RE: New EU law could effectively ban motorsport
Discussion
Have I clicked onto the Sun website by mistake? What a load of old s
te, reminds me of a few years ago when there were stories doing the rounds about how the EU Working at Height Directive (or something like it), would mean that there would have to be signs put up all over the mountains to warn people of big drops. I was in the Highlands last weekend and can confirm that they're still not there.
te, reminds me of a few years ago when there were stories doing the rounds about how the EU Working at Height Directive (or something like it), would mean that there would have to be signs put up all over the mountains to warn people of big drops. I was in the Highlands last weekend and can confirm that they're still not there. 
Roger Irrelevant said:
Have I clicked onto the Sun website by mistake? What a load of old ste, reminds me of a few years ago when there were stories doing the rounds about how the EU Working at Height Directive (or something like it), would mean that there would have to be signs put up all over the mountains to warn people of big drops. I was in the Highlands last weekend and can confirm that they're still not there.
You should have thrown yourself off and then claimed millions for negligence.te, reminds me of a few years ago when there were stories doing the rounds about how the EU Working at Height Directive (or something like it), would mean that there would have to be signs put up all over the mountains to warn people of big drops. I was in the Highlands last weekend and can confirm that they're still not there. Well your estate could have done.
Arbs said:
Would a bicycle be classed as a form of transport or does it have to be powered? Would all cyclists have to be insured?
Article said:
the EU states that insurance will be required for "any use of a vehicle, consistent with its normal function as a means of transport, irrespective of the terrain on which the motor vehicle is used and whether it is stationary or in motion".
The complete confidence many here apparently have that common sense will prevail is surprising and complacent IMO. Whilst I've no doubt the motorsport industry and associations will lobby for exclusions I wonder where this will leave track days. They aren't a motorsport event and the cars are a mix of race cars and road cars.
Given that motorsport is, intrinsically, an expensive business, why does adding a small additional cost make it non-viable?
The article suggests that "liability" insurance would be catastrophically expensive for such high risk activities, but that is simply not the case already, and the net cost would fall even more if everyone had to take it out. Today, self insuring for public liability is already normal across a vast number of industries, why not in motorsport??
The article suggests that "liability" insurance would be catastrophically expensive for such high risk activities, but that is simply not the case already, and the net cost would fall even more if everyone had to take it out. Today, self insuring for public liability is already normal across a vast number of industries, why not in motorsport??
fblm said:
The complete confidence many here apparently have that common sense will prevail is surprising and complacent IMO. Whilst I've no doubt the motorsport industry and associations will lobby for exclusions I wonder where this will leave track days. They aren't a motorsport event and the cars are a mix of race cars and road cars.
Max_Torque said:
Given that motorsport is, intrinsically, an expensive business, why does adding a small additional cost make it non-viable?
The article suggests that "liability" insurance would be catastrophically expensive for such high risk activities, but that is simply not the case already, and the net cost would fall even more if everyone had to take it out. Today, self insuring for public liability is already normal across a vast number of industries, why not in motorsport??
And shouldn't there be a corresponding reduction in the insurance costs for the venue if a part of that Public Liability is covered by the individual competitors?The article suggests that "liability" insurance would be catastrophically expensive for such high risk activities, but that is simply not the case already, and the net cost would fall even more if everyone had to take it out. Today, self insuring for public liability is already normal across a vast number of industries, why not in motorsport??
Toltec said:
fblm said:
The complete confidence many here apparently have that common sense will prevail is surprising and complacent IMO. Whilst I've no doubt the motorsport industry and associations will lobby for exclusions I wonder where this will leave track days. They aren't a motorsport event and the cars are a mix of race cars and road cars.
fblm said:
Toltec said:
fblm said:
The complete confidence many here apparently have that common sense will prevail is surprising and complacent IMO. Whilst I've no doubt the motorsport industry and associations will lobby for exclusions I wonder where this will leave track days. They aren't a motorsport event and the cars are a mix of race cars and road cars.
Max_Torque said:
Given that motorsport is, intrinsically, an expensive business, why does adding a small additional cost make it non-viable?
The article suggests that "liability" insurance would be catastrophically expensive for such high risk activities, but that is simply not the case already, and the net cost would fall even more if everyone had to take it out. Today, self insuring for public liability is already normal across a vast number of industries, why not in motor sport??
This directive will make liability cover mandatory for competitor to competitor claims as well. This would include damage to the vehicle and bodily injury. This is where it becomes prohibitively expensive as currently there is no requirement to insure, and anyone insuring the race vehicle only covers damage to that vehicle regardless of who inflicted it.The article suggests that "liability" insurance would be catastrophically expensive for such high risk activities, but that is simply not the case already, and the net cost would fall even more if everyone had to take it out. Today, self insuring for public liability is already normal across a vast number of industries, why not in motor sport??
Make no mistake, this directive IS going through, and the MSA and MIA along with other bodies have been lobbying to have an amendment included to exclude motor sport. To date, no amendment has been made. That's not to say it won't, but we are a number of years down the line with this and common sense has not yet prevailed!
ETA The motor sport industry is estimated to be worth £10billion to the UK economy, so there is a good chance a solution will be found.
Edited by r.g. on Tuesday 6th November 16:43
HustleRussell said:
Clickbait title, scaremongering and then climbdown in the final paragraph. PH articles beginning to conform to type with the sponsored content at the foot of the page.
Agreed, it's pathetic.Shame this crap even pops up in the forums to be frank when you hit 'What's New' - I don't ever look at the home page or anywhere else on the site.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff