EU legislation

Please post general information for the interests of Midas Owners Club members here.

EU legislation

Postby cortezkeeper » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:56 pm

The European Court Vnuk ruling could affect you and your beloved Midas. The potential is for insurance to be required for all vehicles at all times, whether in use, in museums, in your garage or wherever. See for instance the piece in the current (April 2017) Practical Classics magazine, page 12.
Remember the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, so make your views known before it's too late. There is on-line facility for this and no doubt your MP would be happy to receive your thoughts and bring you up-to-date.

Michael.
cortezkeeper
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: EU legislation

Postby Jin » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:18 pm

I thought that was already in place?
http://easywider.co.uk/ universal flexible wheel arch extensions
Jin
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: EU legislation

Postby benofbrum » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:44 pm

Jin wrote:I thought that was already in place?

Vehicles which are on SORN are not required to be insured.
Just spent 1/2 hour reading the consultation on the government website ( and reached about half way)and a phrase that has been used several times in the preferred EU proposal, is that additional regulations should only apply when vehicles are used in their intended mode, i.e. in traffic and on land to which the public has access.
The position regarding motor sport is less clear. The EU's position is that the race track or circuit does not constitute a public place, since access is restricted to competitors only. However, the VNUK interpretation is that competitor to competitor cover would be required.
What is clear in all versions it that there would be more call on the Motor Insurance Bureau's scheme for compensating victims of hit and run or uninsured driver accidents, which would surely increase premiums for us all
To re-iterate Michael's comment, go on line and do the survey.
benofbrum
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: EU legislation

Postby Jin » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:05 am

Oh, learn something new every day, I honestly thought that was already applicable
http://easywider.co.uk/ universal flexible wheel arch extensions
Jin
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: EU legislation

Postby Stuart » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:10 am

Jin wrote:Oh, learn something new every day, I honestly thought that was already applicable


Some of us would have to pay an awful lot of money if it was, I have 10 vehicles on SORN (gulp) and only one of the 10 is insured.
User avatar
Stuart
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:29 pm
Location: Derbyshire

Re: EU legislation

Postby fozzza » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:57 pm

Im no politician just a simple working bloke but didn't the country recently vote to come out of the E U to stop being told what to do or does our government like this money making idea.
Roy
User avatar
fozzza
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 5:25 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, West Midlands

Re: EU legislation

Postby benofbrum » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:27 pm

fozzza wrote:Im no politician just a simple working bloke but didn't the country recently vote to come out of the E U to stop being told what to do or does our government like this money making idea.

We did indeed vote that, but until we are out, we are in and bound by the European court ruling. Even when/if we are out I suspect there will still be a lot of harmonisation of traffic/transport regulations because of all the cross border traffic. Spend a summer's day at Eastern docks, Dover and count the vehicles.
benofbrum
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: EU legislation

Postby cortezkeeper » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:47 am

Have now had excellent and detailed reply from M.P. It is quite long and informative but the general points as I understand them include
1 Neither the Government nor many others across Europe expected or desired the judgement result.
2 The European Commission has recognised its consequences and has indicated its willingness to review the Directive
3 The Government's preferred option is to change domestic motor insurance law in line with an amended Directive
4 Feedback to a consultation will help the Government in upcoming discussion on Directive amendments
5 The Government is looking to a common-sense approach in this matter to keep any resultant costs to a minimum
6 At present and until Brexit the Government has to and will respect EU legislation.

So there we have it. It is up to you and every other enthusiast to contribute to the discussion and provide feedback NOW. It's no use saying 'Why doesn't someone do something.' Yet again, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Pen to paper to MP now. Feedback now. Viva Midas !!
Michael.
cortezkeeper
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: EU legislation

Postby ACourtney » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:34 pm

For anyone who wants to read the consultation papers, but doesn't have access to a copy of Practical Classics, the information can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... k-judgment

The paper has come about after a judgement in Slovakia involving a classic tractor being driven on private land. The suggestion that Practical Classics makes is that all vehicles should have third party cover, whether they are mobile, or not. It does seem ludicrous to demand third party cover for a static vehicle being restored, but having read through the paper I cannot see anywhere that suggests this.

The paper repeatedly uses the phrase "users of vehicles on private land". In other words this is aimed at vehicles that may not be taxed and tested, but are mobile and being driven off the public roads. That obviously covers car being used on race tracks and at shows.

However, I disagree with Practical Classics that this proposal could bring an end to budget and classic motorsport. The largest expense in club level motor racing is the entrance fee and the largest part of that is made up of the indemnity insurance. That is not to cover you as a driver, or your car against accident damage, but to cover the circuit against third party claims. In other words when you are taking part in an MSA event, third party cover is already in place. If a wheel comes off your car and injures, or kills, a spectator, then the circuit is liable. That is because the spectator has bought a ticket from the circuit and the circuit assumes responsibility. It has been suggested many times that it would work out cheaper for club races not to allow in the public and that the only people present should be the drivers and their supporters, all of whom will have signed the indemnity waivers.

I don't know the position for banger racing and grass track events. Perhaps they may need to exclude spectators in the future. The same may go for track days, as even cars that are fully taxed and insured for the road are generally not covered on a race circuit.

The last question is should classic cars, or kit cars, be insured for shows? Many classic car and kit car policies already cover the cars and owners for shows, just take a look at your policy. But what would happen if you were walking around Stoneleigh and were run down by a car that had arrived on a trailer and the driver did not have any form of third party cover? Who would you seek compensation from? That was effectively what happened in the Slovakian case that prompted the paper.

In the case of shows, perhaps it should be for them to insist that anyone attending should have third party cover and to make it a condition of entry. The Bruntingthorpe test track insists on checking the public liabilty insurance of anybody who runs there, even when there is nobody else on the track. They have been doing that for some years now after somebody was injured by a car being tested.
User avatar
ACourtney
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:22 pm
Location: Oxford


Return to Information for the interest of Midas Owners Club members

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest