One could spend days trying to analyse why people risk their lives in dangerous activities, and even more time trying to understand why it is that people want to watch such things. Some will say that the risk takers are not self-destructive by nature, but love the competition so much that they are willing to risk everything. Psychologists will tell you that daredevils and spectators have a need for excitement, a desire to feel intense emotions and a need to be distracted from everyday concerns. More advanced theories suggest that spectators watch events because they need to experience the thrill of fear in a controlled way when they are not in real danger.
Whatever the explanations, in the end one must accept that there are daredevils; and there are quite normal people who watch. This does not mean that they wish to see what happens when something goes wrong. In the modern age of the Internet, there are no formal nor informal controls to regulate the amount and extremity of the violence. There is no underground. Anything goes. Death in motor racing is up close and personal. And distasteful. The image of Marco Simoncelli sliding down the road without a helmet was not one that I would choose to watch again. The accident that killed Dan Wheldon was less graphic, but unpleasant nonetheless once one understood that someone had died as the result of the crash.
Human instincts are not about to change. Racing people understand this and when there is grief they say the same things: he was doing what he wanted to do; he knew the risks; this is part of the sport. This is all true, although very often media coverage of such things adopts a different attitude. There is condemnation of a sport that can kill people. One rarely hears the same condemnation of mountain climbing or horse riding or any other dangerous sports. I don’t know why that is, except perhaps that such condemnation only ever comes when the accidents are in high profile events – and top-level motorsport is high profile.
Seventeen years ago I wrote “what really upset me was the over-reaction to the accidents. Everyone forgot that if you are involved in motor racing you must accept that there will be accidents and, no matter how good the safety, there will inevitably be injuries and deaths… Every time drivers step into a cockpit they accept the risk that they might die at the wheel of their car. And they are happy to accept that risk. If they do not want to drive they can just walk away.”
That was in the wake of the deaths at Imola of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger and my views have not changed. It is extraordinary to think that these were the last on-track fatalities in Formula 1. That is testament to the brilliant scientific work that has been done by safety engineers over the years to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid further deaths.
Right now, IndyCar and MotoGP are both going through difficult times, but there must be positives that come from them. Safety engineers will look for solutions and hopefully they will find ways to stop the same accidents happening again, allowing the sport to go on thrilling fans around the world. There may be some who have not experienced the dark side of motor racing before, but most of us know that there will be fatal accidents in the future. One can predict and take steps to regulate away all possible dangers, but one cannot eradicate every possibility of injury or death.
And we are foolish if we think that is the case.
“One rarely hears the same condemnation of mountain climbing or horse riding or any other dangerous sports.”
Very true Joe. I remember reading somewhere that statistically the most dangerous sport, the sport that claims the most injuries and fatalities is by far…fishing. It’s also the most polluting. Both the danger and pollution are because many people regularly travel vast distances to fish.
Bonkers if you ask me, but then as you said in 1994 “what really upset me was the over-reaction to the accidents.”
As for the numbers of deaths in third-world countries because of starvation/pollution/medical care etc, well I guess they’re unwelcome statistics that many regularly ignore.
… all we need to remember is how close to disaster F1 was on several occasions in recent past and that in some cases it was luck, not the actual developments in safety that some drivers have to thank …
F1 Wolf,
Examples please
Great piece!
It’s the reality people need to face when it comes to motorsports. They also need to realize that “danger” may be a component of why they tune in and watch every week.
Well founded comment. Surfers die by drowning and shark attacks, in far greater numbers, similarly the same could be said for any extreme sport. It was extremely sad to see the accident – both of them – this week and I am sure things will come out of it to protect and improve safety. But god forbid we get the wise arse comments about what should have been, why wasn’t it, who didn’t do this and that. Reflection and improvement is important but the I told you so from the arm chair critics is not needed at a time like this
May they both rest in peace
I agree with the sentiments in your piece Joe.
Testament to the work on safety can be found in Kubica’s Canada 2007 crash. Watching live at 3 am in the morning I thought I had seen a fatal crash.
Technical point on fatalities in F1.
A track marshall died in 2001
Another one at Monza in 2000
RIP Dan and Marco
Once again a sane, measured and reasoned comment to recent tragic events in motorsport from a journo who knows what he’s talking about. Unlike most of the news sources I read. Thanks Joe.
Hi Joe – as motor sport fans we are so used, almost conditioned, to see drivers and riders either walk away or suffer only minor injuries from what are big accidents, all of which is a testament to the regulations and designers of circuits, machines and equipment.
What we witness is also (and usually) good luck, an a few cm here and there often making the difference, sadly this last week we have seen that bad luck is a factor too.
Joe,
The improvements in F1 are plain to see. Kubica’s crash in Canada would almost certainly have been fatal in a 1990s car. Hamilton’s 100mph straight into the tyres a couple of seasons ago would probably have resulted in injury to the legs as happened to Shumacher, but Lewis was able to take part in the next session.
Indy cars are catching up, however the issue of impacts between the top of the car and the safety fence have not been fully addressed. The more enclosed wheels will help to avoid ‘flying cars’ but will not guarantee front ends remaining on the ground.
The MotoGP crash however highlighted you can only make a dangerous sport so safe. We see riders have low-sides all the time. Usually the biggest injury is to the rider’s championship or race hopes. Could anything be done to avoid the situation that occoured? Probably not. Could anything be done to avoid the injuries? That is for people clever than me.
Hi Joe,
While it’s true that when a racing driver suits up and drives off he ‘accepts the risks’, he, his team and the crowd also understand the extraordinary diminishing probability of suffering a mortal or morbid injury. As you are no doubt aware, part of risk management is understanding the potential dangers and the associated probability of those dangers occurring.
Coming from working in the energy industry, where we too strive to minimise the chances of workers coming into danger, I think it is slightly unacceptable to poet, ‘these are the risks we accept when we go racing.’. One is far more likely to suffer injury/death from crossing the road that as a professional racing driver is when racing. Yet, when someone dies in a traffic accident, we don’t say, ‘well, these are the risks we accept when crossing roads’, we say, ‘something has gone horribly wrong somewhere – this should not have happened.’
In the same vein, when a horrible accident occurs in motorsport we should be saying, ‘this is unacceptable. It should not have happened. Let’s make sure it never happens again.’
Stuart
Chain Bear,
My point was that one has to accept that fatal accidents will happen, not that they are acceptable.
One should also not forget the every day road fatalities – on average 10 a day each in the UK and France I believe. Safety research has cut these down, but accidents will and do happen and people do die. Both Dan and Marco died doing what they lived for and loved doing.
the big one coming to mind was Coulthard’s car only just missing Wurz’ head in 2007 in Australia.
but also think Massa in Hungary and how big difference few cm could have made … or Rosberg this year in Monaco during practice – he only just avoided crash that would have been likely much worse than that of Perez … or the loose wheel bouncing around the pitlane at one of the races last year, or the Virgin car spinning as it was coming towards the mechanics this year …
luckily in these cases (and some others) nobody ended up to be at the exactly wrong time in the exactly wrong position
He may have been thiinking of David Coulthard slicing over the top of Alex Wurtz’s Williams in Aus, or Jarno Trulli doing similar in Monaco?
I think there have been some close calls that wouldn’t have been prevented by safety measures that have been introduced, but neither should we go too far in the quest to eradicate all potential danger – the only way to do that is to stop racing.
Joe,
I’m sure F1 Wolf will reply for himself but in my eyes the two F1 accidents where luck played as big a part as safety measures are Schumacher at Abu Dhabi and Webber at Valencia.
Schumacher was lucky not to be struck on the head by the full force of the car that launched above him.
Webber was saved by the safety of the circuit, runoff and survival cell, but had he gone airborne just before passing under the old banked track at Monza, or anywhere else with a bridge for that matter, he could have been in trouble.
The death of Dan in an IndyCar is criticised as somehow ‘inevitable’ but that conveniently ignores the fact that 14 drivers walked away from the crash, the safety measures having done their work.
Chris D,
Both the examples you have used are, in my opinion, good illustrations of the progress that has been made rather than lucky near-misses. The cars are designed to have a safe space in the cockpit area and the car that rode up over Schumacher’s nose ended up where it ended up because of the shape of the cars, not because of luck. Webber’s accident in Valencia was an example of how far the cars have come, not what they are lacking. It is not a question of looking at the cars independently of the track. Safety is the whole thing combined. As for the Schumacher crash that was another example of how design avoided.
With regard to the other post you wrote, which has not been published, you cannot go around making statements like the one you made. It is unfounded and libellous.
I think F1Wolf was possibly referring to Massa’s 2009 crash, as he was only centimetres away from either death or more severe brain injuries.
As for Simoncelli’s crash, I think the problem is that these sort of accidents, just like Tomizawa’s, can’t be prevented in motorcycle races, no matter what you do. It’s obviously not easy to accept such accidents, particularly since I started following F1 after 1994, and I’ve had limited exposure to death in motorsport, but I guess it’s perhaps easier than Wheldon’s crash, where there were more things that coukd’ve been done to prevent the situation from occuring
It is not just motorsport that is dangerous. Apparently there have been around 80 deaths of players during association football games and about 70 deaths during rugby games. Also a brief search reveals that between 1931 and 1970 there were, on average, around 18 fatalities per season in American football. That number dropped to around 10 per season between 1970 and 1990 and to 4 between 1991 and 1996.
Physical sport is dangerous and there is no way to remove all risk. But it should be an ongoing quest in all sports to minimise it.
In the case of Moto GP, it has to be said there is probably little to be learnt from the accident and not much that can be done to avoid a repeat. Fact is if you fall off your bike and get hit by another, you will sustain very serious injuries. It happened in Moto2 last year as well. That’s the big difference between bikes and cars.
I have been looking at a Moto GP forum and there were a number of posts about the incidence of helmets coming off in bike accidents. Often when I don a crash helmet, either for motorsport or riding a bike, I am struck what a primitive thing the strap is and that the same strap could transmit quite large loads to your neck and chin in an accident.
I do wonder if there is a better way of fixing a helmet to your head rather than a strap going through D rings. I know that in higher categories of racing, Hans devices are mandatory but that only solves the forward and side loading not the rearward. Maybe the Hans device should have front straps as well. For Moto GP, there could be a built in collar on the race suit running under the armpits. Riders would soon get used to any restriction in movement, just like GP drivers did with the current Hans device.
Wilson
At the risk of sounding like Uncle Albert (“During the war…..” from Only Fools) I think that this article does help put things in perspective. When I first started racing Formula Ford as an amateur in 1970 safety belts weren’t compulsory. Unsurprisingly people died during club races in simple, unspectacular crashes. It was upsetting but actually the races usually continued. By the time we got to the mid eighties tracks and marshall training had improved as had the cars and helmets but there were still some fatalities in junior formulae.
Then along came Imola and everything really changed. The tracks, by and large, are still demanding yet far safer, marshall training is now such that I believe in the UK we have the best in the world, and the Hans device, helmet and carbon technology means that drivers now walk from astonishingly violent incidents. All these improvements have trickled down from F1.
There is always the random factor though, wrong place, wrong time, and that’s just the way things are.
In general I think the US media should be more critical in racing, not friendly with just about anybody and in the case of the crash with Dan Wheldon, I believe the Indy covering media have been way, way too tolerant! Everybody knows that this chassis can fly. It’s underbody aerodynamics profile makes the car fly, it has been experienced even by Mario Andretti and it’s clear that this chassis is quite dangerous in multicar accidents. Why it was still racing after all these accidents?
There’s a big difference in the response time in Le Mans and Indycar to a very similar problem.
Back in Europe, after what happened with Henry Surtees and then Felipe Massa, the FIA takes a bit too much time to address the issues. I mean a simple carbon fibre addon to the visor after 2 years of thinking is a bit… underperforming. Also this new visor is only available from select manufacturers and as a result only to F1 drivers for the last few races. I don’t think this is a fast enough reaction!
Felipe’s accident was the more uncommon one, flying tires happens a lot! So we don’t have a solution to this problem and clearly closed cockpit is the answer, which would have quite probably saved Dan Wheldon’s live.
One recent accident received very few reports, but F1 and GP3 in particular were VERY lucky to avoid another death in the first free practice session for the Hungarian GP.
Watch this accident and then tell me it couldn’t have been Sebastian Vettel in his Red Bull during the F1 race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGuFWFOd5oI
In this case Luciano Bacheta was incredibly lucky not to hit the guardrail with his helmet, if that was the case… it was going to be the unthinkable. The car was a write off, but the driver walked away on his own.
I know there are older circles who like to think that there MUST be an element of danger in motorsport, but just like me, they don’t drive single-seaters anymore. I know it’s easy and cool to quote Stirling Moss on safety, but today is 2011 and people aren’t used to lose their loved ones after the world war!
We’ve got 3 very strong reminders to work on cockpit safety and yet there’s very, very little done. Do we need another Senna high profile accident to have this issue fixed?
Ivan Nikoloff,
I utterly disagree with you. Changes must be properly tested before being introduced, otherwise they may cause deaths rather than prevent them. I think the FIA Institute is doing extraordinary work. Find out a little more about the work they do before passing judgment.
I believe that as long as everything possible is being done to make the cars and circuits as safe as possible, then dangerous sports should be allowed to continue. It is difficult to see how the MotoGP organisers could have done anything to prevent the accident in Sepang, or make it surviveable for Simoncelli. The Wheldon accident at Las Vegas does raise a few questions that I’m sure Indycar will find answers for, they do have a real commitment to driver safety in that series. While I dont think we should return to a “the throttle works both ways” attitude of the seventies, I do think that people should be sensible in there response to such incidents,
I think it may be true that in F1 the length of time since a fatality has allowed a certain amount of dangerous driving to creep into the sport. It seems that certain drivers are more than happy to squeeze their fellow competitors onto the grass or up against walls in order to defend their positions. I think the FIA need to clamp down on this sort of behaviour as part of their ongoing drive to improve safety in the sport.
There will always be accidents and there will always be risks, the drivers know this, and make their decision about weteher they want to carry on or not.
@F1Wolf & @Joe, you can probably add Webber in Valencia (flying after hitting Heikki?), and Schumachers incident at Abu Dhabi last year where an F1 car got rather close too close to hitting his head.
RE: Death in motorsport, it will happen again yes. Does that make it acceptable ? No. Should we accept it as a given? No.
I want safe motorsport, and watching the MotoGP yesterday made me feel pretty sick. I really hope that the deaths of Dan & Marco trigger a response like that shown by F1 after Artyon & Rolands deaths. A complete overhaul of safety, to ensure that the sport is as safe as it reasonably can be. You can never expect travelling at such high speeds to be completely safe, but you should be able to expect that the relative sports make it as safe as they can. I think MotoGP has done by and large, IRL? Far less so IMO.
“joesaward
F1 Wolf,
Examples please”
F1 Wolf has answered your question but I would add Webber/Valencia/2010 and Schumacher squishing Barrichello/Hungary/2010 as examples of F1 coming frighteningly close to tragedy.
How can motorcycles be safer? A canopy/cocoon? Straps? Stabilisers like you have when you are learning to cycle, just more hi-tech?
Joe I have started to wonder recently just how sanitised the sport has become in the name of safety.
There can be no doubt that there have been technological advances that have helped to protect the drivers when things do go wrong, or to prevent them from going wrong in the first place. A less obvious, but equally effective angle has been the rules of engagement, or the application of those rules. In this regard it feels to me like aggressive drivers, Hamilton is a good example, are penalised excessively.
I have always enjoyed racing that encourages aggressive drivers because they bring excitement. While I fully appreciate that I am not the one risking my life to go racing I don’t think that racing should be sanitised to the degree it is at the moment. A simple shift in the application of the rules, to allow the following driver a little more leeway than is currently the case when trying to overtake the leading driver, would add a lot more spice to the races. It would certainly be better than the current situation where almost any coming together outside of the opening few corners is viewed as a punishable offense.
I think common sense needs to be applied, and the incident looked at in context. Continuing with Hamilton as the example, I believe he should have been punished for spinning on the track in front of Paul Di Resta, but not for clipping Massa’s tyre in Singapore. The one was just senselessly dangerous, whereas the other was an aggressive driver caught out slightly.
Rob
> Joe,
>
> The improvements in F1 are plain to see… [stuff deleted]
>
> Indy cars are catching up, however the issue of impacts between
> the top of the car and the safety fence have not been fully addressed.
I cringe at this comment, as I have at comments from some others. I’m afraid you are tempting fate. I hope we will not see a crash in which an F1 car slams into a concrete barrier at high speed with the car on its side and the driver’s head towards the concrete. That would be a test of F1′s alleged superiority that I hope to not see.
There has been a tone from some (I do not mean to pick on you; your comment is but one example) implying “F1 is far ahead, let’s hope the Yanks catch up”. This implication is not only unhelpful, it perhaps also issues a dare to the Racing Gods, a dare which is unwise, as it may turn out OK but then again might not.
Can we please put down the tone of who is ahead of whom when it comes to caring about drivers? It would require only one split-second event to end F1′s fortunate and desirable streak of not having any driver fatalities. (When it comes to safety workers, I believe the post-Senna record is about equal.)
Agenda’d complainers can moan all they like about motorsport accidents.
As long as they moan about smoking with just as much gusto.
Error: I meant to say “track workers”, not “safety workers”
I’m a bit of an adrenaline junkie so i feel pretty in touch with what motivates people to partake in such sports. At its basest of levels what we seek is to push the limits and defy death, because when you’re on that edge the adrenaline is coarsing through you and you feel so alive. I tried explaining this to my concerned Dad the other day but to someone who simply isn’t wired that way its almost impossible.
All that being said, I don’t have a death wish at all, i’ve no illusions of an afterlife so I’d love to reach a ripe old age before I check out. There is a difference between silly risks and calculated risks and 99.9% of us no matter how hardcore and dangerous the sport prefer the second kind.
When I drive my car at a tracklday I have a rollcage, a helmet and do a full check of the car before I push the limits, when I am doing freestyle snowboarding at my local snowdome I wear as much protection as I can and when I’m off piste on a mountain in the alps I take survival gear to survive snowstorms, avalanches or anything else I can foresee as a potential risk. I also have to accept though, that no matter what precautions I take, things beyond my control could kill me at any time.
Both Dan & Marco did the same, they surrounded themselves with as much safety equipment as possible, mitigated the risk as much as they could, still knowing they weren’t ever completely safe and went out there to push the limit. Tragically on these occasions, they didn’t make it.
By all means make sports as safe as you can, but any talk of banning the sports these guys did because they are dangerous is an insult to their memories and what they stood for.
What we need is proportional response. Not that “accidents will happen and it is a dangerous sport reaction” and not it is a ”dangerous sport” shut it down or close in the wheels.
The engineering of F1 improves ALL the time, materials available, thanks to the aerospace industry, get better all the time. What the recent wake up calls have to be is are we at the right place now or has the safety improvements fallen behind the doable. Have we improved the impact resistance to the best available today? Otherwise we would be running around with a simple roll hoop, no HANS, not impact resistant front end and no cockpit bolster for example.
No kneejerk, careful thoughtful review of the state of the art. That is after all what F1 is about. And maybe the lesser categories can learn by example.
Adam,
I believe you have just encapsulated my argument.
The suggestion that we should take the same approach to assessing the risk of F1 racing (or any other form, come to that) as we do to crossing the road is a red herring, in my opinion. Nobody HAS to go racing. We ALL have to cross the road at some point. For this reason, the assessment of what risk is acceptable must be different.
Chain Bear,
Nature has no concept of what ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ happen. Use of those terms is somewhat meaningless (and simply naive) when discussing things that ‘can’, ‘do’ and ‘always will’ happen. It is not a reflection of a defeatist attitude to see it that way, it is merely acknowledgement of the unavoidable force of nature.
To add a poignant personal parallel here, to people doing what they love and knowing the risks, my Stepfather died on Saturday, as a result of doing what he loved most, gardening!
He fell of a stepladder whist cutting off a tree branch and broke his femur, he later died quietly in hospital after the operation (probably from a stroke) to set the bone. He was 92, fiercely independent, lived on his own, had a stroke two years ago, recovered and saw no reason not to carry on as if he were 60 years younger, he was a very keen and knowledgeable gardener.
We had often pleaded unsuccessfully with him to slow down and not to do things that were risky. I had to stop him rewiring the lighting pendant fittings to the ceiling roses himself two months ago, he knew nothing about electricity but the thing that stopped him in the end was the same step ladder being a bit wobbly, when on the top of it, it is at least 70 years old made of beech and weighs half ton.
So my point is that people do not stop doing things they love because of the risks involved, or logic, if they are set in their ways, if it is in their blood, risk makes absolutely no difference. Racing or gardening makes no difference, racing is perhaps more overtly dangerous.
Unfortunately we live in the age of intense media competition. The reason crashes are sensationalised is because the media need to sell advertising space. The national media are the ones who hype up incidents, racing journos are normally a lot more sensible.
@Rshack
Track safety is among the things that are taken into mind when talking about safety in F1, not just how the cars are built and advancements have been made in both areas. I don’t think the Las Vegas oval where the accident happened would get approved for racing in F1.
Most accidents with terrible results are often the result of sad collections of circumstances.
What if Dan’s car hit the fence in a slightly different angle? What if Marco let go of the bike instead of trying to save it and get back on it?
I remember a crash years back in F3000. I think at Magny Cours. A car flipped over and rolled over the concrete barrier with the driver hitting the top of the wall. He did not survive. Yet several years later in GP2, someone had a similar crash and narrowly missed the wall with his head.
You can only do so much to prevent injuries and death but in the end there is still that small chance that something happens that just cannot be prevented.
Adding a canopy might prevent accidents like Massa’s but at the same time make things worse in other scenario’s. I wouldn’t want to be in a crashed car where the canopy-release system is broken by the crash while the car is on fire.
Off topic:
Joe did your researches for The GP Saboteurs, reveal any of the truth about Operation Jericho? (Amiens prison bombing by Brits) BBC2 docu last night, left reasons unanswered and official version discredited? You obviously have more contacts in the Resistance than the BBC team.
rpaco,
I did not see the documentary.
@Ivan Nikoloff (@IvanNikoloff)
Do you have proof that canopies are the answer? When I saw the reports of the test in August, I was frightened about how far the wheel flew away.
You cannot possibly say any artifact is safer without considering elements beyond the car (fans, marshals, etc…).
Simoncelli’s accident was terrible to see and with tragic results, cutting short the rising career of a talented and charismatic young rider. Incredibly though, the most dangerous activity he undertook that Sunday, in statistical terms, was the journey from his hotel to the track on the public roads of Malaysia.
Between 5000 and 6000 road users a year lose their lives on those roads, most of them motorcyclists, at one of the highest per capita rates in the world – twice as high as in the USA. Similarly, all 70,000 spectators at the track most likely also subjected themselves to the same risk that day and yet not a single word has appeared in the media about that, only outrage at how dangerous MotoGP supposedly racing is. I’m sure no-one would advocate that spectators shouldn’t attend sporting events on the basis of the risk they must take in getting there. The media and the uninformed populace displays a skewed sense of what constitutes danger or risk if ever there was one.
As tragic as it was and as much as I don’t wish to see a similar occurence any time soon, it’s important to keep everything in perspective. As I always like to remind people who are nervous of flying due to the chance of a crash, easily the most dangerous part of your holiday is the trip to the airport.
Sadly the sensationalist headline or story gets more mileage than an examination of the facts, in this case to the detriment of MotoGP and motorsport in general.
Schumacher was very lucky in Abu Dhabi last year, could have killed him.
Massa was unlucky/lucky (depending on how you view it), but I believe the visors have now been strengthen to stop similar incidents.
The only reason safety exists in motorsport is because of the sponsors. That is why F1 has become so safe, not because of Max Mosley, but because he and Bernie were pressured by the major sponsors to avoid casualties.
CNSZU,
Rather a controversial view… Do you have a single shred of evidence to back it up?
Motor racing, in general, does get the highest publicity when it comes to accidents (particularly of the fatal and near-fatal variety). Often there is no consideration of the procurement of the statistics – viz how much participation and how long is the participation and over what period? Of the people doing horse-ring each year in the UK one person per 350 riders per year is likely to get a severe injury. Worldwide, horse riding is the 3rd most dangerous sport in terms of deaths per 10,000 participating, after lawn bowls and base jumping. Here comes the other statistic while you might die while playing lawn bowls the activity is not likely to have caused most of the deaths which are more to age/health of the participants.
As Agostini has rightly said we must not always look for blame in situations like the tragic ones of Simoncelli and accept with sadness the hand of fate. From some accidents we might learn precautionary strategies (I feel in the case of Dan’s death there is possibly something to be learnt as it involved 15 accidents, several of which had the potential for a fatality). It is a balance between complacency (which F1 could easily fall into given the number of wheels coming off and unsafe pit releases) and identifying blame so vigilance is required in the investigation of each case.
Just listening to the news today helped me get over these recent accidents. There is not much the inhabitants of Thailand, Laos, Vietnam can do against the floods now and the Turkish suffering from the earthquake there neither.
Still only today another few people have died on the roads here in the Czech Republic (where I live), and all of us on the road keep taking calculated risks, believing its worth it, or not thinking at all.
While its horribly sad to have both Wheldon and Simoncelli and anyone else dying during the pursuit of success in motorsport, we live in a world full of risks and sports are mostly doing as much as possible to be safe.
But sometimes even that is not enough, and we (or rather the people involved) can only learn from what happens, how to further improve for the future.
By the way, I fully agree on the lack of self restraint people (and media) put on themselves with showing pictures or videos of every such instance. I wish all of us could do without that.
ipopic
> @Rshack
>
> Track safety is among the things that are taken into mind when
> talking about safety in F1, not just how the cars are built and
> advancements have been made in both areas. I don’t think the
> Las Vegas oval where the accident happened would get approved
> for racing in F1.
The fact that it would not be approved by F1 is hardly a recommendation in either direction. Name one great track that F1 has by free choice. Unless one has skipped my mind, all the great F1 tracks seem to be ones that predate Imola and are forced on F1 by F1′s own tradition. Since they can’t jettison them completely, F1 settles for watering them down to a weaker brew.
The statement above should not be taken as a slam against appropriate safety judgments. I don’t condone high speed pack racing of the kind that claimed Wheldon. I don’t know whether that type of venue can be made usable for IndyCar (via steps which remove the pack racing aspect) vs. whether racing at such venues must cease. One or the other will happen, I’m sure. Which one? Beats me.
In the meantime, what I do know is that (for me) F1 is no epitome of good track design. Most of the evidence I see is that F1 creates boring tracks on which any small amount of good racing occurs in spite of track design rather than in harmony with it. This first became clear to me when I saw the abomination they passed off as a so-called race course at Indianapolis. Of all the places with a history that warrants an exciting track, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is one of them. But what we got was lousy. Safe, no doubt. But one that made racing B-O-R-I-N-G. As best I can tell, that quality is a near-standard feature of custom-made F1 tracks. I appreciate the safety focus, but I refuse to believe that safety requires the B-O-R-I-N-G tracks that seem to have been F1′s dominant preference. I’m hoping Austin will prove that we can have both an exciting track and safety, but it’s too soon to tell.
RShack,
This argument is a waste of time, as F1 cars do not run on ovals.
While there are many who may agree that F1 tracks are not as good as they could be, it is not an excuse to call them all lousy.
A little moderation is probably not a bad idea.
CNSZU
It was the drivers themselves who instigated safety measures. Only after refusing to race a couple of times did the organisers (then mainly the tracks) grudgingly deign to put barriers in some places. Go and watch “Grand Prix the killer years”
Joe
Make what you can from this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016n2zz/Operation_Jericho/
rpaco,
I cannot watch this in France…
Snowy
One the most scary things happening to me was to see a motorcycle coming right to me in Malaysia on the Highway between KL and S’pore one week after inauguration…
To CNSZU I would say two words: Jackie Stewart.
On a slightly peripheral note, there was a pretty comprehensive article in the Sunday NY Times about Indy car racing that gives some background/context to the events in Las Vegas. Go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/sports/autoracing/a-drivers-death-has-raised-questions-about-indycars-leader.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=indy&st=cse
Since we’re touching on track quality/safety, this might be a good time & place to post my fantasy. I haven’t been to an F1 race in person for ages, but I’m repeatedly shocked by pics and TV of how far from the cars the spectators are seated. In that sense I was very spoiled by the 60′s and ’70s. Anyway, my fantasy: grandstands that are right-up trackside, but up off the ground like a balcony. Cars going off pass under, into a giant explosive airbag like in your car. Track personnel quickly replace a cartridge and bag, and off you go. Et, voilà!, up-close action is restored to spectators.
@RShack
Define great track for me, will you?
For example, despite being designed by “notorious” Tilke Istanbul Park is a challenging and interesting track on which we have seen some quite nice races. Also, even “boring” tracks after the introduction of new tyre manufacturer, KERS and DRS have proven to be much more spectacular.
What bothered me the most was the coverage given to both incidents in the British press, especially Daily Mail.
Full screen blow ups of each incident, videos, devastated relatives. It was horrible coverage.
TomI and Joe,
Motorsport is a manmade environment. The danger of motorsport is due to the laws of physics and science, but individuals willingly put themselves in such situations. When there are people dying of hunger and famine, should people purposely risk themselves in the name of speed and danger? We’re not living in the age of gladiators, we’re living in a civilized world. We aren’t dealing with cats and dogs but human beings – no unnecessary loss of human life can be accepted, and shouldn’t be allowed whether it is in motor racing, horse racing, bull fighting, rodeo, mountain climbing, surfing, sailing or whatever else…
SAFETY HAS A LOT TO IMPROVE AND SHOULD IMPROVE if motor racing should continue to exist as a sport.
Fully agree with Chain Bear’s views.
PT,
An interesting view, but entirely impractical. You cannot tell people not to take risks. And if there were easy answers to improving safety they would have been done already.
Joe,
Anyone looking at F1 car cockpits of the early 90s can see that they were so unsafe with the drivers’ heads and even necks exposed. Anyone who sees them knows it at once. Martin Donnelly looks at the Lotus cockpit that nearly killed him and says “it is so wafer-thin.” Why couldn’t the powers-that-be realize back then that this was unsafe?
Senna himself warned at the start of the 1994 season that the rule changes were gonna make F1 a lot more dangerous. The powers concerned could have made rules to enhance cockpit safety back then. They could have introduced higher cockpit sides so that incidents such as Roland Ratzenberger’s horrifying neck-breaking crash wouldn’t have taken place.
My point is, under the pretext of “things beyond our control” there is a certain degree of complacency (not in present-day F1 but in other forms of motor sport) where the powers-that-be wait for something to happen before they initiate safety measures. This was the very attitude Sir Jackie Stewart was fighting against during his racing days.
See the Simoncelli crash. Last year Shoya Tomizawa died in a somewhat similar way, being hit by other riders – two deaths in two years is mighty serious. And yet the general attitude many have is, “You know what, this is one of those freakish incidents. Nothing can be done.” That is not an attitude to have when human lives are involved.
PT,
It is easy to have 20-20 hindsight. At the time people believed F1 cars were safe. There had not been a fatal accident in a race for 12 years. There were still worries (read http://www.grandprix.com/gt/gt00039.html but the feeling was that the sport was pretty safe. After Imola, the thought processes changed and science was applied to safety for the first time. Things improved even more. But no matter what you do there are always going to be things that are beyond the control of human beings. If one tries to ban the sport then it will happen anyway and will be more dangerous because it will be illegal and there will be fewer controls, so it is no good saying what you are saying. The Americans tried that with alcohol in the 1920s with Prohibition and they created a monster. So, you have to try to make sure that things are as safe as they can be and you have to learn from mistakes and make sure that they do not happen again. If you can come up with a way to stop accidents like Tomizawa and Simoncelli, that would be great, but advocating stopping racing is naive.
Appreciate your replies, Joe and TomI. I would never want racing to be banned. What would I watch then?
What I mean is that human life is a precious asset, not something to be wasted for the sake of fun, entertainment or thrills. I believe (it’s my personal view) life is worth more than that. Fun and entertainment are all important for sure, but while weighing them on the scales against life, the latter is infinitely more important.
There are many who struggle to preserve their lives due to circumstances beyond their control (terminal illness, poverty, famine, terrorism, war, etc.). In that light, motor racing shouldn’t be seen as something that takes lives (we’ve had three deaths in two years – Tomizawa, Wheldon and Simoncelli). This rate of fatalities should be stopped or motor racing would begin to be perceived by many as completely undesirable – if more deaths take place. TomI – that is the reason why I didn’t like the “we can’t do anything about it” attitude.
I’ll never want motor racing to be banned. But if people go on dying, then the world will begin to sit up and take notice.
PT,
No, they won’t.
What we now get is sensationalist news reporting from major media but then a week later it is gone.
There is no accountability and no real integrity, just playing on reader/viewer emotions.
The same day Wheldon died I got apicture of over a hundred nigerians burnt alive in sectarian violence but nothing on my national news bulletins. Eight people died on local roads this weekend but no outrage.
When I was younget I indulged in adrenalin adventure sports and loved it but lost a friend and had others die in my proximity doing the same thing. It never stopped me doing what i loved to do.
All living contains risk. We measure that risk and participate in life as we choose to do live it. Without participation we wouldn’t be living.
Our biggest problem is dealing with those who wouldn’t do what we would do, yet seek to prevent us from doing what we love.
It’s interesting you mention the risks of mountain climbing; I alpine climb a lot in the Pacific Northwest in the States. Dangers are an inherent part of mountaineering, but are divided into essentially two classes, objective and subjective risks. Objective risks are those that you have no control over, such as rockfall, avalanche, weather, etc. The subjective risks are those you chose to take by how far you push yourself. When climbing you try to minimize objective risks by not climbing in areas where there are a lot of rockfalls, avoid avalanche gullies, don’t climb when the snow is unstable, wear a helmet, etc. The subjective risks then are the risks one is willing to take. In racing the objective risks have been reduced by safety measures such as racing harnesses, helmets, roll hoops, fuel cells, etc. The subjective risks then are those risks the driver takes to drive quickly. Just as in climbing, experience reduces risk, as the climber or driver is more competent, is better able to see that an action is risky, and has reflexes trained to respond in the right way. Both driving (I used to drive FF, F2000, and a bit of Atlantic) and climbing are rewarding for committed risk, and each driver or climber must determine the risk levels and commitment he or she is willing to take. I have found good climbers and drivers to be intelligent and thoughtful people. The climber who is willing to turn back is a better climber than the one who pushes too far because he or she doesn’t want to seem scared. If you aren’t scared sometimes, then you either never push yourself or you are stupid. In the end, I guess we should all do the things we enjoy for the reasons we enjoy doing them.
joesaward
> RShack,
>
> This argument is a waste of time, as F1 cars do not run on ovals.
