RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend
Discussion
will_ said:
Blackpuddin said:
will_ said:
What is wrong with "you break it you fix it"?
I'll tell you what's wrong with it: how do you quantify an individual user's part in the breaking of something that many others have used (hard) before him? The judgement imo should have acknowledged this but didn't. Perhaps Hales should be looking at this settlement mitigation aspect now. Edited by Blackpuddin on Tuesday 22 January 15:14
A solicitor friend of mine states "words on a piece paper are simply a starting point from which to argue from"...............
I too have lent my race car to others as well as my road car. Fortunately they have never been damaged so I haven't had to go through this.....I've gone back over the last 2 pages of comments and my summary is that none of the comments reflect the true reality of the consequences of lending etc....ie lent it to someone, they broke it...I paid up no question....
The reality is when the proverbial hits the fan then attitudes ( albeit previoulsy gentlemanly etc ) change as the owner now has a chuffin' big bill....
The driver says "its not my fault"...the owner says "its not my fault"...and the courtroom follows.....
Thats life ...right, wrong who knows...
D D
I too have lent my race car to others as well as my road car. Fortunately they have never been damaged so I haven't had to go through this.....I've gone back over the last 2 pages of comments and my summary is that none of the comments reflect the true reality of the consequences of lending etc....ie lent it to someone, they broke it...I paid up no question....
The reality is when the proverbial hits the fan then attitudes ( albeit previoulsy gentlemanly etc ) change as the owner now has a chuffin' big bill....
The driver says "its not my fault"...the owner says "its not my fault"...and the courtroom follows.....
Thats life ...right, wrong who knows...
D D
mattnunn said:
SO the driver "caused" a mechanical failure that shredded the transmission!?
Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
No. That's not what happened. The gearbox was fine. He over revved the engine and knackered it. The bill was for engine repairs.Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
hairykrishna said:
mattnunn said:
SO the driver "caused" a mechanical failure that shredded the transmission!?
Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
No. That's not what happened. The gearbox was fine. He over revved the engine and knackered it. The bill was for engine repairs.Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
Sounds like they might both be knobs after all.
Better to be a knob driving or owning old race cars or a knob on an internet forum? That is the question.
R11ysf said:
(Prepares flames suit - but this is just how I see it)
I think that's a good post.I have an enormous amount of sympathy for Mark Hales because, by all accounts, he is not a reckless or abusive driver and I too greatly enjoy his articles.
However he did make a mistake, he did cause damage by his own admission, and he failed adequately to protect himself. The seriousness of the consequences mean that his mistake has a significant impact on him personally and for that he does have my sympathy. It really is a case which should never have occurred had the proper arrangements been put in place. There is no scope for "handshake" agreements when you're dealing with multi-million pound assets.
However what I find most unpleasant is the attitude taken by some on here to David Piper who, in the view of the judge at least, did nothing wrong and therefore shouldn't be out of pocket nor vilified just because he is "rich" or because Mark Hales is a "decent bloke".
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but hopefully an arrangement can be made which means that Mark is still able to drive these cars and write about them.
it's a tough one.....
on one hand we all have this romantic notion of letting people have the lend of your car and if the engine goes pop then as the owner, you stomach the cost.
The thing that confuses matters slightly is that hales was driving the car for financial reward (whether or not he was having fun, the fact remains) and was not adequately insured. The worst did happen, and notwithstanding the owner not acting like a gentleman, he is significantly financially exposed.
That is why you should operate to the letter of the law, not the spirit, if that means that the cost of articles across the board goes up to account for increased indemnity fees, then so be it.
He was happy to take the benefits of selling the story across numerous media outlets, but not happy to eat into that 'profit' and insure himself.
that or the owner put it in writing that he was responsible for any and every eventuality bar gross negligence on the part of the driver.
The only unacceptable course of action is no clear culpability, and it would appear likely that this is what has happened in this case.
on one hand we all have this romantic notion of letting people have the lend of your car and if the engine goes pop then as the owner, you stomach the cost.
The thing that confuses matters slightly is that hales was driving the car for financial reward (whether or not he was having fun, the fact remains) and was not adequately insured. The worst did happen, and notwithstanding the owner not acting like a gentleman, he is significantly financially exposed.
That is why you should operate to the letter of the law, not the spirit, if that means that the cost of articles across the board goes up to account for increased indemnity fees, then so be it.
He was happy to take the benefits of selling the story across numerous media outlets, but not happy to eat into that 'profit' and insure himself.
that or the owner put it in writing that he was responsible for any and every eventuality bar gross negligence on the part of the driver.
The only unacceptable course of action is no clear culpability, and it would appear likely that this is what has happened in this case.
double d racing said:
A solicitor friend of mine states "words on a piece paper are simply a starting point from which to argue from"...............
D D
True, but the better the lawyer, the better the words and the further advanced the starting point is to argue from (i.e. the number of arguments is less).D D
With no contract, either party can argue anything, that is what costs a fortune in legals.
mattnunn said:
Yeah sorry just read some of the other posts and articles, fair enough, I take it back then, he shouldn't have over revved the engine if he was specifically told not too but you'd have fitted a limiter wouldn't you?
Sounds like they might both be knobs after all.
Better to be a knob driving or owning old race cars or a knob on an internet forum? That is the question.
It sounds like you need to read the court findings first. This is all around the car popping out of gear, that is what caused the over rev... Sounds like they might both be knobs after all.
Better to be a knob driving or owning old race cars or a knob on an internet forum? That is the question.
robinandcamera said:
mattnunn said:
Yeah sorry just read some of the other posts and articles, fair enough, I take it back then, he shouldn't have over revved the engine if he was specifically told not too but you'd have fitted a limiter wouldn't you?
Sounds like they might both be knobs after all.
Better to be a knob driving or owning old race cars or a knob on an internet forum? That is the question.
It sounds like you need to read the court findings first. This is all around the car popping out of gear, that is what caused the over rev... Sounds like they might both be knobs after all.
Better to be a knob driving or owning old race cars or a knob on an internet forum? That is the question.
mattnunn said:
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
He`s quite handy for a `knob` .http://www.brdc.co.uk/David-Piper
The lack of knowledge displayed by Pistonheads members is quite staggering at times.
robinandcamera said:
It sounds like you need to read the court findings first. This is all around the car popping out of gear, that is what caused the over rev...
As has been posted before, MH admitted that there was no fault with the gearbox and that the over rev was caused entirely by driver error.mattnunn said:
hairykrishna said:
mattnunn said:
SO the driver "caused" a mechanical failure that shredded the transmission!?
Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
No. That's not what happened. The gearbox was fine. He over revved the engine and knackered it. The bill was for engine repairs.Really is that what happened? I know these cars have a lot of power and are difficult to drive and I can understand if he'd highsided it into a grandstand or something but can one really be held responsible for stripping a gear or breaking a clutch on such an old racing car?
Piper sounds like a knob to me.
Sounds like they might both be knobs after all.
Better to be a knob driving or owning old race cars or a knob on an internet forum? That is the question.
clubracing said:
As has been posted before, MH admitted that there was no fault with the gearbox and that the over rev was caused entirely by driver error.
perhaps I'll keep my mouth shut as well then 
I read that he admitted driver error by not engaging gear correct, but then said later it was because it popped out of gear and questioned the gearbox setup of the car not being correct, causing it to pop out.
I'll duck out now
Still a shame in my eyes it lead to this, its a huge amount of money for him to pick up the tab for.What did the 2 guys agree before mark was handed the keys to the car!!
That is the agreement made and that is the final word!
If someone clearly states that if you damage their car then you fix it then if you accept the keys, you also accept the consequences.
Mark Hales makes a good living driving and racing all kinds of exotic motor cars and writing about them. If you make your living in this manner than you take the appropriate steps to mitigate any losses to yourself. OR you accept the consequences. Any business also needs to carry the appropriate insurances commensurate with its activities. Race car insurance is not prohibitive from race to race, let alone for a demonstration drive.
The wealth of David Piper is irrelevant to the outcome, and as others have stated the judgement made clearly shows that Mr Hales changed his story. If you are right you don't change your story!
It is an unhappy occurance and as others have stated gentlemen should behave like gentlemen...Some however don't.
Lets face it as well, and I am not stating it is the case here but some celebrity drivers don't exactly treat other peoples cars with respect. Any goodwood revival meeting tends to exhibit that fact
Giving celeb drivers race seats however is a totally different kettle of fish..That is where a car owner becomes team boss for the day and accepts that drivers are there to win a race...
I think a gentle tootle around a bike circuit in a le mans car however should have an expectation of the car to come back undamaged and not broken due to being bounced off the rev limit!!
N.
That is the agreement made and that is the final word!
If someone clearly states that if you damage their car then you fix it then if you accept the keys, you also accept the consequences.
Mark Hales makes a good living driving and racing all kinds of exotic motor cars and writing about them. If you make your living in this manner than you take the appropriate steps to mitigate any losses to yourself. OR you accept the consequences. Any business also needs to carry the appropriate insurances commensurate with its activities. Race car insurance is not prohibitive from race to race, let alone for a demonstration drive.
The wealth of David Piper is irrelevant to the outcome, and as others have stated the judgement made clearly shows that Mr Hales changed his story. If you are right you don't change your story!
It is an unhappy occurance and as others have stated gentlemen should behave like gentlemen...Some however don't.
Lets face it as well, and I am not stating it is the case here but some celebrity drivers don't exactly treat other peoples cars with respect. Any goodwood revival meeting tends to exhibit that fact
Giving celeb drivers race seats however is a totally different kettle of fish..That is where a car owner becomes team boss for the day and accepts that drivers are there to win a race...
I think a gentle tootle around a bike circuit in a le mans car however should have an expectation of the car to come back undamaged and not broken due to being bounced off the rev limit!!
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Tuesday 22 January 15:56
I do feel for Mark but he really should have made sure the insurance covered everything, after all this is a seriously expensive car and this is what he does for a living. All this about gentleman's agreement and all that is just silly talk, if it was such a thing then why bother taking any insurance at all.
This is a lesson to us all, like any car you drive track or road, make sure the insurance is iron clad especially if you can't afford to pay for any unfortunate accident. We all know how insurance companies love not to pay out.
Like someone else said though, their relationship does seem to have seriously broken down to have gone so far. Perhaps they should have spilt the 40K once it became obvious that the insurance was not going to pay out.
That said I don't want to come across as a complete heartless bar-steward and really hope this does not cost Mark his house.
This is a lesson to us all, like any car you drive track or road, make sure the insurance is iron clad especially if you can't afford to pay for any unfortunate accident. We all know how insurance companies love not to pay out.
Like someone else said though, their relationship does seem to have seriously broken down to have gone so far. Perhaps they should have spilt the 40K once it became obvious that the insurance was not going to pay out.
That said I don't want to come across as a complete heartless bar-steward and really hope this does not cost Mark his house.
its a sad state of affairs although we should all be aware generally millions of pounds worth of kit comes with an owner that is finacially astute if not agressive owner... If i think of all the cars at goodwood fos or rev that are loaned to drivers, it makes you realise how significant a problem this could be.
i think in future everyone will need to be covered by a contract. Mechanical is pretty bad to diagnose i guess. Imagine a tyre blow out at 150mph... whos fault is it that the car is smashed ?
i think in future everyone will need to be covered by a contract. Mechanical is pretty bad to diagnose i guess. Imagine a tyre blow out at 150mph... whos fault is it that the car is smashed ?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff