There is a bit of chat today resulting from some remarks made by Kimi Raikkonen during an interview recorded in Canada with Jean Alesi for France’s Canal+. The Finn said F1 should be made more dangerous. Later in the weekend he stood in front of the FIA’s banners proclaiming Action for Road Safety after qualifying for the Canadian GP. Clearly the mixed messages highlight the conflict of interest that exists between the road safety ambitions of the FIA and safety in the sport, which more or less forces the federation to make racing as safe as possible. The FIA has done much to improve safety in the top championships but there is rarely a week that passes when there is not some nasty accident in the minor forms of racing and rallying, over which the FIA has nominal control through its member clubs. Surely before going out and trying to tell the world how to behave on the roads, it would be wise for the FIA to get its house in order rather more at the lower levels of the sport.
The road safety lobby is made up of hundreds of government bodies and NGOs and international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organisation and it is unnecessary for the FIA to be involved, not least because it is viewed by the road safety lobby as being an apologist for the motor industry. Perhaps it is better to let the do-gooders do good and let the racers be the bad boys.
joeblogsf1 
Kimi has a point to the extent that all of the tarmac run off is reducing the price of a mistake. Speaking to non-F1 fans, their opinions recently are that there are no crashes/punished errors. Coupled with better reliability it means that there are many high speed processions.
Maybe Caesar’s Palace were ahead of their time running the race in their car park?
Ironically Kimi usually is the biggest user of this run off!
Joe as someone who competed in hill climb championships both UK and European for many years in single seat cars (F2 and F3000), there is no way that these can be made “safe” for participants. A narrow road running between trees or as in case of some in Europe, with huge drop offs at the edge, cannot be made safe for cars travelling at 150 MPH or more. Any attempt to do so would kill the events, as has happened with the Brighton Speed Trials, which has been emasculated to a travesty of its original version, at the insistence of the local Green Party run council, who actually wanted to cancel it completely.
People who participate in motor sports assess the risks and accept them. The Isle of Man TT races are a perfect example of this as is historic car racing, where I used to race without roll cages/bars or seat belts. I accept that spectators should be protected more or controlled better and idiots who do things like lying in the middle of the road to get a better picture of a rally car approaching at over 100MPH should be put in prison for reckless endangerment but I don’t want the whole sport to be wrapped in cotton wool.
I think the whole idea of the FIA being a road safety organisation and the worldwide administrator of motor sport is a nonsense and the two functions should be wholly separate. Todt can then go and run the road safety side and good riddance.
Wilson
Agreed
+1 Wilson
If it were down to the EU and/or Green party policies, 1) motor sports would be banned, 2) they would render it “unsafe” to get out of bed in the morning… or into it at night come to think of it; they’d have a risk-assessor interfering somewhere.
Excitement/danger/choice, or boredom/safety/legal. Can’t have it both ways, and where we are now, is heading deeper into the realms of the latter.
Well said Wilson. Is akin to suggesting those who go rock climbing should do so with a safety net and harness…which kind of defeats the purpose of the free form disciplined. The sport is inherently dangerous which is why it attracts its participants. You don’t see this kind of sanitized for the likes of skiing, mountaineering, yachting or mountain biking which are equally risk-laden.
Yes Bob, or National Hunt racing in GB, which must be one of the most dangerous participant sports there is, especially as there are hundreds of races every season.
The most dangerous participant sport is either golf or fishing. More people die doing these two than anything else. Dodgy statistic I know, but true nonetheless. Percentage-wise it may be different…
I’ve always thought those salmon have a vicious streak in them, particularly when swimming up river…
Fishing, I can understand how someone might drown or get speared by a Marlin or something.
But golf?!
Heart attacks
Actually, death during sex is statistically higher then golf deaths. (grin)
Sex is now a sport? Not a bad idea actually, the viewing figures would be good, judging by the size of the porn industry that no-one admits to using…
Heart Attacks at the 19th hole in Golf? Drowning in Fishing? Or from boredom with either????
Friend of mine lost her husband to fishing. Had a massive heart attack on the river bank. Dead before he hit the ground, they reckon. 😦
I thought it was Bowls that had the highest mortality rate. Obviously due to the average age of the participant rather than any inherent danger! A great example of how stats can mislead as you say…
The trouble with fia and minor league rallying and racing is that they insist on dated equipment. If they ran an hours used system like flight hours for aircraft good equipment gets thrown away pushing up costs without improving safety. Focus has to be on improving safety not inceasing money to vested safety vested interests.
Often Kimi is reported to have said something, which in hindsight is not what he really meant – lost in translation and all that! I suspect he did not mean “dangerous”, but perhaps more difficult and challenging for drivers and visually more exciting for spectators, maybe with more power than can be handled by the systems alone, or removal of some of the assistance systems, requiring more skill and dexterity from the drivers to tame the beasts?
On the other hand the MSA in the UK require a disclaimer “Warning motor sport can be dangerous” to be printed on all material in association with an event including publicly displayed banners, displays and tickets. As you say there are many incidents resulting in injury or worse in relatively minor motor sport events – mostly due to, I suspect, poor organisation by willing, but inexperienced volunteers and enthusiastic but poorly skilled drivers. It is interesting that horse riding has more deaths and injuries per participant than any other recreation or sport in the UK, but rarely gets a bad press.
Agree with that sentiment, I took Kimi’s words to mean that mistakes should lead to a premature end to the day’s racing, rather than a trip to see Sid’s successors or to the local hospital.
When he started racing there were gravel traps to catch the unwary and the consequences were high if one was to get stuck in the middle of the kitty-litter. That we just saw 17 cars finish in Monaco (of all places!) and then again in Canada says that he may have a point.
In previous decades an accident like young Max Verstappen’s in Monaco or Nasr’s in Canada would have been potentially career-ending or worse, so we should thank those who have made a massive difference to the safety of F1 (and trickle-down to other formulae) over the years.
What (should) happens on a road and what happens on a race track are two very different things. I don’t see how you can link the two the way motor manufacturers do for marketing reasons and not have this conflict of interest.
Motor manufacturers like to claim they’re all about safety but, if they were, they would not sell high performance cars to motorists.
There was a piece on BBC news this week about Jaguar Land Rover’s new pothole measuring device were the guy from JLR claimed safety is top priority… whereas we like to turn a blond eye to the real danger which is created by selling someone, anyone a big car with a big engine to use by where people live. Potholes do not kill 3500 people everyday.
I don’t agree
I don’t think there is, or should be, a conflict of interest or a mixed message. Safety in motor racing (driver safety, anyway) is a different issue to road safety, given that racing drivers volunteer to subject themselves to a certain level of danger, whereas road users expect a high and ever-improving level of safety. The road safety issue also involves children and pedestrians.
Well then we disagree
Given that they are very different issues, why is a sporting governing body talking about general road safety? The two are irrelevant to one another and the FIA’s role is that of governance of a sport, not the safety of pedestrians (who don’t participate in motorsport bar being spectators perhaps – note focus of these campaigns).
Come on Joe, you can do better than this. Conflating the two issues road safety and motor racing safety to prove a rather tenuous point is the worst kind of Journalism. We expect better from you.
The neo-puritanism and the more silly politically correct double-think is, I believe, something worked up by the less intelligent pockets of the press. Please don’t add to it, and please, please don’t turn into the Daily Mail.
I’m so very pleased to have disappointed you.
Very good Joe! Dominic, judging by his reference to the DM is presumably a supporter of State control and its clamping down on freedom of choice
Its not Joe who is conflating the two issues but the FIA and more precisely, the President of the FIA – motor racing and road safety are two completely separate issues as you say. The FIA is currently under fire for its primary role – governance of motorsport. So why is it spending time on extraneous activities that will not help it address its immediate concerns?
Dominic, don’t be so rude. This is Joes blog, you don’t have to read it.
Indeed, it it is the “less intelligent” readers who (dressed in their pyjamas and still living with mum) waste everyone’s time & energy trolling. Take your negativity and pack off.
Great blog joe! Keep up the good work.
I believe the real problem in road safety is the granting of drivers licenses to anyone who is breathing, without having to demonstrate a true understanding of vehicle performance and more importantly, vehicle limitations.
Let the do gooders do good and let the racers be racers.
+1 GeorgeK. The problem with do-gooders (aka busyboddies) is that they want to to poke their noses into everywhere and everything.
I understand the reason Golf is deemed a hazardous activity is due to the lengthy periods duffers spend in close proximity to chemical agents designed to eliminate weeds and insects and promote aesthetically pleasing and hardy growth. Fore! Lol.
When it comes to the UK driving licence, from what I know of, it has been dumbed down over the last decade, so that people can pass easier. I reckon this first started because there used to be a backlog of retests, and to eliminate that problem, most sensible folk would employ more Examiners, but the Gov of the day made the test simpler instead. I understand that one has multiple choice on some aspects of the actual driving part, and can chose not to do some aspect, which would be helpful, if say one was rubbish at parking for instance.
Based on first hand experience, I would have to contest this notion. I passed my motorcycle test in 2008. It was a more thorough process then compared to when I passed my car driving test in 1993.
There was no theory test in 1993, bar a couple of ‘show me/tell me’ mechanical related questions at the start of the practical exam and 4 or 5 questions on the highway code at the end.
In 2008, I had to already be in possession of a CBT (compulsory basic training) certificate before taking the theory. The theory required you to complete a hazard perception test in addition to a 60 question component for the theory before being permitted to take the practical. The pass mark was 70% (for both components) and no questions were optional – they all affected the pass mark.
Since then, I helped two further riders pass their tests and at least for motorcycles, they’ve increased the requirements. The practical now has an ‘off road’ module and an ‘on road’ module. The off road module determines one’s ability to physically handle the bike. This has to be passed prior to being let loose on the public roads to see if you know your traffic etiquette.
For the driving practical, I think the aspect you may be thinking of is the ‘three manoeuvres’, i.e. parallel parking, reversing around a corner and a three point turn. To my knowledge (and I stand to be corrected if things have changed recently) its always been a case of the examiner (not the learner) selecting two from three here.
Despite the above, I do feel there is an issue however it isn’t so much the initial test itself which, at least in the UK is of a high standard, but that after passing this a driver is never assessed again. This allows drivers to fall into bad habits or lapse in their knowledge of the highway code. Elderly drivers with developing mobility and/or hand-eye co-ordination issues are not re-examined either which is also a concern.
That goes for many things, Grandfather rights on Driving Licences and so on, but the basic driving test is only that, it doesn’t give the driver any more knowledge, just confirms that they know the basics.
Experience comes with time and driving with other drivers in real-world situations, and even then you’re not really prepared for anything in the way of an accident situation.
At least most of the Americas drive on the same side of the road, unlike in Europe where we can catch a ferry and go into a whole new world of driving on the wrong side.
Joes article in GP+ on Romain Grosjean is an interesting read in a ‘similar’ vein.
I agree, too much theory. This can be born out by, for example, French drivers, who are becoming more and more dangerous despite a being taught the correct way to drive then once passed become maniacs. But then, policing of driving standards is poor in France. Check the European stats, they make interesting reading. I regularly drive in France and England and (believe it or not) I feel much safer in the UK. On a broader point – some drivers should never be allowed to drive, they’re psychologically unsuited, but apparently it’s a free world.
All a driving test is for is to judge whether or not the instructor thinks the learner can make a car move properly – accoding to a textbook. Judging by from the ability and capability of many of the young at the wheel of a car these days, their instruction/testing leaves much to be desired.
DRIVING a car is a completely different matter. It used to be said that it takes at least 100,000 miles to make a “driver”.
The trouble is everyone thinks they’re the perfect driver. My wife’s a slower driver than me but I would rather be driven by her than some people I know. I’m not sure about stats on young drivers, probably not good overall, but I find some older drivers are more belligerent behind the wheel because they think they know it all and are often less courteous as a result.
Conversely, those with many miles on the clock become complacent (often in the extreme). Its not just young drivers that are an issue. Older drivers have failed to maintain their knowledge of the highway code, get into bad habits and are also suspect to a deterioration of general hand-eye co-ordination when particularly old. Constant re-examination and reinforcement of correct practices is the key.
Guess I make that grade BenM, on the basis you set of 100,000 miles. In my first 20 years after passing my test in Jan 1975 at 6months short of 18, I drove 50,000 miles a year. For the next 15 years I was doing 30,000 to 35,000 a year, and in the last 5 years I’ve dropped to a modest 20,000 a year. Most years in the last 35, I’ve done about 3000 miles out of my total, as European motoring on holidays, so I suppose I’ve done maybe 1.5-1.6 million miles in my life as a licence holder….just had a think, and in that time I’ve not been involved in any serious accidents, I’ve managed to get out of the way of ones that I have seen about to happen….and have had about 1 minor bump per 200,000 miles, not all of them being my fault either….and been stopped for speeding around 10 times, successfully prosecuted 8 times, only 2 times for over 70 on a motorway, the others for speeds such a 34 in a 30 limit, last time was 38 in a new 30 limit that had been a 40 limit only a month before and I failed to see the new sign…..that road had been a 40 limit for the previous 20 years…but such is life…..
Kimi would have been suited to Group B rallying.
He tried normal rallying but came back to F1.
I am sure he gets bored in F1 driving at what must be only 80 % or less of his abilities. Little danger in going off nowadays excepting the one in a million freak accident that can never be prevented. Speed always limited by tyre condition and/or fuel.
But for the race going off is not the end as it used to be, tangled up in the catch fencing or marooned in a sea of gravel, embarrassment, session over!
To make F1 more challenging for the driver, I fist thought maybe we should ban power steering, ban auto gear changing. make them use a clutch and a gear lever. Ban radio, the mandatory “in ear accelerometers” in the regs for next season will probably take most of the ear canal space anyway. But then, no! Lets make it easier to go nearer the edge, introduce ABS, steering assist (with active transverse brake bias) take the limit off the electrical storage and power transfer. Introduce active front flaps.
Dear Joe, all
“Road safety loony”…. Freudian slip, Joe??:-)
In effect, the FIA is behaving in a way that implies that the lives of drivers, officials & spectators in “top championships” are valued more than those in the “minor forms”. It could be interpreted that safety in motor racing is in proportion to the number of people who witness it.
If the FIA has any responsibility for the BS masquerading as road safety in Australia, then it should be given a huge kick in the butt.
To obtain a provisional license in the state of New South Wales, a 17y/o on a Learner Driver permit is required to log 120hrs of driving (including 20hrs at night) accompanied by any individual with a full license. There is no process whatsoever to ensure that what is documented in the log book is an accurate record of what actually happened. After the 120 hrs is completed, the learner must sit a driving test which is limited to 60kmh (35mph, approx) zones. There is no open road or dirt road testing whatsoever.
Strangely, when it comes to accident stats in NSW, “poor road surface” (or equivalent) cannot be classsified as a contributory factor- the blame is always thrust back into the driver’s lap, with the overarching line of “You should drive to the conditions” I could go on & on.
As to Kimi- it is all very well to interpret what one thinks he really meant from what he said, (at the end of which will be a hypothesis based on zero proof, unless someone is able to read Kimi’s thoughts), but, if he used the word “dangerous” there is, in all likelihood, a large proprotion of the audience who will swallow it hook, line and, sinker and think he meant exactly what he said.
Thus, the Action for Road Safety message will be undermined by Kimi appearing to play both sides of the fence.
Not a good look, at least superficially.
Cheers
MarkR
Auto correct actually. Loony and lobby…
You know Joe, one of the reason I am a kart racer is because of the appeal of danger. Interestingly, I leave nothing to chance when I prepare for a race. I agree with you and Kimi; let racers be racers. Listen up Mr Todt…
Completely agree Eric – I’d find karting less challenging (and therefore boring) if the run off areas were massive. Its the tracks where you get punished for making a mistake that really draws you into coming back for more. Higher powered karts that push you to the edge are also more fun!
Ive always thought the link between motorsport and road safety is tenuous at best. When you look at ball playing injuries suffered every week they dwarf motor racing injuries. I mean, I fell over going for a run a few months back and did a fair bit of damage to my face… I did break a few ribs racing Karts, but I will wager its still safer than a ball sport, even at grass roots level.
I know Todt has taken the FIA’s involvement in road safety too far, but it needs saying that it was Mosley who started the ball rolling when he created the FIA Foundation in 2001.
The foundation is an independent charity. It is not part of the FIA. It has so done much good work working with other NGOs
If the FIA want to be truly involved in road safety on an international scale, let them start by devising a system whereby tourists who normally drive on one side of the road, visiting a country where driving is on the opposite side, are required to demonstrate they have the skill to make the change.
There are an awful lot of deaths in my country every year from tourists momentarily forgetting they’re not driving in their home country.
I don’t so much mind them killing themselves, they take far too many of us with them……
There are too many people on the roads in the UK ‘driving’ fancy new cars with no idea of how to control them. As for doing a multi-choice questionnaire, how does that help when the traffic suddenly comes to a standstill in front of you? I’ll stick with my old Fiesta, thanks. I’d be livid if people pranged a new car.
Racers choose risk in the pursuit of speed. Drivers on the road cannot do so. You have to consider other drivers, motor bikes, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. I cannot see how the two can be linked.
Finally, having spent most of the night watching Le Mans, I do like how these ‘slow zones’ work. It’s what some of us suggested after the Bianchi accident. I think F1 has missed a trick here.
I don’t know if you noticed that one of the Audis ended up in the wall because there was a misunderstanding about slow zones. Is that a good thing?
I think that was poor marshalling/communication more that anything, wasn’t it? What with green flags flying ahead of yellows. There’s always teething problems with a new idea.
Mind you, the Audi turn around pit stop was mighty impressive! The slow zones certainly worked later in the race, allowing barriers to be repaired at Mulsanne corner without the use of those three blinking safety cars in the night.
Speaking of which, where’s my bed….?
I’ve never had any problems with leaving the UK to drive around continental Europe in a RHD car. I’ve also driven LHD in Europe, and once owned a LHD car I bought in Holland and used in the UK for 2-3 years.
The only problems I’ve had on foreign roads have been caused by some rather reckless French, Italian & Spanish drivers. I once had a Spaniard make the Sign of the Cross whilst coming towards me on the wrong side of a Spanish single carriage road…..quite why he thought that this was more imperative than moving back onto his correct carriageway escaped me then, and still does now…..also, I was driving an LR Discovery while he was in a SEAT so the majority of damage would likely have been to him.
The only thing on RHD in Europe that is vital, is to have a co-driver whom one trusts completely, so that overtaking can be done safely on single carriage roads. If one is uber careful, then one is usually quite safe!
I have to say that I’ve found German & Finish drivers to be quite safety minded, and French too, unless one is near Paris, where driving becomes pretty stressful!
Joe, die you mean to write “road safety loony” or did you mean lobby? Autocorrect is not a reason to skip proof reading your own material. On the contrary, it makes proof reading an absolute must.
It does, doesn’t it….
“Perhaps it is better to let the do-gooders do good and let the racers be the bad boys.” – Amen.
Racing should always be about taking a car to its limits, and unfortunately for the road safety lobby, that means it should be dangerous; there is a dichotomy with a sport promoting safety whilst being anything but safe, so yes, I can see that. The racers and the road safety chaps should be giving each other a wide berth.
Imagine instead of a tightrope walker you have someone walking across a painted line in a carpark. This is, I think, the crux of what is missing from F1 now. The skill isn’t so much walking in a straight line it’s doing it in a dangerous situation – something that we should be able to watch and be in awe of rather than thinking “I could do that”. There should be consequences for going over the edge, so that we can admire those who are willing to push and stay on the limits. Every driver now can find out where the limit of the track is because they know that if they go over there are acres of tarmac runoff, and at worst a slap on the wrist from the stewards.