Originally Posted by Asp
Yes, a bit of a sensationalist headline perhaps, but I'm copying from the ACU (equivalent of the MSA but for two-wheels)
Personally, I don't think it is the ACU and other bodies who have produced that statement over-reacting in anyway. EU law requires third-party insurance for use of motorised vehicle and whilst the British Parliament interpreted it one way (Road Traffic Act insurance); the ECJ have now interpreted it differently.
Extending insurance obligations to cover things like mobility scooters I agree with - but it needs limitations such as motorsport which is very efficiently self-regulated.
That is not what te EU directive says and that is also not how the ECJ interpreted it. The problem in this situation is that your own UK government uses this EU directive as an excuse to propose something far more sweeping and farreaching than was ever intended by the EU.
If you actually read the Vnuk case you will see that has nothing to do with the hysteria that is displayed in some of the posts in this thread. In the Vnuk case Vnuk was run over by a tractor on his farm. The tractor had to be insured under the RTA and it was. But the Insurance company of the tractor tried to weasel out of its obligation to pay arguing that the accident did not happen on the public road. The ECJ did the only correct thing and ruled that is does not matter where it happened but how it happened. Think about it, if the ECJ had ruled the other way there would be no end of bickering about when, what and where the public road is.
So how would this judgement implicate motorracing. Well, most motorracing takes place on closed circuits with cars that under no reasonable circumstance would be required to have road insurance. As a result they would never be affected by this legislation.
For road-going race-cars like for example rally-cars it becomes slightly more complicated. The ECJ ruled that 'normal use' of the vehicle is always insured. Would racing be considered normal use? In my opinion the ECJ leaves enough room to seperate the 'racing' part from the normal, insured, 'traffic' part.
So for example when a rallycar slowly drives to the startline and runs someone over, that would be a normal traffic situation so insured. Would he then start the stage and run someone over, that would not be a normal use so not insured under this legislation. That is at least how I would read this judgement.
Of course, as with everything, all this requires a thoughtful consideration by your elected officials to make a well-balanced, clear and concise new law which addresses all these different aspects.