Vnuk ECJ ruling & insurance
Discussion
Might be worth a read couldn't see it anywhere on PH search
Don't panic. I'm sure no one wants to see it happen even in Europe, aside from maybe the Greens.
http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Edited to add:
Dept for Transport consultation paper
"The challenge Government is facing at the moment arises from a judgment by the European Court of Justice1 which was a complete game-changer as far as motor insurance is concerned."
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
Don't panic. I'm sure no one wants to see it happen even in Europe, aside from maybe the Greens.
http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Edited to add:
Dept for Transport consultation paper
"The challenge Government is facing at the moment arises from a judgment by the European Court of Justice1 which was a complete game-changer as far as motor insurance is concerned."
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
Edited by Northern Munkee on Wednesday 21st December 22:33
Edited by Northern Munkee on Wednesday 21st December 22:34
I'm surprised that there's been little comment on this. It's serious stuff IMO.
Click on this link and skip to page 19 perhaps https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Click on this link and skip to page 19 perhaps https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Letter in The Times about it yesterday. I wasn't especially surprised at the judgment- there has long been a misapprehension that a race track , and other off public highway venues , is somehow exempt from every facet of the law. Never has been , but what has changed is a more comprehensive analysis of risk and a far more litigious society.
I read it from cover to cover last night, amazing how a man up a ladder on (private land) a farm in Slovenia reversed into and knocked off by a farmer reversing his tractor creates an existential threat to Motorsport in the U.K. The good news is the Europeans (or at least most of them) like Motorsport too, so where the will the hope is there's a way. The classic EU one size fits all requires everyone agrees to modify it. Assuming they can do that the comprehensive option will be avoided (this would kill Motorsport as would option 2) but the amended option 3, which the commission appear to want will allow it continue.
Bear in mind this whole judgment is about improving a victims route to compensation, and this appears hinge on public access to private land, at which point the private land is effectively not entirely "private" and third party insurance is required by any vehicles on it. The DfT consultation is also about pulling existing UK law into line with the EU directive and compliant with the judgment, so it's the same across the EU.
There's a section about the Govt's preferred option (sometimes referred to as Option 3 or the 'amended option') which the DfT believes the Commission are also keen on, both parties seeing the problem, and it offers a way out for motorsport, in so far it limits the requirement for 3rd party insurance and the distinction its trying to make is to "Use in Traffic"... Here is what it says about that, third party cover and public access over private land:
"The law would require third party cover to be in place when a motor vehicle is used in traffic “Motor vehicle” would mean any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled.” This would go much wider than the existing requirement for vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads in the Road Traffic Act; it would encompass many of the vehicles identified in the comprehensive approach, but only when they are used in traffic. The Commission’s suggested definition of “used in traffic” is “where the use of a vehicle is for the transport of persons or goods whether stationary or in motion, in areas where the public has access in accordance with national law.” We assume that the requirement for insurance where vehicles are used‘ in areas where the public has access in accordance with national law’ would broadly equate to the insurance requirement in domestic legislation on a road or other public place, which are determined by reference to public access. (The courts apply a test on the facts to establish whether there is general public access, permitted by the landowner.) In the majority of cases, it is likely to be self-evident whether the general public has access to a particular piece of land and, in turn, whether the use of a motor vehicle on that land would be subject to the compulsory insurance requirement. However, there will be other circumstances where this is less clear-cut. In these cases, there are certain characteristics which would make it more likely that the land is an area where the public has access, for example if the general public actually use it in practice; if there is no physical barrier; and if there is no prohibition sign.)"
Now to me reading that if the public do not have access to a track because there is a fence or a prohibited access sign, which circuits usually have, then the track remain "private", presumably if the public have access to the paddock, then 3rd party insurance would be required, but I'd imagine the cost of that insurance is going to be token by comparison, to the "Comprehensive"/"Maxi Options"/Option 2 discussed in the documents, as there considerably less danger of an accident than there would be on a live track. How that leaves everything for public grid walks pre race and gathering under the podium on track after a race is finished is interpreted (public gaining access private land passed a barrier or prohibition sign) might require some lateral thinking about.
There's another section in the impact assessment that specifies the govt's hoped for outcome with the EU to it's preferred "amended option"/"option 3", versus the bad options "Comprehensive"/ 2 "maxi option" it reads:
"It is highly questionable whether Government should seek to impose the burden of compulsory insurance on the users of vehicles which operate solely on private land and were never envisaged as being within scope of the first Motor Insurance Directive in 1972. In practice, it would generate some very real difficulties; – the cost of covering participant-to-participant liabilities in motor sports would be prohibitive in many cases, and that is if the insurers were actually prepared to take on the risk; we have heard anecdotally that insurance in this circumstance might not be available; enforcement would be extremely difficult in respect of vehicles on private land; and the scope for fraudulent claims would be increased considerably.
In light of the judgment, the UK Government liaised with the Commission and other Member States with the objective of securing a change to the Directive to mitigate the most severe effects of it (mainly the obligation for insurance when a vehicle is used on private land). The progress made in this respect is reflected in option 3."
There's also some talk of adjustments to Employers Liability (EL) or Public Liability (PL) policies for circuit owners/operators although it reads as minor.
.
