RE: PH Blog: you bend you mend

[10 Pence Short]

When you were driving on the road, had you crashed and injured 20 people, your insurance would have covered you.

Or are you going to tell us you were driving like that on the road without knowing whether you were insured or not, or not even insured?

[philbennett]

10 Pence Short said:

When you were driving on the road, had you crashed and injured 20 people, your insurance would have covered you.

We are now switching tact a little here - previously you were suggesting someone needed to sign off on this "testing". The film above was in this case part of the testing process. No magazine editor is going to want to put his name to that.

10 Pence Short said:

Or are you going to tell us you were driving like that on the road without knowing whether you were insured or not, or not even insured?

Speaking openly I had no idea. That particular test was part of multi day test which included a tyre test which I did and a performance car of the year test which I was partially involved with. I drove many cars over the days in Italy I saw no documents for any of the cars I drove and I signed nothing.

[10 Pence Short]

I haven't switched anything, Phil. I was discussing agreements between owners and drivers to cover driver negligence during track tests, as per this thread topic. You have now brought in a discussion about road driving and 3rd party risk, which is nothing to do with the discussion that was being had.

Bloody worrying that you would hoon on the road without checking the insurance situation first, though.

[philbennett]

10 Pence Short said:

I don't doubt that the issue going to court has made a few eyes sting in the industry. Perhaps an awful lot of people, owners and drivers alike, have become far too complacent and this judgment is the tonic required to wake them up.

Working with others' property (potentially worth millions of pounds) in commercial situations, without formal written agreements about what will happen if it goes wrong, is madness.

Piper taking a driver to court shouldn't be the bit that raises eyebrows, the lack of written agreements in the first place should.

10p I was referring to this.

Now obviously testing in the context of magazine articles for the most part involves road driving too, so tell me who signs off on this? The problem is of course that by signing for it there is complicity in the action and then a huge can of worms is opened because just imagine:-

Fezza and Porsche shunt in Italian tunnel, a lot of people die, the tunnel itself is fire damaged and needs rebuilding. Cost = £100m. Do the insurance company swallow or do they look to a piece of paper from Haymarket and think.... I could reclaim this as these guys were not driving at 120km/h....

[10 Pence Short]

For road driving, you should have (as required by law) insurance.

I am talking about an agreement between owner and driver for a track car, driven on track, that is not ordinarily covered by a policy of insurance, such as David Piper's in this case.

[philbennett]

Road driving yes, road testing at 300 km/h signed off by a publisher worth £200m I find it hard to believe it ends there.

Regards the agreement between Piper and Hales I didn't think one existed in this case beyond "having an adult conversation"...???

I think trying to draft one to cover a 1970's 917 prepared by Piper driven at Cadwell Park would be very hard and speaking as a driver the risk of a £1m car verse the £200 per day fee you used to get for this type of thing is a very poor risk reward and I would not do it.

[10 Pence Short]

Exactly! There was no proper agreement between Hales and Piper. There should have been. That is what I have been saying.

Glad we got there.

[andyps]

I really think this thread should have finished and didn't want to extend it but have to ask:
Phil, do you not think there is a difference between a new model car owned by a manufacturer and lent to a journalist with the intention that there will be a story written which hopefully will help sell a lot of cars and a classic car owned by an individual who is asked if he will lend it, for a fee, to a journalist who wishes to create a story he can sell to a magazine?

I feel you are comparing apples with oranges here. The manufacturer would insure the car and if anything went wrong would just get the next one off the line. With a 917 the process isn't quite the same!

[AJB]

philbennett said:

Fezza and Porsche shunt in Italian tunnel, a lot of people die, the tunnel itself is fire damaged and needs rebuilding. Cost = £100m. Do the insurance company swallow or do they look to a piece of paper from Haymarket and think.... I could reclaim this as these guys were not driving at 120km/h....

I think the signed agreement he was talking about was just about who was responsible for repairs, and wouldn't have to include details of the test. If Porsche provide a document saying that they'll cover any damage (via insurance or not) then all good. If Haymarket sign to say that they'll give it back in perfect condition and fix any damage caused then all good. If no agreement is in place then you're asking for trouble, especially if neither party has got comprehensive insurance.

The third party liability is completely separate, and I very much hope at least one party has arranged it as required by law to drive on the road. That would cover all third party damage whether or not there was an agreement about responsibility for the car being tested. And 3rd party cover isn't invalidated by breaking a speed limit. Otherwise every time you accidentally crept up to 71mph on a motorway you'd be driving without insurance and responsible for any damage caused. Almost by definition you're doing something wrong if you cause damage to a 3rd party that you're liable for, and it would be no good if the fact that it's your fault invalidated your insurance!

[bigblock]

I think what it demonstrates is that some motoring journalists seem to think that anything goes when it comes to the greater glory of their profession and normal rules don't apply.

Phil chose to drive in excess of 150mph on a public road in close proximity to other traffic in the full knowledge that he would not be covered if anything was to go wrong, in his own words....

" ...well in the above case the Ferrari was driven by me and was owned by Ferrari S.p.A. The Porsche by Chris Harris and owned by Porsche AG. I think the bigger issue is what if we had shunted and taken out 20 cars in the tunnel? Obviously the risk is managed by professional drivers but I don't see anyone wanting to write that risk, nor indeed propose the above as something being done."

In the case of MH he chose to drive a 917 with a dodgy gear change in a manner that risked over revving it. The fact he knew about the gear selection problems, had been asked to stick to a low rev limit and was not covered financially should he blow the engine would have been a reasonable deterrent to most people.

If I take a risk for which I am not covered and it all goes wrong I have to accept the consequences of my actions, apparently this simple rule does not/should not apply to motoring journalists in pursuit of a good story.

