Photo Archive
Building: Built - Fury '06R1 ...now on with the mods
posted on 25/9/13 at 10:57 AM
Thats pretty much as I read it, Jeff, with the assumption there were waved yellows early enough to make a difference. It was a novis day and that
probably contributed to the accident; Sudden lift off causes unexpected snap oversteerfor inexperienced driver...
I agree with what you're saying Andy, re it should be an accepted risk, but it would have been up to the Civic driver to get across the point to
the Judge; Thats why he should have had representation. Also keep in mind this wasn't the Carerham driver seeking damages but his insurance
company.
Before this I had thought maybe you were better off doing days with the more expensive compaies where the clientel used more expensive cars and maybe
took more care as a result. However they'remore likely to have insurance who'll be the ones to come after you. Now I think you're
better of the cheaper the day and other cars are.
What you will end up with rules that everyone has to be insured, and blame can be made against those at fault. its not like these days are short of
cars with cameras, should be alot easier to assertain blame than most road accidents.
It would be entirely feasible that the Civic owner would be covered for 3rd party liability and legal fees under his house contents insurance....would
have been worth checking.
Andy
The whole issue revolves around the point of negligence.....if the Civic driver was negligent then the insurance company has a case, which what the
court found. Just because we sign waivers doesn't mean we are absolved from negligent behaviour.
quote:The whole issue revolves around the point of negligence.....if the Civic driver was negligent then the insurance company has a case, which
what the court found. Just because we sign waivers doesn't mean we are absolved from negligent behaviour.
But as my point its defining negligence in this environment which is the worry
-driving round a track corner Too fast/wrong line/wrong tyres/under braking/wrong damper settings, could all be deemed negligent?
Surely a court is not going to award a case of negligence, unless there is overwhelming evidence. There must have been some witnesses (marshals?) that
agreed he didn't slow down, and was driving contrary to trackday requirements under a yellow flag. If this is the case, then it's quite
feasible that he is liable.
I'd never have thought that this sort of thing could get into court, let alone win. It will certainly make me think twice about testing the race
car on basic trackdays.
I've come accross some complete idiots on trackdays, that shouldn't be on the track, they totally miss the point of what a trackday is
for.
Most of us still have to go to work the next day, and you don't win anything, so slow down when you see a yellow!!
Another one for the melting pot, what if your car dumps oil or water, because it's not well maintained, and this causes a crash, are you
negligent then????
at Bedford trackday some years ago a guy driving a DB9 was driving like a Dick (sideways round every corner, not oulling over and so on). He was
pulled in and talked to on 2 occasions. Eventually he lost control going into the hairpin after the pits and went over the hairping. He collected a
new 911 Turbo and ripped the engine and rear wheels off the 911.
Was the circuit negligent as well as the DB9 owner?
Or, again at Bedford
Evo was drifting every lap onto the start finish straight even though he was told in the brief not to. He was also brought in and words spoken.
Eventually he lost control of the car, span and crossed the entrance to the track and the entrance to the pits and ended up in the kart track (for
those who know Bedford that is a long way). If you had been driving into the pits and got collected would you sue? and who would you sue?
Rally trackday at Castle combe - private owned rally car giving high speed laps on behalf of a rally school during normal public track session,
decides he wants to overtake a slower car BUT on the incorrect side and when slower car moves to the correct side to allow cars to over take, the
other car takes a big chunk out the side of both cars. Whose at fault then? No one? Driver/owner?, rally school?, or track organiser/owner?
Bloke in the red one should be banned from the track. hes clearly intentionally 'rubbing' the white car to unsettle it, which he does,
then you can see him use his mirrors and force the camera car off the track, no dount about the intention.
If that was me driving his face would not have been going home in the same shape it arrived.
Well CoC didn't think there was intent and didn't exclude him from the results or ban him. The driver of the red car was very surprised
to be called infront of the Clerk!
Photo Archive
Building: Tiger GTA and a Transit and a box trailer...and a
posted on 25/9/13 at 02:32 PM
In my experience a lot of COC's will dodge making any descision that penalizes a competitor severly anyway so the fact that the COC did nowt is
no big surprise.
I would agree though that had that been me the red car drivers helmet would have resembled the front of my car come days end.
I'd be pretty pissed if that was my video, and I saw the blatent look in the mirror and swerve to take me off the track.
Luckely I've not come across that type of driving in RGB , in the 3 seasons I've been racing.
Sure people close the door, and you do need to be prepared for it, but you do expect them to respect that your there. It's not bumper cars!!
quote:Originally posted by amalyos
Another one for the melting pot, what if your car dumps oil or water, because it's not well maintained, and this causes a crash, are you
negligent then????
Photo Archive
Building: Hatred of Loughborough's Speed Humps
posted on 25/9/13 at 07:47 PM
I've just read all this in disbelief, but then again, I'm cynical enough to see that this shite had to come. It's here now.
Mr Bates has entered his epistle, sorry to hear about the blunted Sabre, but clearly Mr Bates see's things as do most of us. Insurance
Companies, ever keen to get out of/recover obligations, are clearly the players here. The court's involvement seems obscene.
I recently had a very nasty 'off', involving ribs and much chest pain for many weeks, not entirely my fault. I took this as all part of
the fun, but looking back the injury (still hurting) would provide a very major claim aimed at someone.
You could even argue now (I guess) that if I have an issue with the car, from suspension failure to a tyre, or get brake fade or something equally
trivial, then the outcome may involve the loss of my house if someone else is in the way. I'm by definition, driving the car on a track at
speeds well excess of those policed on the roads.
Speed limits on the tracks...? Police...? Your DVLA licence endorsed..?
quote:
If crap like this carries on life is going to become a very dull and expensive place very shortly where only the privileged and wealthy will be able
to do anything more exciting than trivial pursuit!
It already does though, to a great extent. I generally wouldn't take any of my cars to a track because I don't trust other people not to
bin it into them and not pay for it. I'm fine if I ditch it, but I'm (and many others are) wholeheartedly put off by the idea that I have
to risk a significant part of my spare cash in the hands of others who are pushing their boundaries and may have less concern over what and who they
hit. The folk with more cash to splash are less worried about binning their own car and so are more willing to take a car to a track. I can, however,
see the point that adding layers of insurance effectively makes that worse.
This is why kids race on the streets rather than on tracks - there's not enough tracks to make it a viable option, there's not enough
"run what you have" type events. Over in the US for a long holiday we happened upon a few race tracks just bobbling about the back waters
of random states, all of them had the local kids down their dragging or racing. Seems odd that the culture isn't the same here? I'm not
sure what the waivers were like over there? Over here a waiver isn't worth the paper it's written on with a good lawyer.
Either way, the gentleman's agreement works if you're willing to risk everything and accept that some drivers are dangerous/stupid and you
may lose it all to one of them as opposed to a nice chap who just made an error.
1. The law hasn't been changed by this judgement. Negligence, waivers, insurance etc are the same as they where before.
2. Don't admit anything after an accident
3. Get legal representation if you get sued
Like others , I think this is a worrying result. Regardless, if you think its right or not, the court has ruled in favor of the insurance company.
Surely the only answer to this other than taking out prohibitively expensive ( for most of us) third party insurance, would be for an additional
disclaimer to be signed by all waiving all rights to redress from anybody on the track, as we can see the current disclaimer would now appear to
basically covers the organisers of the event.
Photo Archive
Building: Built - Fury '06R1 ...now on with the mods
posted on 26/9/13 at 08:44 AM
Two problems with that; The insurance companies (that do trackday cover) don't offer third party cover (ironic as they're the ones chasing
a third party claim here) and ANY waiver can be overturned in court where negligence is shown... That's why you need a lawyer and don't
try to represent yourself.
