Jules Bianchi's family suing over his death
Discussion
rdjohn said:
When a car is aquaplaning, the driver becomes a passenger. The double waved yellows offers a little mitigation for the FIA but I believe any court case will concentrate on risk assessment done before the race and custom and practice of volunteer marshals during events working under instruction of the race director.
The key issue to be decided is - was the death avoidable? As I posted earlier.
Why hold the race during typhoon season? -a very big one for Bernie to answer.
Why was VSC not specified before? The technology has been arround for a long time. F1/FIA should at the cutting edge of track and race safety measures. Knowing that drivers get away with slowing to 99% is damming against the FIA Sporting Regulations.
Why was a 3-tonne lift vehicle deployed? For me this is the hardest issue to comprehend. When a 700kg vehicle collides with another 700kg vehicle the crash structures are designed to deal with the forces involved. When a 700kg vehicle collides with a 3000kg vehicle, there can only ever be one loser. It is simple physics.
A competent person making a competent risk assessment should perhaps define the following procedure for this race.
A typhoon was forecast for race day.
In the event that a car aquaplanes, then the race should be immediately red-flagged as there is a high probability that a second vehicle will lose control.
Do not deploy any marshals onto the circuit. Only advise the driver of the errant car when it is safer to leave the protected cockpit of his car.
Do not deploy heavy vehicles onto the circuit.
If conditions improve restart the race behind the safety car.
VSC was a hindsight knee-jerk reaction to the accident, the FIA should constantly be looking at how race technology can save lives. Ironic given Todts position as a UN road safety ambassador.
It's true, it comes down to the question if a risk assessment was suitable and sufficient. Problem we always have in industry is that if a death occurs, it's almost always judged to have failed.The key issue to be decided is - was the death avoidable? As I posted earlier.
Why hold the race during typhoon season? -a very big one for Bernie to answer.
Why was VSC not specified before? The technology has been arround for a long time. F1/FIA should at the cutting edge of track and race safety measures. Knowing that drivers get away with slowing to 99% is damming against the FIA Sporting Regulations.
Why was a 3-tonne lift vehicle deployed? For me this is the hardest issue to comprehend. When a 700kg vehicle collides with another 700kg vehicle the crash structures are designed to deal with the forces involved. When a 700kg vehicle collides with a 3000kg vehicle, there can only ever be one loser. It is simple physics.
A competent person making a competent risk assessment should perhaps define the following procedure for this race.
A typhoon was forecast for race day.
In the event that a car aquaplanes, then the race should be immediately red-flagged as there is a high probability that a second vehicle will lose control.
Do not deploy any marshals onto the circuit. Only advise the driver of the errant car when it is safer to leave the protected cockpit of his car.
Do not deploy heavy vehicles onto the circuit.
If conditions improve restart the race behind the safety car.
VSC was a hindsight knee-jerk reaction to the accident, the FIA should constantly be looking at how race technology can save lives. Ironic given Todts position as a UN road safety ambassador.
In motor racing, as danger is inherent as part of the accepted risk, it must be more difficult to judge suitable and sufficient.
So was it reasonable to foresee the accident ?, well similar accidents had happened before so that has to be a yes. To me the track should be free of marshals and vehicles unless the cars have a limiter applied to a safe speed.
But families grieving thought the law courts is a sad and heart wrenching thing to see.
Would you volunteer to be a Marshall? I wouldn't. I thought at the time and still think it was firmly driver error. Even if the software tech did work he'd still be out of control into the tractor. Maybe even at a different angle. It's understandable that he was carrying speed to try and make time under tellows even knowing he could safety track staff at risk. For that reason I question why would they even bring this action. Medical costs?
rdjohn said:
Why was a 3-tonne lift vehicle deployed? For me this is the hardest issue to comprehend. When a 700kg vehicle collides with another 700kg vehicle the crash structures are designed to deal with the forces involved. When a 700kg vehicle collides with a 3000kg vehicle, there can only ever be one loser. It is simple physics.
Because if you try to lift a 700kg car with a 700kg crane, there is a good chance it will fall over?Vaud said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Why sue then?
Organisations tend to respond more quickly to change when faced with substantial legal action, rather than just lobbying alone?This (IMHO), is all about the money. Which is sad.
I'm not sure its just about money. Obviously the family are hurt and grieving and as is often the case are looking for someone to blame. A legal action helps pinpoint the blame in an objective manner. The money can also sometimes help people think they have "justice" or an outcome that is in some way punishing those who they feel have been negligent.
Gandahar said:
He went to fast. So did others and more than one went too fast, they got caught out with conditions after being programmed by the rules at the time, to make the most of those rules. So the rules were crap. They must have been crap because they then made them better with the virtual safety car. That's an admission of guilt.
