Whatever next?

vibrac

vibrac

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
It amazing who we sometimes get as supporters.......

Writing in 'The Telegraph' over the weekend, Boris Johnson MP has argued that the Vnuk ruling on compulsory motor insurance for any mechanically propelled vehicle is "insane".

In a striking attack against the European Court of Justice, the Foreign Secretary defends the right of "every free-born Brit to pootle blissfully on his own quad bike on his own private land" in his unique characteristic style.

Despite the strong opposition to the 'Vnuk' ruling, while the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, HM Government is bound to implement the Directive which will affect motorsport across the country.
 
ClassicBiker

ClassicBiker

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
vibrac said:
I dont apologise for bringing this to your attention again. This is how it was put in another club news letter@

THREAT TO UK MOTORSPORT:. Following the landmark ‘Vnuk’ case, the European Court of Justice has ruled 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; lawn mowers and antique trams and everything in between (obviously includes all forms of motor sport). The UK Government opened a consultation on Wednesday 21st December, seeking views on two proposed ways forward, you can read more here: www.fightvnuk.co.uk. A petition, http://bit.ly/2i6Cgsf has been started asking that HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgment in a way that encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities. Please to sign the petition to show the Government the strength of support we have in motor sport

Please note I never mentioned the B**x** word
Click to expand...

I would cheerfully sign but as I'm sitting here comfortably in the states and I think it might invalidate it. This strikes me as absurd. Being that when competing in organized motor sport events competitors sign waivers acknowledging that motor sport is inherently dangerous and damage to themselves and their toys is their problem and the organizers and other competitors are blameless. If they sign said waiver I think it's rather silly to expect anyone to pay damages if your toys or you get broken. The other thing I find absurd is a court directing what laws need to be written, "courts" interpret the meaning/intent of laws, possibly determine the validity of laws, award compensation for damages, determine guilt, and sentence accordingly. Courts do not direct governments what laws need to be written or enacted. People determine how they wish to be governed not mandated to. This is an assault on national sovereignty to say the least. Though undoubtedly now that this foolishness has been voiced someone here will think it's good idea and push for it here.
Sad little people with sad little ideas.
Steven
 
Magnetoman

Magnetoman

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
ClassicBiker said:
Courts do not direct governments what laws need to be written or enacted.
Click to expand...
The court did not mandate a law be written, but rather interpreted the consequences of a law that already had been enacted by the European Parliament. This misunderstanding illustrates why I think we should try hard to stick to our actual field of expertise, Vincents, and leave politics and religion to other websites. I'm not saying the consequences of political actions aren't relevant, but opening the door to discussion of political views here only can result in feelings being hurt and tears being shed.
 
B

BigEd

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
VOC Forum Moderator
Ma
Magnetoman said:
The court did not mandate a law be written, but rather interpreted the consequences of a law that already had been enacted by the European Parliament. This misunderstanding illustrates why I think we should try hard to stick to our actual field of expertise, Vincents, and leave politics and religion to other websites. I'm not saying the consequences of political actions aren't relevant, but opening the door to discussion of political views here only can result in feelings being hurt and tears being shed.
Click to expand...
I think Magnetoman is correct in stating that politics and religion should be left to other websites rather than us getting embroiled in discussions about individual political persuasions. Our focus in most sections of this forum should (if sometimes a little loosely) be about Vincent motorcycle, motorcycles more generally and matters relating to motorcycles. This forum however can serve as a good platform to inform members of things being planned or implemented by committees, quangos, advisory bodies, etc that might affect the way we use our machines. Thus informed and regardless of their political leaning we can lobby bureaucrats/Members of Parliament/representatives with a view to getting senseless legislation stopped or changed.
 
vibrac

vibrac

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
I found this from the Motorcycle Industry which clearly explains the position it is a frightening conclusion I took the liberty of highlighting the important bits

It is important to realise that Vnuk is not an item of forthcoming legislation which can be lobbied against or amended, but an actual ruling of Europe’s highest court, with no further avenues for appeal possible. Vnuk is set in stone and cannot be changed. It requires third party damage and injury insurance to be in place for all mechanically propelled vehicles when used at any time, for any purpose and in any place. This includes motorsport vehicles.


However, the European Motor Insurance Directive (MID) can be changed to remove certain vehicles from the scope of the Directive, and therefore Vnuk. It is here that we have focused considerable effort.


The UK Government is not in an easy position. Currently, its only fully legal option is to implement Vnuk. It has proposed an option based on what a possible amended MID could look like and MCIA strongly supports this approach. However, we are concerned about the Government’s legal position with regard to this option, in the absence of proposals from Brussels, let alone an amended MID.


But with no sign of the European Commission legislating to remove motorsport vehicles from the MID and time running out for EU member states to implement Vnuk, the UK Government was forced to launch its recent public consultation, (December 2016), with one option being to fully implement the judgement. This would have catastrophic consequences for the sport.


The Government could choose to ‘exempt’ motorsport riders and drivers from a requirement to buy third party insurance. This is also a legal option. But the requirements of Vnuk will still remain (insurance in place to cover the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle at any time, in any place and for any purpose). This means that third party damage and injury liabilities would remain. The result of this would likely be significant hikes in the cost of all kinds of insurance to cover the costs of meeting claims from ‘exempt’ classes of vehicles. Therefore, unless the Motor Insurance Directive is amended, there is no escaping Vnuk.

http://motorcycleminds.org/2016/12/28/the-vnuk-judgment/
 
Bill Cannon

Bill Cannon

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Tim, I share your concerns about motorsport, but this is a much bigger issue. I'll now have to have third party insurance for my lawn mower!
Seriously though, there must be so many other things affected. Combine harvesters, tractors, rotorvators. And what does "mechanically propelled mean? Are we including pedal cycles, prams , push chairs. The list could be endless.
The whole thing is madness, lets start a petition to have the European Court lined up against a wall and have s**t thrown ove3r them.

Bill
 
Top