Safety of Piquet's crash
Discussion
In the latest 'gate' that's been swinging around I've read a lot about how unsafe to spectators, marshals and others Piquet's crash was.
I would like to ask why, if this crash was as unsafe as the public claim, was the track given safety approval?
"If a track is not safe for Piquet to crash at then F1 shouldn't race there," might be a way to draw a conclusion from the public's judgement of the safety in this incident.
As a 'disclaimer', I do want to race at Singapore. This criticism is not of the FIA but directed squarely at pundits, forum users and the public that have rolled out the 'safety' excuse as a reason to level extra criticism of Renault and Piquet's character, as if the incident needs more.
I understand that it's not possible to make every track 100% safe and to promise so could set a bad precedent. However in this case why do we still struggle to label Piquet's crash as 'safe'? The intention to crash makes tno difference to me. It's the kind of spin you see at club level quite often. Even Lewis's accident at Monza last weekend was much the same.
On rolls the safety juggernaut that ordinarily we (PH particularly) are quite against, except when we choose to support it in such a mediocre (in terms of the crash) incident like this.
I would like to ask why, if this crash was as unsafe as the public claim, was the track given safety approval?
"If a track is not safe for Piquet to crash at then F1 shouldn't race there," might be a way to draw a conclusion from the public's judgement of the safety in this incident.
As a 'disclaimer', I do want to race at Singapore. This criticism is not of the FIA but directed squarely at pundits, forum users and the public that have rolled out the 'safety' excuse as a reason to level extra criticism of Renault and Piquet's character, as if the incident needs more.
I understand that it's not possible to make every track 100% safe and to promise so could set a bad precedent. However in this case why do we still struggle to label Piquet's crash as 'safe'? The intention to crash makes tno difference to me. It's the kind of spin you see at club level quite often. Even Lewis's accident at Monza last weekend was much the same.
On rolls the safety juggernaut that ordinarily we (PH particularly) are quite against, except when we choose to support it in such a mediocre (in terms of the crash) incident like this.
Jasandjules said:
There are risks for both Marshalls and Spectators at any race. You accept those risks when you go in. However, accept the risk of an accident which may lead to an injury, you do not accept the risk that someone will deliberately endanger others.
In my post I tried really really hard to get you all to ignore the intention to crash. If the exact same crash had happened at that corner it would have been deemed safe. Up until now it has been! All of a sudden it's unsafe. If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
zac510 said:
In my post I tried really really hard to get you all to ignore the intention to crash. If the exact same crash had happened at that corner it would have been deemed safe. Up until now it has been! All of a sudden it's unsafe.
If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
I would never consider that crash safe. All crashes are unsafe.If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
watching his crash - my initial instinct was I wouldn't have crashed like that if I was doing it on purpose.......it just looked dangerous....
why not just understeer the car wide into the outside barrier? 'Probably' safer.......
maybe he was as bad at crashing as he was at racing......?
having said that - as others have said, no crash is safe........a wheel into the helmet, or a head injury or debris or whatever
What if someone had picked up a puncture on his carbon fibre? and genuinely had a big accident later.
They would be open to a manslaughter charge
the whole thing stinks - personally, bugger immunity - the little b
d shouldn't even be allowed to race shopping trolleys around tescos
why not just understeer the car wide into the outside barrier? 'Probably' safer.......
maybe he was as bad at crashing as he was at racing......?
having said that - as others have said, no crash is safe........a wheel into the helmet, or a head injury or debris or whatever
What if someone had picked up a puncture on his carbon fibre? and genuinely had a big accident later.
They would be open to a manslaughter charge
the whole thing stinks - personally, bugger immunity - the little b
d shouldn't even be allowed to race shopping trolleys around tescosSamHH said:
zac510 said:
In my post I tried really really hard to get you all to ignore the intention to crash. If the exact same crash had happened at that corner it would have been deemed safe. Up until now it has been! All of a sudden it's unsafe.
If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
I would never consider that crash safe. All crashes are unsafe.If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
andygo said:
SamHH said:
zac510 said:
In my post I tried really really hard to get you all to ignore the intention to crash. If the exact same crash had happened at that corner it would have been deemed safe. Up until now it has been! All of a sudden it's unsafe.
If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
I would never consider that crash safe. All crashes are unsafe.If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
zac510 said:
I would like to ask why, if this crash was as unsafe as the public claim, was the track given safety approval?
As usual the well paid brains in F1 found a loophole to take advantage of.In retrospect, the inside of that corner was not adequately covered by marshals.
The video that shows tentative attempts by marshals to cross the track to get to Piquet is ample proof of that. As others say any crash is dangerous, outcomes can vary enormously.
So, any crash there had a greater value of unsafe for some involved as opposed to crashes other locations.
A deliberate crash to gain advantage for you and your team that put others at increased risk of injury is unforgiveable.
(Give me the nails and I'll happily crucify each and every member of the Renault team involved)
The level and placing of safety cover provided is down to who submitted the plan to the FIA. Likewise the gap from track to tempory grandstand.
You say why was it given safety approval?
Money.
I tend to agree with the OP, but safety is not really black or white, there will always be degrees and and arbitrary viewpoint of what is acceptable.
I see little difference in the proposition that this scenario was actually a product of the cars becoming stronger & safer so that drivers and teams have lost respect/fear of shunts. Obviously you can't go back to much more dangerous cars and circuits - but maybe statutory penalties for offs, collisions, bits falling off.. It is a bit of a conundrum, as the cars/tracks get safer the pilots become less concerned?
I see little difference in the proposition that this scenario was actually a product of the cars becoming stronger & safer so that drivers and teams have lost respect/fear of shunts. Obviously you can't go back to much more dangerous cars and circuits - but maybe statutory penalties for offs, collisions, bits falling off.. It is a bit of a conundrum, as the cars/tracks get safer the pilots become less concerned?
andygo said:
SamHH said:
zac510 said:
In my post I tried really really hard to get you all to ignore the intention to crash. If the exact same crash had happened at that corner it would have been deemed safe. Up until now it has been! All of a sudden it's unsafe.
If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
I would never consider that crash safe. All crashes are unsafe.If you can't consider Piquet's crash safe then how can you consider an identical unintentional crash safe too?
Surely your missing the point.
If someone was to have the exact same crash 'BY ACCIDENT' it wouldn't have been any safer but there is nothing anyone can do and you accept these things happen in racing. - quite often.
However, the same crash happening deliberately is unacceptable as it is putting innocent peoples lives at risk for no reason whatsoever.
There is a massive difference which for me comes down to the principle of it. Sym and Bri were perfectly happy to put peoples safety and potentially lives at risk for their own gains. Completely unacceptable.
If someone was to have the exact same crash 'BY ACCIDENT' it wouldn't have been any safer but there is nothing anyone can do and you accept these things happen in racing. - quite often.
However, the same crash happening deliberately is unacceptable as it is putting innocent peoples lives at risk for no reason whatsoever.
There is a massive difference which for me comes down to the principle of it. Sym and Bri were perfectly happy to put peoples safety and potentially lives at risk for their own gains. Completely unacceptable.
Edited by VXRTOM on Friday 18th September 10:58
I think what happened to Massa shows you how dangerous things can get on the track even if there isn't an accident.
Piquet's crash may have been not have been too dangerous in the OP's opinion but any debris after could cause untold problems. Anyone passing could have picked up a slow puncture ultimately causing an accident like Senna's.
Piquet's crash may have been not have been too dangerous in the OP's opinion but any debris after could cause untold problems. Anyone passing could have picked up a slow puncture ultimately causing an accident like Senna's.
zac510 said:
In my post I tried really really hard to get you all to ignore the intention to crash. If the exact same crash had happened at that corner it would have been deemed safe. Up until now it has been! All of a sudden it's unsafe.
Why ignore the intention to crash? It is relvant.I understand what you're saying, but it was unsafe, just because no-one was hurt and perhaps in the 10 times there had been a crash there, that's not to say the 11th time wouldn't throw a piece of debris into a spectator/marshall.
Accidents happen, IF a marshall had been injured, and IF it had been a genuine accident, fair play, unfortunate, BUT as this was purposeful......
Why increase risk?
spend said:
I tend to agree with the OP, but safety is not really black or white, there will always be degrees and and arbitrary viewpoint of what is acceptable.
I see little difference in the proposition that this scenario was actually a product of the cars becoming stronger & safer so that drivers and teams have lost respect/fear of shunts. Obviously you can't go back to much more dangerous cars and circuits - but maybe statutory penalties for offs, collisions, bits falling off.. It is a bit of a conundrum, as the cars/tracks get safer the pilots become less concerned?
no no no !! Please don't mention this to the FIAI see little difference in the proposition that this scenario was actually a product of the cars becoming stronger & safer so that drivers and teams have lost respect/fear of shunts. Obviously you can't go back to much more dangerous cars and circuits - but maybe statutory penalties for offs, collisions, bits falling off.. It is a bit of a conundrum, as the cars/tracks get safer the pilots become less concerned?
can you imagine if they started having penalties for offs etc? They'd all be running around like drones frightened of anything.
It is bad enough waiting for fuel stops to overtake........but to have penalties for mistakes, accidents would be the end of the sport!
Jesus - in my racing - if we got penalised for crashing or going off........nobody would ever win the title - we'd all be disqualified half way through the season.
Its not tiddly winks - its a big boy sport. You are pushing yourself and machines to limit. Mistakes happen, failures occur - people crash. Sometimes tragically people die.
Everyone makes their own choice and that is fine - its one of the only places left on this planet when you are ALLOWED to be responsible for your own safety.
Crashing on purpose however - now that isn't right on many levels. Cheating being the obvious one. Mocking the danger being another.
Look at Henry Surtees at Brands. Tragic accident, one in a million or more......it happened, its accepted because it was his choice to race.
If the unfortunate chap had gone off on purpose to get his team mate a safety car........well - it just wrong on every level I can think of.
Which is why Nelson Jr should never ever be allowed a race licence again.
As for banning the team - you have to think of the employees etc - it is NOT their fault that several desperate people made a very bad an immoral choice.
Team should stay - guilty members should go - which appears to have happened. IF Alonso knew about it - then he absolutely should be banned for life also. Its hard to prove though.
Crashing is part of motorsport. Not just drivers but marshalls, spectators and everyone involved accept the risk of being killed or injured by an accident. The key is to minimise the chances of an accident happening.
Deliberately crashing puts everyone at a risk which they haven't accepted.
Remember, the last two deaths in F1 have been marshalls, not drivers
Deliberately crashing puts everyone at a risk which they haven't accepted.
Remember, the last two deaths in F1 have been marshalls, not drivers
I'm kind of trying to understand why before this month the accident was considered safe, yet now there is outrage at the safety. If you remove the intention and it was an unintentional accident, which is not impossible at that corner (spin to inside exit of the corner is a common accident), the mathematical probability of being injured in the accident is identical.
Can the fact that it was immoral and wrong be dealt with on a different level rather than rolling out the old 'safety' argument again? Or as society we are so obsessed with the idea of what's safe and what's not that it's just the easiest criticism to make?
Can the fact that it was immoral and wrong be dealt with on a different level rather than rolling out the old 'safety' argument again? Or as society we are so obsessed with the idea of what's safe and what's not that it's just the easiest criticism to make?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff