RE: New EU law could effectively ban motorsport

RE: New EU law could effectively ban motorsport

Tuesday 6th November

New EU law could effectively ban motorsport

Will Lewis Hamilton be forced to hang up his helmet with new legislation? Probably not...



What will a Slovenian tractor and Lewis Hamilton's F1 W09 racing car soon have in common according to a new EU law? Both will be legally required to be fully insured before they can operate in their intended manner. As things stand, the introduction of a new Motor Insurance Directive legislation will effectively ban motorsport in Europe, because while a farmer might face little struggle in insuring a tractor, no provider in their right mind would cover an ultra-high-risk vehicle such as a car of F1, the BTCC or WRC.

Before we jump onboard the scaremongering train let's remember that there are often proposed new laws that fail to consider all effects of their introduction, which are then amended to ensure they don't adversely create these unforeseen circumstances. Surely EU boffins are hurriedly working to fix this absurd issue. But no, worryingly for motorsport, despite the issue having been highlighted for several months, there is still no official signal from Brussels to confirm that the laws will be changed accordingly.


So just why does the EU suddenly think racing cars need to be insured, after decades of running without such requirement? It all links to an incident in 2014 where a man was knocked off a ladder by a tractor being driven on private land - where it doesn't legally need insurance - in Slovenia (hence the awkward opening line of this article). In response, the EU wants to change the law to ensure victims of similar incidents will always be fairly compensated. Which seems fair enough.

Thing is, the terminology the EU uses to describe the legislation is so broad, that it'll technically affect everything, from your neighbour's petrol lawn mower to Hamilton's Silver Arrow. Here's the proof: 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".


But before our recently crowned five-time champ hangs up his helmet for good, it seems that, from a UK perspective at least, the law is due to receive appropriate alteration to enable racing without insurance. Most other EU members are also yet to integrate the EU's changes into their national legislation, so there's a strong chance motorsport will be enabled in each country individually via their own adjustments to law. Or, alternatively, Hamilton might find himself dipping into the pension pot a little earlier than planned. He has hinted at a career in the music industry...

Author
Discussion

sidesauce

Original Poster:

815 posts

153 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
I read about this a couple weeks ago and get the distinct feeling that the law will be used punitively - motorsport for the most part might come out of it unscathed but I can already see being used in a particularly pernicious way against private land owners...

Fetchez la vache

5,088 posts

149 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
article said:
a tractor being driven on private land - where it doesn't legally need insurance
Not actually sure I agree with this. I'm required to get insurance to cover mine and third party farm workers working on my land... it's included as a standard add-on to my farm insurance.

For this to have rattled round so long though, there must be more to this than meets the eye...

HustleRussell

15,308 posts

95 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
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.

Cold

5,409 posts

25 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
We should probably leave the EU. Let's have a vote on it.

Turbobanana

1,144 posts

136 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
Surely it wouldn't be so hard for an insurer to provide cover for a vehicle against loss, damage or injury to third parties (eg, spectators or marshals) but exclude that to other vehicles against which it was competing. You don't enter a race expecting there to be no contact, right? But the number of times a third party suffers is limited (certainly in my 30+ years as a spectator). That would constitute "insured", wouldn't it?
Advertisement

andyalan10

188 posts

72 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
Does nobody at Pistonheads have any knowledge of the difference between third party insurance and comprehensive?

Nor any knowledge of how motorsport insurance currently works?

What did I read the other day about rumours that Haymarket pays people to write provocative and inaccurate content just to drive page views?


alex98uk

37 posts

8 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
What horrible clickbait. Worthy of the Daily Mail.

feef

3,963 posts

118 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
"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"

can one really argue that an F1 car is a 'means of transport'? transport means to convey goods or people from one place to another. No-one could easily argue that an F1's car purpose is the conveyance of anything from one place to another, not least that the start and finish are in the same location, without any drop-offs in between

Shakermaker

7,268 posts

35 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
feef said:
"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"

can one really argue that an F1 car is a 'means of transport'? transport means to convey goods or people from one place to another. No-one could easily argue that an F1's car purpose is the conveyance of anything from one place to another, not least that the start and finish are in the same location, without any drop-offs in between
Was also how I would argue the case to start with.

Nanook

33,071 posts

122 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
First pic looks like the chicane at Knockhill. That's what happens when you hit the sausages!

MrDayton

2 posts

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
I'm presuming that Lewis Hamilton's civil liability is limited by the voluntary assumption of risk nature of motorsports, and that drivers are already insured against medical bills etc. However if he drove his F1 car off the track into a car park, and damaged a car, that's unlikely, but he would have a civil liability for doing it. So maybe he will need a minimum 3rd party policy against any accident falling outside of the responsibility of organisers.

shalmaneser

3,451 posts

130 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
What a load of utter rubbish

sh33n

150 posts

122 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
shalmaneser said:
What a load of utter rubbish
Indeed, I've seen some awful pro and anti-brexit "stories" but this is on another level.

hornmeister

506 posts

26 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
In the hugely unlikely event that this will ever come into force, there will either be a get out clause, or sports like F1 will just stay out of Europe.

There's money and people clamouring for races outside of Europe, I don't see it as an issue for anyone other than the amateur.

mikey k

11,989 posts

151 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
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.
This
Big loophole in this as well
"any use of a vehicle, consistent with its normal function as a means of transport"
I would argue a tractor is not a means of transport, its an industrial tool wink

Actus Reus

3,430 posts

90 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
You could drive a Panamax through the holes in this story and 'EU legal boffins'? Really?!

I started to write a bit about directives and regulations, but the original author won't understand and, those who know already, don't need to be told again.

Wooda80

717 posts

10 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
Existing Public Liability Insurance would cover off most of this wouldn't it?

Much to the disappointment of those hoping for some more "declared modifications" "who to claim off" type threads.

Arbs

134 posts

110 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
Would a bicycle be classed as a form of transport or does it have to be powered? Would all cyclists have to be insured?

Terzo204

377 posts

91 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
The MSA are taking this seriously:




I cannot see this ever applying to motorsport though.

mikey k

11,989 posts

151 months

Tuesday 6th November
quotequote all
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?
Now that would be interesting!