Health and Safety fans who have made such a fuss since the Bianchi accident in Suzuka, you can read in the news today that at least 39 people have just been killed while hiking in Nepal, because there were snow storms and avalanches that were not expected. An avalanche in April on Mount Everest also killed 16 sherpas. This is terribly sad, FIFTY-FIVE lives lost, but I don’t hear anyone crying scandal or looking for someone to blame. Those involved knew the risks. Surely you have to ask why were these people not protected?
What exactly is the difference between taking risks on a race track and trekking in a dangerous place?
joeblogsf1 
Absolutely. Incidents like Bianchi’s are part of the game, sad to say. Otherwise, it would be something else of the freak kind. Everytime one partakes in an activity involving risks things can happen and they do. I hate the posing/cry for new measures/action when those things do happen.
I think the question is: “What is the same?”
Undertaking risky activities is a personal choice.
Agree with you Joe. This tragedy was so much worse, yet nobody seems to care. It could happen very easily again in comparison to the accident at Suzuka.
If you have 20 minutes to spare listen to BBC 5 Live’s interview with Paul Sherridan who somehow survived, it is harrowing.
[audio src="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/5live/5lnews/5lnews_20141017-2049a.mp3" /]
Amen. Tragedies both? Absolutely. Life without risk? Not worth living…
Two things:
1. The majority of climbing’s audience are climbers themselves. They also know and understand the risks involved and so are more sanguine about the results.
2. Even so, I would suggest that there is a proportion of both audiences that is calling for an improvement in safety in climbing as for motor racing, but given that F1’s audience is about 7 orders of magnitude larger than climbing’s, the noise level is going to be higher no matter how risk averse the climbers are.
Yes, but the trekkers were not climbers. They were unfortunate to be caught unawares, without proper gear, while walking between overnight huts. I don’t think they were there with the expectation of danger.
Risk taking is acceptance that things can go wrong. I had a mini epic on Mt. Rainier two years ago while on a solo alpine climb. While descending I caught a crampon when some ice gave way, hooked my left foot, then fell four feet onto my folded leg.
I severed my quad tendon, but managed to descend (falling a lot at first until I figured it out) by supporting myself on trekking poles, then drove home. I blame no one but myself, as I took the risks knowingly. But in Bianchi’s case….. I’m not so sure. Yes, he knew the risks…… but running into a tractor? I think this has to be understood as an accident, but accidents have to analyzed to see if there are useful preventive measures.
Its the same everywhere. I’m in ulster and every year “they” are calling for the North West or the Ulster to be stopped because riders get killed. Heart disease kills more people in one month than all forms of motor sport combined in the last 50 years. Check out the figures. Too many people full of hot air.
Its not on TV.
exactly..if the trekkers are wearing sponsored gear, live shots on TV, prize money to be had..sure. outrage! Oh wait that might work? Danger is part of Motorsports..the good part and the bad part
Amen
Of course 55 lives is a terrible waste! But since most of your readers don’t know anything about those people they are not going to be as touched as they were by the injuries to one of the drivers they follow week after week. You might as well ask why you don’t write about hiking.
And sneers about ‘Health and Safety fans’ who ‘have made such a fuss’ aren’t helpful. That sort of labelling is a pretty common way of shutting your ears to what you don’t want to hear (used by people of all political persuasions, e.g. dismissing something as ‘politically correct’, or instructing someone to check their privilege.)
Yes, I’d like F1 to be as safe as possible. That’s not a bad thing. And if there are ways in which the sport I follow could or should have been safer, or can be safer, then I’m interested in hearing about them.
I think you know the difference Joe, hiking isn’t a spectator sport, nor is it televised.
It’s still an activity which people voluntarily undertake knowing full well of the risks. All that happens is, the risks are mitigated for, and in motorsport, it’s done so to the best standards possible. Trekking up Everest however doesn’t appear to have the risks well mitigated, yet people still queue up to go up there, there are many more accidents and deaths than in F1, the safety standards appear lapse, yet there’s still no outcry to stop it.
Joe, no difference. The key is to carefully learn from the mistakes to minimize the possibility of a similar issue in the future and that also applies across the board. I am sure the FIA\F1 will do that.
Ok, now you’re beginning to sound a little off beam on this one…
Yep, agree.
Actually, Joe, there has been a great deal of discussion in recent years over the safety issues at Everest, so that probably isn’t the best comparison.
Well said, Joe.
I couldn’t agree more; I recall Jacques Villeneuve making similar comments a few years ago.
Exactly, and let’s be fair, almost anyone calling themselves a motorsport enthusiast, has already said this in recent comments on Joe’s Blog. I’m off to WRC Spain this week, I shall be spectating at the road side, around 10m in, near a large tree or rocks, and with an escape route planned after a recce of the viewing areas. I don’t expect to die and will not be trying to get killed, if it did happen it would be extremely unlucky, as was Jules Bianchi.
Er, Did you happen to read JV’s comments about THIS particular accident? I’m betting not…haha
My view:
We have seen great circuits sterilized to excess, and new circuits designed around absurd standards (so that they in no way resemble what might be called ‘natural terrain road courses) yet drivers are incongruously put into position to have an impact with with a multi-ton vehicle. Dumb.
This accident has been a long time coming I’m afraid – there have been dicey incidents in the past, and seeing large machinery near the circuit has always been cringeworthy even the to most hardened to and accepting of realities of motorsport….
There are many such comparisons of our inconsistent demands for safety.
With road car crashes the police take their pictures, someone foots the bill and everything carries on as before.
Why do rail crashes incite such a public outcry where lessons must be learned so that it never happens again?
Nothing. You put your faith in your God of choice and crack on with it.
perfectly said – Motorsport is dangerous.
Isn’t this the same sentiment expressed by those who decried the efforts of Stewart and Lauda to make a safer sport?
I’m not with Joe on this one. F1 needs to retain an element of danger, the type of danger from taking a Eau Rouge flat and losing it. I despair of removing this risk. But random, unnecessary danger – be it from unbolted guardrails in the 1970s, poorly equipped marshals Paul Ricard in 1986, or tractors in the runoff of a fast, wet corner – is surely not acceptable. Or more to the point, it’s unacceptable not to learn from it.
It’s all very well saying we cannot have this. Come up with a better solution. This is the true problem.
Better solution = enforce the existing rules instead of permitting the drivers to ignore them en masse.
We are moving in that direction, in case you did not read what Charlie Whiting said in Russia. If you stop and think about it, that is an indication of how safety often creates more dangers. In the old days a yellow flag was respected because it indicated danger. Today everything is so safe that drivers ignore danger signals. There are tons of potential problems in bringing in speed limiters so let’s not rush in new rules that might end up killing someone.
I don’t pretend to know the best way to enforce double-yellows. I am sure people who devote their professional lives to the daily reality of F1 know much more about that aspect than do I. (How could it possibly be otherwise?)
FWIW (which isn’t much), the idea of turning it over to speed limiters would not be my personal preference. I would think it generally best to hone human solutions unless/until it is clear that automation is required. (I don’t want robot umpires in baseball either.) Racing is a human endeavor, not a moon shot.
My first choice would be to (a) make it clear to drivers what they are supposed to do, and (b) have Charlie (not the steward-du-jour) immediately black-flag those who don’t comply… first time, no warnings, simply because the first time might be the one that does needless damage to others.
However, it is proper and correct that my personal opinion about preferred implementation details should carry no weight whatsoever.
AFAIK, nothing about this requires new rules. All it requires is Charlie giving a different answer when the drivers ask him what to do under double-yellows.
Don’t see why we’d should need a new rule before we tried enforcing the existing rule that’s been ignored for no good reason.
> If you stop and think about it, that is an indication
> of how safety often creates more dangers. In the
> old days a yellow flag was respected because it
> indicated danger. Today everything is so safe
> that drivers ignore danger signals.
This is true.
As best I can figure, Charlie fell prey to the same thing. He certainly didn’t mean to. Given the weight of responsibility he must feel, I’m certain he has tried very hard not to. But I think he did anyway. He must have.
Yes, the drivers routinely responded to double-yellow with nothing but token gestures, such as lifting a little. And, yes, Charlie sat in race control and watched them do it, time after time. And he didn’t intervene to make them change this behavior. He let “lifting a little” become the accepted and acceptable response. It became part of the culture.
Why?
Not because Charlie wants anyone to suffer harm… but rather because he didn’t fully appreciate the danger either. Had he fully realized, he would have not let it continue, he would have put a stop to this before Jules’ accident. But he didn’t realize. He thought it was safe.
Bottom line: *Everybody* got lulled into a false sense of security. Everybody was trusting too much about how safe things had become. Everybody.
No, I am not dissing Charlie. I’m just recognizing that he’s human and thus not omniscient. Sadly, in real life there’s no such thing as a rehearsal. You do what you do, and then you live with it.
And, no, this doesn’t mean there should be more safety cars or different tractors. Nor does it mean this could not have been avoided. All it means is that it wasn’t avoided. Nobody’s fault… unless you expect omniscience.
The best we can do is to be responsible… which I think is spelled wrong… it should be “response-able” What’s required is that we’re able to respond in a way that makes things better. I trust Charlie & Co. to provide such a response.
F1 safety is filled with people who ARE responsible. And I know from many discussions that all the major players were well aware that there was always the potential for another major accident. They were anything but complacent and it is unfair to accuse them of that. I think that a lot of fans and some in the F1 circus were complacent but not at the sharp end of safety. No way.
If you read that and somehow got “complacent” out of it, then I do a far worse job of expressing myself than I had realized.
If you believe Charlie was fully aware of the danger involved in drivers-as-a-group virtually ignoring double-yellows and nonetheless permitted that to become a the accepted part of the culture race after race after race, then perhaps my opinion of him is higher than yours might be. I don’t know the man, but I prefer to think that if he had fully realized the danger, he would have put a stop to it before the accident, not after.
And therein lies the truth… “I don’t know the man”
Now I’m really confused. Are you saying he *did* fully realize the danger of allowing drivers en masse to ignore double-yellows but permitted them to do it anyway? I have trouble swallowing that. In emphasizing my admission that I don’t know him, perhaps you meant something else?
David Tremayne made similar points in the post-Suzuka, or pre-Sochi, BBC 5 Live Chequered Flag podcast (I forget which).
You suggested, Joe, that people should come up with a solution. Part of what seemed to be the thrust of David’s points on the podcast, echoed by Charlie Whiting, is that drivers only engage in a superficial lift under double yellows and that a mandated speed limit might be a solution. What are your thoughts on this?
If there is no solution then nothing can be done. One can implement a system whereby a driver is warned and then punished if he does not lift but one can also say that there is personal responsibility. I prefer the latter choice, some prefer the former.
> One can implement a system whereby
> a driver is warned and then punished if
> he does not lift but one can also say
> that there is personal responsibility. I
> prefer the latter choice, some prefer the
> former.
Would the same not apply to pit lane speeds? In one case, it’s pit crews at risk, in the other it’s marshals and/or medical personnel.
This isn’t a bad article, and perhaps what you are also suggesting Joe:
https://theconversation.com/jules-bianchi-and-sharing-the-responsibility-for-catastrophe-32937
Psst, no links allowed.
Oops..
That’s it, agreed 100%. The car safety has evolved massively, personal equipment (HANS) too, track safety is good but there remains room for improvement here. The Bianchi incident, a track marshall dying in Montreal (unacceptable industrial accident) point to obvious weak spots. There is PREDICTABILTY in these incidents therefore an expectation that these area’s of obvious vulnerability are improved upon as there clearly is room for improvement.
This is the responsible response not Health & Safety panic and over reaction. CAN IT HONESTLY BE SAID that track side protocols/standards/equipment usage cannot currently be improved? It’s maxed out? Consistency from venue to venue is probably a major challenge alone. They can & they will as it makes no sense the FIA F1 safety drive only applies to cars, safety gear BUT NOT WHAT THEY HIT. It’s not the speed that gets you but the sudden stop, and hitting a metal crane someone has introduced to the track is going to obviously provide a stop of excessive severity.
There will still be casualties due to the inherent danger of motorsports, the Grosjean Lotus flying past Alonso’s head demonstrates that inevitability. A human strapped to an extremely fast moving object involved in collisions is at some point going to end badly, let’s atleast be able to say all obvious CONTROLLABLE safety measures were taken, we can’t say that at the moment.
+1 I agree Rob.
“lessons must be learned so that it never happens again?” With respect Matthew, by default it WILL keep happening happening because humans are fallible.
All the H&S brigade has done is to find and invented ways to cash-in on our fallibility.
Tripping over one of those stupid flimsy yellow floor cleaning signs and cracking open one’s head on a hard floor is just as dangerous as climbing into an F1 car.
As always Joe, the voice of reason.
That’s true only if you think the *rule* about driving under double-yellows should be completely unenforced… which Joe appears to think it should be… it’s some kind of macabre experiment to see if racing drivers will go slower than the FIA requires just because Joe thinks they should… all of which seems entirely nuts to me…
“People die while skiing and hiking, therefore F1 drivers shouldn’t be subject to any rules whatsoever.”
Next up: “People die in bathtubs, so therefore installing seat-belts in cars should be optional.”
That’s ‘health and safety fans’ who don’t think it was a good idea to have a tractor in a run-off areas of 140 mph corners in heavy rain with no safety car. I prefer the term ‘common sense’ fans. I listened to a report yesterday which mentioned that a large number of those that trek in Annapurna are not aware of the risks and therefore proper regulation of the companies offering these trips may be in order. So yes, some are asking why these people weren’t protected. In a free country you can decide to go trekking wherever you want and lose yourself in the wilderness. That’s your right and freedom. An example of this is the story of Christopher McCandless. However, again I think the analogy between some unlucky holiday trekkers and the Bianchi accident is a weak one. Formula One is one of the richest sports in the world, run by a governing body that is supposedly obsessed with safety, shown to a global TV audience in the many millions. So we should be able to expect that the decision making of the regulators and safety procedures involved are as good as they can be.
Tim, I agree with you that many people looking for extreme adventure trips do not understand the dangers. How can you be sure though that “proper” regulation governs the people offering this type of trip? Whatever regulation in place will be subject to so many outside factors that you are still taking risk by going on an extreme trip. Regulation alone cannot provide an answer to all situations.
Joe offers a simple, thought provoking question, as I understood it anyway:
Should the person having accepted to undertake great risk be completely immune from the consequences of danger simply because we don’t accept he was to blame for taking the risk in the first place?
I find it interesting that you use the term “common sense” as a preference to “health and safety” to describe what you call the “fans” who think an unacceptable mistake was made in Japan.
Joe has told us many times that the FIA has done great work on safety down the years. I don’t think we can dispute that. He also is certain that the FIA will take and are taking what happened in Suzuka with great concern and that the reactions will be based on professional and scientific outcomes to their research in order to advance safety generally. Often it has taken an unfortunate incident for change to be implemented – however obvious the cause of the incident was in hindsight.
If we think of the level of safety today, surely we should trust the FIA to keep doing what it has been doing for many years.
The FIA said it carried out the recovery of Sutil’s car according to normal procedure, why are we disputing that?
It’s understandable to be shocked by what we all saw. But we all have a different perspective on what we did see. To me Bianchi is no different to the alpinist who lost his life on a mountain doing something extreme. Both are taking risk. Should something bad occur, both will involve other people taking risk to save them. In terms of common sense, I’m not sure how you would compare for example my version of it, sat at home watching the action…, to that of the driver taking great risk and losing out due to a series of unfortunate circumstances combining to go against him.
I’m very sorry for Bianchi, it’s a terrible thing that’s happened. But he was doing what he wanted to.
When you have F1 cars hitting heavy metal objects that have entered the track, you have an obviously flawed procedure. Ask the drivers now how good an idea they think it is and see if you get approval or concern that change is required. In this safety era, drivers do not take to the track thinking there is a possibility of hitting removal equipment, they most likely assume the removal procedure is carried out competently and safely, in this case it wasn’t.
The blame rests with poor protocol standards that need to be fixed that Bianchi very, very unfortunately was the victim of. A ‘dropped’ safety barrier before removal work would have reduced the severity of what happened. It’s a shame no one had the forsight to realize the blatant existing hazard. Whats been pointed out here is that track safety & procedures are the lagging component in safety where there is still plenty of work to be done, multiple venues with changing marshalling personnel present serious challenges to set and maintain protocol standards.
The normal procedures are flawed. To take the view that it is undesirable for the chance of out of control F1 cars to hit tractors is not hindsight. We had exactly the same situation, in the same spot, 20 years before and nothing was learnt. I am sure people were saying things to the effect of ‘shit happens’ in the Fifties and Sixties when driver deaths were a regular occurence. It took the determination of people like JYS to change the paradigm. To say it’s a dangerous sport and that he was doing what he loved is fatuous. And no matter what comes out of the investigation I will bet a considerable sum that we don’t see many tractors without a safety car in the future.
See my previous comment. By the way,I think you will lose your bet.
We won’t see them on the outside of fast corners with limited run-off in wet conditions no matter what else is implemented
I would not be so sure.
And they are. And I’m fed of saying it. F1 is a dangerous sport, that’s part of it’s draw. The FIA for all it’s faults have been extraordinary when it comes to safety.
‘Health and Safety fans’ who don’t think it was a good idea to have a tractor in a run-off area of 140mph corners do not know the first thing about racing. I’m sorry, but you don’t.
F1 is a dangerous sport made far safer by people that deemed standards unacceptable and ACTED to improve them. There couldn’t be 2 cranes waiting in the corner? The first drops a pre-loaded safety barrier as the car is being hooked up to the second crane for removal.
If you are going to give up and make the blanket statement F1 is a dangerous sport accept it, you would still have infernos(fuel bladders), broken necks(HANS) multple fatalities(Monocoque crash survival cell)
Perhaps the confidence given to the drivers because of all these innovations actually enhances the racing, ask the old F1 racers of the seveties if they would take the level of risks the modern drivers do and you may find out who knows what about ‘the first thing about racing’ They died very easily when things went wrong, that’s why changes were implemented.
Say hello to evolution and thank you to Sid Watkins & team, Max Mosley and Bernie (whom could not televise carnage) for implementing a safety campaign that is a work in progress and should not be complacent.
You make some very good points which I agree with – I have to admit when I posted the previous comment I was just a bit fed up.
Of course I agree that the evolution of safety is a good thing, and that’s the point I’m trying to make really, that the FIA have done a fantastic job over the years.
What I’m fed up with is people who don’t know racing, and have never taken part in a race meeting or just ‘watch the odd race’ who are now apparently massive experts on safety. Evolution of safety is good – analysing an accident and learning from the incident is a slow, controlled and scientific manner is the way to go – I like your suggestion about the second tractor with the barrier – though the arguments against that would be it would increase significantly the time of response, and also, there would be two tractors to potentially hit. I’m not saying it’s wrong, just that it needs careful consideration, and I believe that’s what you are implying too. Not people who shout ‘everybody in the FIA’s an idiot, it SOOO obvious that shouldn’t have happened’ whenever there’s an accident.
It was the term ‘common sense fan’ that particularly riled me. It’s apparently common sense that there shouldn’t have been a tractor there – implying that the safety teams do not know what they’re doing. They do. They know more about it that any of us commenting on this blog do.
Evolution of safety, yes. Looking carefully at what can be improved, yes. Claiming that Bianchi’s accident occurred because there’s no ‘common sense’. Total rubbish.
PS. I’m still Pi**ed off about Kubica too…
If Bianchi had hit the barrier and sustained a similar injury to one he incurred (which is of course a significant possibility), then I’d agree with you. Of course by definition it’s a dangerous sport. It’s about how F1 manages and controls risks. If holding that opinion means I know nothing about racing then so be it.
Joe, perhaps all the air travel has affected your head. F1 is on worldwide TV, hiking and climbing from Nepal is not.
Perhaps you don’t understand the question. What is the difference between the mentality of the hikers and Jules Bianchi?
The difference in mentality is Jules is paid to drive, it’s his job. If he refused to drive because of the wet weather he risked his career. Last I checked, hiking was a recreational activity.
Everybody has choices. Everyone has free will, although some seem to think that this is not the case. Niki Lauda had the choice to race for the World Championship at Fuji in 1976 and chose not to. Emerson Fittipaldi had a choice to race in Spain in 1975 and chose not to. If you don’t want to take a risk, you don’t have to. Jules Bianchi is a racer. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that when a car goes off there are tractors used. He knew that double yellows means slow down and be prepared to stop. He took responsibility for his own actions. Unfortunately, fate resulted in him getting hurt. It is terribly sad, but trying to find someone to blame is not acceptable – in my opinion. The FIA does a lot of things wrong but when it comes to F1 safety, it has an amazing record of risk management. There are a lot of very clever and dedicated people who have worked to achieve this and it is scandalous that these people are attacked.
Joe, you make it sound like Charlie may be in the cross hairs.
There are political games in all things
‘It is terribly sad, but trying to find someone to blame is not acceptable – in my opinion.’
Humans love to point fingers at accidents and say – there’s you’re answer! It does not matter if the opinion is correct or not. Perhaps its our fear of death – a death that can come too early and can reach out anywhere and touch us. There is this great need to figure out the *why* in regards to death. My friend sees death on a daily basis as a paramedic who covers one of the busiest highways in the world, (500K cars per day and 15,000 collisions a year). The human condition in his opinion is to find blame – which gives us a ‘reason’ why someone dies. We have to have a reason you see. Death can’t happen because we are unlucky, or stupid or unskillful. Of course all of this excludes the legal community as blame is their job security. My friend once had a dispatch to a park – a senior sitting on a park bench was hit and killed by lightning. He later found out that the mans family was suing the City saying the placement of the bench under trees led to his death because the City should have known that lightning can strike trees and then glance off towards the bench near it. Now here the City thought it was being kind to people, keeping them out of cancer causing sunlight which is why the bench wasn’t located in the open area. ‘More then enough blame to go around…’ It’s actually a silly term invented by the legal community – sort of like the term, ‘over-kill’. Shakespeare had it right about lawyers. Well, all except mine if he’s reading this.:)
I disagree, drivers would drive without pay, they are lucky enough to be paid. I would bet there would be many people out in this world who would race a F1 car for nothing if you gave them the opportunity.
Jules Bianchi would have jumped into that Marussia at Suzuka without hesitation regardless of if he was getting paid or not.
A smart driver would always abandon a race he thinks is too dangerous, even if he were to lose the title by one point as a result. However not every driver is so smart.
Absolutely. Racers are racers. Climbers are climbers. They are the same. They always think that the extraordinary will always happen to someone else.
“What is the difference between the mentality of the hikers and Jules Bianchi?”
Is there a multi-billion dollar machine pressuring hikers to walk as fast as they can (not a reference to any Marussia allegation, btw)?
Read some of the other comments related to this topic and see that perspective is required.
Drivers are “pressured” into going fast? News to me! I thought that’s why they did it?
I doubt the hikers had the pressure from a multi-million dollar corporation influencing their judgement.
Read my comment re: Lauda and Fittipaldi
This!
Steve Edwards
Going for a hike in the alps, does not gain worldwide television audiences, nor does it belong to a circus that can make millions for those that run it in advertising and promotion. Bad publicity is not good for a company brand if your part of that tragedy!….except if your CVC it Seems!!
The “new” exposure to the dangers of motor racing, show how far the sport has moved from the true racing fan, who wold be well aware of the dangers of the sport, to the media fan that joins the party when ever it gets interesting!
Wonder why the audience for F1 is diminishing?, its because the true fans/ spectators have been driven out of it,,, forgive the pun!
What is a ‘True’ racing fan?
‘True’ racing fans want to see drivers injured due to weak/flawed car removal protocols? Hitting a crane has nothing to do with racing unless moving obstacles is a new feature in GP racing? Pretty sure it’s not.
