Important EU Consultation Re Insurances

[275 GTB-4]

Input was here:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultati...r-insurance_en

[PS Could a Moderator possibly assemble all the comments posted elsewhere under one banner?]

[Peter Mallett]

Hi,

I cross posted it because it's of interest to various groups and not all of them visit this forum. The discussion is worth it from a thread POV but the important thing is that those who are interested follow the guidance and submit their thoughts.

It's not really worth combining all the discussions though.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by chunder

My point is not that there are not big firms in europe, just that there is a concentration on them in the UK and they contribute more probably to our GDP than in any other country and probably employ a higher percentage of the population than the others to in countries with similar populations

Agreed, fully agreed. You can add that your country hosts a know how in classic certainly impossible to find elsewhere.

[p261brm]

[QUOTE=chunder;3773620]I would agree with Peter here.

People have enough experience with the EU to perhaps be very aware of what could happen here.

As a matter of academic, when we have finally rid ourselves of the EU burden round our necks, what are the chances of returning to less bureaucratic (F.I.A.) involvement........

[midgetman]

[QUOTE=p261brm;3773860]

Originally Posted by chunder

As a matter of academic, when we have finally rid ourselves of the EU burden round our necks, what are the chances of returning to less bureaucratic (F.I.A.) involvement........

None whatsoever! It will become MORE bureaucratic because we won't be able to race in "Europe" on a UK National A licence. And the FIA will still be in charge of motor sport, just hate us more......

[Gerard C]

Midgetman, what kind of licence do you need to race at Spa for instance, when the race is held by a UK organiser? Cant you take a daily or weekend licence from Belgium in this case?

[midgetman]

Most of the races are on a National A licence under the NEAFP (National Event with Authorised Foreign Participation) which was a grudging scheme forced upon the FIA by the European Parliament. They really, really don't want cross-border racing without paying for over priced permits.

Bloody foreign racing drivers coming over here, stealing our grids. Still it will be a chance for the FIA to regain control of their borders and you can be sure that the exchange rate won't affect them, they just put their taxes up. :ROFL:

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Gerard C]

Thank you for the clarification. I'm I right thinking it could affect pure amateur racing assuming the pro system will always find a way to fund the extra costs while coping with new assurance rules? In this case what is the official position of the different organizers?

[Peter Mallett]

There is nobody who can actually cover this. If you accept that the risk levels are based upon experience then any insurance company must necessarily use Le Mans 1955 as its benchmark. You see the problem?

[Gerard C]

Crystal clear. Our rally buddies already experienced some troubles. If we can agree that F1 and pro-racing in general are different from pure amateur racing I doubt very much that we can race under different rules once accepted (or imposed) by the pro system. And again the car-to-car damage seems totally unrealistic.

[chunder]

This is why it is important to try and do as much as possible as early as possible.

UK stage rallying has been completely ruined in terms of spectators by a ruling, meaning you cant just wander round the stages as you once could.

You can see merit in their decision, but as usual the few ruin it for the many.

And that may be the case here, law is defined by new laws sometimes. So the vnuk case might define law against all off road vehicles.

And even more importantly, the insurance companies will be pushing like hell for it, and who are likely to be directors and honorary chairpersons of insurance companies? MP's MeP,s etc etc. You can see where I am heading lol!

Stark? Yes, cynical, clearly? But you have lived in the same world as me for decades and you know how the world works sometimes.

[MGDavid]

why would insurance companies be in favour of this proposed EU Directive? They stand to lose a lot of business if motorsport and all the other affected pastimes and activities wither and die out as a result.

[Gerard C]

David my bet is that they already made the calculation by now. As thunder says, its a rather cynical world we live in. If the EU directive has to be applied they will make a lot of additional business with all kind of vehicles concerned. May be a good question could be what is the real weight of non pro racers for whom it will be an additional cost hard to stand. Dont you feel some important clubs could assist in this matter?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

David my bet is that they already made the calculation by now. As thunder says, its a rather cynical world we live in. If the EU directive has to be applied they will make a lot of additional business with all kind of vehicles concerned. May be a good question could be what is the real weight of non pro racers for whom it will be an additional cost hard to stand. Dont you feel some important clubs could assist in this matter?

You may be overlooking the fact that insurers need to be able to put a value against the potential costs of their exposure to any risks. And it is this requirement that they have that their actuaries to provide a cost to a client.

If, as seems to be suggested by this movement to incorporate it in to an EU directive, insurers are expected to offer unlimited damages in the event of a claim, then they will not be able to provide a realistic costing to potential policyholders.

This is why, I believe, that this will not be supported by the insurance industry.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You may be overlooking the fact that insurers need to be able to put a value against the potential costs of their exposure to any risks. And it is this requirement that they have that their actuaries to provide a cost to a client.

If, as seems to be suggested by this movement to incorporate it in to an EU directive, insurers are expected to offer unlimited damages in the event of a claim, then they will not be able to provide a realistic costing to potential policyholders.

This is why, I believe, that this will not be supported by the insurance industry.

Thanks Mike, my point exactly.
It seems that even now people have not read and understood the MIA's synopsis of the Directive's consequences, as it is currently drafted.