Bianchi family launch legal action

[fefe]

Originally Posted by Casper

The Bianchi family were and are well acquainted with death and injury from motor racing so I can't be convinced that money is the end result but I bet the defendants try and settle out of court to prevent the close examination of what happened and why. I think they want the courts to examine the whitewash that the report became and in doing so apportion at least some of the blame to the defendants and why they subsequently made changes if the system was working already. There is one sure thing in all this, before and during the time the report was being assembled and authored those behind it sought to minimise the impact it would have on everyone but the driver and they succeeded. Now they have backed themselves into a corner and have to defend the report and all the decisions that led up to the crash and why they subsequently took the actions they did. Was the Bianchi to blame? I am sure he has to accept (posthumously) part of the blame but there are so many factors which led up to the crash that others had a hand in also. In reality we have heard only one side of the story as told by the FIA and the Bianchi family are obviously try to address that and I sense frustration with getting answers is at the bottom of this and they had no choice.

I think the Bianchi family is most disappointed in that FIA and FOM haven't spoken at all to the family as it seems ?, because they want an apology and answers to questions as haven´t been answered yet. Also sadly the outcome could have been the same even if Jules have had a lower speed (minimise the impact) Maria De Villota comes to mind (as passed away several months later after here accident with a standing truck and her speed was barely nothing ...the car made a jump IIRC.)

[fefe]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Seconded. I've always been of the belief that if equipment must go past the wall, a full course caution should be thrown. Even moreso in cases of wet track conditions(and that was way beyond merely "wet").

People can say Jules should've slowed down more, but there's simply no guarantee in those conditions that it would have made any difference. The fact that other drivers negotiated it without issue doesn't mean much of anything - the only thing that could guarantee prevention of the accident would've been not sending the crane out until a full course caution had been thrown.

The responsibility for that mistake lies entirely with the series and it's operators.

I fully agree !

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Casper

You and me discussing it on a forum is not exactly what I meant. There needs to be a formal inquiry calling on those involved and those qualified to assess what happened or did not happen. This is obviously what the family wants, not two fans offering unqualified advice about things they know nothing about on the internet.

I was using the royal "we" as in powers to be, not the two of us, but I think you knew that. By all means lets (majestic plural) have another inquiry to examine what happened. Hopefully the family will get something out of it and if it makes them feel better then that's something at least.

I doubt it will uncover anything new and I hope the people in charge of any inquiry remember correlation does not imply causation.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by fefe

Driver error ? Jules aqua planned and as mentioned Safety Car should have been deployed as soon as the tractor was out to carry away Sutil´s car, AND red flagged. I hope FIA and FOM have to pay the price for this awful mistake !

The aquaplaning was caused by his speed being above that for the prevailing conditions. If he had slowed down more (if he had at all?) then the car would not have aquaplaned.

That points directly to driver error, especially as the double yellow flags were waving prior to the scene.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

People can say Jules should've slowed down more, but there's simply no guarantee in those conditions that it would have made any difference. The fact that other drivers negotiated it without issue doesn't mean much of anything - the only thing that could guarantee prevention of the accident would've been not sending the crane out until a full course caution had been thrown.

The recovery vehicle did not cause the accident; it was stationary at the time, and was not on the racing surface at the point of contact. There is no way that anyone can say what might have happened if the vehicle had not been there. Bianchi may have hit the barriers, or he may have hit Sutil's car, or hit a marshal that was dealing with the incident.

The only way that it could be guaranteed that Bianchi had not been injured in that race would have been if he had not participated in the event. You can "if" or "but" as much as you like, however because he was travelling at a too great a speed, the tyres of his car lost contact and adhesion with the track. Neither the FIA or FOM mandated that; it was a driver decision.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The recovery vehicle did not cause the accident; it was stationary at the time, and was not on the racing surface at the point of contact. There is no way that anyone can say what might have happened if the vehicle had not been there. Bianchi may have hit the barriers, or he may have hit Sutil's car, or hit a marshal that was dealing with the incident.

The only way that it could be guaranteed that Bianchi had not been injured in that race would have been if he had not participated in the event. You can "if" or "but" as much as you like, however because he was travelling at a too great a speed, the tyres of his car lost contact and adhesion with the track. Neither the FIA or FOM mandated that; it was a driver decision.

Assumptions and guesswork, they win every time on the internet.

[fefe]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The aquaplaning was caused by his speed being above that for the prevailing conditions. If he had slowed down more (if he had at all?) then the car would not have aquaplaned.

That points directly to driver error, especially as the double yellow flags were waving prior to the scene.

Yes of course, the higer speed the worse, but you can also aquaplan at 50 mph.And the braking safety system failed, something I was unaware about until this morning. (read it on another forum).

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The aquaplaning was caused by his speed being above that for the prevailing conditions. If he had slowed down more (if he had at all?) then the car would not have aquaplaned.

That points directly to driver error, especially as the double yellow flags were waving prior to the scene.

Yes Mike, the end result was absolutely tragic, but I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion of what triggered the tragedy.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by fefe

Yes of course, the higer speed the worse, but you can also aquaplan at 50 mph.And the braking safety system failed, something I was unaware about until this morning. (read it on another forum).

The braking safety system was not working, but his brakes were fully operative, and this was not the cause of the accident. From the FIA's report own summary (i.e. these are their words and findings, not mine or anyone else's interpretation):

7. During the 2 seconds Bianchi’s car was leaving the track and traversing the run-off area, he applied both throttle and brake together, using both feet. The FailSafe algorithm is designed to over-ride the throttle and cut the engine, but was inhibited by the Torque Coordinator, which controls the rear Brake-by-Wire system. Bianchi’s Marussia has a unique design of BBW, which proved to be incompatible with the FailSafe settings.

8. The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane.

But this is the bit that has upset the Bianchi family, and what they want the court to overturn:

3. Bianchi did not slow sufficiently to avoid losing control at the same point on the track as Sutil.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But this is the bit that has upset the Bianchi family, and what they want the court to overturn:

Mike, you have a link to this? This is the only point of contention from 360 pages of the FIA report and nothing else?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Yes Mike, the end result was absolutely tragic, but I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion of what triggered the tragedy.

Thank you. I really don't want to appear, as I probably do, as being totally cold-hearted; my sympathies go out to the family on their loss. But they do seem to be trying to have history rewritten about the incident.

Nothing broke on the car prior to Bianchi losing control due to excessive speed under the prevailing circumstances. It was driver error that at the point that the car needed to be braking, that both accelerator and brake pedal were being depressed at the same time, and I believe that at the point of impact, he was still pushing on the accelerator although the brakes were fully locked.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

Mike, you have a link to this? This is the only point of contention from 360 pages of the FIA report and nothing else?

Google was my friend; trying to find it from within the FIA's website produced absolutely zilch (although if I had absolutely nothing else to do I would have eventually found it, but I need to go out to watch the grass grow ): http://www.fia.com/news/accident-panel

[davec]

I do not understand the point about "if machinery is over the wall the the race should have a safety car or be stopped" what about having a marshal retrieving a car? should be stop a race every time ANYTHING is over the wall.

If we agree that the race should have been stopped because the machine was a risk to the driver but the marshal is OK in the gravel trap when the track is live then we are clearly saying a driver is more important than a marshal.....

we cannot have it both ways, IF a car can go off and hit a vehicle then it can hit a marshal. Both will potentially lead to injury or death but the actions leading up to it are the same.

This event was tragic and many factors contributed to the final outcome.

Hypothetically if driver A spins and is getting out of the car (under waved yellows) and is hit by driver B who also spins who is responsible???

In today's motorsport yellow flags do not mean slow down, they mean "dont go any faster than you have been before or you may get a penalty"

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

But they do seem to be trying to have history rewritten about the incident.

Requesting a full and proper investigation to address unanswered questions does not mean that they want to "rewrite history".

This is what his dad actually said, which seems totally reasonable to me given the circumstances:-

"We seek justice for Jules and want to establish the truth about the decisions that led to our son's crash,” added Bianchi's father Philippe. As a family, we have so many unanswered questions and feel that Jules' accident and death could have been avoided if a series of mistakes had not been made."

[Teletubby]

Originally Posted by davec

I do not understand the point about "if machinery is over the wall the the race should have a safety car or be stopped" what about having a marshal retrieving a car? should be stop a race every time ANYTHING is over the wall.

If we agree that the race should have been stopped because the machine was a risk to the driver but the marshal is OK in the gravel trap when the track is live then we are clearly saying a driver is more important than a marshal.....

we cannot have it both ways, IF a car can go off and hit a vehicle then it can hit a marshal. Both will potentially lead to injury or death but the actions leading up to it are the same.

This event was tragic and many factors contributed to the final outcome.

Hypothetically if driver A spins and is getting out of the car (under waved yellows) and is hit by driver B who also spins who is responsible???

In today's motorsport yellow flags do not mean slow down, they mean "dont go any faster than you have been before or you may get a penalty"

Spot on!

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Google was my friend; trying to find it from within the FIA's website produced absolutely zilch (although if I had absolutely nothing else to do I would have eventually found it, but I need to go out to watch the grass grow ): http://www.fia.com/news/accident-panel

That link is the report and not what is contained in the legal documents or what the family has been quoted to have said in the press release or was it a press conference. Your contention that they want one single point overturned does not appear correct from what I can gather. The family are quoted as saying they want to investigate the events leading up to the crash if the internet can be believed. It is noticeable that some luminaries in F1 have restrained themselves from reporting or commentating on this.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Casper

That link is the report and not what is contained in the legal documents or what the family has been quoted to have said in the press release or was it a press conference. Your contention that they want one single point overturned does not appear correct from what I can gather. The family are quoted as saying they want to investigate the events leading up to the crash if the internet can be believed. It is noticeable that some luminaries in F1 have restrained themselves from reporting or commentating on this.

This is part of what the lawyers on behalf of the family have stated:

“It was surprising and distressing to the Bianchi family that the FIA panel in its conclusions, whilst noting a number of contributing factors, blamed Jules.

There have been quotes elsewhere that have stated that the family want Jules exonerated completely, and this is what is driving them.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This is part of what the lawyers on behalf of the family have stated:

[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

There have been quotes elsewhere that have stated that the family want Jules exonerated completely, and this is what is driving them.

So there is more to it than just one point and the contention that he was driving excessively fast.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by dsg

I've always been of the belief that a two waved yellow flags means that there is a problem, marshals may be on the track and the driver should slow down and prepare to stop, if necessary.

And...? There's no guarantee that he wouldn't have lost it even if he had slowed down in those conditions. Most championships would've been under full course caution withOUT a crash in those conditions.

In my experience, having to slow down excessively just for one section of a track is actually more dangerous - particularly in wet conditions. It can break a driver's focus, and make him more likely to make an actual mistake.

Even then, maybe if the FIA actually enforced rules regarding slowing down considerably in such zones there'd be a decent point to make here. But they've never exactly been big on enforcing speeds through local yellow zones if the car was not right next to the track.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The recovery vehicle did not cause the accident; it was stationary at the time, and was not on the racing surface at the point of contact.

And...? The fact of the matter is, if it had not been there, Bianchi could not have hit it. It was placing equipment in a dangerous position - not different from a safety vehicle having to actually be on a track.

Simplef act: If the crane wasn't a hazard, Bianchi wouldn't have hit it.

There is no way that anyone can say what might have happened if the vehicle had not been there. Bianchi may have hit the barriers, or he may have hit Sutil's car, or hit a marshal that was dealing with the incident.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but: AND...?

We DO know one thing for certain about what would have happened if the crane hadn't been there; There would not have been a piece of heavy machinery there to make a dangerous situation even worse.

It's true we don't know what would have happened if the crane had not been there, but it simply doesn't matter. We know what happened as the result of deploying the crane under those circumstances. "What ifs" are not relevant to the matter - only what IS.

Neither the FIA or FOM mandated that; it was a driver decision.

As far as I'm concerned, the decision to send the crane out under those conditions is an overriding factor. Unless that decision was made by the marshals in opposition of official regulations, that pins the responsibility on the FIA and/or FOM.

Originally Posted by davec

I do not understand the point about "if machinery is over the wall the the race should have a safety car or be stopped" what about having a marshal retrieving a car? should be stop a race every time ANYTHING is over the wall.

If we agree that the race should have been stopped because the machine was a risk to the driver but the marshal is OK in the gravel trap when the track is live then we are clearly saying a driver is more important than a marshal.....

Funny thing about track marshals on foot; Despite not being in a vehicle that can move multiple hundreds of miles per hour, they can react a lot quicker than an actual safety vehicle can.

No, it doesn't mean they WILL avoid danger, but it means they have more ability to react than the driver of an out of control car heading for a piece of equipment that can't be moved.

we cannot have it both ways, IF a car can go off and hit a vehicle then it can hit a marshal. Both will potentially lead to injury or death but the actions leading up to it are the same.

The thing here is that because the track marshals can react quicker, it's not as big a deal to have them working on a car way off the track as it is to have a nearly immobile piece of heavy machinery out there.

In my mind, it's a matter of distance combined with fluidity of the situation. The farther away from the track, the more time the marshals have to react(using Bianchi's crash as an example since it's the topic of focus, look how quickly they're able to scatter in the short time they had), meaning the more you can hesitate to throw the FCY. It's still a dangerous situation, but it has factors that are far more fluid and create a less clear-cut danger. But once you send heavy equipment(or even jsut a truck) past the wall, you've introduced an element that cannot adapt as readily and a more serious consideration needs to be made.

Let me put it this way: If a car that loses control at caution speeds can still potentially reach the spot a vehicle is stuck at, an FCY is needed if ANY intervention is required - even if it's just track marshals. If a car that loses control at race speed can reach the spot a car is stopped(as we know for certain is the case in Bianchi's crash even before he lost control) it's one thing to deploy marshals only, and a very different thing to deploy heavy equipment.

And of course if a car rolls off the track to a spot where it would be impossible for an out of control car to reach the same spot, it really doesn't matter, but I'm still on the side of heavy equipment = FCY just for the sake of avoiding judgment calls that could unintentionally lead to another Bianchi-type accident.

Track marshals working right next to(or even worse, ON) an active track under only a local yellow, on the other hand, is something that infuriates me even more than the crane in this particular instance. How ANYONE can think that's a good idea is beyond me.

We can't eliminate ALL dangers from racing. But we should still eliminate every one we can without negatively impacting the racing. Heavy equipment past the wall meaning FCY may annoy the purists who don't like cautions, but in the big picture the effects are minimal, and certainly not negative.

Remember: The safer racing is, the faster they can be allowed to go.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This is part of what the lawyers on behalf of the family have stated:

[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

There have been quotes elsewhere that have stated that the family want Jules exonerated completely, and this is what is driving them.

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.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

Track marshals working right next to(or even worse, ON) an active track under only a local yellow, on the other hand, is something that infuriates me even more than the crane in this particular instance. How ANYONE can think that's a good idea is beyond me.

We manage it completely safely week in, week out at club-level events at circuits all over the UK (and I would suggest many, many other countries) because the culture within that community is to slow down, drive off line, even raise a hand to acknowledge the incident/marshals/flag signals. I'd suggest that we're even pretty adept at recognising when it *isn't* safe to do so, and we'll call for appropriate assistance - whether safety car or a session stop is neither here nor there.

F1 and other sanctioned international & national championships are a completely different kettle of fish; the differentiator being that in the former case the drivers are competing for the hell/fun/joy of it and are spending their own money (largely). In the latter case, many people external to the driver are *making* money from it. Milliseconds equal dollars.

I know that sounds cynical but it isn't meant that way, it's just reality.

All somewhat orthogonal to the court case, I'd suggest.

[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?

[S griffin]

Mark Donohue was mentioned earlier and if anything his death it was said was not caused by the tyre or even the post he hit, but by the fact that he was taken up by the helicopter in high altitude while having a headache

And to those who don't think the crane had anything to do with it look at Liuzzi's near miss in 2007. This was not a one off. If anything it shows that cranes should not be out without a SC in wet conditions.

[chillibowl]

for me i am conflicted on what to think.

if you take the report at face value, which i do, i am not sure what there is to be gained by a lawsuit.

that said, even if you take the report at face value then one also has to acknowledge that the FIA had its own lawyers draft and vet the final language in said report.

personally i dont think simply having lawyers involved means that anything was omitted or changed from the report but i can understand how one may feel that way given the nature of the process.

so certainly i can sympathize with the Bianchi family and understand their efforts to seek legal action as that unfortunately is their only redress in drawing out more information from the FIA.

also it is their right to seek a legal remedy...i can also understand why some would label this as an aspect of our 'blame culture' but at the same time how can we blame someone for exercising their legal rights (or in this case the rights of the estate)? after all this a person who is no longer alive to defend himself.

this is why the courts exist and the system imo still provides more good then it does bad.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for me i am conflicted on what to think.

if you take the report at face value, which i do, i am not sure what there is to be gained by a lawsuit......

......also it is their right to seek a legal remedy...i can also understand why some would label this as an aspect of our 'blame culture' but at the same time how can we blame someone for exercising their legal rights (or in this case the rights of the estate)? after all this a person who is no longer alive to defend himself.

this is why the courts exist and the system imo still provides more good then it does bad.

The only people that will gain by this are the lawyers, and I would imagine that some of them are rubbing their hands in glee and smacking their lips and or salivating at the prospects.

My problem is that I take a fairly simplistic and somewhat dispassionate view of these types of action. I am not a practicing lawyer, but if I was I think that I would have advised the family not to start the legal process, because I think that in the end it will just lead to further heartbreak.

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.

And so it would mean a trial, and all the nastier, from the family's point of view, facts would be aired in public. All the data showing his speed, just how much he had slowed down (if at all), the fact that he hadn't released the accelerator pedal and so on.

And even if they do win the case, which I somehow doubt, the process won't bring back Jules. Rather, I would like them to channel their energies into helping the FIA in the name of Jules to further protect drivers in all classes and modes of motor sport. That, to me, would be far more dignified and more preferable way to celebrate his short life.