Bear in mind this whole judgment is about improving a victims route to compensation, and this appears hinge on public access to private land, at which point the private land is effectively not entirely "private" and third party insurance is required by any vehicles on it. The DfT consultation is also about pulling existing UK law into line with the EU directive and compliant with the judgment, so it's the same across the EU.
There's a section about the Govt's preferred option (sometimes referred to as Option 3 or the 'amended option') which the DfT believes the Commission are also keen on, both parties seeing the problem, and it offers a way out for motorsport, in so far it limits the requirement for 3rd party insurance and the distinction its trying to make is to "Use in Traffic"... Here is what it says about that, third party cover and public access over private land:
"The law would require third party cover to be in place when a motor vehicle is used in traffic “Motor vehicle” would mean any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled.” This would go much wider than the existing requirement for vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads in the Road Traffic Act; it would encompass many of the vehicles identified in the comprehensive approach, but only when they are used in traffic. The Commission’s suggested definition of “used in traffic” is “where the use of a vehicle is for the transport of persons or goods whether stationary or in motion, in areas where the public has access in accordance with national law.” We assume that the requirement for insurance where vehicles are used‘ in areas where the public has access in accordance with national law’ would broadly equate to the insurance requirement in domestic legislation on a road or other public place, which are determined by reference to public access. (The courts apply a test on the facts to establish whether there is general public access, permitted by the landowner.) In the majority of cases, it is likely to be self-evident whether the general public has access to a particular piece of land and, in turn, whether the use of a motor vehicle on that land would be subject to the compulsory insurance requirement. However, there will be other circumstances where this is less clear-cut. In these cases, there are certain characteristics which would make it more likely that the land is an area where the public has access, for example if the general public actually use it in practice; if there is no physical barrier; and if there is no prohibition sign.)"
Now to me reading that if the public do not have access to a track because there is a fence or a prohibited access sign, which circuits usually have, then the track remain "private", presumably if the public have access to the paddock, then 3rd party insurance would be required, but I'd imagine the cost of that insurance is going to be token by comparison, to the "Comprehensive"/"Maxi Options"/Option 2 discussed in the documents, as there considerably less danger of an accident than there would be on a live track. How that leaves everything for public grid walks pre race and gathering under the podium on track after a race is finished is interpreted (public gaining access private land passed a barrier or prohibition sign) might require some lateral thinking about.
There's another section in the impact assessment that specifies the govt's hoped for outcome with the EU to it's preferred "amended option"/"option 3", versus the bad options "Comprehensive"/ 2 "maxi option" it reads:
"It is highly questionable whether Government should seek to impose the burden of compulsory insurance on the users of vehicles which operate solely on private land and were never envisaged as being within scope of the first Motor Insurance Directive in 1972. In practice, it would generate some very real difficulties; – the cost of covering participant-to-participant liabilities in motor sports would be prohibitive in many cases, and that is if the insurers were actually prepared to take on the risk; we have heard anecdotally that insurance in this circumstance might not be available; enforcement would be extremely difficult in respect of vehicles on private land; and the scope for fraudulent claims would be increased considerably.
In light of the judgment, the UK Government liaised with the Commission and other Member States with the objective of securing a change to the Directive to mitigate the most severe effects of it (mainly the obligation for insurance when a vehicle is used on private land). The progress made in this respect is reflected in option 3."
There's also some talk of adjustments to Employers Liability (EL) or Public Liability (PL) policies for circuit owners/operators although it reads as minor.
.
And of course there's a petition for everything
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-chris-grayling...
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-chris-grayling...
The MSA are on the case:
Quote, Annual Report 2016, 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."
Pretty cool, eh?
John
Quote, Annual Report 2016, 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."
Pretty cool, eh?
John
This is/could be a terrible piece of law for so many people, motorsport is just the very visible tip of a VERY big iceberg. How the hell are you going to set up a system where every mobility scooter user, every ride-on lawn mower, every old trailer tucked down the end of the garden is insured at all times? Also, you'll never be able to SORN a car.. you'll have to keep paying the insurance.
It's good to see a government document written in a way that's very easy to read; my preferred option (not on the doc) is stalling: "oh yes, we're definitely going to do that, just discussing how to set it up.... no, not yet, still trying to work it out..... oops, we didn't manage to get it done before we left
"
It's good to see a government document written in a way that's very easy to read; my preferred option (not on the doc) is stalling: "oh yes, we're definitely going to do that, just discussing how to set it up.... no, not yet, still trying to work it out..... oops, we didn't manage to get it done before we left
"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", and offers their best estimate (5000 Euros/year) of the cost for motor sport. Would that prevent you spending what you do on taking part in motor sport. That might be something to say!
John
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", and offers their best estimate (5000 Euros/year) of the cost for motor sport. Would that prevent you spending what you do on taking part in motor sport. That might be something to say!
John
It's reached The Sun now.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2485356/eu-bureaucra...
Bit late, a little selective, but you can see why motorcycling, off road particularly would be worried, participants have small budgets, and if my reading is right public access to private land used for competitive racing (competitor vs competitor) might be harder to delineate like fences and signage around race tracks.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2485356/eu-bureaucra...
Bit late, a little selective, but you can see why motorcycling, off road particularly would be worried, participants have small budgets, and if my reading is right public access to private land used for competitive racing (competitor vs competitor) might be harder to delineate like fences and signage around race tracks.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Wednesday 28th December 03:00
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff