RE: Nürburgring Tourist Laps: The Future
Discussion
flemke said:
BCA said:
99.99% of UK registered cars lapping the 'ring are uninsured now.
No, not even according to your argument.The drivers of those cars may be uninsured, but the cars aren't uninsured.
Do you think that the Polizei are completely ignorant about this issue? There are thousands of British cars and drivers over there every year, some of whom get involved in shunts. If all these cars were systematically uninsured the moment that they left the filter road and touched the circuit, the authorities would not sit idle and pretend that it wasn't happening.
A policy applies to a car, therefore in the UK we refer to a car as being insured/uninsured. Whether the insurer ACTUALLY pays out and then pursues you for its costs, or doesn't and YOU get pursued directly for costs matters little to the owner/driver - the net result is pretty much the same.
havoc said:
Draexin said:
Call me an utter cynic, but I think their arguements for using Nürburgring Automotive supplied cameras are complete b
ks...
They don't want videos of crashes on YouTube. Wait what? It's a race track for crap's sake! Accidents go hand-in-hand with track days. We all know the risk involved, we're not complete idiots.
And what about the tons of YouTube videos taken by spectators? Are they going to ban every camera within a 10 mile radius of the Nordschleife, fearful that someone might capture an accident on film?
Also, they state that "..[the video] will be released to the driver in a format to be confirmed."
Something tells me they're going to have a big, fat, ugly Nürburgring Automotive banner slapped on the edge of the video...
And seeing as how they're so afraid of videos ending up on YT, the DVD will have some sort of copy protection built in. As in, you can only play it on regular DVD players, not on a pc...
Oh and another thing, don't expect to be able to pick up the video the next day. They're most likely going to send it to you a week later. With added shipping and handling charges obviously...
But hey, they have to repay all those millions somehow.. and clearly the theme park idea didn't float.
Nail. Head.ks...They don't want videos of crashes on YouTube. Wait what? It's a race track for crap's sake! Accidents go hand-in-hand with track days. We all know the risk involved, we're not complete idiots.
And what about the tons of YouTube videos taken by spectators? Are they going to ban every camera within a 10 mile radius of the Nordschleife, fearful that someone might capture an accident on film?
Also, they state that "..[the video] will be released to the driver in a format to be confirmed."
Something tells me they're going to have a big, fat, ugly Nürburgring Automotive banner slapped on the edge of the video...
And seeing as how they're so afraid of videos ending up on YT, the DVD will have some sort of copy protection built in. As in, you can only play it on regular DVD players, not on a pc...
Oh and another thing, don't expect to be able to pick up the video the next day. They're most likely going to send it to you a week later. With added shipping and handling charges obviously...
But hey, they have to repay all those millions somehow.. and clearly the theme park idea didn't float.
Profiteering, pure and simple...
darth_pies said:
flemke said:
BCA said:
99.99% of UK registered cars lapping the 'ring are uninsured now.
No, not even according to your argument.The drivers of those cars may be uninsured, but the cars aren't uninsured.
Do you think that the Polizei are completely ignorant about this issue? There are thousands of British cars and drivers over there every year, some of whom get involved in shunts. If all these cars were systematically uninsured the moment that they left the filter road and touched the circuit, the authorities would not sit idle and pretend that it wasn't happening.
Of course the police aren't going to turn away tourists....they aren't going to care when the court case ends 3 years later finding that your insurance was not valid on the Ring after all!!!
If it were illegal for Brits to drive their Brit-registered cars during TF, because their cars were uninsured, the police wouldn't turn a blind eye. The car insurance system in Germany is more specific than it is in UK. In Germany, for example, you can buy a car for export, get a registration that lasts for a limited period (7, 30, 365 days), and buy insurance for that period from a representative of a proper underwriter (e.g., Allianz) whilst you're at the DVLA (equivalent) office.
If a British car were actually uninsured whilst on TF, and therefore illegal, they'd offer 1-day insurance for visitors. The Germans don't want people coming over there, doing hundreds of grand worth of damage, and then defaulting, which would leave the circuit, the state, and German insurers liable for the damage.
havoc said:
flemke said:
BCA said:
99.99% of UK registered cars lapping the 'ring are uninsured now.
No, not even according to your argument.The drivers of those cars may be uninsured, but the cars aren't uninsured.
Do you think that the Polizei are completely ignorant about this issue? There are thousands of British cars and drivers over there every year, some of whom get involved in shunts. If all these cars were systematically uninsured the moment that they left the filter road and touched the circuit, the authorities would not sit idle and pretend that it wasn't happening.
A policy applies to a car, therefore in the UK we refer to a car as being insured/uninsured. Whether the insurer ACTUALLY pays out and then pursues you for its costs, or doesn't and YOU get pursued directly for costs matters little to the owner/driver - the net result is pretty much the same.
In the UK, if you drive an uninsured car on public roads, it can be confiscated and crushed, even if the car was not involved in an accident or potential claim. Using that car was illegal.
It's not illegal to drive a Brit-registered car on the NS during TF, because, ultimately, the car is insured, even though the financial consequences to the driver in case of an accident would be the same as if it were being driven without insurance in UK.
To clarify, UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of 3rd party cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own damage cover. The insurer can indemnify the third party (to comply with the law) without having to indemnify the driver for his own losses if they arose from an excluded event or situation. The insurer also has a right to recover the third party settlement.
If your insurance certificate/policy says 'Nurburgring is excluded' or similar then that has no effect as far as 3rd party cover is concerned. The insurer must cover 3rd party claims but you are driving at great personal financial risk; as the insurer will settle the 3rd party claim and come to you for the money.
So, you have 3rd party cover (to the limits set out in the Road Traffic Act) but you are personally at risk and this is a real situation for several people every year. The smallest Nurburgring claim I'm dealing with presently is €14,000. The largest is big multiple of that.
If your insurance certificate/policy says 'Nurburgring is excluded' or similar then that has no effect as far as 3rd party cover is concerned. The insurer must cover 3rd party claims but you are driving at great personal financial risk; as the insurer will settle the 3rd party claim and come to you for the money.
So, you have 3rd party cover (to the limits set out in the Road Traffic Act) but you are personally at risk and this is a real situation for several people every year. The smallest Nurburgring claim I'm dealing with presently is €14,000. The largest is big multiple of that.
We have quoted to supply the rental units for the Nurburgring, so you may get Video VBOXs with up to 4 cameras, GPS speedo, G-force, trackmap and lap-times all shown at the same time. You should be able to take away the footage and data and compare it directly with anyone else renting the same equipment. An example of this is here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4GJhytESE
Edited by Racelogic on Friday 21st January 17:49
agtlaw said:
To clarify, UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of 3rd party cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own damage cover. The insurer can indemnify the third party (to comply with the law) without having to indemnify the driver for his own losses if they arose from an excluded event or situation. The insurer also has a right to recover the third party settlement.
If your insurance certificate/policy says 'Nurburgring is excluded' or similar then that has no effect as far as 3rd party cover is concerned. The insurer must cover 3rd party claims but you are driving at great personal financial risk; as the insurer will settle the 3rd party claim and come to you for the money.
So, you have 3rd party cover (to the limits set out in the Road Traffic Act) but you are personally at risk and this is a real situation for several people every year. The smallest Nurburgring claim I'm dealing with presently is €14,000. The largest is big multiple of that.
If you might answer this generally, without regard to any specific case:If your insurance certificate/policy says 'Nurburgring is excluded' or similar then that has no effect as far as 3rd party cover is concerned. The insurer must cover 3rd party claims but you are driving at great personal financial risk; as the insurer will settle the 3rd party claim and come to you for the money.
So, you have 3rd party cover (to the limits set out in the Road Traffic Act) but you are personally at risk and this is a real situation for several people every year. The smallest Nurburgring claim I'm dealing with presently is €14,000. The largest is big multiple of that.
If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
flemke said:
If you might answer this generally, without regard to any specific case:
If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
a lot of cases start out with the insurer refusing to deal with the claim. they eventually accept they must deal with it. they then make further attempts to avoid the claim, sometimes interview client, other times ask for written statement/s, enter into correspondence, pay claim, seek money from client, we negotiate amount or defend case.If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
they are similar to drink driving cases in the sense that its often a no-win situation but something of a damage limitation exercise. however, several cases i've dealt with have been professionally handled from the outset, expert witnesses instructed to provide technical reports, and the cases are settled with the insurer thereafter not making efforts to recover their 'loss'.
in one interesting case i dealt with, a mechanical defect led to an oil spill, the car crashed causing injury to two occupants (one quite serious) and two bikers crashed on the oil and were also injured. we were able to establish the manufacturer's tortious liability and the manufacturer, who will remain nameless, paid the 3rd party claims and money for a replacement car. the case didn't get to court.
Racelogic said:
We have quoted to supply the rental units for the Nurburgring, so you may get Video VBOXs with up to 4 cameras, GPS speedo, G-force, trackmap and lap-times all shown at the same time. You should be able to take away the footage and data and compare it directly with anyone else renting the same equipment. An example of this is here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4GJhytESE
And how long would it take to fit 4 cameras, DVR and all the rest of it to a road-going car? And please don't say 5 minutes, because we all know how long it actually takes if it's going to be safe and the cameras are all pointing in the right direction!Edited by Racelogic on Friday 21st January 17:49
It would be impractical for them to offer anything more than a 1 or 2 camera system if they expect to get a reasonable take-up and give punters a reasonable quality result. If they don't get a good take-up then they won't make enough money to make it viable, unless the whole point is really just to stop the cameras once and for all.
Probably the only solutions which would work in this situation is the AIM Smartycam or a simple HD camera like the GoPro. Anything else would be too complex and take too much time to fit. So I wouldn't get too excited about winning the deal if I were you.
If they're going to enforce the no camera rule properly, they'll have to allow a few minutes to look carefully around each and every vehicle because it's pretty easy to hide a covert camera well enough to get around a casual inspection. So expect queues to increase substantially.
I don't think they've thought it through and I suspect this idea won't work and they'll just try and implement a complete ban on cameras enforced by UAVs armed with high-powered lasers. Or something like that.
Oh, nice sneaky advert BTW.;)
Edited by FasterFreddy on Friday 21st January 21:50
agtlaw said:
flemke said:
If you might answer this generally, without regard to any specific case:
If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
a lot of cases start out with the insurer refusing to deal with the claim. they eventually accept they must deal with it. they then make further attempts to avoid the claim, sometimes interview client, other times ask for written statement/s, enter into correspondence, pay claim, seek money from client, we negotiate amount or defend case.If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
they are similar to drink driving cases in the sense that its often a no-win situation but something of a damage limitation exercise. however, several cases i've dealt with have been professionally handled from the outset, expert witnesses instructed to provide technical reports, and the cases are settled with the insurer thereafter not making efforts to recover their 'loss'.
in one interesting case i dealt with, a mechanical defect led to an oil spill, the car crashed causing injury to two occupants (one quite serious) and two bikers crashed on the oil and were also injured. we were able to establish the manufacturer's tortious liability and the manufacturer, who will remain nameless, paid the 3rd party claims and money for a replacement car. the case didn't get to court.
In general - if it's possible to generalise - what's the position if a person makes a driving error, bounces off the armco, comes to rest on the tarmac on far side of blind crest, and subsequently another vehicle drives into it? Obviously, the errant driver is responsible for his own car, and the armco, but is he responsible for the damage to the second car, which drove into his stationary car? On a public highway, one is expected to be able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. The NS has a load of blind crests and bends; nonetheless, it's a public road. For insurance liability purposes, is there a DWDCA standard that could be applied to driver of second car, who came over blind crest too fast to be able to stop in time?
flemke said:
agtlaw said:
flemke said:
If you might answer this generally, without regard to any specific case:
If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
a lot of cases start out with the insurer refusing to deal with the claim. they eventually accept they must deal with it. they then make further attempts to avoid the claim, sometimes interview client, other times ask for written statement/s, enter into correspondence, pay claim, seek money from client, we negotiate amount or defend case.If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
they are similar to drink driving cases in the sense that its often a no-win situation but something of a damage limitation exercise. however, several cases i've dealt with have been professionally handled from the outset, expert witnesses instructed to provide technical reports, and the cases are settled with the insurer thereafter not making efforts to recover their 'loss'.
in one interesting case i dealt with, a mechanical defect led to an oil spill, the car crashed causing injury to two occupants (one quite serious) and two bikers crashed on the oil and were also injured. we were able to establish the manufacturer's tortious liability and the manufacturer, who will remain nameless, paid the 3rd party claims and money for a replacement car. the case didn't get to court.
In general - if it's possible to generalise - what's the position if a person makes a driving error, bounces off the armco, comes to rest on the tarmac on far side of blind crest, and subsequently another vehicle drives into it? Obviously, the errant driver is responsible for his own car, and the armco, but is he responsible for the damage to the second car, which drove into his stationary car? On a public highway, one is expected to be able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. The NS has a load of blind crests and bends; nonetheless, it's a public road. For insurance liability purposes, is there a DWDCA standard that could be applied to driver of second car, who came over blind crest too fast to be able to stop in time?
Dakkon said:
The case spoken about a few posts above has not gone to court, but the financial ombudsman has ruled in favour of the insurance company. In the terms and conditions of the policy one of the exclusions was 'You will not be covered on a prepared course'.
The insurance company successfully proved that the 'Ring is a prepared course, mainly from the text from the 'Ring's website despite a very detailed and researched argument that it is not.
With the Ombudsman's ruling in favour of the insurance company, the insurance company is now after full costs it has paid out, including their admin and legal fee's.
We are talking about significant sums of money despite no-one being injured, with bankruptcy seriously being considered.
The case could be taken to court but with the fear of losing that and even more legal and admin fee's being added to the bill this final step will not be happening.
To those going there without insurance, let me quote Topgun 'Your ego is writing cheques your body cannot cash'.
This is very real, it is not just some internet story.
The insurance company successfully proved that the 'Ring is a prepared course, mainly from the text from the 'Ring's website despite a very detailed and researched argument that it is not.
With the Ombudsman's ruling in favour of the insurance company, the insurance company is now after full costs it has paid out, including their admin and legal fee's.
We are talking about significant sums of money despite no-one being injured, with bankruptcy seriously being considered.
The case could be taken to court but with the fear of losing that and even more legal and admin fee's being added to the bill this final step will not be happening.
To those going there without insurance, let me quote Topgun 'Your ego is writing cheques your body cannot cash'.
This is very real, it is not just some internet story.
This is the kind of event I am trying to warn people about. HereBeMonsters said:
flemke said:
agtlaw said:
flemke said:
If you might answer this generally, without regard to any specific case:
If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
a lot of cases start out with the insurer refusing to deal with the claim. they eventually accept they must deal with it. they then make further attempts to avoid the claim, sometimes interview client, other times ask for written statement/s, enter into correspondence, pay claim, seek money from client, we negotiate amount or defend case.If you're a motoring solicitor, and you're "dealing with" Nurburgring TF claims, and the issue is cut-and-dried because almost all British policies specifically exclude coverage for accidents there, how much lawyering is there to be done? Is it pretty straightforward, in that the underwriter accepts that it must pay out, and then British driver accepts that he/she must compensate underwriter, or can fundamental issues still be in dispute?
they are similar to drink driving cases in the sense that its often a no-win situation but something of a damage limitation exercise. however, several cases i've dealt with have been professionally handled from the outset, expert witnesses instructed to provide technical reports, and the cases are settled with the insurer thereafter not making efforts to recover their 'loss'.
in one interesting case i dealt with, a mechanical defect led to an oil spill, the car crashed causing injury to two occupants (one quite serious) and two bikers crashed on the oil and were also injured. we were able to establish the manufacturer's tortious liability and the manufacturer, who will remain nameless, paid the 3rd party claims and money for a replacement car. the case didn't get to court.
In general - if it's possible to generalise - what's the position if a person makes a driving error, bounces off the armco, comes to rest on the tarmac on far side of blind crest, and subsequently another vehicle drives into it? Obviously, the errant driver is responsible for his own car, and the armco, but is he responsible for the damage to the second car, which drove into his stationary car? On a public highway, one is expected to be able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. The NS has a load of blind crests and bends; nonetheless, it's a public road. For insurance liability purposes, is there a DWDCA standard that could be applied to driver of second car, who came over blind crest too fast to be able to stop in time?
It's not uncommon to see a biker on the floor. One of the sharpest of the blind crests, relative to one's road speed, is the start of Flugplatz. If that were an A-road with a 60 limit, the right speed as one approached the worst of the crest would probably be around 30. The achievable speed in, say, an M3, is well north of 100. It would be extremely rare to see someone with any experience of the circuit approach that crest at 30, or, even at 50.
If you were to come over that crest at 50, and to be confronted by a biker down, so that the low profile made the moment of discovery as late as possible, you'd probably hit that guy. I don't know that the poor guy could blame you for having done that.
If you hit him, and killed him, would it be your liability? If you hit him, consequently lost control, hit the barrier, and you yourself were killed, would it be his liability?
I myself believe that, except in cases of demonstrable recklessness, it's every man for himself. I don't know why the 'Ring mgmt do not require all drivers and passengers to sign a liability waiver, unless it would be legally meaningless there. Regardless of what they do, if any adult goes out there, he or she should know and accept the risk of getting caught up in someone else's mistake.
We have only just been asked to quote, so I have no idea of what is going to happen, it's not a particularly big order, but one that will generate a fair bit of exposure. From our experience, once you start fitting these systems into loads of cars everyday you develop various techniques and can be in and out with two cameras (mounted on the same windscreen mount sharing one cable), aligned and ready to go in under 5 minutes in fact. Some of our corporate customers work with 40 boxes at a time, so the fitment has to be very quick or it just wouldn't work. One guy who works with me says he can now do it in under a minute if he can tuck the box in the glove compartment.
I was told that they have considered GoPros, but the drive experience centres we supply find that plain video doesn't have the same uptake or appeal as multiple-camera graphical video. It turns out that the second camera is key, as drivers like to show themselves in the video, which vastly increases the take up and the value of the service. Therefore, with a single plain camera, they get less money with fewer customers, so the recurring revenue is too small to make it worthwhile. The initial investment is mainly irrelevant, as this is paid off generally within the first year at a busy venue, and it is the long term revenue that dominates the decision. There is an added benefit that giving the data away encourages drivers to share their techniques and are more willing to return in order to improve.
I was told that they have considered GoPros, but the drive experience centres we supply find that plain video doesn't have the same uptake or appeal as multiple-camera graphical video. It turns out that the second camera is key, as drivers like to show themselves in the video, which vastly increases the take up and the value of the service. Therefore, with a single plain camera, they get less money with fewer customers, so the recurring revenue is too small to make it worthwhile. The initial investment is mainly irrelevant, as this is paid off generally within the first year at a busy venue, and it is the long term revenue that dominates the decision. There is an added benefit that giving the data away encourages drivers to share their techniques and are more willing to return in order to improve.
Edited by Racelogic on Saturday 22 January 13:17
flemke said:
HereBeMonsters said:
I certainly never, ever go over a blind crest too quickly to stop in time. Perhaps that's why my times are so crap, but I still manage to have fun.
If you have that much self-restraint, you're a better man than I, and most of us. 
Seriously though, I see what you're saying about Flugplatz. Can also think of a few others. I guess I may not be able to stop dead on the circuit in time, but at least manouevre around the incident? Altough I've probably done over a hundred laps by now, I treat every one like a B road blat where I'm generally the slowest thing on there. New car might see to that, but I digress.
What there needs to be is some sort of specific, affordable insurance available. If it's 3rd party only, then fair enough. I'd certainly pay £100 or so to cover myself for a weekend.
HereBeMonsters said:
What there needs to be is some sort of specific, affordable insurance available. If it's 3rd party only, then fair enough. I'd certainly pay £100 or so to cover myself for a weekend.
I can see 3P cover at the 'ring costing more than £100 a day...granted only a small # of people need it, but when you do the cost is £££...havoc said:
HereBeMonsters said:
What there needs to be is some sort of specific, affordable insurance available. If it's 3rd party only, then fair enough. I'd certainly pay £100 or so to cover myself for a weekend.
I can see 3P cover at the 'ring costing more than £100 a day...granted only a small # of people need it, but when you do the cost is £££...In my mind.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff