Driver calls for guidelines to be introduced

[Woolley]

I think it's a natural reaction to want to absolve yourself from at least some of the blame for such an appalling incident, but I'm surprised the judge gave it such weight. If you're suffering the after affects of an accident - whatever it may be - the message ought to be given that you should think very seriously before driving/

The motor racing connection is a red herring. He could have had an accident with similar results in all sorts of ways, many of which would not have even involved a medic, so to try to pass responsibility back to the circuit MO is unfair.

[Piglet]

There is a procedure for these things, although in a number of years in Race Admin I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen it used.

If the Doc or the CMO is unhappy about the driver's health following an incident he should put a medical endorsment on the back of a drivers' race licence, the driver must then see his own GP to have it counter endorsed to remove it. (for drivers it's one of the reasons why good sign-on staff always want you to take your licence out of its wallet so we can see the back of it).

I had this conversation with a CMO last year as we just don't see medical endorsments even when we know that a driver has had a big shunt. His response was that it is very difficult with the equipment at a circuit (and even in a hopsital environment) to know if there is a problem. If they put a medical endorsment on the licence this would preclude a driver from continuing to participate in a race weekend when in reality they have no proof that there is a problem.

I guess in a team game it's easier, there are other players to take the players place - if you rule out a driver in the final round of a championship with a lot to lose that's a different ball game and one that a driver who considered himself fit would probably appeal against.

I'm not sure it's an argument I agree with but I can see the problem, in the absence of a regulation that says a driver SHOULD receive a medical endorsment in the event of xyz and then you'd have to define and enforce xyz.

To come back to the case in point, the CMO could have endorsed the drivers' race licence if he felt it appropriate. I'm not sure if he could have done anything to prevent the driver from driving a road car other than give him general advice (no blue book to hand). However, if we start down that route the standard response of a Doc will surely be to tell everyone not to drive and endorse everyone's race licence to avoid the risk of litigation?

[Al Weyman]

His response was that it is very difficult with the equipment at a circuit (and even in a hopsital environment) to know if there is a problem.

Exactly as I was saying, no one would expect the circuit to have a half a million pound MRI scanner (or however much they cost) and skilled staff to operate it on stand by so a blanket ban would be the omly option to save the Doc from the hurst chasers. Talking about which I am just about to go for one and I understand it costs about 3 or 4 hundred quid a scan.

[bdwoody]

in response to 'piglets' post how do the officials record details of that type now that we have credit card style race licenses ?

[Circuitmarshal]

Any details are in stewards event log that is sent in I think you'll find.
Even driving misdemeanors, so you still get away with nothing.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by bdwoody

in response to 'piglets' post how do the officials record details of that type now that we have credit card style race licenses ?

The honest answer is that I don't know. I haven't seen a new licence as yet or recieved any guidance.

As Circuitmarshal says the CMO has to complete a "Medical Statistics" form that the MSA Steward sends to the MSA so the information goes to the MSA although some medics are unhappy completing the "long form" (for more serious incidents) in full as they believe it breaches patient confidentiality.

[Sheila M]

Originally Posted by Piglet

The honest answer is that I don't know. I haven't seen a new licence as yet or recieved any guidance.

The 2007 Blue Book refers to Licence Record Cards, on which Clerks of the Course should record upgrading signatures, misdemeanours, etc.

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Sheila M

The 2007 Blue Book refers to Licence Record Cards, on which Clerks of the Course should record upgrading signatures, misdemeanours, etc.

That's interesting (really must track down a 2007 Blue Book!), does it say if the driver has to present their Licence Record Card at signing on or just their shiny new plastic licence?

[Sheila M]

Originally Posted by Piglet

That's interesting (really must track down a 2007 Blue Book!), does it say if the driver has to present their Licence Record Card at signing on or just their shiny new plastic licence?

Can't remember - give me a few minutes and I'll tell you!

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Sheila M

Can't remember - give me a few minutes and I'll tell you!

Thank you!! I shant be offended if you tell me to naff off and do my own research!

[Sheila M]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Thank you!! I shant be offended if you tell me to naff off and do my own research!

Nope I wouldn't do that to you!

Now, E 2.15.2 refers to "How to upgrade a Licence" in which it is stated that CoC's signatures must be obtained on the Upgrade Card (as opposed to the Licence Record Card). C 5.4.11 states that "All driving penalties applied must be recorded on the Driver's Competition Licence Record".

E 2.17.1 states that Licences must be produced for inspection at all events ...

E 2.17.2 states that "only the originals of licences and upgrade cards are acceptable" ...

So, reading that, I would say that everything should be handed over at sign on. I stand to be corrected - as always

[Piglet]

Hmmm that sounds straightforward! I look forward to seeing more!

I must get round to tracking down a book!

[Piglet]

Ah ha you updated your post!

I'd read "Licences" to be only the competition licence and not the others (although a driver would have to leave their Upgrade Card if they wanted a signature presumably).

It's going to be interesting this year! We're vering off topic but I think a credit card licence is the way to go but clearly we're going to have to understand the issues that come out of the new system.

Can anyone tell me if the new race licence contains a date of birth?

[Sheila M]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Hmmm that sounds straightforward! I look forward to seeing more!

I must get round to tracking down a book!

Ah yes, the alphabet according to the 2007 Blue Book is very straight forward - EE, Z, LL, A, P, BH, C, D,E, O, Q, V, W, R, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, S, U, X

It's laid out in a more practical way, but it's different to everything I've ever known, so things are a bit confusing at the moment!

I'm sure I'll grow to love it

[johnw]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Can anyone tell me if the new race licence contains a date of birth?

It does. The sample shown in the MSA comic is that of Alan Gow's - with the dob obliterated

[Piglet]

Thanks John, spotting the young drivers gets harder every year that I get older!!

[bdwoody]

SORRY i said anything now ,taken this off topic!..

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by bdwoody

SORRY i said anything now ,taken this off topic!..

Some of us don't need much encouragement!!

[Asp]

OK, bouncing it back to topic

Originally Posted by Piglet

To come back to the case in point, the CMO could have endorsed the drivers' race licence if he felt it appropriate. I'm not sure if he could have done anything to prevent the driver from driving a road car other than give him general advice (no blue book to hand). However, if we start down that route the standard response of a Doc will surely be to tell everyone not to drive and endorse everyone's race licence to avoid the risk of litigation?

As I understand it, it was a testing crash, so I assume not under MSA regs.
What you've described Piglet are the guidelines for MSA events, with the separate question of should they be enforced better. Are there any recognised guidelines for test days, or does it depend purely on any circuit policy and/or the medic's own view?
I doubt an MSN licence could be endorsed at non-MSA events - but perhaps this should be made the case? After all, a driver could be knocked out cold in a shunt late in Friday (circuit) testing, and then want to be in the first practice session for Saturday's race meeting. If someone's been knocked out I doubt a CMO would allow someone to race for at least 24hours, but if the driver doesn't tell anyone and goes ahead and races against medical advice, can anyone stop him?

[Chigley]

Attached is a post from someone who has kissed the wall heavily at speed and the advice he was given is exactly what I was expecting and hoping for.

I would like to come in on this 1 if i may! Speaking from my experience in 2005 i have to say that the team of medics and doctor's who looked after me at the Rock, and may i say are some of the best in the country!! looked after me both during the meeting and after, 1..I was not allowed to leave the Medical Centre until they were happy with my condition!, 2..I was then only allowed to leave on the understanding that i was going to have someone with me to drive me home and who would also be with me for the next 48hrs!!

I have been racing now for over...lets just say a few years lol..and i have never herd of any racing driver being allowed to drive himself home after having a masive Shunt...if the injury's arnt bad the shock that comes out later can be!

Ps.
And Yes it does hurt allot when you hit a concrete wall at 150mph!!! but its not stopped me.

Ian

[Red Baron]

Had the driver in question been given that sort of advice then I'd be agreeing with you all in saying that he was wrong to get behind the wheel.

However, the 'do not drive for 48 hours' is exactly the sort of guidelines that I think he is asking for.....which could only lead me to believe that he wasn't given any such advice.

That is only an assumption though and I certainly don't think that the blame shoud be passed back to the medics at the circuit.......but if he wasn't given such advice then he makes a good case.


How this is addressed in future I don't know, but I'd assume that there must be some sort of medical guidelines with regard to people driving after having a bang on the head. Is it not as simple as issuing the s'tandard' advice to drivers and emphasising that it covers driving on the road as well as the circuit (which should be obvious)? or am over simplyfying the situation?

Rosie

[Eddy V]

Originally Posted by Red Baron

Had the driver in question been given that sort of advice then I'd be agreeing with you all in saying that he was wrong to get behind the wheel.

However, the 'do not drive for 48 hours' is exactly the sort of guidelines that I think he is asking for.....

But why would a sound person who just had a big off and was checked over in the Medical Centre, need that "do not drive for 48 hours" advise?
To be safe and have a fall guy (the poor CMO or doctor) when something happens on his way home or a few days later?

If you have a nasty fall at home, you don't start running stairs, do you?

Maybe if he had been smart, somebody else would have been driving his car and he wouldn't have had a high speed crash. See the original article.

[Red Baron]

18 months ago I had a cartilage operation on my knee. It was on a Friday and I fully intended to go to work on the Monday. However, when I came round from the op the doctor told me that I shouldn't drive for a week.

I didn't have to walk with crutches and I wasn't in much pain at all. My injury was caused by running so I knew that running wasn't a good idea for a while, but driving.......it never occured to me that I wouldn't be able to.

You can say that it is not comparable because mine was not a head injury but I think the scenario is the same. If the driver involved felt fine, had no pain etc....why would he not drive unless he was advised not to???

I can imagine that if guidelines such as 'do not drive for 48 hours' was implemented it would annoy some drivers; especially if they crashed in practice on a Saturday and had to miss a race on the Sunday....but so be it and, if there really is a standard medical guidline then it's a no-brainer IMHO; it should be implemented on the circuit as well.

Rosie

PS: I think the high speed aspect of his accident is irrelevant.

[Eddy V]

Rosie, but that is the thing, isn't it, the feeling fine? He told everybody he had injured his spine. If you injure your spine, it is not very smart to start driving cars (let alone at high speed), pedalling a bike or start jogging.

As a mentioned before somewhere here, I've been so "fortunate" to injure my spine a long time ago. I could hardly walk, let alone drive a car.
And even if I could have driven a car, I wouldn't have done it. But that is maybe the marshal in me?

There will be probably 1000 different views about this, all right.

But if they were to give guidelines, who is going to police it? And what if the track day / test day CMO (with maybe not the best equipment available) says you are okay and 10 hours later you collapse because of some side effect the doctor couldn't see?

A legal case?
I think it would be soon something like: you crashed, you are not fit anymore to drive your car, to race for 3 weeks, or whatever.

[flagwaver]

Reading the report in MN it says he was checked over at the Leighton Hospital at Crewe. So that to my mind puts a very different twist on things. And do not forget this took place at a general testing session. Nothing to do with the MSA.