https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

I found it surprising that it's the MIA (Motorsports Industry Association) that has initiated this new appeal for repsonses, unless it was just that they got in first and the MSA has seen it unnecessary to issue their own, and have supported it. Certainly it came to my notioce through the MSA, as a licence holder.

 

Thanks, Kevin! I started to complete the questionnaire, and found the Qs so irrelevant to the motorsport subject I became convinced that the hyperlink from the MIA page was to the wrong place! I missed the MIA guidance document!

But NB - The MIA is an Industry org! We should complete the questionnaire as "Private individuals", unless of course the other options do apply.

 

JOhn

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have public liability cover on tractors and mower that are not used on public roads but do sometimes run on a bridleway/footpath. Doesnt the MSA fee provide that cover for racers at MSA-organised race meetings? And TRR provide it at TRR-organised track days? So I dont see much changing except for vehicles that are exclusively used on private land.

Peter

Peter I'm not sure that public liability cover will do. Don't understand what else they may need but the FBHVC articles (in particular Issue 2 2017) indicates that it has nothing to do with Vnuk.

 

"The ECJ ruling has apparently caused more concern in the
UK than many jurisdictions for reasons which are not quite
clear and which I have no space to go into here. In short the
Government has decided they do have a need to be compliant
with the Directive and to compel insurance of all motor
vehicles, whether or not they are used on the highway. To
be clear, none of this is affected by, nor is it concerned with,
public liability or occupiers’ liability insurance.
On the one hand this means they are looking at such vehicles
as Segways and ride-on mowers, and on the other it means
they are now looking at compulsory insurance of all vehicles
involved in motor sport. They are also considering whether
they need to require insurance of all vehicles on SORN"
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MSA holds public liability and personal injury insurance, for its officials not competitors, to the value of £64 MILLION. That is not the problem.

As the EU questionnaire repeatedly says, it is on the need for "MTPL" insurance. Motor Third Party Liability.

 

But I've just heard from the MIA. "Currently, the European Commission are looking for responses from employers and businesses in motorsport, as yet, not competitors." [my underline]

This clearly did not register with the MSA, who sent out appeals for response to all its 'members', urgently, " Vnuk: nine days left to act!"

 

The MIA assures me that there will be an opportunity for private individuals to repsond later. Done it already.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Peter I'm not sure that public liability cover will do. Don't understand what else they may need but the FBHVC articles (in particular Issue 2 2017) indicates that it has nothing to do with Vnuk.

 

"The ECJ ruling has apparently caused more concern in the
UK than many jurisdictions for reasons which are not quite
clear and which I have no space to go into here. In short the
Government has decided they do have a need to be compliant
with the Directive and to compel insurance of all motor
vehicles, whether or not they are used on the highway. To
be clear, none of this is affected by, nor is it concerned with,
public liability or occupiers’ liability insurance.
On the one hand this means they are looking at such vehicles
as Segways and ride-on mowers, and on the other it means
they are now looking at compulsory insurance of all vehicles
involved in motor sport. They are also considering whether
they need to require insurance of all vehicles on SORN"

 

Malcolm, Many thanks I hadn't seen that. Looks like RTA-insurance for my tractors ( all of 22hp) is going to be mandated, despite the risk to third parties being minute. Peter

Edited by Peter Cobbold
Link to post
Share on other sites

"it seems that the UK are reading more into the ruling than other countries....."

 

Don't we always ? if there was a rule passed that all cars must be painted Blue and Pink, by next Monday we'd not only be prosecuting those that didn't comply but also insisting that there were painted in Blue and Pink spots !

 

Mick Richards

Link to post
Share on other sites

E U don't matter WERE LEAVING :P

Yes, and vehicles that are used on private land are not going to go abroad, so why the rush by HMG to comply ?

Maybe there's an army of EU-compliance lawyers in Westminster screwing every last gasp of the ECJ before they get their P45s ?

 

I can see advantages to the UK if we continue with untramelled motorsport and the Continent cannot. Brexit to the rescue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.