GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 20,204
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Joe Donaldson (@Joey D) on October 16th, 2017 in the Motorsports category.
New Insurance Law Could Threaten Motorsports in Europe
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 32 comments
- 2,996 views
- 6,515
- Southampton
- RacingAtHome
- 1,502
- Germany
There goes all your Fun and Freedom.
Step by step - that case from lithuania is just brought up to ruin what is something quintessentially european = Motorsport.
But yeah all is well and good and the EU is the best
Step by step - that case from lithuania is just brought up to ruin what is something quintessentially european = Motorsport.
But yeah all is well and good and the EU is the best
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Here's my email from the Motor Sports Association (MSA), the body that oversees almost all racing in the UK and indeed the body that issues all racing competition licences in the UK (like mine, which is why I get the MSA's emails):
There's nothing silly or clickbait about it, chaps - as ten seconds with Google and the word "Vnuk" would have revealed.
Motor Sport Association - https://www.msauk.org/VNUK-How-it-affects-you
Motorsport Industry Association - http://www.the-mia.com/Vnuk-Update
The simple facts are:
* Man fell off ladder when a tractor hit it (2007)
* Man claimed compensation from tractor insurance
* Insurers said tractor was insured as a road vehicle, not a tractor
* Man took insurer to court
* Court referred case to European Court of Justice (ECJ)
* ECJ ruled that the Motor Insurance Directive (MID) made no distinction between uses, and that all vehicles must be insured (2014)
* EU opened consultations on changing MID
* Consultation closes on October 20.
There are four options in the consultation. They can be summed up as:
1 Do nothing - ECJ's ruling stands and all vehicles must have third party liability insurance, whether in operation or not and on any property.
2 Create new guarantee funds - ECJ's ruling stands and all vehicles must have third party liability insurance, whether in operation or not and on any property, but new funds are held to help cover the costs of uninsured or untraceable drivers.
3 Limit the scope to 'in traffic' - MID is changed to define the requirements as 'in traffic', where traffic is "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"
4 Exclude certain types of vehicles from the Directive - MID is changed to exclude certain vehicles (tractors, cranes, forklifts, motor sports vehicles in regular traffic, vehicles with a maximum speed below a defined limit), although this would lead to these vehicles being uninsured even on the road.
If you want the literal text, it's in spoiler tags below, as it's boring - or the relevant document is here (downloads a PDF):
Option 1 - Do nothing. This would mean that the Member States would be obliged to require motor third party liability insurance for vehicles involved in activities outside traffic, or choose to exempt certain types of vehicles from the insurance obligation or in case of uninsured or untraced vehicles in which case it would be the motor guarantee fund that would have to compensate consequences of accidents involving these vehicles. However since some activities are unlikely to be able to be insured at a viable cost, these activities risk becoming unviable.
Option 2 - enact at EU level legislation that obliges Member States to set up guarantee schemes to specifically cover purely agricultural, construction, industrial, motor sports or fairground activities if uninsured. This would require that the EU defines and regulates the scope of compulsory liability insurance covering these activities at EU level. Given the divergences and/or lack of such compulsory schemes at Member States level, this would raise significant subsidiarity concerns.
Option 3 - The scope of the Directive would relate only to accidents caused by motor vehicles in the context of traffic. This would be done by defining locations and types of activities that are to be understood to fall within that definition. The use in traffic could mean 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. Activities that would fall outside of this definition would be regulated at Member State level and it would be for them to decide whether they wish to pool them with other activities by regulatory means. The guarantee funds would not be obliged, under EU law, to compensate consequences of traffic accidents unrelated to use in traffic. No changes in premiums or guarantee funds would be needed to absorb the potential need to compensate victims of accidents occurring in the context of purely agricultural, construction, industrial, motor sports or fairground activities involving vehicles where these occur outside of the sphere of use in traffic.
Option 4 – exclude some types vehicles from the scope of the Directive (e.g. tractors, cranes, forklifts, motor sports vehicles in regular traffic, or vehicles with a maximum speed below a defined limit) – this would lead to some types of vehicles being potentially uninsured even if they are on a road or other public places. This option would not ensure the necessary level of protection of victims.
Option 2 - enact at EU level legislation that obliges Member States to set up guarantee schemes to specifically cover purely agricultural, construction, industrial, motor sports or fairground activities if uninsured. This would require that the EU defines and regulates the scope of compulsory liability insurance covering these activities at EU level. Given the divergences and/or lack of such compulsory schemes at Member States level, this would raise significant subsidiarity concerns.
Option 3 - The scope of the Directive would relate only to accidents caused by motor vehicles in the context of traffic. This would be done by defining locations and types of activities that are to be understood to fall within that definition. The use in traffic could mean 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. Activities that would fall outside of this definition would be regulated at Member State level and it would be for them to decide whether they wish to pool them with other activities by regulatory means. The guarantee funds would not be obliged, under EU law, to compensate consequences of traffic accidents unrelated to use in traffic. No changes in premiums or guarantee funds would be needed to absorb the potential need to compensate victims of accidents occurring in the context of purely agricultural, construction, industrial, motor sports or fairground activities involving vehicles where these occur outside of the sphere of use in traffic.
Option 4 – exclude some types vehicles from the scope of the Directive (e.g. tractors, cranes, forklifts, motor sports vehicles in regular traffic, or vehicles with a maximum speed below a defined limit) – this would lead to some types of vehicles being potentially uninsured even if they are on a road or other public places. This option would not ensure the necessary level of protection of victims.
It sounds ludicrous, but I'm afraid it's rather real. The fact that the article quoted the CEO of the MIA telling you how real it was should have been an indicator of how real it was...
Last edited:
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
National authorities in the EU are required to have the terms of EU law - such as the Motor Insurance Directive - encoded in national law. If the consultation determines that Option 1/Option 2 are the way to go, the Motor Insurance Directive will require operators of racing cars to have them insured at third party liability at a minimum (and no such insurance product for racing cars currently exists) in all EU countries, whether on the road or on the race track, or anywhere else.
The MSA, which is the body that operates the majority of all racing events in the UK and which issues racing licences, is telling its members that it is concerned about this. It is supporting the MIA's campaign to have business owners respond to the REFIT review indicating that Option 3 is their preferred choice. They have until the end of this week to do so.
As is Motorsports Ireland.
- 4,778
- Færder
- syntex123
- Syntex260Z
No? Formula Electric is a thing isn’t it? It isn’t as dull as it seems. Sure, it’ll be very silent but it’s still racing. But I get you. I didn’t buy my S30Z only to own a nice car. Also bought it for the sound
But yeah these news is.. worrying. When’s the first shuttle to Mars? I don’t want 24h Le Mans or 24h Nurburgring or any other racing to end..
Sorry I just had to
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's a strange and very-late story, the UK consultation closed in April 2017 as I believe did those in many other countries. The story also fails to note that several countries (the UK included) already have liability regulation in place. It futher fails to note that most motorsport events don't require per-vehicle insurance because the liability is carried by the organisers, there's no reason that this couldn't extend on paper to each scrutineered vehicle.
Strange story.
- 1,291
- Vermont, USA
- GTP_Superwally, supahwally
It isn't rubbish, wake up. The same thing is going on in the USA. SEMA is continually reminding those in the racing and aftermarket industry that racing is in danger-regulators continue to try and find ways via environmental regulations and oppressive insurance laws to stop us from doing what we do.
The results have already been seen in small-time racing series. I build 2-stroke racing engines mainly for drag racing. Insurance rates have gone so high that it's all but eliminated the smaller venues that fed interest to the bigger races. It's either big-time or nothing, they are the only ones that can afford it.
A few years ago they tried to use the tiny percentage of lead used in the manufacture of dirt bikes to claim that everyone under 12 should not be allowed to ride them. Sound silly? It is, until you realize how many people there are out there who believe otherwise. If you want to kill an industry, make it illegal for parents to get kids involved.
The war on motorsport is real. Just because the basis of this particular case starts with a ladder and a tractor doesn't mean it's not a serious matter. A lot of people have no love for racing in any form and would not shed a tear if it were regulated into non-existence.
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's not really necessary to note it. In its own notes, the MSA states that it has public liability cover of £67m and umbrella personal accident insurance, but the ruling will require each vehicle to be covered by a its own third-party insurance policy - not only at the track but in transport, in its garage/workshop, and at any venue.
Option 1/2 will result in that coming to pass. To quote the MSA directly:
That was published by the MSA in April. I think that the MSA knows of its own insurance arrangements and yet it is concerned by the implications of rewording the European Motor Insurance Directive.MSA
Not really. MSA, MIA and others are making a push to remind businesses that the REFIT consultation ends this week. While the original Vnuk ruling was in 2014 and stories on the consultation have been milling around since 2016, it's a very timely reminder. I think Autosport carried a similar story late last week. The MSA itself republished the document above on October 11th.
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
The article is worded poorly, because it gives the impression that EU is pushing for a new law that would make it mandatory for racing cars to be covered by insurance.
The facts of the matter is that it's an old directive originating from 1972 and in its current form from 2009. The directive aimed to protect citizens from a member state in motor accidents in another member state.
Since the purpose was to protect people in road accidents, nobody has been bothered to test the directive against other vehicle use - until the court looked into that in 2014 and ruled that the directive in fact covered more than had previously been assumed, including motor sports.
So it has been known for three years now that motor sports should be covered by the national legislations. Nobody has been bothered to enforce it, since that wasn't the intention of the directive.
Now that they are reviewing the directive (partly because it also cover other types of vehicles that didn't exist when the directive was written and because there needs to be a solution for driverless vehicles) they are asking what changes should be made.
The baseline option is to do nothing, which means that motor sports would remain covered by the directive. It's an issue recognised by the commission and they are proposing a number of options which would exempt motor sports from the directive.
So in reality it isn't really as bad as it may sound.
The facts of the matter is that it's an old directive originating from 1972 and in its current form from 2009. The directive aimed to protect citizens from a member state in motor accidents in another member state.
Since the purpose was to protect people in road accidents, nobody has been bothered to test the directive against other vehicle use - until the court looked into that in 2014 and ruled that the directive in fact covered more than had previously been assumed, including motor sports.
So it has been known for three years now that motor sports should be covered by the national legislations. Nobody has been bothered to enforce it, since that wasn't the intention of the directive.
Now that they are reviewing the directive (partly because it also cover other types of vehicles that didn't exist when the directive was written and because there needs to be a solution for driverless vehicles) they are asking what changes should be made.
The baseline option is to do nothing, which means that motor sports would remain covered by the directive. It's an issue recognised by the commission and they are proposing a number of options which would exempt motor sports from the directive.
So in reality it isn't really as bad as it may sound.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
MIA
In transport (unless being driven as a duty-paid Ministry-inspected road vehicle) a higher provision already exists in law in each EU country. Public/employee liability exists in the garage (as in the team's home garage, not part of the circuit) as part of Factory law and others, that public liability extends to operations undertaken in garages at circuits as part of duty-of-care practices. It's a fact of law that you can't insure a good twice or, if force majeure makes it so, you can't claim double-liability.
This directive may have an impact in countries that don't enjoy that higher protection (the case wouldn't have been brought in the UK due to higher employer liability laws) but it will have little impact in most Euro countries.
The only real difficulty (in the UK and other Euro countries with broadly similar higher laws) is in the third-party liability to other competitors. It seems eminently likely that a disclaimer could sidestep that whole issue. We're not going to see third-party insurance for vehicles in a race, we're not going to see vehicle insurance for ride-on lawnmowers and we're not going to see EU Bans Christmas.
Precisely.
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Second paragraph of the article:
The MSA - who I trust to know the difficulties they may face in organising their own competitions in light of a change of wording to the directive - believes that it is a worry that, unless Option 3 (or 4, although that's a stupid option) is selected, we may well see third-party liability insurance for race cars, or rather we won't as insurers don't offer that product. Several other industry bodies like MIA and Motorsport Ireland agree.
I defer to them on this. I'm sure their lawyers spent longer on this than we have.
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
Which, in combination with the headline saying that a new insurance law could threaten motorsports, makes it sound as if that change of wording is about including motorsports in the directive, when it's actually (among other things) about excluding motorsports from it, since its inclusion was unintentional to begin with.
It's not until the end of the article that it's being revealed that the change of wording is actually about correcting this mistake, so for most of the article you read it assuming that the commission is trying to take motorsports away from us.
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There's no mention anywhere in the article of the directive changing to include rather than exclude motorsport. That's just what you've inferred from it, and it's in no way implied anywhere in the article.
Moreover, it would require an actual new law (or a new portion of an existing law - probably the Road Traffic Act). If the Directive is not changed (or is changed according to Option 2), EU member states will be required to change their own national laws to make third-party insurance mandatory for all vehicles. That's what an EU Directive is for - it directs member states to adopt its rules, often by compelling them to create law.
We mention in the fourth paragraph that it's the ECJ's interpretation of the Directive that's the problem, not any new laws or any changes of wording...
- 1,502
- Germany
Such a ruling would hurt the UK probably the most - you have even more Events and Cups than us germans. In Germany most stuff is Factory supported though and not totally privateer. All german Manufacturers run Nordschleife 24h etc.
I wouldnt be to bothered with this if they wouldnt be so obsessed with Climate Change at this point
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The Article
The implication appears quite strong. It would be helpful to avoid that by mentioning that the wording change would be about reversing an unintended inclusion rather than stating that the directive is going to change and then clearly implying the following paragraphs as effects of that change. The implication seems particularly clear when you say "in a consultation phase over a change of wording" with a description of the Vnuk case followed by "it means that withing the EU...any vehicle...including racing cars - must have third party motor insurance".
This article more than most feels clickbaity and misleading right up until the last paragraph. I've always felt that the moderation and administration team at GTPlanet* have done an awesome job in keeping things sensible, practical and factual. I can't help but wonder what reaction other users might have had from the team and other users if they'd created a thread with this post.
*Clearly that includes you, even if I don't always agree with the opinion component of your posts
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
If it only works by missing out all of the words in-between that explain the situation, it's not an implication.
- 86
- Herefordshire
- alpalof88
And you have to wonder why on earth the UK voted for Brexit... This will have the least implications (hopefully!) in the UK as once we have left the EU we will be back to enforcing our own laws. And if people can't race in Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium or France but just a few hours flight away you can go race round a track till your hearts content, what you gonna do. Thanks to Famine for trying to educate people.
Like say the government changing the rules for Financial Advisors so it's no longer viable for financial advisors to help anyone with lump sums smaller than £150,000. And then releasing everyone's pensions pots a few months later. No the government would never be stupid enough to do this.... Um.
Like say the government changing the rules for Financial Advisors so it's no longer viable for financial advisors to help anyone with lump sums smaller than £150,000. And then releasing everyone's pensions pots a few months later. No the government would never be stupid enough to do this.... Um.
Last edited by a moderator:
