I've just noticed on my wifes new insurance docs a couple of clauses under "Limitations as to use" that appear new.
The first disallows "The release of a seized motor vehicle other than the vehicle above".
and the second new one:-
"Use on the Nurburgring Nordschleife" as well as the usual no racing/pace-making stuff.
I'm in favour of the first, surprised by the specificity of the second, unless the insurance co. take my wife to be a girl-racer?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 18/01/2009 at 17:47
|
I'm not surprised by either. Quite a few policies do cover "test days". However the Nurburgring has a fearful repuation for big bills. You pay the full cost of repairs to the barriers, the full cost of recovery, the full cost of losses caused by the shutdown you caused; and cars in accidents there are often a twisted lump of metal.
I've tarmac hillclimbed and sprinted for years, and the fact you pay the bill concentrates the mind. (Competition cover can be bought but cheap it is not). Three accidents caused by misjudgements when pushing things to the limit, total cost (todays prices) of under £1000 and a bit more than three days labour to fix in 20 years. One of them, I even kept going as I kissed the armco at semicircle at Prescott (the right line is miss it by an inch).
You bend it, you mend it!
|
I kissed the armco at semicircle at Prescott
I sped read that sentence :-0 then did a double take !
|
|
|
|
The first disallows "The release of a seized motor vehicle other than the vehicle above".
What does that mean?
Does it mean that she can't drive someone else to pick up their car from the pound?
|
No, it means that you can't use the driving other cars extension to secure the release of a car impounded for no insurance.
In reality it's unlikely the police/pound would allow the release but people do try it on and then get very annoyed when they're refused; of course what would invariably happen is that the car is left on the road, uninsured, or passed on to its uninsured owner to use as (s)he pleases.
Obviously to allow that use would be to subvert entirely the purpose of impounding the car and refusing its release until it is insured - technically it may be insured for the single journey home but no more than that.
|
|
|
|
It means you can't make use of the TP cover when driving someone else's car to spring their car from a seizure compound.
|
|
Most (if not all now) UK insurers have added this clause in response to a direct request from the Government. Numerous people were gaining release of seized vehicles using a.n. others 3rd party cover. Short term policies normally include this also.
|
>and the second new one:-
>"Use on the Nurburgring Nordschleife" as well as the usual no racing/pace-making stuff.
Your wifes name is not Sabine is it?
|
The Ring is a public toll road so the exclusions for circuits and the like wouldn't cover it.
If an insurer has had to pay out in the past then it only costs fractions of a penny to include that exclusion in the T&C's.
|
>>Use on the Nurburgring Nordschleife" as well as the usual no racing/pace-making stuff.
I do believe that this isn't as cut and dried as it would seem. The Nurburgring Nordschleife is still a public road whether they like it or not and there is some debate as to whether they can exclude it from the insurance policy in question. Maybe they won't cover you fully comp on there, but they can't get away from covering third party risks to other people/property.
|
The Nurburgring Nordschleife is still a public road whether they like it or not and there is some debate as to whether they can exclude it from the insurance policy in question. Maybe they won't cover you fully comp on there but they can't get away from covering third party risks to other people/property.
Why can't they get away with excluding it? Most insurance policies have some restrictions as to use, such as excluding commuting or excluding use for business purposes which involve carrying samples. Why do you think that there is some legal impediment to excluding the use of the car on a specialised high-speed road?
Personally, I think it's likely that using a car on the Nurburgring carries a significantly increased risk of collision or other damage which incurs third-party liability. Nobody can stray onto the Nurburgring by chance, so I can't see any legal reason why an insurer should not ask the small minority of drivers who want to take their cars there to pay an appropriate premium for the enhanced risk. I have no problem with anyone taking their car there, but why should the rest of us have to share the heightened risk which they have consciously chosen to take on by stretching their car to its limit?
|
"Why can't they get away with excluding it? "
I presume the newish cross-EU insurance rules.
You have to be covered to indemnify third-parties on all public roads in all EU member states.
|
|
|
Personally I think it's likely that using a car on the Nurburgring carries a significantly increased risk of collision or other damage which incurs third-party liability. Nobody can stray onto the Nurburgring by chance so I can't see any legal reason why an insurer should not ask the small minority of drivers who want to take their cars there to pay an appropriate premium for the enhanced risk. I have no problem with anyone taking their car there but why should the rest of us have to share the heightened risk which they have consciously chosen to take on by stretching their car to its limit?
If the above is true then all derestricted German autobahns would be excluded. You can't just stray on to a motorway.
Then, the insurance co.'s could add a clause about Paris as your car is much more likely to gain a parking knock there. Where does it stop ?
|
If the above is true then all derestricted German autobahns would be excluded.
False logic. Not would be excluded, but could be excluded if your definition of public road was correctly applied to the ring.
If your policy has a specific exclusion for the ring, you'll find at www.nurburgring.org.uk/insurance.html some pertinent advice on your chances of winning a court battle against an insurer who refuses to pay up after a crash.
You can't just stray on to a motorway.
Yes you can; a small bit of momentary carelessness is all that's required. Many dual carriageways become mways, and you'll end up on the mway unless you take a conscious decision to turn off. Similarly, many roundabouts have an exit to the mway, and once you've taken that turning there's no way off.
By contrast, the Nurburgring's entrance is through a car park where you can tun around or legally stop. You have also have to park up, get out and buy a ticket before you can enter the road, which is unlike any toll road I have ever encountered.
Then the insurance co.'s could add a clause about Paris as your car is much more likely to gain a parking knock there. Where does it stop ?
Reduction ad absurdum is rarely the basis for a sound argument. In this case, you don't have to look far to see evidence that there are serious accidents on the ring every day, despite a relatively small number of vehicles using it. In a any city, but there are lots of accidents, but most of them are minor low-speed knocks (and therefore cheap) ... and set against the huge number of vehicles driven in a city every day, the incidence is very low.
Take a look at www.nurburgring.org.uk/insurance.html for a description of how insurance companies price the risk for using the Nurburgring.
|
|
|
|
The ring is not a "public toll road" German traffic laws do not apply.
|
I think you'll find during public sessions its status changes to one-way public toll road generally derestricted, a couple of limits do exist.
If you have an accident during a public session try telling the German copper investigating that he has no business there.
|
Does it have a road number?
|
|
Not as far as I am aware but then many rural roads do not have road numbers.
|
|
Does any ring road go anywhere ?
|
Does any ring road go anywhere ?
ring roads have exits.
|
|
The regulations at the entrance state that it is a public road, and that road rules are to be obeyed (e.g. keep to the right). The safety video here on the official site www.nuerburgring.de/Nordschleife.361.0.html says that the German Highway Code is applicable.
|
|
Gmac - insurers can offer terms with whatever condition they like. They have no duty whatsoever to offer particular terms. If a customer doesn't want the terms they are at liberty to shop around. Anyway, what's the difference between these terms and any other, e.g excluding drivers below a certain age or excluding business use or setting an excess figure?? You can't ignore the fact that the insurer takes on a risk for a small premium. That's their business, which wouldn't exist if we dictated the terms.
|
Gmac - insurers can offer terms with whatever condition they like. They have no duty whatsoever to offer particular terms.
Agree with you entirely there. You read the T&C's and decide if that deal is for you or not.
Anyway what's the difference between these terms and any other
I think what is missing from the OP is if this is a standard UK fully comp. policy or an enhanced one with European cover which entends the fully comp. cover over the whole of Europe.
I find it odd they single out one road while allowing you to still drive the vehicle to its max. on other roads in the same country unless the insurer has had their fingers burnt on that specific route.
|
>I find it odd they single out one road
Whats odd about the fact they exclude a road that is used as a race track? Mostly by idots with more horsepower than brains? seen the number of wrecks hauled off that road? Ever heard the term "risk"?
|
IIRC Sabine once said that her knowledge of the Nordschliefe came from, as a kid, cycling along it to the town from her house each day to buy bread. Wikipedia says it was a purpose built race track en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürburgring#1927.E2.80.931939:_.22N.C3.BCrburg-Ring.22 and has this to say about insurance
"Drivers interested in lap times (a dangerous thing to worry about, as running stop watches are frequently found in crashed vehicles) often time themselves from the first bridge after the barriers to the last gantry before the exit. In the event of an accident, the local police are known to make note of any timing devices present (stopwatches, etc.) in the police report. Consequently, the driver's insurance coverage may be voided leaving the driver fully liable for any and all damage. Normal, non-racing, non-timed driving accidents should be covered by driver's insurance, but it is increasingly common for UK insurers especially to put in exclusion clauses that mean drivers and riders have third-party cover only"
My best time was around 13 minutes IIRC... ;-)
Edited by smokie on 18/01/2009 at 19:34
|
I find it odd they single out one road while allowing you to still drive the vehicle to its max. on other roads in the same country unless the insurer has had their fingers burnt on that specific route.
Just take a look at any account of the number and severity of accidents at the Nurburgring on public access days. If the autobahns had an accident rate that high, they'd be closed.
|
>>The ring is not a "public toll road" German traffic laws do not apply.
Yes it is a public toll road and German traffic laws do apply when it is open to the public during 'Tourist Fahrten' - Which is the open time that anyone can buy a ticket and drive around the Nurburgring in any vehicle which has to be road legal. The only time that it turns into a track is when it is closed to the public and then obviously it is no longer operating as a public toll road.
Don't forget either that there are two different bits to the Nurburgring, there is the short track that is used for the likes of the F1 and then there is the 'Nurburgring Nordschleife' which is the Northern Loop, ie the 13 mile bit that the public can access.
I think we are getting away from the point somewhat - I am fairly sure that any insurance company still has a duty to 3rd parties should YOU damage someone elses property whilst in charge of YOUR vehicle, whether there is a clause in the small print or not. For example if you happen to have insured your car social, domestic & pleasure only but then hit someone whilst you were on your way to work in it, I am reasonably confident in saying that your insurer will cover the cost of the damage to the third party.
|
not if it specifically excludes that piece of road.
|
not if it specifically excludes that piece of road.
and probably not if that piece of road is in Germany
|
|
|
|
|
|
