insurance
 

if this is the case, is this practise illegal ?on any insurance policy it states that you are nor covered for racing pace making etc .

A working day policy might have covered it.
 

If an engine owner of , say. 1920, had an insurance policy it likely would have covered the engine and ( perhaps) third party risks when in " Normal" use. Normal use would, of course cover using the engine out of gear driving machinery of any sort.
Insurers are in business to make money, if they can see a way to avoid making payments they will.
An engine owner would do well to check his/ her policy with the aid of a lawyer. small print exclusions can be confusing to a layman.
I rather doubt that RTA coverage alone would cover mishaps driving machinery as a stationary engine.
I regard insurance companies as " Licensed Thieves" and all I have is that demanded by law to drive my SUV
Regards David Powell.

I suspect that in a case like this once a claim is made the various insurers would then fight it out amongst themselves to see who if any of them was liable. Those who think they can rely on RTA cover should look at the case of Mr Holden where the use of a vehicle is discussed. I have been told in the past that things like a tractor while stationary driving a sawbench on the belt have frequently made it necessary to decide whether it is RTA or PLI and as in the case of Mr Holden it is often down to the courts to decide. Incidentally you may be interested to note that due to the fact we have not had a government since 2016 the changes required to UK law in the light of Vnuk have never been made. In a recent judgement Lord Justice Flaux stated: “The fact that the UK government has failed to legislate for compulsory insurance in respect of the use of motor vehicles on private land and then specifically to delegate to the MIB the residual liability where the relevant vehicle is uninsured, can legitimately be described as a breakdown in the system put in place by the government.” Whether the present incumbents will be any different who knows....

I'm guessing that post Brexit things will return to how they were 20 years ago, so certain members of our 'Representative body' will not have to worry. Everything that We get up to will be a bit more risky than it is now.

As noted above by Bob, this is a Pickering mill engine governor. the additional pulley rides on the belt, kept up by belt tension. It is fail safe in that if the belt breaks, the governor closes and cuts off the steam. In addition you will see it is fitted with a sawyers valve. This usually had a rope from each end to the saw (or machine) which allowed the operator to increase or decrease the governed speed at will, or effectively stop the engine.

http://www.steamscenes.org.uk/tti/14/041_0450.jpg

Also to be seen on traction engines . Burrell 1426 had the full kit , fitted later in life when the original governore were no doubt worn out . Recent owners of this engine threw it all out and fitted repro' original governors .

the governors on my Marshall has all the gear except the lever for the additional pulley.

None of it is original however. Not fitted with governors new.

Thanks for the interesting picture of a later Pickering governor with equipment to stop runaway in the event of loss of governor belt. I have learnt something today!

Martin

Not really quite sure what Roger is trying to get at with this post, other than that He's scared to mention My name, but each to his own. Anyway the link to Mr. Holden actually proves My point precisely. Essentially following Mr Holdens incident HIS RTA insurance HAD to pay out, and this link is the court appeal by Mr Holdens car insurers to re-claim half of the payout (for destroying the adjacent premises) from the insurance of Mr Holdens Employer, on the reasoning that the adjoining building was destroyed by the fire in Mr Holdens Employers building rather than the fire in Mr Holdens car. It is interesting that both buildings were valued at £1,000,000 which at the time was the maximum liability for damage to property (now £1.2 million) under the RTA.

Either through His own incompetence or an attempt to cause mischief, ( hopefully the former) Roger has either overlooked or ignored THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT in the whole article, which is naturally the statement that proves My point.

It seems very strange to Me that Roger has apparently been organising events for around 10 years less than I have yet has not kept up with changes (generally for the better) that have been brought in during this time. Whether these improvements will survive Brexit is yet to be seen

A brief resume of the case can be found here I would draw attention to paragraph 2 of the comments.

The claim and counterclaim that are the concern of the case are irrelevant to the point I was making which hinges on the use of the vehicle under RTA cover. In UK law this has always been taken to indemnify the insured against claims in the case of accidents arising from the normal use of the vehicle on a road or public place. Normal use includes, and this is backed by case law, leaving a broken down car on the road until it can be recovered and such things. Incidents that would arise out of the normal use of the vehicle. This is the minimum cover required under the act applied with common sense as to what most would accept as use of the vehicle. I don't doubt that other policies confer more cover but as it happens my current cover excludes claims arising from the use of any cutting and welding equipment in the course of repairs.

Now in para 53 of the judgement Lord Hodge says

53. In my view, neither English domestic case law nor the jurisprudence of the
CJEU supports the view that the carrying out of significant repairs to a vehicle on
private property entails the “use” of the vehicle. The English case law which
interprets “use” in the RTA as “having the use of” makes good sense in the context
of vehicles which have been left on a road or in a public place, where members of
the public are likely to encounter them, but less sense if applied without qualification
to vehicles located on private property. In ordinary language one would not speak
of a person who is conducting substantial repairs to a stationary vehicle as “using”
that vehicle,

Now it seems to me that this indicates quite clearly that in assessing liability the courts could well be asked to give a decision on whether any activity with a vehicle could be construed as the 'use' of that vehicle under the act as it has been interpreted up until now.
Lord Hodge also refers in para 38 to a 2017 case where a tractor fitted with a herbicide pumping kit ran way and crushed a worker while it was being used as a stationary pump.

He notes that the European Court said:

the concept of “use of vehicles” covers “any use of a vehicle as a means of transport”
(para 38). The fact that a vehicle was stationary or that its engine was not running at
the time of the accident did not preclude the use falling within the scope of its
function as a means of transport (para 39). But the concept of “use of vehicles” did
not cover a circumstance in which the tractor’s principal function, at the time of the
accident, was not to serve as a means of transport but to generate, as a machine for
carrying out work, the motive power necessary to drive the pump of a herbicide
sprayer (para 42 and the dispositif).


These are simply matters to which i think it wise to draw attention.