ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Clio 172
Anyone read the post on ph from the instructor ref the track in 2010 when the track was different in terms of safety signs etc.
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
It's easy to get wavers thrown out in a court case, one example of this is pre nuptial agreements in the UK,
loads of women have got payouts/houses etc from ex husbands despite signing pre nups.
loads of women have got payouts/houses etc from ex husbands despite signing pre nups.
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
This is all very concerning. I regularly get insurance, but on the premise it pays for my vehicle damage, not for anyone else's - irrelevant of who runs into who. Personally I think it's a legal goof up. Trackday insurers offer the insurance at a high rate (circa £50 to £80) a day. If they have to pay out, then I don't think they should be able to claim from a n other. It's a risk they take, hence the high premium we have to pay for it. I think there must be more to this than meets the eye and info we don't have. I hope.
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Thinking about this more...I can't see why this was allowed to happen???
In a public road situation, A piles into B, and the insurers deem A at fault so his insurers cover the costs of both parties.
Can the insurers of A then sue A for the costs they had to pay out to B?
The point of insurance is the companies collect premiums on a case by case risk basis so that in the long run, the amount of premiums they collect covers the amount they have to pay out in claims.
If insurance companies can now successfully recover those costs from individuals, they still get the premiums, yet pay out nothing.
Nice business model that. Immoral though.
In a public road situation, A piles into B, and the insurers deem A at fault so his insurers cover the costs of both parties.
Can the insurers of A then sue A for the costs they had to pay out to B?
The point of insurance is the companies collect premiums on a case by case risk basis so that in the long run, the amount of premiums they collect covers the amount they have to pay out in claims.
If insurance companies can now successfully recover those costs from individuals, they still get the premiums, yet pay out nothing.
Nice business model that. Immoral though.
Sounds like a judge f*cked up to me, sadly once there's a precedent set in court,
it opens the flood gates for every other insurer to do the same,
citing the previous case as a precedent.
it opens the flood gates for every other insurer to do the same,
citing the previous case as a precedent.
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
Cars go off track, cars get damaged.
"I crashed my car into a tree and nursed it home Mr Admiral."
"I crashed my car into a tree and nursed it home Mr Admiral."
Wont help you with a third party claim like this.
If A is found to be neglegant or in serious breach of his insurance policy following a payout to B then yes.
I think there is more detail to this story than we have
Bluebeard
ClioSport Moderator
Whichever has fuel
What what?
Cub.
ClioSport Moderator
'wot, wot, wot. Jeeves. Wipe my bum, Jeeves.'
Might as well all drive a Pruis then!
You could always do autotests. Or actual racing. Or rallying.
Or pull a Nurburgring and make every circuit a toll road that has to be governed by normal road rules (aside from the whole speed limit thing)
I agree with Mark cup. The issue is not with claiming. If you have your car insured then claiming is the logical way forward in any accident as that's what is for. Insurance company A that you are insured with pay out.
What is completely immoral is that insurance company A go after an individual.
But then again when have insurers and lawyers ever been described as ethical or moral?
Is now going to make me think twice about track days.
What is completely immoral is that insurance company A go after an individual.
But then again when have insurers and lawyers ever been described as ethical or moral?
Is now going to make me think twice about track days.
Steve
ClioSport Club Member
ST3 8.5
But at least I will be A.
IF You read the PH thread you will see this has been referred for a judgement.
Or Hillclimbs, or Sprints.
Exactly. Some proper motorsport rather than poverty spec driving into each other then not paying.
I compete in a couple of sprint series and its a real buzz with the competition and timing element but still enjoy a track day for different reasons.
To ban track days is ridiculous. It gives people the chance to drive (and learn how to drive) their car to the limit in relative safety.
To ban track days is ridiculous. It gives people the chance to drive (and learn how to drive) their car to the limit in relative safety.
Fiesta ST-2 Finsport
Sad times if true
Thinking about it this won't affect me,
if I end up in court having to pay some insurance company a huge amount of money,
the CCJ will be for a really small amount each month because I earn next to f*ck all and don't earn any commodities.
Yes i'll be paying it for the rest of my life but the joke's on them,
i'll more than likely have died of old age long before they get the full amount!
if I end up in court having to pay some insurance company a huge amount of money,
the CCJ will be for a really small amount each month because I earn next to f*ck all and don't earn any commodities.
Yes i'll be paying it for the rest of my life but the joke's on them,
i'll more than likely have died of old age long before they get the full amount!
MarcB
ClioSport Club Member
182 Trophy & 197 F1
I have fully Comp road insurance with an agreed value on my car and if i wanted to track my Trophy i pay £45 for the days cover at the track.
Im wondering if i would have full cover and if my agreed value would still come into play.
(i would never take my car on the track in the first place, I would cry at how dirty it would be)
Im wondering if i would have full cover and if my agreed value would still come into play.
(i would never take my car on the track in the first place, I would cry at how dirty it would be)
Surely the track day companies just need to change their disclaimers to include this sort of thing. I know some of you guys are saying different but there must be a solution or how does it not happen in racing were there is far more money available in pro stuff.
If you do MSA backed motorsport (autotest, autosolo, rally, race, sprint, hillclimb, etc) they indemnify you, I've never heard of this happening in motosport and you can get insurance and people do claim regularly.
So trackdays could either copy what happens in motorsport in this regard or there is something else going on here.
If you do MSA backed motorsport (autotest, autosolo, rally, race, sprint, hillclimb, etc) they indemnify you, I've never heard of this happening in motosport and you can get insurance and people do claim regularly.
So trackdays could either copy what happens in motorsport in this regard or there is something else going on here.
irrelevant. You sign a disclaimer which states that you cant hold anyone responsible or liable for damage to your car regardless of how it happens. TBH with such paperwork in place and signed, I don't see how this got to court at all.
Bluebeard
ClioSport Moderator
Whichever has fuel
IMO, just entering a track (on a track day!) means that you are 100% without question in charge of your own car. IF you crash then it's your fault and you are to blame and you have to sort out the mess. IF you are crashed into then, again, you are are left to deal with it.
If everyone stuck to those rules and there was no insurance there would be no issue.
Insurance companies fcuk me off and every single one of them are money grabbing c***s.
Bluebeard
ClioSport Moderator
Whichever has fuel
It's all b****cks. If you decide to drive on track, then its your problem. If someone crashes into you, its your problem. If you don't like those rules, fcuk off and drive up and down the ring road.
If you don't have race driver instincts, then don't drive at race driver speeds. I would say from experience 50% of trackdayers drive faster than they are capable. You only need to stand at one corner for a session to pick them out.
I'm not claiming to be a pro, you can see from my racing videos that I'm far from it, but driving at race speeds on a trackday where you are liable for the consequences of any incident you cause, is asking for trouble.
I'm going to suggest that the guy in question was travelling too fast, it's the first corner at Snetterton, mid to high speed corner in any car, the spun car was in the gravel so visible well in advance (even if yellow flags weren't). The only way you would hit that is by having your own accident by driving too fast for your own reactions. If there was an underlying factor such as fluid on track then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Not pretending I'm god, and I do sympathise with the bloke, but what's happened has happened and he needs to face up to it.
I'm not claiming to be a pro, you can see from my racing videos that I'm far from it, but driving at race speeds on a trackday where you are liable for the consequences of any incident you cause, is asking for trouble.
I'm going to suggest that the guy in question was travelling too fast, it's the first corner at Snetterton, mid to high speed corner in any car, the spun car was in the gravel so visible well in advance (even if yellow flags weren't). The only way you would hit that is by having your own accident by driving too fast for your own reactions. If there was an underlying factor such as fluid on track then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Not pretending I'm god, and I do sympathise with the bloke, but what's happened has happened and he needs to face up to it.
Actually don't know where I got gravel from , it had just spun. If it was on the outside of the corner you'd see it far enough in advance to do something about it, on the inside you'll never hit it in a month of Sundays, if you do you really shouldn't be out on track unsupervised.
The fact that lifting off caused him to spin means he must have loaded the near side up and be reasonably committed to the corner. Again, driving too fast on a trackday.
The fact that lifting off caused him to spin means he must have loaded the near side up and be reasonably committed to the corner. Again, driving too fast on a trackday.
Tbh if the guy in the caterham used the throttle less and the guy in the civic used it more then this accident wouldn't have happened. The guy in the civic only reacted to what happened in front of him, he just didn't react in the right way but he instinctively lifted so it's an accident.
16v_paddy
ClioSport Club Member
Valvers & 172 Cup
Has anyone actually read the whole thread on PH? There's some very valid points made by legal experts and an ARDS instructor. It's almost impossible to tell what the wider effects of this case are until the written judgement is made public.
What is possible to tell is that an expert in the form of an ARDS instructor who teaches at that particular track, has said that the crash was caused by inexperience - it was a novice trackday afterall - yet a judge has found that the guy in the civic was negligent. We need to know what evidence has lead to the judge making that call.
It is worrisome for me & it's leading towards thinking that I'd want to completely avoid doing a trackday if anyone else doing it has insurance for fearing someone elses insurance company will screw me over if something goes wrong.
Another point made in that thread which confuses the issue further, if this crash happened on the road and the civic driver had no insurance, the caterham drivers insurance pays out for the damage to his car & that's it. They don't go chasing the civic driver for their costs
What is possible to tell is that an expert in the form of an ARDS instructor who teaches at that particular track, has said that the crash was caused by inexperience - it was a novice trackday afterall - yet a judge has found that the guy in the civic was negligent. We need to know what evidence has lead to the judge making that call.
It is worrisome for me & it's leading towards thinking that I'd want to completely avoid doing a trackday if anyone else doing it has insurance for fearing someone elses insurance company will screw me over if something goes wrong.
Another point made in that thread which confuses the issue further, if this crash happened on the road and the civic driver had no insurance, the caterham drivers insurance pays out for the damage to his car & that's it. They don't go chasing the civic driver for their costs
But the point of the thread is the insurance are claiming not any of the competitors.
I always get track insurance for track days to protect myself from damage others can do to my car but also if I have an off not involving another car... just makes sense.
Even on the roads people have accidents, I don't see how you can enjoy a trackday without pushing yourself a bit. If I have to drive slowly on trackdays I'd sooner just use the road for free to drive slowly than pay to be in a safe environment to drive fast and then go slow anyway.
Similar threads
