Bianchi family launch legal action

[chillibowl]

hard to say. people deal with grief in different ways.

so i hope that this process helps them with closure and if they can achieve some measure of it then perhaps they too will also benefit from the process.

but agreed...my personal opinion is also that they wont find it from a trial and as you say a trial may even do more harm then good. its all just sad really.

[chillibowl]

switching focus a bit, of course the family feels one way as they lost a lot more than any of us have in this situation, but as a motor sports community does anyone actually think less of JB because of the findings from the report? rather does he need to be exonerated as it were?

a tragic loss of course, possibly one that could have been avoided and lessons to be learnt for sure but for me reading a report (or the parts of it i have read) that lays blame with the driver in no way diminishes what i know of JB's life and what he was trying to accomplish with it.

must say it saddens me to think that there may be an element here which causes the Bianchi family to believe that in some way it does.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

switching focus a bit, of course the family feels one way as they lost a lot more than any of us have in this situation, but as a motor sports community does anyone actually think less of JB because of the findings from the report? rather does he need to be exonerated as it were?

After my initial comment I felt I would stay away because this thread was heading toward a real trainwreck, but your question is a really good one.

I don't think less of JB. I doubt any driver thinks before doing something voluntarily (picking a particular line, etc.) think "This is going to cause me to crash". We have any number of crashes during a season by drivers of all experience levels and ultimately the drivers are the largest factor in making them happen. This is one that just lead to his own death. Then the question might be "He should have known better than to take that risk". I expect he was taking a calculated risk and as mentioned in a post above... At this level of the sport, the incentive is to not lift to fight another day, but to push the envelope and get away with what you can. Especially if you are new driver. But at the end of the day, he likely took a risk and paid a price. IMHO, its a bit of a red herring.

At the risk of feeding the potential trainwreck... If I was his family, I would have confidence in who JB was and not focus on trying to clear his name. Don't focus on if people think it was his fault or not as IMHO, there is no adequate answer there (i.e. would an apology from various entities or individuals really help or even be sincere?). If I had decided to go forward with the legal action that the result (and his legacy) would be if there was a chance for a push for improved safety.

Richard

[Woolley]

I feel for the family, and I'm sad for Jules who was by all accounts a lovely guy and a talented racer. But... he went off under yellow flags and nearly wiped out three marshals. No-one else did. Which suggests the conditions weren't at fault, the driving was.

Having stood trackside and watched drivers blatantly ignoring flags and putting me in unnecessary danger, my sympathy becomes diminished.

Sorry, but the legal action is a travesty on the basis of shifting the blame.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Whilst I have the utmost sympathy for the Bianchi family, I fear this action will do nothing but prolong the hurt and grieving process they are going through.

I've quoted Mike Harte's post here because he has expressed my views on this in a much better fashion that I could.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It is up to the driver to judge whether he can maintain control of his car at any given speed. In this instance, the FIA seem to imply that Bianchi had not reacted sufficiently to the warning flags, and they further actually state that he was driving too fast for the conditions. He then lost control of the car.

At that very point in time, apart from the soaking wet state of the track, everything was under the control of the driver; the fact that there was another stricken car nearby or the recovery vehicle was present by the stricken car, did not cause Bianchi to lose control of his car. Nor did the presence of marshals at the scene, and whether or not a safety car had been activated, it would have had no bearing on Bianchi at that particular moment in time or his car being where it was. It was totally in the driver's grasp as to how his car was being driven.

Bianchi then compounded the problem by keeping his foot firmly planted on the accelerator (gas) pedal whilst simultaneously braking, a consequence of left foot braking I would presume; easily done in a moment of "blind panic", but something that he shouldn't have done. I should add that I have been left foot braking since the 70s on all my road cars, but I had to train my mind to always lift my right foot off the accelerator when braking, especially in emergency stop scenarios.

From that moment on, he was a passenger and at the velocity of his car, the wet area at the side of the track and the comparative closeness of the barriers and Sutil's car, he was going to hit something. Unfortunately, it was the recovery vehicle. Even then, if the vehicle had been at a different angle or facing the other way, then we may not be having this debate.

However, the problem was initiated by actions taken by Bianchi whilst he was supposed to be in charge of his car. It is exactly the same as someone driving on a highway during a rain storm; you need to slow down to take the state of the road into consideration. If you are in an accident caused by losing control after aquaplaning, don't blame the highways authorities afterwards for you wrapping the car around a piece of street furniture because they hadn't put on a safety message on the matrix signs. Or would some of you suggest that they remove all the street furniture from roads so that you can't interact with them?

The Driver is the ultimate and final arbiter of what they are doing, if a situation worsens then you adjust your driving conditions appropriately. Even if that means parking it in the garage.
I don't like saying it, but it was Jules that was in error - the error being he hadn't sufficiently adjusted his driving to the conditions, that resulted in the departure from Control.

The events that followed that departure from control were tragic, but they were one of a number of possible crash outcomes but each and everyone of them could only come about after control was lost.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Whilst I have the utmost sympathy for the Bianchi family, ....

They had my sympathy but have now completely lost it. The best I can say is that they are not thinking straight due to grief, and being goaded on by a greedy lawyer.

[Adam43]

The loss is still there as is my sympathy.

I doubt much good will come of this, but there will be much heartache and the negatives will probably outweigh the positives.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Yep, this what they are seeking. The ex F1 doc Gary Hartsteinhas posted an open letter to the family on his blog, principally around the transfer time of Jules to hospital and lack of air medivac due to the weather and offers himself to providean expert testimonmy if required.

My personal view is that although the FIA enquiry found that Jules was driving too fast (and I think we are talking small margins here about what too fast actually means), there should have not been an tractor there for him or any other driver to hit.

I notice that Charlie Whiting has been quick to put the safety car out for incidents since Suzuka and I suspect that this may be part of the reasoning behind the famillies action in that they have seen this and therefore by current practice it almost shows that CW was allegedly wrong to allow recovery of Sutils car with a tractor without the safety car neutralising the race as he wouldn't do it now in similar circumstances.

I know that racing drivers accept the risks but that doesn't mean that someone else isn't culpable, particularly in this day and age.

Does anyone remember the recent Hockenheim GP race where someone spun into the pitwall (Hulkenburg?) and the marshals had to recover the car from the inside / mid of the race track without any safety car?

That was another case where I thought an instant safety car should have been used, but wasnt.

[BSchneiderFan]

It's hard to apportion the blame to the deceased, but, as others have pointed out, he went off where others didn't. I still think there are questions to be asked about the presence of the recovery vehicle and/or the lack of presence of a safety car, but poor Jules lost it. There was no mechanical failure of the kind that did for, say, Jim Clark or Mark Donohue.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

It's hard to apportion the blame to the deceased, but, as others have pointed out, he went off where others didn't.

And went into a piece of heavy equipment that common sense says shouldn't have been there under those circumstances.

Overriding details like this do matter. Is there a guarantee of survival had the vehicle not been there? No. But it's presence did make the likelihood of survival far lower.

If there is no decently explainable reason why that vehicle was there without an FCY, then it's presence is an overriding factor. These factors can, and often DO, shift the responsibility for a given accident.

Suppose for a moment that Bianchi HAD gone off due to a failure, or that he had tried to slow down for the flags and made a mistake while trying to do so. Is the presence of the crane still an irrelevant factor?

Of course not. The reason he went off is simply not as big an issue as the fact that something was there which, by any reasonable measurement, should not have been.

Let's step away from Bianchi's crash to explain it a bit differently...

If I went off the road and into a ditch, and in doing so hit something laid across that ditch that was not legally authorized to be there(say, a large piece of pipe for a construction project that was never approved), the reason I went off is not relevant to who is responsible for any injuries I suffer as a result of hitting that pipe. Whether I lost control or went off due to a burst tire, getting pushed off, or anything else only effects whether or not I get cited for failure to control my vehicle. The pipe is an overriding factor - I may have been injured just as badly if it hadn't been there, but we only know that my injuries came as a direct result of hitting that pipe. Because of this, whoever put the pipe now is at fault for the resultant injuries.

It should be no different here.

[Adam43]

There are two aspects as you point out. There is the cause of the accident and the situation that led to the severity of the injuries.

It's an interesting analogy. Does it make a difference if the pipe was authorised to be there and there was a speed restriction in place?

The road and the track are different so we probably can't develop the analogy much further.

[davec]

The pipe example is a good one but what if there was a sign saying "slow down potential hazard and men working" would there still be no blame on you?

We have all seen the video of the crash and I would like to know what we would say if JB had gone off 3m further to the left. The marshal would nod have moved in time and would be dead instantly for sure. Bianchi "probably" would have walked away.

[dsg]

I don't think FormulaFox's analogy really stands up as the piece of heavy machinery and marshals were legitimately meant to be there at the time and the double waived yellow flags alerted the drivers that they were there.

His analogy may work if a foreign object was on the track and it was not meant to be there, for example a manhole or drain cover, and there was no warning.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Adam43

There are two aspects as you point out. There is the cause of the accident and the situation that led to the severity of the injuries.

It's an interesting analogy. Does it make a difference if the pipe was authorised to be there and there was a speed restriction in place?

In that case why I went off would be the more important factor. But you appear to be slipping off to the side of the main point of the analogy - I'll elaborate further in response to dsg's comment which more directly knocks on this.

Originally Posted by davec

The pipe example is a good one but what if there was a sign saying "slow down potential hazard and men working" would there still be no blame on you?

If they weren't supposed to be there, then no.

Originally Posted by dsg

I don't think FormulaFox's analogy really stands up as the piece of heavy machinery and marshals were legitimately meant to be there at the time and the double waived yellow flags alerted the drivers that they were there.

His analogy may work if a foreign object was on the track and it was not meant to be there, for example a manhole or drain cover, and there was no warning.

While the specifics are indeed quite different, the point I think you've missed is that the heavy machinery should NOT have been deployed under those conditions at all. While the specifics of each case are different -the pipe shouldn't be there because the work was unauthorized, and the crane shouldn't have been past the wall under a local yellow when it's known a car can end up in that area if the driver loses control- common sense should tell us that neither of these should have been done at all. Don't start laying out the groundwork or beginning actual work on something you aren't authorized to do, and don't send a crane beyond the wall until you know all risks that can be mitigated have been addressed

See what I'm getting at a bit better here?

[canamman]

This will prolong the family's grieving period for months if not years.
Heavy price to pay going legal on this matter.

[Adam43]

FormulaFox I see what you are getting at. Which is why I noted the two elements to this.

There are just two different points of view here. One that when a yellow is out the driver needs to take responsibility to drive fully in control. The other is that this isn't relevant here and the race control should take full control take responsibility away from the driver (SC or red flag) before sending out a hazard to clear up a previous issue.

As with most things there is no clear cut answer. Both situations could be relevant in different scenarios.

If Bianchi hadn't gone off under yellow there is no issue. If the crane wasn't there then the consequences are lower.
As you say.


#43

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by canamman

This will prolong the family's grieving period for months if not years.

Heavy price to pay going legal on this matter.

This is my only real feeling about this. It is a terrible thing that will not be made better and just cause more heartache with these actions.


#43

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The only thing FOM and FIA are to blame for is not starting the race earlier when visibility was better something that was suggested. And I agree, the tractor shouldn't have been there, lessons hadn't been learned from Brundle's near miss in 94

And Schumi's near miss in Brazil.

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by canamman

This will prolong the family's grieving period for months if not years.
Heavy price to pay going legal on this matter.

Hope it won't signal the end of MRT Manor, because the team is too weak to affront the legal demand...
Manor in these terms reminds me too much Simtek team in 1994 (Roland and Andrea accidents).

[fredd1]

I think the distance is sufficient not to impact upon the present Manor iteration.

[mini1400]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

...Bianchi then compounded the problem by keeping his foot firmly planted on the accelerator (gas) pedal whilst simultaneously braking, a consequence of left foot braking I would presume; easily done in a moment of "blind panic", but something that he shouldn't have done....

Isn't the pressing both the accelerator and the brake meant to switch off the engine? In which case he was doing the right thing there....

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by mini1400

Isn't the pressing both the accelerator and the brake meant to switch off the engine? In which case he was doing the right thing there....

There is supposed to be a software reaction in the event of both pedals being depressed in the event of an incident, which is supposed to either "kill" the power unit or neutralise the power output (I'm not sure which). However, after the Bianchi crash, it was found that the software on the Marussia wasn't compatible with and/or working in tandem with the fly-by-wire braking system on their cars.

However, once he left the track and was on a slick surface with no grip whatsoever, Bianchi should have removed the pressure from the accelerator, in my opinion.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

There is supposed to be a software reaction in the event of both pedals being depressed in the event of an incident, which is supposed to either "kill" the power unit or neutralise the power output (I'm not sure which). However, after the Bianchi crash, it was found that the software on the Marussia wasn't compatible with and/or working in tandem with the fly-by-wire braking system on their cars.

However, once he left the track and was on a slick surface with no grip whatsoever, Bianchi should have removed the pressure from the accelerator, in my opinion.

To be honest Mike, by that stage I would have thought he'd have been what is known as completely out of control. The brakes wouldn't have had much effect with no grip on wet grass.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

To be honest Mike, by that stage I would have thought he'd have been what is known as completely out of control. The brakes wouldn't have had much effect with no grip on wet grass.

True. His fronts had locked up, but his rears were to some extent still driving him onwards. But it couldn't have helped, though.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

.

Although the family would probably hope to settle out of court, I think that it highly unlikely that the defendants would unless any settlement was completely covered by total secrecy. Furthermore, they would probably only agree to that if the family accept that they, the defendants, are not admitting any form of liability. I doubt that either of these conditions would be acceptable to the family, who, after all, are attempting to have Jules exonerated totally which they couldn't achieve in the above way.

Mike, I can't see where the family have said that they are taking legal action primarily for a monetary award or any reward for that matter outside the questions they have raised, have you got information that this is their main goal? I must admit I don't trawl the internet looking for this sort of stuff so they made have said it somewhere I have not seen.