Edited by bigblock on Wednesday 6th March 23:49

[heebeegeetee]

bigblock said:

In the case of MH he chose to drive a 917 with a dodgy gear change in a manner that risked over revving it. The fact he knew about the gear selection problems, had been asked to stick to a low rev limit and was not covered financially should he blow the engine would have been a reasonable deterrent to most people.

I imagine that's close to describing the conditions of most track tests carried out on historic race cars.

[bigblock]

heebeegeetee said:

I imagine that's close to describing the conditions of most track tests carried out on historic race cars.

I imagine it is, and if you are not covered for causing mechanical damage do you push on regardless for the greater good of the story or take it easy and manage the risk in relation to your potential exposure ?

Edited by bigblock on Thursday 7th March 00:01

[heebeegeetee]

bigblock said:

I imagine it is, and if you are not covered for causing mechanical damage do you push on regardless for the greater good of the story or take it easy and manage the risk in relation to your potential exposure ?

Edited by bigblock on Thursday 7th March 00:01

Leaving aside that I'm not sure it's possible to push on in a 917 at Cadwell Park (micky mouse track for the car), I think pushing on is exactly what the journos have done over the years. The cars they have driven are extremely valuable and nobody wants to read what it's like pootling around in them.

[bigblock]

heebeegeetee said:

Leaving aside that I'm not sure it's possible to push on in a 917 at Cadwell Park (micky mouse track for the car), I think pushing on is exactly what the journos have done over the years. The cars they have driven are extremely valuable and nobody wants to read what it's like pootling around in them.

Which is all the more reason to have a solid written agreement in place as to who is responsible for what if the car gets damaged.

As for pushing a 917 at Cadwell I was referring to the how much right foot MH decided to use after each gear change relevant to the increased risk of over revving if a gear was missed.

Edited by bigblock on Thursday 7th March 00:30

[heebeegeetee]

bigblock said:

1. Which is all the more reason to have a solid written agreement in place as to who is responsible for what if the car gets damaged.

2. As for pushing a 917 at Cadwell I was referring to the how much right foot MH decided to use after each gear change relevant to the increased risk of over revving if a gear was missed.

Edited by bigblock on Thursday 7th March 00:30

1. That possibly will happen in future, though we have gone through possibly more than 100 years of motoring journalism and the problem has only just reared it's head. I think the journos have always made it clear that they cannot afford to replace, say, a unique maser 250F or whatever, so either the owner holds repsonsibility or the car doesn't get driven/publicised.

2. We won't know, but Hales must be right up there as possibly the best in the world at what he does. There cannot be many other people who can race and write as well as he does. The other aspect is that I'm not sure there is any evidence that hales over-revved to the point of blowing, but he made the mistake of saying that he did. We know he exceeded 7krmp but the engines are supposed to be good for 9k+ I beleive.

[will_]

philbennett said:

Obviously the risk is managed by professional drivers but I don't see anyone wanting to write that risk.

The thing is, someone already is writing that risk. it's just not clear exactly who; but the risk is still there regardless.

In the Hales/Piper case, no-one knew who that was and when an incident occurred it took a judge to decide who should bear the liability.

The risk remains regardless of whether an agreement is in place or not. All that an agreement does is clarify where liabilities fall in the event of a liability being caused.

Edited by will_ on Thursday 7th March 09:31

[will_]

philbennett said:

I think trying to draft one to cover a 1970's 917 prepared by Piper driven at Cadwell Park would be very hard and speaking as a driver the risk of a £1m car verse the £200 per day fee you used to get for this type of thing is a very poor risk reward and I would not do it.

Not at all hard.

You're supposing that the risk would necessarily be passed to the driver (where, as the Hales/Piper case showed, it already was in fact), but there would be nothing to stop the owner taking on the liability of the driver's negligence in an agreement.

Phil, you've probably inadvertently been exposed to potentially ruinous risk - you simply didn't know it, and fortunately never had the need to find out. I cannot see that it is a bad thing for owner and driver to agree where the risk falls in advance of a problem. In fact I consider it madness not to do so, given some of the values involved.

[will_]

heebeegeetee said:

1. That possibly will happen in future, though we have gone through possibly more than 100 years of motoring journalism and the problem has only just reared it's head. I think the journos have always made it clear that they cannot afford to replace, say, a unique maser 250F or whatever, so either the owner holds repsonsibility or the car doesn't get driven/publicised.

I very much doubt that "replacement" is ever an issue - it appears that insurance is easily attainable for accident damage.

What this case relates to is mechanical failure caused by driver negligence, and it's hard to see how that could make a car as valuable as (say) a 250F irreplaceable.

[will_]

philbennett said:

Speaking openly I had no idea. That particular test was part of multi day test which included a tyre test which I did and a performance car of the year test which I was partially involved with. I drove many cars over the days in Italy I saw no documents for any of the cars I drove and I signed nothing.

Do you not think that is completely insane?

[philbennett]

Guys you missed my point, which was its all very well saying we need some written agreement and then highlighting the odd point here and there. In the end however someone would need to actually draft this agreement and have it robust enough for it to stand up in court to reflect everyones intentions.

As for 3rd party liability yes I am aware that if I shunt on a motorway at 90mph claims get paid but that wasn't my contention. I suggest that if you have someone sign for a significant corporate entity that authorises this type of behaviour then I doubt very much that the matter ends there. Of course nobody might want to sign authorising this stuff and we are back where we started and it sits back with the driver/journo.

Its not a reflection that people engaging in this activity are above scrutiny and normal process doesn't apply. Its a reflection that these things are not straight forward and actually speaking for myself you take a pride in ones work and I always had the feeling that if I said "this was the best handling car" then it really was because I'd been at the limit.