If that's the case, expect Senna's family to sue then. After he died, wheel teathers were introduced. Surely an admission of guilt using your logic?ERIKM400 said:
Just gonna leave this here:
https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/
Some interesting comments from a man more knowledgeable in these matters than all of us together.
And if I could be bothered, I'd find his comments at the time which state that he felt that the impact with the JCB was unsurvivable. https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/
Some interesting comments from a man more knowledgeable in these matters than all of us together.
The issue is surely around the procedures in place at the time and the (non) adherence to them and any evidence of previous failure (without penalty) to obey yellow flags.
If I were the FIA, I'd be putting a call into a chap living round the corner from Bibendum....
SpeckledJim said:
rdjohn said:
Why was a 3-tonne lift vehicle deployed? For me this is the hardest issue to comprehend. When a 700kg vehicle collides with another 700kg vehicle the crash structures are designed to deal with the forces involved. When a 700kg vehicle collides with a 3000kg vehicle, there can only ever be one loser. It is simple physics.
Because if you try to lift a 700kg car with a 700kg crane, there is a good chance it will fall over?I can see a need for properly designed snatch vehicles, rather than re-purposing construction equipment. Yes they need some ground clearance for gravel traps. But not that much. F1 would be better off flying a bunch of snatch vehicles around the world to each event, rather than a portable medical centre.
Munter said:
SpeckledJim said:
rdjohn said:
Why was a 3-tonne lift vehicle deployed? For me this is the hardest issue to comprehend. When a 700kg vehicle collides with another 700kg vehicle the crash structures are designed to deal with the forces involved. When a 700kg vehicle collides with a 3000kg vehicle, there can only ever be one loser. It is simple physics.
Because if you try to lift a 700kg car with a 700kg crane, there is a good chance it will fall over?I can see a need for properly designed snatch vehicles, rather than re-purposing construction equipment. Yes they need some ground clearance for gravel traps. But not that much. F1 would be better off flying a bunch of snatch vehicles around the world to each event, rather than a portable medical centre.
You only deploy the lift vehicle once the area is safe. Prior to VSC that could only be achieved with a red flag. Waved double yellows have been known to be inadequate for many years.
The key thing that the FIA have yet to learn is that a risk assessment for each event will draw out the special circumstances. In this case the impending Typhoon.
Safety of the volunteer marshals should be paramount. A one-size-fits-all solution is just not appropriate, for example in Monaco all lifts are done by external crane.
I think the family's aims are justifiable, particularly if any compensation goes to the trust.
rdjohn said:
I think you are missing the point completely.
You only deploy the lift vehicle once the area is safe. Prior to VSC that could only be achieved with a red flag. Waved double yellows have been known to be inadequate for many years.
The key thing that the FIA have yet to learn is that a risk assessment for each event will draw out the special circumstances. In this case the impending Typhoon.
Safety of the volunteer marshals should be paramount. A one-size-fits-all solution is just not appropriate, for example in Monaco all lifts are done by external crane.
I think the family's aims are justifiable, particularly if any compensation goes to the trust.
"One size doesn't fit all. There's a track that doesn't have snatch vehicles." Well they'd work perfectly there as well then. By not being used.You only deploy the lift vehicle once the area is safe. Prior to VSC that could only be achieved with a red flag. Waved double yellows have been known to be inadequate for many years.
The key thing that the FIA have yet to learn is that a risk assessment for each event will draw out the special circumstances. In this case the impending Typhoon.
Safety of the volunteer marshals should be paramount. A one-size-fits-all solution is just not appropriate, for example in Monaco all lifts are done by external crane.
I think the family's aims are justifiable, particularly if any compensation goes to the trust.
The point is that saying a recovery vehicle is too heavy to be safe is nonsense. You appear to have missed that point and gone off on a tangent. Unless the world is too heavy to be safe to race cars on. In which case we have a bigger problem. I proposed a solution to the problem the poster had with the weight of the vehicles. How does your post relate to the weight of the snatch vehicles used in Japan?
LaurasOtherHalf said:
No offence, but on what do you base that on? IMHE organisations do not tend to respond to legal action with wide sweeping changes, they tend to respond to legal action with an out of court settlement (if they think there's a good chance they won't win) or an entrenched and drawn out legal process (if they think there's a good chance they will).
This (IMHO), is all about the money. Which is sad.
Fair question - I work with large organisations all of the time. I also sit on a Health and Safety committee for a sizeable organistion who at times get complacent. Reminding some senior management that the risk of non-compliance could be jail tends to focus the minds (I know that is for a criminal offence rather than a private prosecution)... but in a private prosecution you still risk (out of court or not):This (IMHO), is all about the money. Which is sad.
a) damage to reputation (local, national, global)
b) significant costs for legal fees to even understand the chance of defending
c) significant drain on senior management time, energy, etc and the opportunity cost that also has
d) costs for any damages awarded
So, yes, I do see changes in behaviour when the potential risks of not changing are clearly understood, articulated and acted on ahead of legal action. But as in so many cases, it normally takes a serious incident to really trigger change.
Just want to reply to some of the things mentioned in this thread.
Regarding (the reasons for) Gary Hartstein getting sacked by the FIA - having an axe to grind with them: best let him explain himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBXWbTuNEl8
Concerning the extrication techniques: there is now some good scientific evidence showing that the extrication techniques which are mandated by the FIA are not best practice and may even be harmful. On top of that, these techniques are no longer suited for most of the current generation race cars.
Why no state of the art trauma center or team that travels with F1: because doctors generally are not allowed to practice medicine in another country. That's why the FIA sends a Medical Delegate who supervises and coordinates the medical services but does not participate in the medical interventions themselves. Of course it's also convenient that this relieves them almost completely from responsabilty should anything go wrong. In that case you can always blame the local Chief Medical Officer.
Virtual Safety Car is no knee jerk raction, the system should have been in use long time ago and might have made a difference in this case. During a "normal" safety car procedure backrunners will always be going flat out because this is probably their only chance to get back to the rest of the field.
ETA: the real knee jerk reaction is the implementation of the HALO cockpit protection system.
I'm not going to speculate on the question if Bianchi's injuries were survivable. Judging the prognosis of head injuries is notoriously difficult.
The big problem the FIA has with regard to the Bianchi case is that they didn't follow their own regulations for the medical services (google FIA Appendix H, read section 2.7.3.8. and you'll understand).
Regarding (the reasons for) Gary Hartstein getting sacked by the FIA - having an axe to grind with them: best let him explain himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBXWbTuNEl8
Concerning the extrication techniques: there is now some good scientific evidence showing that the extrication techniques which are mandated by the FIA are not best practice and may even be harmful. On top of that, these techniques are no longer suited for most of the current generation race cars.
Why no state of the art trauma center or team that travels with F1: because doctors generally are not allowed to practice medicine in another country. That's why the FIA sends a Medical Delegate who supervises and coordinates the medical services but does not participate in the medical interventions themselves. Of course it's also convenient that this relieves them almost completely from responsabilty should anything go wrong. In that case you can always blame the local Chief Medical Officer.
Virtual Safety Car is no knee jerk raction, the system should have been in use long time ago and might have made a difference in this case. During a "normal" safety car procedure backrunners will always be going flat out because this is probably their only chance to get back to the rest of the field.
ETA: the real knee jerk reaction is the implementation of the HALO cockpit protection system.
I'm not going to speculate on the question if Bianchi's injuries were survivable. Judging the prognosis of head injuries is notoriously difficult.
The big problem the FIA has with regard to the Bianchi case is that they didn't follow their own regulations for the medical services (google FIA Appendix H, read section 2.7.3.8. and you'll understand).
Edited by ERIKM400 on Tuesday 31st May 22:09
Vaud said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
No offence, but on what do you base that on? IMHE organisations do not tend to respond to legal action with wide sweeping changes, they tend to respond to legal action with an out of court settlement (if they think there's a good chance they won't win) or an entrenched and drawn out legal process (if they think there's a good chance they will).
This (IMHO), is all about the money. Which is sad.
Fair question - I work with large organisations all of the time. I also sit on a Health and Safety committee for a sizeable organistion who at times get complacent. Reminding some senior management that the risk of non-compliance could be jail tends to focus the minds (I know that is for a criminal offence rather than a private prosecution)... but in a private prosecution you still risk (out of court or not):This (IMHO), is all about the money. Which is sad.
a) damage to reputation (local, national, global)
b) significant costs for legal fees to even understand the chance of defending
c) significant drain on senior management time, energy, etc and the opportunity cost that also has
d) costs for any damages awarded
So, yes, I do see changes in behaviour when the potential risks of not changing are clearly understood, articulated and acted on ahead of legal action. But as in so many cases, it normally takes a serious incident to really trigger change.
I think I may have been a little hasty in my surmising that this court case is all about money. Well I mean it might be, but apparently the Bianchi family are hoping for an admission of guilt (on the FIA's part) and an out of court settlement, whatever that may be.
So who knows? Perhaps if the FIA admit fault and make promises to the effect that it won't happen again and they will make changes the family will be happy enough to leave it at that.
On the other hand.....
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff