You can get insurance (in some cases) and it is quite common in racing among those I know. It's used by the drivers who drive other peoples cars, for teams. It's usually the most well off career racers. If I was driving someone else's car I would have to have it.. I was discussing driving an old F1 car with someone who can make it happen, but asked about cover. I know someone who went to race at Germany and it cost the team owner 96K (with damage and logistics for 5 mins track time) because the driver was asked to drive, rather than the driver asking to drive. Unless you've got enough in the bank to throw at it if it goes bad proper style.. insurance in racing is not a bad idea. I've seen (was on track with) a brand new car, that was totally destroyed in the first event... driver had to pay, lucky he did not have to pay for the other car involved. Not cheap cover of course, hence I never had it (as I owned my cars). To me like business it's cost vs risk... until they start making you pay for the other parties involved. I think it was something like 5K per year, with some excess like 4 or 5K. So a little tap is not cost effective but a big one is... max payout of 28K on this premium. Obviously where values of vehicles vary or risk, it will change and that did not cover injury to others, engine failure or damage to other vehicles. In recent years, I'd been in a few races where the officials asked for on board cameras to be handed in. Not so many people used them when I started. Most do now. I've seen it used for false starts, but also to dish out fines. This is when I started to reevaluate. Note this is racing not trackdays.. I was effected a couple times by others, and one time a driver offered to pay the full cost of my repair, obviously at my inconvenience. The other time, I paid for someone else mistake. It was something that put me off, combined with other reasons.... never knowing if, you go for it and get it wrong... how much will it cost. Racing is very close and very fast and mistakes happen, even in F1... so I consider damage inevitable. Anyway, I suspect they will have a fight over this one... You should be aware of risks, as I was, and if it goes tits up for what ever reason so be it... There is as much of a chance me ruining someones weekend as them mine. You do have to be a bit careful though with trailers etc... business use, private hire, goods in transit... most don't have cover, but I bet in some cases insurance still class, towing to an event or on private land, use for motorsport. I guess they'd try and have some kind of silly scheme, like you pay a £50 when you sign on for your track day and it covers injury claims but won't cover damage to your bike. Or some kind of track insurance where you are covered (with big excess for damage to others and injury but not your own). They will have to take into account that you've not passed an advanced form of test, which might come into play... everyone have to have a race licence.
Public Liability Insurance is something which those who operate shops, factories, farms, and yes racing circuits always take out. Or almost always. The operators of Brands Hatch and Silverstone, for example, must carry Public Liability Insurance. If somebody was injured, sued them successfully, and it turned out that they had failed to obtain Public Liability Insurance they would certainly be criticised on that account. So some Slovenian farmer has failed to obtain insurance to cover the eventuality of somebody getting injured by his tractor. So the court has ruled that the government of Slovenia (and by extension other governments) ought to have ensured that the farmer had obtained such insurance. So what? This is merely the kind of arrangement that every well-ordered business has always put in place anyway. Nothing to see here - move along please.
Well the ACU have started sending out emails warning people of the same, so even though theres nothing to see it seems they have been taken in.
So it is just scaremongering? Business do and should cover their asses, that is a given. That was not even a consideration to me it's so obvious. A business without public liability would be mad. I'm sure most know of people driving without licences or insurance on private land, be it tractors or fork trucks etc.. This article does not (seem) to differentiate, that scenario from track day users on track. "compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles used on any land, which would obviously banish trackdays, racing and pretty much any off-road activity." I doubt making Joe the tractor driver get insurance would effect the industry too much... Currently most have a use at your own risk, sign this wavier scenario. This bs implies customers as track users will have to cover themselves, no?? If it is as suggested.. I can not get the underwriters to put injury or death on my life insurance, so would no doubt be fun if insurance was to become mandatory to cover injury on track... I declined to pay extra when I took a Focus RS round Mallory and that was for damage to that vehicle only cover, not any other damage. I've not heard anything about it from anyone I know and I get updates via e-mail for regs changes. Fingers crossed Pete is correct.
A track will cover them being sued, not you. ACU membership covers you being sued, not the track. None of this covers 3rd party damage or liability per se as no one claims. Given club racing, and the times people get run off, it would be uninsurable. Add to that trackdays too (companies don't cover it) where juts as many are punted off and you won't get anyone insuring you. But, if you believe the legislation ACU describe, than what about pavement scooters? How can you ensure a farm ATV or tractor that isn't road registered? And what about Europe? Maybe @doogalman or @Ash34 know how this affects them now, given its a law already isn't it? They have race series'
Imagine 'he came under me and put me on the grass' causing that 25k R to be written off and a claim made against Palmer. Erm...Goodbye trackdays under £300 per day.
You can insure a crane, or an oil rig, or a blast furnace, or a roller coaster, or ... anything really. It doesn't have to be road registered. Anybody operating anything is well-advised to take out Public Liability Insurance for it and most do so as a matter of course. The question here is to what extent this should be legally obligatory, or whether it should be left to the discretion of the operators. Incidentally, anybody taking part in racing, or a trackday, or any kind of event, is required to sign a disclaimer before they are allowed to enter. The disclaimer is worded in such a way as to exclude liability to the maximum extent possible in law. The insurance thus only has to cover any further risk which cannot be legally excluded by the disclaimer. This is pretty cheap.
As is now @Pete1950 not as described as will be. And wouldn't it be the farmer insured not the vehicle for PL as a company? Do you have PL for walking in the park Pete? Maybe your house insurance can provide some? What of those that don't? You seem to be far wide of the point on this. Me taking my bike on a closed private road (dirt or tarmac) for fun is not the same as me running business equipment. of 140 people on a trackway, less than 5 will have any and of insurance to cover them, and none of that will be PL. You may get lucky and sue Palmer for that fella that punted you off, don't hold your breath. And a waiver means nothing if its law you have to have insurance
Perhaps you are right. The Department for Transport consultation document (see link below) entirely fails to deal with the Public Liability Insurance aspect of the matter. It seems rather perfunctory, actually. Still, it is clear enough that the court's understanding of the meaning of the insurance directive, as indicated by the Vnuk judgment, came as a big, unwelcome surprise to everybody in 2014. An amended directive is very likely to be produced, which would largely deal with the problem. The consultation document outlines a range of possible scenarios, some of which would have highly undesirable effects. The underlying point is that vehicles can travel freely throughout Europe, which is possible because all countries operate systems which meet certain basic common standards. If any one country departed too far from those common standards, its vehicles would cease to be allowed to move freely. This applies, obviously, regardless of being an EU member state or not. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/579377/motor-insurance-vnuk-v-triglav.pdf
Thinking aloud, I wonder if there are any EU countries where you don't have to have 3rd party insurance tonne on a public (or privately owned toll) highway?
Boris wades in..... Boris Johnson attacks EU court ruling that may force British people to insure mobility scooters | The Independent
