How is it that a rider is having to rely on crowd funding

[wrighty]

29 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

Here's an uncomfortable story about Dan Hegarty's lack of insurance cover in Macau last year where he was killed in a race. How was he able to start without adequate cover, or are they much less insistent out there than on the island? Could it happen here? 

In my view, it’s not the organisers’ responsibility to ensure the riders have personal life cover. Other insurance, such as medical cover, public liability etc, certainly, but adequate life cover should be up to the rider and his family, and perhaps his team. 

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

In my view, it’s not the organisers’ responsibility to ensure the riders have personal life cover. Other insurance, such as medical cover, public liability etc, certainly, but adequate life cover should be up to the rider and his family, and perhaps his team. 

Yes, agreed. He obviously believed that he had adequate cover but failed to read the small print. He will have been covered by the event insurance to a point but the auxiliary cover which he thought he also had failed to come through. 

[RIchard Britten]

17 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes, agreed. He obviously believed that he had adequate cover but failed to read the small print.

Then should the rider have to prove he has adequate cover?

Surely there is a duty of care by the organisers?

[Max Power]

6 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Then should the rider have to prove he has adequate cover?

Surely there is a duty of care by the organisers?

If a Chinese rider turned up at the TT waving a random insurance policy it would be a bit difficult to tell if his cover was valid or in fact the instructions for his washing machine. As long as he has start permission from the Chinese federation he would be covered to ride at the TT by their insurance.

The fact that he was competing in an FIM sanctioned event on an ACU licence with start permission from them means that he was covered by their insurance and benefited from their cover. The issue is with regard to additional insurance which he chose to take out with a company which did not cover him for racing in Asia. 

That is the organisers duty of care fulfilled.

[RIchard Britten]

3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

That is the organisers duty of care fulfilled.

 

[Chinahand]

21 minutes ago, Max Power said:

The fact that he was competing in an FIM sanctioned event on an ACU licence with start permission from them means that he was covered by their insurance and benefited from their cover. The issue is with regard to additional insurance which he chose to take out with a company which did not cover him for racing in Asia. 

 That is the organisers duty of care fulfilled.

But this level of insurance is too low. It provides insufficient coverage to deal with a life changing injury and is basically tokenism, giving a false sense of security. 

The ACU should either get out of providing insurance or ensure it is adequate. The current situation is in no one’s interest. 

[La Colombe]

6 hours ago, wrighty said:

In my view, it’s not the organisers’ responsibility to ensure the riders have personal life cover. Other insurance, such as medical cover, public liability etc, certainly, but adequate life cover should be up to the rider and his family, and perhaps his team. 

I disagree, I think the organisers should insist on an adequate level of personal life cover. It would be easy to do so, even if it did thin the field out a bit. There's something very unsavoury about organising such incredibly dangerous events whilst showing no concern for anything other than covering the clean up costs of accidents. 

[John Wright]

Have you any idea how expensive the life, permanent disablement and quadriplegia cover premiums would be for motorsport?

Getting back to the topic subject the presence of life cover would not cover the expenses of the family of a rider from Kent visiting him, staying in Liverpool, etc. Where he is currently hospitalised.

The ACU insurance covers riders, organisers, officials and the public. But driver life, etc., cover is at low levels, £10k, £20k and £40k.

Cover levels are here. https://www.acu.org.uk/Uploaded/1/Documents/ACU Handbook 2015/Insurance.pdf. 

Couldnt find 2018

[woolley]

I think this is what will kill it off in the end. Not deaths. They are tolerable under "freedom of action" principles. It will come down to money. Insurance requirements will rise and it will become unaffordable unless the government is prepared to foot yet another bill.

[dilligaf]

4 minutes ago, woolley said:

I think this is what will kill it off in the end. Not deaths. They are tolerable under "freedom of action" principles. It will come down to money. Insurance requirements will rise and it will become unaffordable unless the government is prepared to foot yet another bill.

Something it should never do.

[Andy Onchan]

Yet no matter how dangerous the sport is, it seems there's growing demand to participate: https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-sport/record-number-of-southern-100-newcomers/

[Albert Tatlock]

Many insurers will not pay out if you die as a result of alcohol abuse, suicide or a smoking-related or drug-related death. There are a lot more suicides, drug users and alcoholics than racers.

It is also usually difficult or very expensive to get cover for a pre-existing medical condition, or if you die as a result of ANY other dangerous sport or hobby.

These people are there to make money.

Many people assume they have cover ...until they read the small print.

[John Wright]

47 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

There are a lot more suicides, drug users and alcoholics than racers.

That isn’t how it’s looked at. It’s looked at actuarially. The proportion of those categories who die as a proportion of the total number with life insurance will be very much lower than the proportion of race participants killed or seriously injured in racing as a proportion of race participants insured.

The expectation of accidents, and thus claims, means proportionately higher premiums, or lower levels of cover.

[Albert Tatlock]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That isn’t how it’s looked at. It’s looked at actuarially. The proportion of those categories who die as a proportion of the total number with life insurance will be very much lower than the proportion of race participants killed or seriously injured in racing as a proportion of race participants insured.

The expectation of accidents, and thus claims, means proportionately higher premiums, or lower levels of cover.

Of course it is. My point was a lot of people think they might be covered when in actual fact they might not be.

[Uhtred]

19 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

Then should the rider have to prove he has adequate cover?

Surely there is a duty of care by the organisers?

I don’t think the duty of care extends to ensuring that he has adequate life cover. That’s a choice for the individual, as with any other personal decision.