Peter Auto/CER new rules

[john ruston]

Peter Auto advised all competitors at Ricard that a new rule was to be implemented with immediate effect.

"Any driver that was judged to be responsibe for damage to another car would be responsible for half the costs of the repair."

Am aware it was discussed by the great and good in Algarve.
I can't see how it works .Am aware one British owner was aproached by a local driver about this and if nothing else his grasp of English has now improved.

[zefarelly]

I can see a load of lawyers rubbing their hands together so hard they'll spontaeniously combust, which would be nice!

[terence]

Be interesting to see if it can actually be enforced,I take it there must be something for entrants to sign, binding them to the requirement?

[Chris Sharples]

Terry,
Following your thought that there must be a legally binding document I wonder if 'responsibility' would extend to personal injury or death of a fellow competitor?
Chris

[john ruston]

I am sure the idea looked good on paper but nobody thought it through.
As Chris intimates if you are found guilty of causing damage to others cars by organisers judges you must also be seen to be responsible for any further damage,whatever it is .
If this sticks in CER it will also be included in Tour Auto/LMC.
Can see a lot of people giving Peter Auto events a miss!
Am aware of a certain well known and quick driver who has already decided on HSCC rather than CER.
Unless this rule is rescinded or clarified in more acceptable terms we will be joining him.
At present our intention is to do both.
I am surprised it has not caused more uproar.

[simon drabble]

motor racing is a dangerous sport. Any participant should enter the arena aware of that and take measures to either self insure potential damage or pay for cover.

If you think the driving standards are questionable dont enter that series and if a driver is a lunatic then the other competitors should tell the organizor who should take action (whether it is a stern talking or banning from the series).

To enter a series where a freak accident might leave you liable for third party injury (and therefore legal damages) is at best very brave.....

Maybe a clever underwriter can work out a third party policy for competitors.....

[John Turner]

Yep, good post Simon; it seems a very dangerous precedent could be set here in an age where litigation is already excessively rife. There are much better ways to police bad driving, and in any event, as you say, motor racing is dangerous and unintended accidents can also occur, where blame is not really the issue.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Chris Sharples

Terry,
Following your thought that there must be a legally binding document I wonder if 'responsibility' would extend to personal injury or death of a fellow competitor?
Chris

Ultimately once signed,the 'document' could be used in whatever context a 'clever' lawyer chose. Far better not to sign and walk away from such things. Are we heading towards American type rules whereby one incident of contact could mean a three year ban from that serie's,good god,whatever next!!!!!

[skentellytubby]

Thin end of the wedge comes to mind...

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by john ruston

"Any driver that was judged to be responsibe for damage to another car would be responsible for half the costs of the repair."

Who makes that judgement? From the marshalling point of view, it's not a judgement I'm prepared to make. I can only report the facts - while I may in some instances have an opinion on who was to blame, that's all it is, an opinion & as such will not, & must not, be placed on record.

[john ruston]

The French!

[Derwent Motorsp]

I would doubt if a race organiser alone can make such a new rule. Ultimately the events are run by an organising club who are subject to the regulations of the national governing body. I can't see the MSA, or any other governing body allowing this.
In Equipe GTS, we have strict rules re driving standards with yellow and red cards which work very well. If some one is dangerous and drives with out due deference etc then he's not allowed back. It seems to work.

[john ruston]

They can,They have!

[Tim the Grey]

I wonder if Msr Luco has received the bill for his 936, after getting t boned by a 911RSR at La Source? The 911 looked quite bad, the 936 less so, but I guess it costs more to fix that sort of thing?

[fangio]

Although the idea is nice, especially for drivers who never cause incidents and are sometimes taken out by others that are less correct.....
However I don't think such a rule is allowed under FIA regulations and on top of that, do we want to have track marshalls decide on potentially thousands of euro's having to be paid based on often incomplete reports???
It would mean ordering track marshalls (volunteers) to appear before a judge to testify about an incident.............

There are many more negatives to such an idea than positives.....

A field day for lawyers!!!!

[johngee]

It's a great idea.....but then so is communism, fascism and perpetual motion. I can imagine that those from my side of the sport taking hold of it with the enthusiasm of a red hot poker.
See you in court.....Oh sorry - I'm busy that day!

[johngee]

The best opportunity I've had to post my favorite joke (if a mod doesn't delete it and ban me)
'If you want justice - go to a brothel. If you want to get ******* - go to court.'

[grantp]

Surely some of the competitors must work in the insurance/re-insurance industry - do they not recognise an opportunity when it happens right in front of them?

Alternatively how about something akin to the UK Government's 'Victims Surcharge' on all court case fines?

DO an assessment of the cost of repairs over the last x seasons and adjust for inflation. Come up with a formula that apportions the amount according to - well, whatever. Which track/how much the entry fees are/how many competitors enter/driver's record for incidents over the last seasons/etc.

Add the resulting amount to the entry fee and put it in a pot 'ring-fenced' as a means of providing compensation to aggrieved parties (aka. 'victims').

Self inflicted damage does not count. However a single car accident caused by debris is awarded half damages. In multiple car incidents one of the cars should be assessed as at fault (no compensation) and the others get their repair costs accepted to be paid from the fund once all paperwork is complete.

Of course, as in the UK, the 'victim' payments should be delayed as long as possible, if not longer, in order to help fund the organisation that administers the system.

Now it seems to me that those people who maybe cause the incidents on a regular basis but can afford to pay for them will accept the new system or quit the series. If they quit, problem solved (more or less) but not very lucrative for the organiser. If, however, they choose to stay then the organiser benefits and, potentially, so do the 'victims' if they ever get their compensation. They could, for example, take the opportunity of repairs to include some 'development tweaks' at the expense of the other competitors (and, of course to some extent, their own expense through the entry fee surcharge but let's ignore that for now ....)

So many opportunities here I am surprised no one has suggested it before .....

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by skentellytubby

Thin end of the wedge comes to mind...

Yes quite so, looks rather like the new found entente cordiale with French could end up being another Trafalgar.

[simon drabble]

Grant the problem with the insurance is the cost - to insure your own car is about £200 per £5000 so what cover do you add for 3rd party insurance? Soon you would be spend £1000 per race for insurance alone which would squeeze clubbies out - not that you woudl get clubblies in a series as smart as CER!!

[grantp]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

Grant the problem with the insurance is the cost - to insure your own car is about £200 per £5000 so what cover do you add for 3rd party insurance? Soon you would be spend £1000 per race for insurance alone which would squeeze clubbies out - not that you woudl get clubblies in a series as smart as CER!!

Simon, yes I had guessed that the insurance would be high, relatively speaking. But then surely it only reflects the risk? Of course if it does more than reflect the risk and potentially provides a large profit for someone - well, that would just fit in with the times in which we live. The clubbies would be squeezed out anyway if they run a (relatively) low value car but carry the risk of having to cover inflated costs for other simply because the 'others' choose to run something perceived to have an extremely high value.

Surely the original point of insurance was a sharing of trading risk and as such you insured for your own risk, not the risk of every other trader. That principle seems to have been overturned by the legal precedents set mainly by Governments (at the behest of insurers?) related to the concept of Third Party Risk. Thus we are forced to provide cover for third parties that they are already buying (presumably) for themselves. No wonder Governments see the benefits of insurance premiums carrying taxes.

Much more, no doubt, could be written on this.

[Peter Mallett]

The problem arises from perception. Take my unfortunate incident in the 6hrs last year. Simple racing incident, whereby one car overtook another, lost it, then tagged the car it had overtaken whilst recovering.

Can't suggest anyone was to blame simply because these things happen. However there were those who wanted to lay the blame at one driver's door simply because that driver was not an ex-professional, notwithstanding the level of experience.

In that case you'd have to rely on judges of fact and as has been explained they'd be pretty hard pushed to come to a reasonable judgment, yet they'd also be under pressure to apportion the blame.

[simon drabble]

As a matter of economics I would never race or let my son race in a series that enforced this as it is an open cheque book.

[John Turner]

Absolutely Simon. Will just open up another channel of acrimony, litigation and the lining of solicitors pockets, potential use of court time which would be better employed, not to mention subjective decisions on events where, by and large, accidents are racing incidents, those with an axe to grind and some of the 'winners' merely so because they can afford more expensive/better qualified lawyers and 'natural' justice not always the likely outcome. 'Natural justice' or lack of it is something that I have a big issue with at the moment, as some of you may guess. Peter's point well made, I feel, or am I just too cynical for words. Anyway, in case you haven't gathered, I think it's a bad idea, and that's coming from some-one who spent most of his working life in the insurance industry. End of rant!

[johngee]

.....and, to be serious about this thread (which I haven't been up until now, mainly because it really doesn't deserve to be taken seriously) I can see this concept driving away competitors, marshals and officials.