While our motorcycling champions behave more than honorably in the various World Championships, a danger as insidious as it is very real hangs over the very existence of motorcycling sport in France.
This threat, although it remains largely unknown to the general public, is currently the number one concern of the French Motorcycling Federation which is fighting tooth and nail, namely legally and financially, for the survival of motorcycling sport in France.
If she does not win her fight, the competitions could stop.
At the start of the year, Mr. Jacques Bolle, its president and former Grand Prix winner, kindly took the time to enlighten us on the situation.
The article is long and sometimes difficult, but the risk run by all those who still want motorcycling sport as a whole to continue, justifies making the effort to read it.
For this reason, we are publishing it in two parts.
Second part (the first is accessible here).
Concretely, what does the Federation do?
Jacques Bolle: “We therefore found, thanks to our broker, an English insurer, but at the same time we initiated an approach to the Court of Cassation to try to find a legal solution by trying to restore the pendulum a little to a more central position, perhaps by returning to the theory of risk acceptance, but, on the other hand, by considerably strengthening the insurance guarantees linked to the license. And here we are no longer in the area of Civil Liability guarantees, which are there to cover damage that you cause to others. At the same time there is another type of insurance, which is “individual accident” guarantees, which you take out for disasters that may happen to you, regardless of whether you are responsible or not, or whether there is a third party or not.
With the federal license, there are “individual accident” guarantees, but which are not of a level considered sufficient, even if those of the French Motorcycling Federation are undoubtedly the highest among all sporting licenses. For example, someone who becomes paraplegic will receive around 200 euros. It's a lot of money, but is it enough for a 000-year-old who is going to be paraplegic for the rest of his life?
The solution that we have recommended and proposed to the government is therefore to couple the return of the theory of risk acceptance to a greater level of guarantees at the level of licenses, and to make this additional “individual accident” insurance compulsory. ”, since this is not currently the case.
Thus, in the event of a disaster, someone would no longer need to attack the civil liability of the organizer, who very often has absolutely nothing to do with it, but would be covered thanks to the guarantee that he would have. himself subscribes to the practice of this risky sport, which for me is much more virtuous on a moral level. Today, we are going to seek the responsibility of someone who has committed no fault in order to be able to be compensated, to compensate for the fact of not having taken out guarantees themselves.
In fact, the current system is completely disempowering.
This is also what the magistrates of the Court of Cassation implicitly accuse us of with the current system; that the organizers of risky activities have entrusted national solidarity with the care of those injured by this practice. This is what also happens when we send a rescue helicopter to the high mountains, rescue personnel to rescue speleologists or advisors from the national navy to rescue sailors during solo races; it costs fortunes and today, society considers less and less that it is up to national solidarity to take charge of this, but more to those who organize these practices. »
Is this phenomenon specific to motorcycles?
Jacques Bolle: “No, it’s not motorcycle specific. It is first of all an evolution of society, where there must always be those responsible. Legally, this is called strict liability or liability as of right. In fact, it started in the medical field, where we began to see doctors convicted even though it could not be proven that they had committed any wrongdoing. This is the case during a benign intervention, carried out according to the rules of the art, but which ends badly due to an unknown event.
We started to compensate patients and we called it strict liability.
In terms of sport, it is motor sports that have been impacted on the front line, other disciplines can also be impacted, such as horse riding or mountain biking. »
Is this phenomenon specific to France?
Jacques Bolle: “The societal evolution is global, even if it comes from the USA, where people initiate procedures for everything and nothing, with an approach more financial than moral.
On the other hand, the evolution of jurisprudence in sporting matters currently mainly concerns France, even if Belgium seems to be drawn into our wake. We can think that this is something that will gradually impact all the countries of Western Europe; Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.
Switzerland seems to have something different for a number of years; in the case of a risky activity, you are compensated, but in lower proportions, to take into account the fact that you were aware of the risks you were taking.
In France today, this does not exist; we now consider that you have the right to the same compensation, whether you consciously practice a risky sport, as if you are mowed down while walking calmly on a sidewalk by a drunk motorist.
Personally, I find this questionable and even shocking. »
As we can see, the situation is extremely fragile and hanging by a thread; a series of accidents and judgments confirming case law and current trends, and the British insurer would be forced to revise its prices upwards or hand over control. At this point, motorcycle sport in France would probably have a hard time surviving...
