View previous topic | View next topic

Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics in 2021

Page 5 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

suze
1387784.  Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:25 pm Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
How about athletes bringing their usual mounts and then swapping?


Wouldn't that be prohibitively expensive?

Shipping horses to Japan comes expensive in the first place. But I would imagine that horses which compete in international equestrian sport are insured for a particular rider, just as cars are insured for a particular driver.

In practice I'd be comfortable enough with you driving my car because I know that you can drive properly, but if you were an international horsewoman would you be all that keen for some random to ride your horse?

I think the main issue here is that modern pentathlon isn't a sport with any tradition in Japan. It has never staged the world's championship, and Japan isn't big on equestrian sport at all apart from racing.

Under new rules which were not in place when the Tokyo games were planned, the host nation is allowed to ditch up to three sports which have little following in that nation from its Olympic program. The only sports which absolutely cannot be ditched are athletics, gymnastics, and swimming, although in practice it's inconceivable that (for instance) cycling or football would ever be left out.

So for instance, there will be no baseball or karate in Paris in 2024 - although the French may be regretting karate since they won a gold in it this year. Under those rules, there probably wouldn't have been a modern pentathlon event in Tokyo. But since they were committed to having one, perhaps Japan should have delegated the selection of the horses for this year's modern pentathlon.

 
Dix
1387789.  Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:57 pm Reply with quote

Suze, you can't draw parallels with cars/drivers based on UK insurance rules. In other countries car insurance is for the car, regardless of who drives it, as long as the driver has a valid license.

 
AlmondFacialBar
1387796.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:43 am Reply with quote

I don't think the insurance issue comes into it all that much because in the horse/ rider pairing it's definitely the horse that's the loose cannon and needs to be insured, under whichever rider. Also, full-on show jumpers, for whom the relationship with their horse actually matters, are astonishingly ready to swop when the need arises, so I don't see why pentathletes for whom the relationship with the horse is by definition secondary, wouldn't be. Furthermore, the person riding your horse wouldn't be entirely random because you'd have the assurance that they're still good enough to have made it to the same competition as you. It's not like lending your horse to someone on an entirely different level of competence or ability (though a lot of riders are quite happy to do that, too, or Special Olympics equestrian tournaments would never get off the ground). Btw, amateur riders swop all the freaking time. It's part of the fun of it.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
1387819.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:57 am Reply with quote

Dix wrote:
Suze, you can't draw parallels with cars/drivers based on UK insurance rules. In other countries car insurance is for the car, regardless of who drives it, as long as the driver has a valid license.


Now that's interesting. That used to be how it worked in Canada, but by now a car is only insured for specified drivers, the same as in Britain. The system isn't the same in every province, but in British Columbia I would need a special "other people's cars" policy before I could drive your car.

The only other country where I've driven for any length of time is Poland, and there it does work as you suggest. For thirty days after acquiriring a car you are allowed to assume that the previous owner held insurance - for people just not to bother getting insurance is really quite uncommon in Poland - and only after that does a driver commit an offence if she drives a vehicle that is not insured.

 
PDR
1387834.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:30 am Reply with quote

Most UK policies allow a driver to drive any other car provided:

1. They don't own or rent it, and;

2. The car is already insured by its owner/keeper

But this kind of insurance is strictly 3rd-party only with no comprehensive cover (not even fire or theft). And many modern policies don't include this.

PDR

 
Dix
1387854.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:39 pm Reply with quote

My example is based on a sample of one country, I have to admit.
It's exceedingly handy to be able to borrow a car, or let your friends and neighbours use your car in case their own car is out of action without any need for checking insurance conditions.

I really miss that.

And similarly very handy for shared car journeys / car pooling so the car owner can take a break from driving.

I've always assumed that the rules were similar in Norway and Sweden because the attitude to driving other people's cars are similar there. But I haven't actually checked.

 
AlmondFacialBar
1387855.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:49 pm Reply with quote

Dix wrote:
My example is based on a sample of one country, I have to admit.
It's exceedingly handy to be able to borrow a car, or let your friends and neighbours use your car in case their own car is out of action without any need for checking insurance conditions.

I really miss that.

And similarly very handy for shared car journeys / car pooling so the car owner can take a break from driving.

I've always assumed that the rules were similar in Norway and Sweden because the attitude to driving other people's cars are similar there. But I haven't actually checked.


Same in Germany. It's part of rural living there to borrow and swop cars all the time.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
1387857.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 5:15 pm Reply with quote

The system works in much the same way in Denmark, Germany, and Poland - and very possibly in Norway and Sweden too although we don't have confirmation of that.

I think it becomes clear why it works differently in Britain. The funny foreign European way of doing things is by definition wrong, to the British way of thinking, and so it was not allowed to take hold.

Does Ireland work the same way as Britain? Motor insurance wasn't compulsory in Britain until 1930 (and not until 1933 in Ireland), so it's not the case that Ireland inherited the British system on independence.

Much as the law said that it was compulsory, I rather suspect that in practice it was a little bit optional outside Dublin until the 70s. After all, this was the country where you didn't actually have to take and pass a driving test until about fifteen years ago, and could drive unaccompanied on the equivalent of a provisional licence.

 
Awitt
1387859.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 5:55 pm Reply with quote

We have third party insurance in Aus, though I don't know the nitty gritty of it all as I don't have to worry about it.
I think that were an accident to occur and the person whose car was used, did not have this insurance, there could be a problem.

I've seen reports where a simple prang - driver A drove into driver B etc - and one of them didn't have insurance caused problems. Sometimes there's no payout for the damaged party/vehicle.

 
PDR
1387862.  Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:12 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:

I think it becomes clear why it works differently in Britain. The funny foreign European way of doing things is by definition wrong, to the British way of thinking, and so it was not allowed to take hold.


I doubt that. I suspect it has much more prosaic, mundane roots in the fundamentally different legal environments - most especially in the fundamentally different approaches to Tort laws in England vs the Franco-German approach. In England the approach was that an incident may still be Tortious (and thus having an associated liability) when unintended - when it arose from neglect rather than intent. In the Franco-German approach an incident could only become Tortious where it arose from intent or as a foreseeable concept of recklessness.

Thus to protect a third party under the Franco-German system it is necessary to determine that the car (ie "fate") was itself to blame, so the car alone is insured. Under the English system it follows that it is the combination of the car and its driver whose neglect renders them liable, so the combination of car and driver must be insured.

Nothing to do with any presumed disdain for Johnny foreigner.

PDR

 
AlmondFacialBar
1387869.  Fri Aug 20, 2021 3:26 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
The system works in much the same way in Denmark, Germany, and Poland - and very possibly in Norway and Sweden too although we don't have confirmation of that.

I think it becomes clear why it works differently in Britain. The funny foreign European way of doing things is by definition wrong, to the British way of thinking, and so it was not allowed to take hold.

Does Ireland work the same way as Britain? Motor insurance wasn't compulsory in Britain until 1930 (and not until 1933 in Ireland), so it's not the case that Ireland inherited the British system on independence.

Much as the law said that it was compulsory, I rather suspect that in practice it was a little bit optional outside Dublin until the 70s. After all, this was the country where you didn't actually have to take and pass a driving test until about fifteen years ago, and could drive unaccompanied on the equivalent of a provisional licence.


This country did inherit the British legal system upon independence and hence the motor insurance system is the same, too, for the reasons PDR mentioned. It's also incredibly annoying.

As for the quasi optional nature of any legal matter at all connected with driving here - yes. As a matter of fact a person close to me who got his licence via the late 1970s amnesty was a... traffic cop. In inner city Dublin. Also, between the horrendous premiums charged here for novice drivers and the necessity of having your own transport in rural areas, there's still a whole lot of young fellas driving uninsured to this day. Not good, but on some level I can't really blame them.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
Prof Wind Up Merchant
1388279.  Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:08 pm Reply with quote

Dame Sarah Storey strikes Gold again.

 
suze
1388282.  Wed Aug 25, 2021 4:32 pm Reply with quote

Can I be mildly controversial just for a moment?

Dame Sarah Storey is regarded as some sort of national treasure, but I once had a conversation with a couple of "serious cyclists" who weren't sure that she should be.

The basis for that is that she isn't really very disabled. Her left hand doesn't work properly, but this doesn't stop her driving a normal (ie non-adapted) car, and the strap that she uses to secure her hand to the bicycle is legal in able-bodied cycle racing.

She took part in the 2010 Commonwealth Games against non-disabled cyclists (and placed sixth in an event in which Laura Trott placed seventh). Her Paralympic time in 2008 would have placed her in the top eight in the regular Olympics, and she's won British national able-bodied championships.

She probably won't do those things again, because she's 43 and that's ancient for a competitive cyclist. But is the presence of a cyclist who can compete at world's level against people with no disability really what the Paralympics should be about?

 
AlmondFacialBar
1388287.  Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:04 pm Reply with quote

I kind of hear you there. Her former paralympic swimming career makes sense to me because only having one fully developed hand would put you at a disadvantage there, but in cycling I really can't see how it would make a difference.

:-)


AlmondFacialBar

 
Prof Wind Up Merchant
1389548.  Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:47 am Reply with quote

Congratulations on Paralympics GB on this achievement

 

Page 5 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group