There’s a clue in your Byline Andrew….Robert Kubica didn’t want to nearly get killed in a rally, he didn’t expect to get nearly killed, he’s not happy that it has ended his F1 career, but…he is still rallying, getting experience, showing tremendous speed, and could easily end up as a WRC winner and WRC Champ, if he perseveres with the sport. Kubica is a racer, and nothing would put him off his sport, he knows that something can go wrong, it did for him, but he has been able to at least continue with rallying.
Oh, ok, is it now CVCs fault? The list is growing.
Not sure there’s much of a difference. For the most part, climbers wear as much protective and survival gear as possible, without adding to the dangers. They take extreme care to avoid these sort of issues. And believe me, these instances cause massive outcries within the community. There’s still tangible anger over what happened on K2 a few years back, where a lot of questions still need answers.
Same should be the case in Motorsport, and usually is in the case of F1. Get rid of the risk as far as possible without making things worse. I don’t think it’s fair to call this a freak, unpredictable event. The question is – did F1 minimise its risk to a reasonable level.
I think they did, personally. Getting cars out of there as quickly as possible is probably better than leaving them for five laps. But these sort of odds can and should be calculated. And we should be right to ask if they were.
If not for the drivers, (I’m sympathetic to the view that it’s their look out) then definitely for the marshals.
Someone else made the point that an F1 car hitting a stationary F1 car rather than the crane would actually have been safer, which was a good point. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing and something so counter intuitive would never be considered. The net result is, there is a flaw, the outcome was unacceptable and we must do better, hopefully that’s the case.
@Andrew
Oh, I’m sure hitting a stationary car would have been safer than a crane when a car crashes into them. That’s not so much hindsight as obvious, I’d have thought – Martin Brundle’s been screaming from the rooftop about that for decades.
It’s a question of how long each hazard exists for: whether having a crane & car in a gravel trap for just one lap is less risky *overall* than having a car in the gravel trap but for multiple laps.
But I’m pretty certain this would have been considered mathematically when they made their protocols. Aspects like that usually are when it comes to F1 safety in the modern era.
We may well find the existing protocols are the optimal ones. It wouldn’t surprise me if the changes brought in are relatively minimal.
Andrew, it’s not as simple as hitting a car versus hitting a tractor, you need to multiply in the time available for the accident to happen in. The tractor would only have been out there a bare few minutes to — unfortunately time enough in this case. Leaving Sutil’s car out there til the end, it would have been out there at risk of being hit for many times longer.
To clarify my just-previous comment, it’s about the sum of the risks of:
a few minutes times (hitting car vs hitting tractor)
plus
many minutes times (hitting car vs hitting tire wall)
…which all varies over the surface conditions and the speed at which the site is passed.
I remember the dumbs down for Indycar, whom send out a safety car for a small piece of debris or whatever…
Now those same people have turned into “Safety” -yellers? If it’s so dangerous, don’t watch the races then.
Instead of “Americanising” the Formula One with SC all over…
Why? Sensationalism sells.
One is in a more controlled environment than the other. Mentality wise, they are both similar in a sense that they must be prepared to accept that fatal accident could happen.
I can think of several gigantic holes in this bizarre, illogical argument:
1. Motorsport fans are not aware of what happens in climbing because they do not follow climbing, nor is that even a sport, nevermind one with a worldwide audience and with a responsibility to do their utmost to avoid live broadcasts of serious injuries and deaths.
2. Moreover, just because drivers willingly take part on what they know is a potentially dangerous activity, doesn’t excuse the people in charge of the safety of the event from doing their job properly to minimize those risks.
3. Not to mention there is a huge difference between the calculated risk of doing some climbing on your own in the middle of nowhere, and taking part in a sporting event that’s in a largely contained controlled environment (credit to Whiting and co for making it a much more controlled environment over the years, yes – and credit to him for the proposed changes for the coming races such as speed limits, which sound appropriate. All of that is not under question).
4. I also find it incredibly distasteful that you’re bringing the mathematics of the number of bodies into this, and by the way for me a key issue has always been that instead of “just” 1 seriously injured driver, we could’ve easily had several deceased marshalls.
So no, I’m not going to shut up that the damn safety car should’ve been out, and I find it utterly unacceptable that the argument of “Bianchi knew the risks” is being used to cover up this obvious bad call and the element of responsibility attached to it.
You need to understand the question, before you answer. You’ve answered the wrong question.
I think many previous posters have helped answer the question. There are quite a few differences between trekking in the Himalayas and competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship.
You have argued from the start in favour of what I call the “health and safety” philosophy, which is the modern way of dealing with risk. This means that every rung of a step ladder needs a written warning of the dangers involved. That is fine if that is what you want. Racing people and those who climb mountains, ride horses, base jump and so on, do what they do because they like doing it. They accept the risk involved and they do not want to be chased around by people with clipboards telling them what they can and cannot do. This is the essence of the discussion and the differences you mention are not relevant to the argument. It is simply a question of mentality. We will never agree so we should simply accept that fact and you can live in your safe world and the racers and mountain climbers will live in the dangerous one.
How is the content of your comment different from what they said to Jackie Stewart when he wanted F1 cars to hit armco instead of trees and stone houses?
There is a very clear difference: in those days there was unacceptable risk and easy solutions to the problems, as you mention. I am not arguing that safety measures are wrong, I am arguing that what we gave now is the best that we can have. Of course one can always improve if there is a better solution, but no one has yet come up with a better solution: not the experts at the FIA nor the commenters on this blog. Thus, the racers accept that what is being done is the best solution and get on with it. I am arguing that this is their right. If you don’t want to live that kind of life then you can avoid risks and live in a world of health and safety but you may still get hit by a bus or a stray bullet.
I agree with you about safety cars and tractors. I also agree that F1 has done an excellent job of addressing safety… in general. The *only* thing I don’t understand is how anyone can defend the established pattern of permitting drivers-as-a-group to effectively ignore the existing rule about double-yellows.
This very specific practice of selectively ignoring the established rules is an isolated-but-consistent aberration which is inconsistent with the otherwise excellent job that F1 has done post-Senna.
Claiming that wanting the *existing rule* to be enforced (just as other rules are enforced) is somehow wanting a nanny state is nonsensical and pejorative. Because I wear big-boy pants, I don’t care about the pejorative aspect… but I do care about the nonsensical part of it.
Well put noikeee
Climbing’s not a sport? News to me. By your definition a sport must have spectators, so here are a few ‘non’ sports enjoyed by amateurs without an audience:
Soccer
Golf
Autocross
Climbing
Skydiving
Swimming
Running
Volleyball
Bowls
etc etc.
I would imagine there are discussions at all kinds of levels, including forums, in the aftermath of what has happened in Nepal. Some of it will be knee-jerk and some of it will be considered. It won’t change that fact that some people who follow F1 opine that JCB on track = automatic safety car or virtual safety car, and have felt this way for decades.
Nor will it change the findings of an FIA investigation.
Indeed, but your position seems to be the *every* ‘fan’ who thinks the FIA could of prevented what happened to Bianchi is being knee-jerked or is using hindsight. Now we are ‘making a fuss’. I don’t think every fan is doing that, you are unfairly lumping us together.
The argument that an SC was not needed was spectacularly proved wrong, and there was even precedent in the same corner. I was nervous the moment that tractor lumbered on to the track confines, yet Mr Whiting did nothing and I think it is only right to want to know why rather than just (yet again) blame the driver.
There is a clear difference in philosophy of different people. There are some who have the “health and safety” philosophy, which is the modern way of dealing with risk. This means that every rung of a step ladder needs a written warning of the dangers involved in putting a foot on it. That is fine if that is what you want. Racing people and those who climb mountains, ride horses, base jump and so on, do what they do because they like doing it. They accept the risk involved and they do not want to be chased around by people with clipboards telling them what they can and cannot do. This is the essence of the discussion. It is simply a question of mentality. The use of tractors has been discussed at length on this blog and as no-one has yet come up with a better solution I think we must accept that there is not one.
I totally understand what you mean Joe, the whole H&S ‘clipboard’ thing has gotten out of hand, and yes some fans/media types/ex-drivers have wrung their hands and with perfect hindsight called for change. They have made a fuss, they have banged on.
But at the same time there are those who have been uneasy about the tractors ever since they started to be used prominently. There have been near-misses. It seems the FIA have finally gotten on board. The virtual safety car, which would also possibly fix Mr Whiting’s inability to gauge how long it should stay out (possibly a reason for hesitating to deploy it), looks like it will be happening.
I agree we still need to see the drivers taking risks. When they go wheel-to-wheel it is still a sight to see, and we must not lose that. You imply that this is a complex and nuanced situation and you are of course correct, but you must allow that some mere fans can be nuanced, the terms you throw around do not apply to all of us.
I suppose we should be grateful the ‘clipboard’ types are not calling for more. Had Bianchi died trackside then one can imagine there would be calls to ban racing in the rain, chicanes up the wazoo and lord knows what else.
Eahorc Onfb> But at the same time there are those who have been uneasy about the tractors ever since they started to be used prominently.
Martin Brundle, in particular, has always been a vocal critic of the tractors, ever since he nearly hit one in almost the same spot 20 years ago…
And does he have a better answer?
His answer would probably be to throw a safety car every time one is used.
There’s a big difference between the two. The hikers were killed by an act of nature. Totally unpreventable. Bianchi was not killed by an act of nature, but in a set of circumstance that were engineered by humans. So the question can be asked in Bianchi’s case – were the correct decisions made? Was the accident avoidable?
Sorry but why were the climbers walking where they were walking? Their route was “engineered by humans”. A decision was taken to take that route.
For the rest, read my recent reply to Tim Urqhuart re: Health and Safety
But the road didn’t fail and killed them. Also, nobody put the snow there.
I think you may have missed the point here.
Simple Joe, they were killed by the forces of nature, and not a tractor hitting them on the head.
And therein lies the problem. If you don’t even know what caused Bianchi’s injuries, how on earth do you think that you are in a position to judge anything?
I may be wrong, but to my knowledge Bianchi’s accident was caused by the cars roll bar hitting the underside of the tractor, causing a violent and sudden deceleration, and not by a frontal impact of the cars crumple zone.I’m also quite dismayed by some of the unnecessary attack on many contributors to this blog who simply voiced their concerns as to the use of tractors at track side.Only to be castigated as ‘not true fans’,or ‘against dangerous sports’,etc.
I’ve be a fan of Formula one for longer I suspect then most people writing on this blog.I’ve also attended many races. Do I need to be an expert, in order to express my opinion on this matter?,no.My only wish is that the people in charge of track side safety, will keep an open mind, with a view to finding a better solution to the ‘tractor’, in the future. It was never my intention to blame anyone for Jules’s unfortunate accident, because we all make mistakes, and hindsight is a wonderful thing,
I am quite happy to let people have their say if they are not rude or disrespectful. I allow pretty much everything – even the most stupid comments – through. I am not castigating anyone. I am explaining the view of the racers and the distaste that exists for the worth of health and safety where free will is discouraged and no-one is ever responsible for their own actions. The last time I looked this was my blog so I think I am allowed to express my opinions.
I’ve certainly never found the need to be rude on this or any other forum, in order to express my opinion,and I was not suggesting that you were either.But I certainly keep an open mind regarding health and safety. This does not compromise my love of dangerous sports, where the competitors risk their lives in their pursuit of success.
It seems to me that many people here who are fans, would not be able to spectate at Motorbike events, such as the TT or Ulster events. There, riders ride, they know the risk, and they calculate it. Guy Martin is pretty succinct about risk. You have been watching long enough, as have I, to understand that there is no such thing as a risk free racing situation, and either people can accept that or they should try watching tiddlywinks instead….although there is I guess, always the random chance of being struck in the eye at a tiddlywinks contest?
‘What exactly is the difference between taking risks on a race track and trekking in a dangerous place? ‘
There is no difference – incompetency is incompetency, neither tradgedy is acceptable. If you want to improve your odds of survival lets learn from previous error as no doubt better options are possible.
One is – The tireless pursuit of safety in a billion dollar sport that missed the glaringly obvious fact that Open cockpit cars at the height of knee level and heavy metal objects do not mix well. Yes, let’s accept that the driver possibly may not have slowed down sufficiently – the solution must cover these scenarios. It’s a predictable factor that drivers wil lose control of cars, often in the same area, PLAN FOR IT and change protocols to suit. A highly advanced sport filled with some of the best engineering minds on the planet will guaranteed find a better way. What surprises us common folk is how something that seems so obvious in retrospect was missed and is still present with all other massive safety strides.
The other – is not a billion dollar sport.
-But could no doubt do better reinvesting tourist/climber fees in equipment and protocols rather than having borderline Third world governments hoover the money for whatever or whom evers use. (Why is there always a crooked old guy behind every F**k up?)
F1 can and will do better, there’s too much grey matter in that sport for it not to.
(A metal crane coming on track we can do something about, it does get you thinking how riddled with risk and how much of a death trap the Monaco GP is though, that’s the next accident waiting to happen)
What also should be mentioned is all the accidents that did not occur due to prevention, which would be many and reflects how brilliantly change has been inplemented. It’s astounding to think a sport with humans travelling like missiles has the safety record it does.
Read my reply to Tim Urqhuart.
In 2010, 275,983 people were killed in road traffic accidents in China
In India, 243,475 people were killed on the road in 2011.
Judging by the state of the roads and the style of the driving, I’ll bet that many of the deaths could easily have been avoided.
Yet nobody even thinks about banning driving in these countries because of the sheer danger involved.
Maybe some of the H&S people need to put things into perspective.
There is a big difference. An avalanche is a natural event. These people were doing a risky activity, but the cause was from force of nature.
In Bianchi’s case… it was a sanctioned event, on a man-made track with a manned tractor inbounds.
The health and safety buzz is not only a matter of assigning blame, but also providing better safety for future events.
In Bianchi’s case, i don’t think the marshalls or FIA are to blame. They did everything according to established protocols. Freak accident, but Jules was pushing it too far. Tragic loss.
Read my recent reply to Tim Urqhuart and it is all explained.
You know, on Twitter there’s a guy I came across who tweeted something along the lines of “come on Charlie, get the bloody safety car in!” at the beginning of the race when the track was still soaking. Also worth noting, he didn’t tweet anything at the time of the Sutil crash about a safety car despite tweeting throughout the race…
But ever since the Bianchi accident he has done nothing but complain about safety in F1 and complained about the absence of a safety car plus the tractor.
It is a tragedy but we need to remember, not only is Motorsport dangerous for the drivers and marshals, each tickets says MOTORSPORT IS DANGEROUS.
There are all sorts of people on Twitter. One or two even know what they are talking about.
“What exactly is the difference between taking risks on a race track and trekking in a dangerous place?”
There is no difference. Are you therefore saying that race tracks should have no safety measures? There is a difference between accepted risk and risk mitigation. That’s why humans invented the helmet.
I’m not sure why you’re taking this all so personally Joe. I accept that the FIA does a supremely good job at keeping F1 safe. That does not mean that they are perfect. If the Bianchi accident improves safety even one iota, that will be a good thing. If you love the sport, you will want it to be as safe as possible for all involved. Sometimes it takes an accident to force improvement – that is the sad way of things.
I’m not taking it personally and I have no idea why you think that way. I am simply arguing that there are people, and maybe you are not one of them, who accept acceptable risk. That’s all. Don’t read into things, what is not there.
“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.” ― Ernest Hemingway
Correction: Hemingway’s saying was Bullfighting, Motor Racing, and Boxing.
I think that hikers are at the mercy of mother nature solely.
But a racing driver is at the mercy of human error COMBINED with manmade devices.
We are partly responsible for making it as safe as realistically possible. And in this case, for me, its about having a structure not designed to impact an F1 car present on track.
See my reply to Tim Urqhuart
Not really AV2290. Just yesterday I heard on the radio of a Czech experienced climber falling to his death because a clip on his harness failed. Material failure, design flaw, bad luck? So far no one knows. Its tragical.
But on the other hand, its the kind of risk mountaineers seek out by going in faraway places, and test their skill, strength, endurance and indeed their equipment against the mountain and the weather.
And that is the essence of it, for racing drivers as well.
If we neuture too much (some say the Himalayan experience is already far too much neutered, regulated and overpopulated by badly equipped “climbers”, apart from climbing the toughest mountains), it loses its thrill, the reason to do it (it would become a family entertainment park climb/drive/…)
Now, its clear that F1 will look again at solutions to help avoid a situation we had in Suzuka, and the accident of Bianchi. Better heeding of a speed limit is likely to be part of that (sure enough drivers will themselves feel more responsible to slow down more for a while), maybe things like mobile walls, more crane use where possilbe, even rethinking when and how to use the SC, timing of race starts etc.
In the Himalayas, analysis and a blame game is already taking place. It might lead to more mandatory weather reports before groups of tourists can go out there. Maybe mandatory sattelite phones (to track them?) and more required equipment. Which will make it more expensive and less attractive at the same time.
I do not see a fundamental difference between these two. Just a lot of details.
You’re missing my point. “material failure, design flaw”? I couldn’t find this story anywhere on the internet. Sounds like hearsay and conjecture.
So when a base jumper has a parachute failure it’s our responsibility to fix some moron’s great illegal idea to jump off of a bridge? And in most civilized countries, extreme climbing on the most difficult peaks is strictly “at your own risk” and sometimes even illegal. Can’t compare illegal activities to an internationally sanctioned live sporting event that is broadcast to and seen by hundreds of millions of people.
I understand that you can categorize race car driving as an extreme sport, a loose term which happens to encompass climbing, BASE jumping and other things.
But the problem here aren’t any of these pointless philosophical differences over categorization. It’s that Bianchi is in the physical condition he is because there was a structure on the track that an F1 car isn’t designed to hit. Simple as that.
I equate this more to an aircraft disaster, specifically those attributed to maintenance failure. American flight 191 is a great example of what I mean. The incorrect removal and reinstallation of the engines for expediting maintenance caused the damage to the airframe that caused the crash. Once that procedure was eliminated, the problem never happened again.
By the way, the devil is in the details.
Separate thought for the day: I know Joe has mentioned in the past about the number of feeder series leading into F1. Well, it looks like we’ve lost the best one. British F3 appears to be dead. A sad day (but not in the same sense as the Bianchi/hiker incidents, before anyone says it).The list of British F3 Champions includes Clark Stewart, Fittipaldi, Piquet, Senna and Hakkinen. 😦
You’re right, there is a lack of perspective. All parties concerned elected to do what they did, and therefore, in many respects were the cause of their own death.
What IS important for the FIA is an investigation into the accident. Not a witch-hunt, blame apportionment exercise, but they at least need to understand whether anything could have or should have been done differently. Accidents happen, not everything is someone’s fault, but it’s important to review and learn.
The trekkers are different, although the result is the same. There’s little control of the trekkers and none of the weather (a factor in each case). There’s not much to be learned other than don’t mess with the Himalayas when the weather is bad… But we knew that.
This is the downside of Internet discussion. Nearly everyone will pocess a strong opinion but far fewer will pocess the actual facts.
People will always look for something or someone to blame.
The good thing about F1 is that this accident will be methodically analysed behind closed doors by people who know what they are doing.
There is no single thing or person to blame in Jules accident. It was a horrible accident which came from a combination of circumstances which could not reasonably be predicted.
Clever people will learn from this and reduce the risk of it happening again.
Unfortunately people set on shouting from upon a pedestal will do nothing for the situation and simply spoil it for everyone else.
Joe while I agree with what you say I think it is still very wise to think of possible solutions for the same thing not to happen again. And not just forget it because motor racing is dangerous. We must be able to come up with something. I don’t know what but at least let us think about it.
There’s acceptable risk and unacceptable risk, and in my opinion a tractor on a race circuit is an unacceptable risk, and I am pretty certain that if this was a club or national race in the uk it would have been red flagged. F1 is full brilliant people, probably some of the best minds around, lets hope they don’t make a knee jerk reaction and they come up with a workable solution.
They have spent 10 years (probably longer) looking for one and they could not find one.
joe , am I correct in thinking that the results of the FIA investigation will be completely available to the public ?
because , as I see it , if bianchi hadn’t had a huge accident by scraping along the rear of the machine ,in it’s absence he would still have had an almost identical huge accident
every driver knows that if he slows dramatically in the double yellow zone he cannot be overtaken , limiting any time loss ; but as if seems to be against the nature of racing drivers to do this a speed limit seems to be the answer ; the no tractor on the track argument is , in my opinion , specious ; it’s worked well for a long time
This question was asked in Sochi. The answer was not they don’t know yet. I actually don’t see what the public has to do with it.
If a tractor was the only way of removing Sutil’s car – and Joe says there is no room for a crane behind the guard rails there – why not an automatic safety car if a car needs to be removed at that corner , Dunlop, and possibly also Degner where Brundle had his incident ?
Because a Safety Car was not required – in the opinion of the vastly-experience people in Race Control. I agree with them. If you watch the various bits of footage you will see that when Sutil crashed, Bianchi was just ahead of him on the road. This meant that in the time it took Bianchi to do another lap (about 1m55-ish) the job of removing the car was almost completed. Another 30 seconds and it would have been done. In that period there were double yellows in the sector and in the sector before it. The drivers had plenty of warning. Thus one has to ask why Bianchi was going as fast as he was going, even if he did slow down a little as Charlie Whiting indicated. The conditions were not hugely different from the previous lap. In the end you have to say that bringing out a safety car would have been too much. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight it is easy to say what should have been done but that is the nature of risk and those who accept it, accept the consequences.
Joe the the only difference is that F1 is televised and reported on around thne world ; therefore those that protest about F1 safety have a great deal of immediate easy exposure and can feel that they are “making a difference” by seeing their views endlessles quoted and spread.
As for treking in the mountainsit is a much more difficult issue it get your safety message across sinly because its so low profile in teh media ; so these evangalists will hit the easy target first.
And I’m also tempted to say (although I have no evidence) that a lot of the types of people who may have been jumping on the safety bandwaggon would do so because they dislike F1, its enironmental profile, its big money , international business links etc ; trekking in the mountains ban be portrated in contrast as much more “environmentally friendly” about engaing with local cultures and may indeed have a romantic side to the dangers since they are primarily seen as mother natures threats (despite the fact that most deaths will at thier root have human error or incompetance).
Logic has no place in this kind of ulterior motive debate where its not about numbers of deaths or of the steps taken to mitigate dangers or even the knowledge and acceptance of the risks by the participants….
Simply put a lot of people have it in for F1 and will take whatever stick is available to beat it.
There is a world of difference between a highly regulated elite sport and any amateur activity. There is a difference between the attitiude and expections of an F1 driver with regards to the dangers of his job to that of a base jumper or a free climber. Every aspect of F1 should be the best it can be and nobody should be above scrutiny, irrespective of how good their track record is or how much they may have contributed to the sport. I’m off to polish my hard hat and iron my high vis vests now.
You join the host of others who have missed the point. The comparison is not about whether or not there were specific dangers, but rather the mentality. The mentality is the same.
Time will tell as to the real reason behind Jules accident, but what about Felipe Massa’s accident some years ago?
He was following the Brawn driven by Rubens when a suspension spring, the weight of a bag of sugar, came loose and hit him in the head. A very nasty accident but who was culpable, was there any punishment or fines?
It all went a bit quiet…
Time will not tell the real reason for Jules’s accident. We already know it.
What did time tell us about Felipes accident, culpability and punishment…
Nothing
The difference is that f1 is on tv in living rooms. It all comes down to reasonable expectations. We’ve been trained for the last 20 years to expect that when we see an accident on tv that drivers survive. Like it or not this is the ‘new normal’ and an average Motorsport viewer now has a ‘reasonable expectation’ that when they sit down to be entertained on a Sunday, that they won’t be watching people die – drivers or spectators. For many in this century, when they hear that “Motorsport is dangerous”, it means bones may be broken – not death. After all, It doesn’t not say “Motorsport can be fatal” on the ticket.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but I do understand it – expectations have changed. What used to acceptable for those that lived through the 70s and 80s no longer applies. Similarly, we have a different expectation when we use YouTube or the internet in general, because we surf privately and if we come across a similar incident to Bianchi’s (or worse) we would not have a mismatch of expectations because, we expect to see that unfiltered kind of material. TV is now deemed a “safe” medium and the internet not. If you elect to broadcast on TV to a mass audience, then you are signing up for the norms that come with it and you can’t expect those norms won’t change over time. You can be grumpy about it, and point out that it wasn’t what was originally signed up for, but it wouldn’t be the first or last time that an older generation thought that the next generation were making things worse. Of course, we of older generation are probably wrong on balance when it comes to attitudes.
Come on Joe…To a degree, you’re taking this too far.
“I am simply arguing that there are people, and maybe you are not one of them, who accept acceptable risk.”
Crashing into a machine hauling away a car is not an “acceptable risk.” Accepting the limitations of the circuit at the start of the race might be considered as such, but we’ve seen this type of accident waiting to happen nearly every time it pours in F1. When safety equipment or safety personnel are on the track, the cars should be slowed for the safety of the common working man if for nothing else.
The further we go back in time, the more acceptable the risk. Why? Not because the pilots thought it acceptable…the money people thought it acceptable. Acceptable risk is the circuit at the start of the race. Anything that changes to that scene is not what that driver/son/husband/Dad agreed to when he hopped in that rocket ship.
The comparison is the mentality not the detail of the risk. I don’t see why so many people do not seem to understand that point. There are inherent dangers in climbing mountains, including unexpected weather, and there are inherent risks in getting in a racing car. The people who embark in both activities accept the risks involved. If they do not accept the risks they stay at home and write warning messages to be put on step ladders.
If I might be allowed to put in a word on behalf of the health and safety brigade. There is a big difference between undertaking an activity with known risk and undertaking one in ignorance.
It’s not as if this trekkers were undertaking the suicidal south face ascent of K2. They were involved in gentle trekking holidays in the Himalayas. The tragedy is that there is no long range weather forecast for this section of the range, so either it will now be addressed or trekkers might find great difficulty getting travel insurance for future trips. The other thing of note is the questionable duty of care being offered by the Nepalese authorities but I suspect they worship at the throne of the almighty Green Back. But yes, I agree that it is a much worse tragedy simply because the participants DID NOT know the risks.
Why did they not know the risks. The weather has almost certainly done this before.
The FIA will go over it all and decide if any change is needed .
It’s not a common thing , to have a car hit a tractor . I’ve never seen it before .
While it isn’t unreasonable to have drivers issued a speed limit , something like this happening is likely to have somewhat the same effect .
We haven’t had any serious injury in the last few years to remind all of the dangers involved .
At the same time , it is this “flirting with danger” that makes the sport exciting , for both the driver and the fan .
The “gladatorial” role that these drivers accept , and that we accept as well , comes with the distinct possibility that they will die . It is part of the draw .
Like it or not , it is reality .
Like years ago , when the third turn in Brasil had many cars aquaplane off toward the barriers across a mid-turn river during a downpour , they looked logically at the situation and added drainage .
I don’t recall any track designers , engineers , or pavement technicians being pilloried for not getting it right .
My hope here , is that they will see that having a yellow zone start mid-corner is not appropriate .
But , I have no desire to see whomever thought it was , to be punished .
Joe, I appreciate your point about people looking for heads to roll when something tragic happens in an inherently dangerous activity. However, I think your comparison doesn’t really work for a number of reasons. Firstly, the dangers on a race track are pretty much calculated in precise terms, though 100% security can never be assured. The Himalayas are a different proposition altogether, the number and category of risks being pretty much incalculable to any truly significant degree.
Secondly, one shouldn’t think that people are not held to account in these Himalayan tragedies. They are. The death of the 16 sherpas earlier this year caused a huge outcry, and among the targets of the search for accountability are the politicians and social welfare officials in Nepal who allow sherpas to work for a pittance without enforcing proper insurance; as well as the companies “selling the summit”, taking inexperienced people to the summit of Everest in unacceptably high numbers – when accidents happen an ever-increasing number of people get killed in a single incident. The analogy would be if there were 60 cars on a F1 circuit.
Thirdly, a distinction must be made between trekkers and climbers. Climbers are like F1 drivers, they know the risks, they take the risks, they calculate them, and they are experienced in survival. Trekkers are more like spectators at a GP. It is the trekking companies that must be scrutinised, and just as the race track owner must protect the paying public, so must the trekking companies demonstrate that they have done due diligence in the matter of protecting their clients in an inherently dangerous environment.
I was a professional trek leader in Nepal in the 70s, and subsequently lived for several years in the Namche Bazar area: I was a member of the Himalayan Rescue Association, and participated in the establishment of a compression chamber at Pheriche, close to Everest Base Camp – and I saw a lot of irresponsible behaviour both by individual trekkers and the organising companies. This was a long time ago, and I have no idea what the situation is today – though I do see that the numbers of people at risk have grown exponentially. And I do think that where errors of judgement or of organisation are made – then yes, heads should roll. Just as in F1.
This having been said, it seems on the evidence adduced so far, that both the latest tragedy in Mustang – caused by freak weather conditions – and Jules Bianchi’s accident are probably “acts of god”. But don’t assume that there will not be as many critics of the handling of the Nepalese disaster, as there are of the Bianchi incident. The blame game has in fact already started.
The comparison is of the mentality of those involved not the circumstances. I don’t think it is hard to understand that but people seem to be fixated on arguing that the mountaineers did not run into snowploughs etc etc
I think I did get your point. You ask the question: “What exactly is the difference between taking risks on a race track and trekking in a dangerous place?”, and I have tried to answer.
A driver on a race track is a paid professional, who is highly educated in the risks involved on the race track – even if unforeseen risks occasionally/rarely occur. A trekker is an ordinary Joe (pun intended!) who has bought a ticket for an experience for which he has only the most general appreciation of the risks he runs. It is up to the trekking company to protect him.
You also make the point: “This is terribly sad, FIFTY-FIVE lives lost, but I don’t hear anyone crying scandal or looking for someone to blame.”
I am not being offensive, but I think you cannot be listening very hard. There is a huge amount of media attention on this, and you can be certain that people are crying scandal and looking for people to blame. Just as people in the F1 community have their attention very focused on the Bianchi crash, so do people in the mountaineering/trekking community have their attention highly focused on the tragedy in the Himalayas. Having been in that business as I mentioned before, I could offer an analysis of much that I suspect to be wrong in that world – but this is a F1 forum…..
I think what bothers most people is the recovery vehicle. An avalanche can’t be taken from the equation of mountaineering,If it could then yes we should fuss about it.allowing people to take risks and putting them in danger is a balance and contrast idea.
See my reply to others who did not understand the comparison.
What’s the difference Joe? As Sherlock Holmes would say “Elimentary my dear Saward! Exposure and money. You don’t have one billion people turning on their TVs to watch mountain climbers and you don’t have billions of dollars, pounds, and euros spent by all sorts of major, world wide corporations either. In Grand Prix racing you do however and there lies your answers”
Why is it so hard for people to understand that I am talking about the mentality of the people involved not whether a snowplough fell on this heads.
Yes, and the ultimate irony of Michael Shumacher of course, nowhere near a circuit when he had his tragic accident. Does it stop people skiing? I doubt it.
I have had perhaps more than my fair share of friends who have been lost or badly injured in car or other accidents. I can’t think of a single case in which the accident itself wasn’t the result of factors which, when listed, seemed implausible in their perfect timing. And you can look back, point at something, and see that could have might have should be changed. We can all go at any time. I trust F1 will evaluate this and make sensible changes to their procedures.
Joe as always a balanced reply, life is not fair but it is what we have
“What exactly is the difference between taking risks on a race track and trekking in a dangerous place?”
Millions of people tune in to watch F1, they don’t expect to see people being killed or seriously injured in front of their eyes, that is not entertainment. At least not for ‘right-minded’ people.
How many deaths or serious injuries is acceptable?
Oh dear, I suppose you think we have to put an X certificate on F1 coverage.
No, but I think the sport should be made safer where possible.
Joe, I think the clue might just be in the ” fantasy ” part….
It´s hard to compare. Trekking into the Himalaya simply is far more dangerous than driving a F1 car. If you take risks in such an area, if something goes wrong up there you step into something unpredictable. Sometimes bad weather is enough. The death toll speaks for itself, if it was K2 1986, Mount Everest 1996 or now. It is a gamble with numerous unknowns, whereas the risks in modern F1 are minimized thanks to constant safety improvents. Of course both groups are responsible for themselves at the end when they take such risks and should be aware of it, but concerning the trekkers they have no blessings of modern safety equipment like guardrails, run-off areas or gravel beds if something goes wrong. So I think you rather have to be victim of circumstances in F1 if you have such a freak accident like Bianchi, it was the big accident many people were predicting it could happen one day (I remember Niki Lauda saying it constantly over the years), whereas the next Himalaya catastrophy sadly is only a matter of time…..
Furthermore, the most vulnerable part of an open wheel driver is the head; we`ve had our shares of near misses (Wurz, Alonso, Massa); obviously it was not the genuine reason in the Bianchi accident as he suffered from 92g impact, but a closed cockpit would help to improve safety in such cases much more than talks about yellow flags or “no tractors”. I appreciate it being discussed.
Third, JM Balestre quoted in 1986, how many mountaineers have died that year on Montblanc in total obscurity, but a dead in F1 automatically hits the covers of the magazines. In Austrian radio broadcasting that day, the Bianchi accident was the third item after Syria and Ukraine. So it´s the other side of the coin.
It’s already in the public domain that Jules Bianchi’s injuries were cause by deceleration forces beyond the capacity of the human body to absorb without permanent damage.
Motor sport is well aware of the dangers to the human body created by excessive deceleration forces, hence crumple zones in monocoques, tyre walls, etc.
To permit an object lacking any form of energy-absorbing structure (the tractor) to encroach beyond the layer of protection seems cavalier, especially as a number of prominent and respectable figures in motor racing had raised this issue numerous times.
A solution will be found to the problem of removing damaged cars from trackside. It’s a pity it took the maiming of one driver to encourage those who will solve this problem to devote their time, energy and intellect to find the solution.
This has NOTHING to do with mountaineering, and everything to do with determining who permitted an entirely pointless and completely predictable accident to occur, and how recurrence may be prevented in the future.
The point, which you seem to have missed, is about the attitude of the participants.
The tractor slowed the car dramatically but did not stop it. The question no-one seems to be asking is if it had not been there and the barriers were intact would the deceleration distance have been far shorter thus leading to an even more severe axonal injury.
The trajectory would have led to him hitting a tyre wall at an oblique angle in the escape road. This would likely have stopped him without any drama.
Clarification appreciated.
In cases like these I prefer supposition as opposed to accusation. Regrettably, Internet World is awash with the latter.
reminds me of what hemingway said about sport and games
I have to say there is one particular thing about the discussions regarding F1 safety following Jules Bianchi’s accident which really bothers me; that is the number of people who seem to think the issue was having a tractor on the “wrong” side of the barriers.
The problem was that a car left the track under double waved yellow flags. That he hit a tractor instead of a group of marshals was a blessing. I think even Jules himself, despite his tragic circumstances would agree with that sentiment.
Totally irrelevant unless they walked into a snowplow.
Understand the question before giving an answer
I agree!
Joe not to forget the 56 climbers that died when that volcano erupted in Japan last month. I always shuddered when I saw those diggers retrieving cars on race tracks the world over and the inevitable has now happened.
Just as an observation, I’ve seen *loads* of discussion in the papers about whether appropriate safety precautions were taken in Nepal.
While I agree that Motorsport is and will always be risky, we do have a moral responsibility to at least think about whether reductions to risk of serious injury or death can be achieved. That doesn’t mean we need to flap around panicking or considering banning the sport.
‘What exactly is the difference between taking risks on a race track and trekking in a dangerous place?’ Are you asking because you don’t know or to stir up debate…?
Being involved in both ‘activities’ I’d say there is a lot of difference. I don’t go trecking (hiking, rambling etc) to be the best, the fastest, for adrenalin. It is not competitive other than against yourself. I’ve been in situations where I’ve thought ‘hmm this is a bit too risky’ and simply turned back or taken an easier route. No shame in that. No live TV audience, no sponsors, no factory of staff watching, so the pressure levels are very different.
The tragedy in Nepal was on a walking trail (not a rockface) at what is traditinally the best time of year for weather conditions. Changing weather conditions are dificult to communicate in remote mountain areas, unlike at an F1 event.
In short, the mindset between the two is very different. You must know that otherwise you’d just be ‘spouting forth’ on a subject you know little about.
You still accept the risks in both activities
Accept the risks, and LEARN from them to reduce future risks.
Ok, I’m finally going to put my two penn’orth in. I have been watching motor racing since 1957, and live GPs at circuits and on TV since ’64. I have also raced historic racing cars, and until recently held an international racing licence.
Joe is absolutely right, the attitude of the participants is the key thing.
I raced a Cooper single seater from 1960, that basically consisted of 4 main chassis tubes, with non structural fibreglass bodywork and a simple aluminium fuel tank under my arm. The period rollover bar came halfway up my helmet. I felt that I should keep the car as close to original spec. as possible (the guy who bought the car from me has had it fitted with a very large rollover bar (which I think looks awful), but will no doubt feel he is safer. I never felt any inhibitions due to the structure of the car.
I once raced at a meeting in Phoenix Park inDublin (post 2000) on closed roads, with the supposed 100,000 spectators ( free entry) kept back from the track (a reasonable distance, I have to say) by Arris fencing (the type often used temporarily around building sites). On our inspection drive round the track in road cars, we noted that the whole track was surrounded by grass, and a lot of quite large trees. The only armco was one short length protecting a tree that was immediately at the edge of the track. The marshals posts, at this temporary circuit, were skips (dumpsters) in which the marshals sheltered. A couple of the guys said “Wow, that looks bloody dangerous, I’m not sure I’m going to race”. Then we had the drivers’ briefing, at which we were told that there were deer in the park, and if we saw one on the circuit, we should not swerve, as this would be safer.
Did we race, yes, of course, all of us did, twice, and we had a great time. We knew the risks, and still did it. Would I do it again – you bet! Would I do it if they were going to remove stationary cars using unshielded tractors under yellow flags – of course. If I raced knowing these things, would I believe and ask my family to believe that had had chosen to do it and to accept any accidents as my choice, would I do it – yes. Would I ride a motorcycle on public roads – no, in my view, it’s too dangerous. My choices, my risks.
Joe, having read the article and your responses I fully accept the premise of what you wanted to highlight – that the participants in both DO know and accept the risks involved.
However, I must say the meaning wasn’t clear to me from the article alone!
Many people are expressing in their less-articulate-than-you ways, that they feel at least some aspect of the accident’s severity was avoidable.
Why this unease? Well, to look at it in an abstract way, it would be odd – even to someone who accepts the risk of motorsport – if every few metres along each crash barrier the organisers installed large immovable pieces of steel at head height.
It would be odd because it would be a bit dubious safety-wise. I think this is what’s niggling people. Some commentators have gone too far with the knee-jerks, but nonetheless it’s possible to highlight that large metal objects in the path of cars might be something worth avoiding in future, without being part of the ‘health and safety brigade’.
I’m also more than happy that the FIA and related people take this point seriously, and are looking at improvements.
Hi Joe, thanks for asking our view. I think I know the answer to your original question.
In the F1 accident, it happened in an environment where all elements except one (whether) were under human control ( a few organisations and people including the drivers). The only element that can’t be controlled I’d monitored and forecasted in real time. In such an environment you’re bound to question if something could have been done differently. Because it was purposely being shared with a large audience that’s encourage to engage, you are bound to have a lot of “engagement” in terms of views on what needs to be done
In the Nepal accident, many of the elements are under no ones controlled, there’s no overarching governance, and very little media exposure. The same questions will/should be asked but the likelihood of achieving a successful outcome in loosely controlled environment are much smaller, which also contributes to lower engagement in the discussions at all levels
There’s my answer to your question. Thanks for asking