Driver Attitudes to Safety

[Peter Mallett]

This is posted in another thread but I wanted to make some comment about the content and maybe ask others their opinions. This is not a criticism of the original poster.

Originally posted by Red Dog

..............................All racing is dangerous, that is part of the reason we do it. It is very sad for everyone who is personally involved and probably very traumatic for the marshalls and rescue/medical teams and definitely not what we want at club meetings, or any come to that. But at the back of our minds (speaking as a driver)we know it can happen, but we believe it won't happen to us.

I don't race my car because its dangerous. I race for the competition and the chance to win. I would certainly avoid any championship which didn't allow me to improve braking.

Originally posted by Red Dog
A couple of observations - the cars racing were very powerful and very fast. It is likely they were doing in excess of 140mph when they crashed. One car broke in half on impact with the bank and the other was destroyed as it rolled.

I don't understand this one at all. Surely if a car is very powerful it should be built to withstand the shock of a major impact? Obviously in the context of the original thread, it is a relevant comment, but it seems to me that drivers think "well its too powerful to make it safe so I'll risk it". Red Dog does then make the same point but if drivers take the former view surely they need either more education or better scrutineering?

Originally posted by Red Dog

Cadwell is a narrow track with close banks. These cars are probably too fast for this circuit and probably not sufficiently strong for the sort of speeds they are reaching. They are also heavy, so take a long time to slow down when they go out of control.

Cadwell is a difficult and challenging circuit. To get it right is extremely satisfying. If cars are too powerful then the organisers should realise this and not run that championship at the venue. Or have we got it the wrong way round? Shouldn't the drivers take those precautions necessary to avoid an accident? (We are talking club racing here).

Originally posted by Red Dog
Most importantly, closer attention should be paid to the safety built in to the cars themselves.

Too true. And that's why Clubs like the CTCRC are hot on build quality of the cars.

Thoughts people?

[EvilPumpkin]

I have to wonder if the potential consequences of racing are really brough home enough to drivers?

Ok more experienced drivers will have seen it first hand - which probably explains why, when you get a restart of a race after a nasty incident, all the drivers tend to play nice.

But seriously - there seems to be an epidemic of the "right stuff" syndrome, which red dog also mentions. It happened to them because they didn't have the "right stuff" - not because their equipment failed.

I suppose a certain amount of that is necessary if you want to keep racing after witnessing an incident.

However, putting "Motorsport is dangerous" on the ticket, the circuit gate and the back of the program, is not enough to bring home to drivers just how dangerous it can be. We joke around a bit about drivers and say "ah sure it's never their fault - it's the car's fault or the track's fault or the other fella's fault" - but it's only funny because it's true! Some drivers need to learn to take responsibility for their actions.

I think education needs to be addressed quite urgently.

[Chris Y]

It's like the old saying - "it'll never happen to me". Perhaps if the causes (and effects) of some of these recent accidents were to be explained to more drivers, it might just sink in that a serious accident could happen to anybody.

Some drivers I've seen drive like they're indestructable. They make overtaking moves that will never work without another car there to stop them shooting off the track! Perhaps they think that their car control is so good it'll get them out of any situation, or their budget will stretch to any amount of panel damage.

Just how do you get the message across to these people?

[av8rirl]

Originally posted by Chris Y
Just how do you get the message across to these people?

Theres only one way to get the message across and that is to make mandatory bans for bad/dangerous driving. Getting an endorsement doesn't really hurt a driver as they can continue with their championship cause. But if you ban a driver for a race, this ultimately hurts the driver most (by taking away championship points). This way a driver may think twice the next time (s)he decides to weave, nudge, etc... This should not be confused with tough racing.

The COC's need to have this authority and must not be afraid to use it fairly.

[Peter Mallett]

I quite often tell the story about a special saloons race at Lydden.

The race was two laps old when an Escort RS 2000 “mounted” a CRX special “saloon” at the Devils Elbow. The race was stopped and the two cars were separated. The Escort drove back to be re-scrutineered whilst the CRX was taken on a suspended tow round the hairpin and into the paddock.

As we know the Lydden paddock isn’t the smoothest surface in the world. As the truck drove down the hill to the necessary location it dropped a wheel in a rut. The resulting jerk caused the CRX to fall from its suspended position and land on the ground.

Now, the point of the story is that, the car had been suspended by its roll cage. After dropping it was a heap of mangled fibreglass, roll cage tubing (which appeared brazed not welded) and mechanicals.

The driver was naturally upset and blamed the marshals for the damage.

He could not see that he had been extremely lucky to survive because the car had certainly not been engineered properly. Scary if at the time funny.

[rick vaux]

av8rirl, i cant` agree enough.
The only problem i can see, and one which has been hotly debated by me not so long ago, is the action taken by the cofc being the correct action. Robbie Kerr being one example...
We can im` sure all name at least three drivers right now, who we have seen make absolutly mad passes or manouvers not in keeping with track etiquete if thats how you spell it !?

[brickkicker]

I think a lot of drivers see big crashes on the TV and see the pro's just walk away from them. I have just watched the big GT crash/s at Oulton were there were a number of big hits including a marshal getting run down. They all see this and think 'if he can do that so can I' but probably dont realise that all the parts of his car are the best they can be lots of money is spent on safety parts were as in club racing it may be seen as a nessecary evil to get past the scrutineers.
Look at F1 and how much money is spent on improving driver safety and look at the high speed impacts they have had over the last few years and 9 times out of ten they run back for the spare car the other time its nothing serious.
The drivers need to look long and hard at what they do on the track and think about the move befor they try it.

[f1lloyd]

However, putting "Motorsport is dangerous" on the ticket, the circuit gate and the back of the program, is not enough to bring home to drivers just how dangerous it can be.

To be honest with you, that "Motorsport is Dangerous" thing is probably just a token gesture, like the "Smoking can seriously damage your health" signs on cigarettes. Its probably just a legal thing they have to do. Like the cigarette companies, the people who write "Motorsport is Dangerous" on the back of tickets, etc, probably dont give a toss.

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by av8rirl


Theres only one way to get the message across and that is to make mandatory bans for bad/dangerous driving. Getting an endorsement doesn't really hurt a driver as they can continue with their championship cause. But if you ban a driver for a race, this ultimately hurts the driver most (by taking away championship points). This way a driver may think twice the next time (s)he decides to weave, nudge, etc... This should not be confused with tough racing.

The COC's need to have this authority and must not be afraid to use it fairly.

But where do you draw the line between competitive, or even aggressive driving, and dangerous conduct? Is dropping two wheels on the inside of a slow corner, taking off another car's side mirror, and sliding across the track on exit just an aggressive overtaking move, or a dangerous risk? So much of it depends on the speeds, the circuit, the cars, and the talent and experience of the individual drivers involved.

You can't black flag everyone who leaves a donut on the side of another car... Like blindly butchering circuits with chicanes and massive deserts of run-off, it's a case of burning the village to save it (I do hope that phrase is understood across the pond...)

On the other hand, there are plenty of drivers who could use a good smack.

[Red Dog]

In reply to Peter Mallett's observations:-

Build standards vary tremendously, as a glance round any paddock will reveal, and it is the responsibility of the drivers to be critical of their own cars' safety. This requires some experience and imagination and the driver that sits in the assembly area worrying about whether the car will hold up in an accident is not in the right frame of mind to race. That should have been done well in advance. Caution is vital and it is supposed to be a non-contact sport (unless you're in BTCC or FF!) but if you are too cautious you will not win.

How well do most drivers know their cars? Do they inspect the whole thing after each meeting? Do they go through a fifty point check or whatever? Apart from the interesting bits that make it go, stop and corner, when did they last look at the belt mountings? Do they know what size bolts hold the belts in place? Have the belts been inspected recently? Is it a six point harness? Have they got padding around anything hard that they could contact in the cockpit area? Are the chassis tubes that hold the seat big enough and in good condition? Is the seat well fixed? Is there a flywheel scatter shield fitted? Does the roll bar extend through to the floor of the chassis and is it triangulated properly. When was the car last stripped and the chassis inspected? How big and effective are the deformable structures around the driver? Is the fire extinguisher plumbed in? (Using a hand-held may be okay in theory but after a heavy shunt?) How close is the top of your helmet to the roll bar? The list goes on....

It is amazing how many helmets are level with or only just below the roll bars. Madness! The Blue Book states 50mm below as a minimum.

I know it's club racing and many of us have tight budgets but the first time you need one of those safety features you be glad you spent the time and money.

[Richy_Rich]

I can't speak for anyone else, but safety is one thing I try to never skimp on (even at the expense of speed).

[Maisie]

You know, that 50 point check sounds like a good idea. I think all racing clubs/series/organisations ought to publish a list of things to check at a minimum before each race to ensure the safety of their car.

[zefarelly]

I spoke to someone about getting my National B . . . .the escence of the conversation was safety safety safety. then and only then you get out and learn some racecraft, it would appear some people dont take it seriously enough, perhaps things should be a bit stricter, although I hate the whole nanny state affair we seem to live under these days.
If I spend 5 years hard graft and hard earnt building a car and some prat takes me out by driving like Schumacher in Aus 94 I'd be seething . . .to put it politely

do you get paddock punch ups very often?

[brickkicker]

There was one at mallory a week or so ago after a bit of a coming together. When they got back to the paddock one grabed him and hit him shouting were you trying to fu**in kill me? But as I saw the coming together it was only a minor incident only because they didnt want to be the first to hit the brake

[Slowcoach]

So many points to answer and make....
I think there should be tougher penalties, bans and point deductions, point deductions are important as it stops one person taking out another to win a championship (e.g.schu/hill)- bans too as it stop people doing what they 'enjoy' and serve as a warning to others - there have been many discussions but overall I do think CoC's need to be tougher - and they could start by warning in driver briefings at meetings. I was quite shocked at the level of 'aggression' displayed in my first few races by other drivers and the 'must win at all costs' element - don't get me wrong I would love to win a race, but I appreciate I need to serve my apprenticeship and then probably get very lucky anyway I digress- I really felt some drivers were trying to 'bully' me - and then when I didnt cede to them they employed some very dubious (thats the polite word for it) tactics.
As for paddock punchups - I havent been in one yet but I have sought out other drivers to 'discuss' their driving standards - and received apologies and excuses. It made me feel better in as much as I hope they will think twice next time if they think the other driver might take the trouble to seek them out even in the sanctuary of their own enormous motorhome!
Clubs 'encouraging' more checks and pushing safety is another good point. Our club seems to have tightened up alot more on scrutineering and that can only be a good thing.
I could ramble on for hours but one thing seems very clear - things need to improve - even if only the people on this discussion thread do something it's a start - (like the film 'Pay it forward').
Injury and death are inevitable in many sports and pastimes,(think of the number of deaths in Eventing last year!) often in unlikely or unlucky circumstances, but these things do happen, anything that helps reduce these risks must be looked at.

[brickkicker]

I will point out that the 'punch up' at Mallory was dealt with by the CoC and the driver was banned for 30 days and if he hasnt sent it in I think the MSA will issue a life ban.
But is this enough if we went around and started fighting we would be arrested and charged for as many things as we could. Do you think that there should be tighter punishment for acts like this

[jamesb]

I have had a similar discussion with Tim27 about this sort of thing in the past, and having had time to think about my views and his views I have reached a kind of conclussion.

Safety costs money. Speed costs money. So if you are short of money you will have to be short of one or both of these.
Tim races in a very expensive car, and no-one has ever been seriously injured in Tim's series but a couple of people have been hurt in mine.

I have driven both mine, and Tim's car (or one identical) and I can tell you one thing. I felt safer in mine than his. Why? Because if I went off in his I could walk away uninjured, but it would cost me a fortune. I did take risks in his forgetting this. In mine I am always aware that every risk may be my last, and it is why I am very careful in my series.

Some drivers have the same attitude whatever they drive. If I crash it I crash it. There may be financial reasons, or health reasons why most of us try not to, but in short, if you are willing to risk your life for something you will do it anyway. It is nice to have safer cars, but lets face it, I would be as quick to jump into a 60's F1 car as a modern one. Guess which I'd be more careful in? Not the slower of the 2 that's for sure.

A wise man once said "put a spike in the centre of the steering wheel and they will be more careful" I think that if you wrapped this spike in next races budget it would be more effective as finances slow us all down. Bigger fines may be more of a deterant than bans, as this first leads to the other. A ban means you have more money for the next race.... at club level.

I for one intend to continue in my chosen formula, but would like to have the kind of safety that Tim27 enjoys. Unfortunately I cannot afford this so have to accept that accidents may be fatal. That is fine by me as I cannot afford to have accidents anyway so I am already trying my best not to do anything silly.

As to the 2 people killed at Cadwell, I have no words other than I am so sorry for them and their family and friends. I do not like Cadwell Park, and it showed in my lap time. Maybe with experience I will learn to enjoy the challenge of this well loved track, but for now I do not look forward to returning there. I'm sure both these drivers were as safe as anyone, but fate does intervene sometimes. When it does we can just hope we are in as safe a car as possible, but some cannot afford this as much as others... unfortunatly. In this case I do not believe the car was to blame, fate was. £100,000 of carbon may have saved the drivers, but who spends that in club sport?

Accidents happen and it is very sad when they do, which is why the tickets carry a warning and why my mum refuses to watch me race.

[EvilPumpkin]

jamesb, I'm sorry but I think your attitude is somewhat selfish.

If you can't afford to race, don't race. This is your life you're playing around with. Ok you might say that it's up to you what you do with your life, but think of everyone else. The marshals, rescue crews, organisers and other competitors that will have to live with the memory of dealing with your death for the rest of their lives.

Your poor family and friends who will lose you.

You say your mum refuses to watch you race. How do you think she's going to feel if one day you don't come home at all. I imagine she'd find identifying your mangled body somewhat stressful?

And what if your minimum of safety equipment causes someone else to be seriously injured or die? Say if you have an extinguisher that doesn't go off and your small fire ignites someone else's car. Sound far-fetched? I have a clip of an incident where this happened. The other driver was very VERY lucky to escape with her life.

In some ways I can understand your feelings. Hell, I'm a nutcase for motorsport too - and I suppose if you look at actual exposure time, as a marshal I spend more time in "danger" than you do. But we are taught from day 1 - and even before that - that safety is the priority. The safety of yourself; the safety of your crew; the safety of the competitors. But yourself first, because no-one else can be responsible for you but you.

If you have to compromise on speed for safety then talk to your class rep. Look at ways of levelling the playing field a bit - maybe by looking at the criteria for being in your particular formula - or looking at handicapping for certain kinds of races.

You might think money spent on speed rather than safety is well spent. The people who are hurt when you make a mistake won't agree.

[Point-5]

I myself race and all I have to add is this...

1. The quick guys (The entertainers) are the ones that take the risks and have the balls to do things that their fellow competitors won't, this does not mean pushing other cars off track etc...If there was no risks there would be no quick guys.

2.The day motorsport becomes 100% safe or even close to it is the day I give it up and I would imagine most fans and competitors will too.

[EvilPumpkin]

No argument here Point - I'm talking about unnecessary risks such as wearing a helmet that's not fit for the purpose, or deliberately pinning your fire extinguisher. This is totally different.

There's nothing clever about getting brain damage from a relatively minor incident or suffering needless burns because your extinguisher wasn't fit for the purpose.

[Chris Y]

There's a difference between risk-taking and putting your life and others in danger..

Diving up the inside of someone under braking may be a risk - you could both go off the track and not finish, get cars damaged, etc. - but this is not inherently dangerous unless there's something wrong with the cars, or there's no run-off.

100% safe would be a good thing, but 100% risk-free would not. We can stil take risks and play safe, at the same time

[Stacy]

Originally posted by Red Dog
Build standards vary tremendously, as a glance round any paddock will reveal, and it is the responsibility of the drivers to be critical of their own cars' safety.

I take the view that the car has to be built to the safest possible standards, with roll caging I think "Upside down". My shell prep, belts, pickups, suit, helmet etc is the best I can afford/get away with within the regs. This minimises my pain in the event of a bang.

I need a level of confidence in the build quality of the car, something I've not always enjoyed in recent years. This lessens the chances of me having a bang.

If I have a confidence in that, I'll drive it to the absolute edge of mine if not the cars limits - whatever the circuit. I'm not a great fan of Cadwell's safety either as has been mentioned here, but I can't say it slows me down - Once the lights turn green I'm still pushing as hard as I can, regardless of the penalty for losing it.

Next year I'll be trying to drop my time there again.

That's not to say it won't happen to me, but I accept it's the game we play and enjoy so much - an amalgam of heated competition, enjoyment of self development, and the thrill of risk, in varying amounts for every driver.

Que Sera.

Stacy.

[jamesb]

Wow, EP I am very upset by your interpretation of my reply.

You seem to assume that my reply means I race in a cardboard helmet with a bucket of sand between my legs?

My lid cost more than most people spend on their whole outfit, with my suit costing about the same. I do not skimp on safety equiptment, much as you'd like to insinuate I do.

Secondly, I run in a factory prepared car with the build quality and safety equiptment second to none. TO NONE!

My point is that I cannot afford to race in a formula that conforms to FIA standards in crash tests and head protection. I am sorry this offends you, but it is a simple fact. Short of filling a rottern old £20 mini with cotton wool I cannot afford to race with total confidence that I will not get hurt. Something that most F1 and so forth drivers can (almost) enjoy.

My example here.
I have, say.... £2000 for a season and 2 cars I could race. One is a FF1600 Kent, the other a FFZtec. I can have (purely for example) 1 race in the safer Ztec, or a season in the more dangerous Kent. I choose the Kent (risking my life and my families happiness in the process, how selfish of me), and if you cannot understand why maybe you are in the wrong place.

That was my point, I'm very sorry I didn't make it clearer as I am now quite offended.

[EvilPumpkin]

Hi James,

My sincere apologies - I totally misunderstood what you were saying - I thought it read that you only had the one car and you were sacrificing safety standards for speed. My mistake and apologies once again.

Cheers,

EP

[Teletubby]

James, I must confess that my reaction to your post was identical to the Pumpkin's but having read your response and re-read your post I think it was a case of misinterpretation.

Those of use who have to deal with the aftermath of accidents (Marshals, Rescue Crew, Medics etc) are often a little touchy on the subject of safety as many driver do have a somewhat less responsible attitude.

Cheers

TT