4thbender Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 In the landmark ‘Vnuk’ case, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that the EU’s 2009 Motor Insurance Directive required insurance policies to cover all possible third-party accidents in all places and at all times. In some countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland, governments had interpreted the law as meaning that it only applies to vehicles driven on public roads, however it is now clear that the judgment means that national laws must be changed to ensure that all mechanically propelled vehicles are insured for third-party losses regardless of type of use, in all places, at any time. This applies to everything from Formula One racing cars, to mobility scooters, to antique trams and everything in-between. Industry experts have already claimed that the risks associated with providing insurance cover to all motorised vehicles mean that they would be prohibitively expensive to insure, thus effectively outlawing all motorsport activities across the United Kingdom. HM Government opened a consultation on Wednesday 21st December with two clear options. First, to pursue the “Comprehensive option” which would involve changing UK motor insurance law to comply with the Motor Insurance Directive as interpreted in the Vnuk judgement. Second, the Government’s preferred “Amended Directive option” which would involve changing UK law on motor insurance to implement the Motor Insurance Directive as amended, should the European Commission pursue its proposal to amend it. While the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, the UK is obligated to make this change. We, the undersigned petition HM Government through the Secretary of State for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, M.P., asking that HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgement in a way that encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities.SIGN PETITION AT: www.fightvnuk.co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balderdash&piffle Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 In the landmark ‘Vnuk’ case, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that the EU’s 2009 Motor Insurance Directive required insurance policies to cover all possible third-party accidents in all places and at all times. In some countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland, governments had interpreted the law as meaning that it only applies to vehicles driven on public roads, however it is now clear that the judgment means that national laws must be changed to ensure that all mechanically propelled vehicles are insured for third-party losses regardless of type of use, in all places, at any time. This applies to everything from Formula One racing cars, to mobility scooters, to antique trams and everything in-between. Industry experts have already claimed that the risks associated with providing insurance cover to all motorised vehicles mean that they would be prohibitively expensive to insure, thus effectively outlawing all motorsport activities across the United Kingdom. HM Government opened a consultation on Wednesday 21st December with two clear options. First, to pursue the “Comprehensive option” which would involve changing UK motor insurance law to comply with the Motor Insurance Directive as interpreted in the Vnuk judgement. Second, the Government’s preferred “Amended Directive option” which would involve changing UK law on motor insurance to implement the Motor Insurance Directive as amended, should the European Commission pursue its proposal to amend it. While the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, the UK is obligated to make this change. We, the undersigned petition HM Government through the Secretary of State for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, M.P., asking that HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgement in a way that encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities. SIGN PETITION AT: www.fightvnuk.co.uk I have signed this, it appeared on face book 2 weeks ago. One would have thought that this type of insurance would be in place anyway, considering modern health and safety laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 I have signed this, it appeared on face book 2 weeks ago. One would have thought that this type of insurance would be in place anyway, considering modern health and safety laws. Would one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balderdash&piffle Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) Would one? One would, as in all third party public liability, either individually, or as a collective as in a team or club, the public should be covered for any injury that may occur to them. The problem has arisen because the UK tried to interpret the rules as only applyng to the public highways and not to a closed circuit. Edited January 14, 2017 by balderdash&piffle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 sign it people , its not costing you owt . but it may in the long run . sign it now or forever hold your ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balderdash&piffle Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 sign it people , its not costing you owt . but it may in the long run . sign it now or forever hold your ? Agree, sign it, just in case our illustrious Government cock it up like most things. As Mr Snakkette said on the general discussions, it looks lije the EU are addressing the matter anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramanga Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 this cropped up about a month ago on the road racing forums still need just over 300 signitures to force some sort of action/responce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barncooseboy Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 having seen the way someof Plymouths 'Hells Grannies' drive their mobility scooters believe they should have insurance cover BUT SO should cyclists HOWEVER Vehicles used in protected OFF ROAD AREAS should not need compulsory insurance 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramanga Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 the problem with SOME not all mobility scooters is the people using them have seriuos attittude problems and just barge people out the road 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 Erm, 52% of the British public voted against this in June. Why do wpeople care what the EU want/say any more? We're leaving. Sod them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 the problem with SOME not all mobility scooters is the people using them have seriuos attittude problems and just barge people out the road mobility scooters are battery driven and this insurance thing does not apply to them . amazingly enough . the triumph motorcycle is also classed as a vehicle not capable of speeds over 14 MPH . so is exempt . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 mobility scooters are battery driven and this insurance thing does not apply to them . amazingly enough . the triumph motorcycle is also classed as a vehicle not capable of speeds over 14 MPH . so is exempt . What about peddle cycles , they should have to be insured as well, then maybe they would be more careful and more respectful to other road users and pedestrians. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 mobility scooters are battery driven and this insurance thing does not apply to them . amazingly enough . the triumph motorcycle is also classed as a vehicle not capable of speeds over 14 MPH . so is exempt . Hey J, would that apply to these battery driven cars they want you to buy to reduce your carbon footprint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Hey J, would that apply to these battery driven cars they want you to buy to reduce your carbon footprint? i would think they are already paying road insurance. watching gold rush , wonder how much it would cost to insure them seeing that they are running on dirt roads and swamps . thank god i kept my Sinclair c5 . i knew it would come in handy some day ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balderdash&piffle Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 having seen the way someof Plymouths 'Hells Grannies' drive their mobility scooters believe they should have insurance cover BUT SO should cyclists HOWEVER Vehicles used in protected OFF ROAD AREAS should not need compulsory insurance Just thinking of the incident at Berwick a few years back, when if I remember right it was Scud Smith and Paul Fry, both went through the fence and over the concrete barrier, hitting 2 fans who were walking by at the time. Surely insurance is a necessity. this cropped up about a month ago on the road racing forums still need just over 300 signitures to force some sort of action/r Erm, 52% of the British public voted against this in June. Why do wpeople care what the EU want/say any more? We're leaving. Sod them! 38 % voted leave 37% voted remain 25 % did not vote. This government forced the unions to have a minimum of 50% of its membership to vote for a strike, the same rules should apply. 52% of those who voted voted voted to leave and not as you state 52% of the British public What about peddle cycles , they should have to be insured as well, then maybe they would be more careful and more respectful to other road users and pedestrians. Totally agree, in fact every vehicle user should be insured to use the roads, and cyclists who ride on pedestrian footpaths should be locked up, disabled buggies should have to be blue badged, (any one at the moment can buy one and use it with no restriction) insured and restricted to 2 mph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 what we must push is that fans enter a stadium at their own risk . its a disclaimer written into the race card . it applies to most , if not all motor sports . .......... whatever next green flag breakdown on track .. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thbender Posted January 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Totally agree, in fact every vehicle user should be insured to use the roads, and cyclists who ride on pedestrian footpaths should be locked up, disabled buggies should have to be blue badged, (any one at the moment can buy one and use it with no restriction) insured and restricted to 2 mph Should see the way my two-year-old grandson rides his bike on the footpath. Anyone who sees him would be well advised to keep out of his way. As for locking him up, I don't think the jail has yet been built that would contain him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balderdash&piffle Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Should see the way my two-year-old grandson rides his bike on the footpath. Anyone who sees him would be well advised to keep out of his way. As for locking him up, I don't think the jail has yet been built that would contain him. All children should be locked up what we must push is that fans enter a stadium at their own risk . its a disclaimer written into the race card . it applies to most , if not all motor sports . .......... whatever next green flag breakdown on track .. . Never mind the nonsense that the EU is to blame, under UK Governance, third party public liability would be compulsory anyway, and so it should be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Should see the way my two-year-old grandson rides his bike on the footpath. Anyone who sees him would be well advised to keep out of his way. As for locking him up, I don't think the jail has yet been built that would contain him. they should maybe plan on building some, your'e not alone,,, or ban sweets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 All children should be locked up Never mind the nonsense that the EU is to blame, under UK Governance, third party public liability would be compulsory anyway, and so it should be YOU had better watch out then if you want all children locked up. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.