Am not a big proponent of ovals. While I can appreciate their special challenges and benefits, I prefer to see cars turning both ways.
As I stated elsewhere, my favorite racing is F1 cars performing high speed ballet in close quarters through twisty bits.
> While there are many who may agree that F1 tracks are not as good
> as they could be, it is not an excuse to call them all lousy.
I think Indy’s F1 track was lousy compared to what might have been, especially in light of the quality of effort which the history of Indy deserved.
For the rest, can we agree that most of the post-Senna tracks are rather boring with but far too few interesting aspects? Or am I alone in that perception.
> A little moderation is probably not a bad idea.
I’m sure you are correct.
Where we seem to differ is on the question of whether the most apt general descriptor for post-Senna F1 tracks is “boring”. I think it is, but I can appreciate that others might see my opinion as rash.
Right! Accidents will always happen in risky ventures, but we can minimize such occurrences through rules and penalties.
ipopic
> @RShack
>
> Define great track for me, will you?
One that causes me to be more than just glad for “F1 this weekend” but rather causes me joy due to “F1 at [Track] this weekend!!!” The difference between mere anticipation vs. excitement…
> For example, despite being designed by “notorious” Tilke Istanbul Park
> is a challenging and interesting track on which we have seen some
> quite nice races.
The lone exception that proves the rule, IMO. And, of course, given that it’s good, the diabolica will be lost to us…
> Also, even “boring” tracks after the introduction of new tyre manufacturer,
> KERS and DRS have proven to be much more spectacular.
That’s a different topic…
PT,
Perhaps this is a simple case of wires getting crossed – attitude vs physics. They are two entirely different things. I agree that the right attitude is to always strive for improvements. In the process of doing so, people exhibiting the attitude you desire have to make decisions about how best to direct the efforts against the likelihood of finding an improvement because resources will never be infinite. It is entirely reasonable that having done their analyses and come to a conclusion, those people will then state what it is. In the cases of Tomizawa and Simoncelli you don’t need to be an expert to see why they came to the conclusions they did. If they had stated that the incidents were avoidable when they knew they weren’t, then the would be lying and would simply create distrust in their function. Perhaps you would rather they didn’t say anything? For me, the truth is fine thankyou.
By the way, Motor sport is held in an environment created by nature not man. Man has moved some of the components around to better suit his survivability, but he is entirely incapable of avoiding or modifying the laws of physics.
PT
> … that is the reason why I didn’t like the “we can’t do anything about it”
> attitude…
While there once was an attitude of not attending to safety (as evidenced by the enemies Jackie Stewart made simply by his insistence about such matters), those days are long gone. I don’t know of anybody in a position of influence who has that attitude.
Great speed and great safety exist in natural tension and opposition, they are not a natural fit. Any policy is inherently a compromise, and the reach of science and engineering evolves. We can recognize that no solution is ideal, but that’s very different than saying nothing can be done about it. People disagree about where the proper balance is, and whatever the current balance point might be, it will have critics from some quarter. That’s inevitable due to the inherent compromise involved.
RShack,
“Great speed and great safety exist in natural tension and opposition, they are not a natural fit.”
Absolutely right.
PT
“What I mean is that human life is a precious asset, not something to be wasted for the sake of fun, entertainment or thrills. I believe (it’s my personal view) life is worth more than that. Fun and entertainment are all important for sure, but while weighing them on the scales against life, the latter is infinitely more important. ”
What utter rubbish. Human life is ours to do with as we please not something to preserve just for the sake of living a long life. What does me simply living to 100 actually achieve?
Nothing would stop me partaking in adrenaline sports, especially when I could be killed on the motorway tomorrow because some idiot is in a rush to get to an important meeting. I feel much safer on track with 30 cars doing 100 MPH+ than I do on my commute to the office.
We’re one of the few species on the planet to know life beyond simply surviving and I intend to enjoy that privelege while I can and in spite of this nanny state.
Martin,
Did Dan Wheldon live only for himself? His death has now made his kids fatherless. Do you know what losing a father at this young age means? Did all drivers and riders who died have no loved ones who’d have been hurt for so many years by the loss? Think of John Surtees who lost his teenaged son.
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t live in isolation. I don’t live for myself, I have others counting on me. That’s what makes life worthwhile.
Loved ones would not ask you to give up your passion.
as i said in my first reply. My dad has concerns about the activities i’m involved in but wouldn’t dream of asking me to stop. In similar ways my Dad often works in very dangerous countries where i’d prefer he didn’t, I wouldn’t ask him to change either because he loves what he does.
I’m pretty sure Dan Wheldon loved his family, him risking his life in motorsport doesn’t change that at all. John Surtees risked his life racing bikes and cars in his younger years so I can’t see how he would deny his son the same life, he most likely introduced it to him. Look at the number of fathers supporting their sons In F1 or Moto GP these days, look at the words of Marco’s father. They are happy their sons were doing what they loved. Then take into consideration Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, Bruno Senna, did the deaths of their relatives in motorsport affect them badly and stop them following the same route?
Yes people will always be affected by untimely death but why should anyone deny their passion for that reason?
I guess you have a point. It’s just that I have a different perspective and you have a different one. Good to see your view of things though