|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
27 May 2016, 05:55 (Ref:3644768) | #26 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
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.) |
||
|
27 May 2016, 05:58 (Ref:3644769) | #27 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 May 2016, 07:10 (Ref:3644776) | #28 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,525
|
Quote:
I doubt it will uncover anything new and I hope the people in charge of any inquiry remember correlation does not imply causation. |
|||
__________________
ยินดีที่ได้รู้จัก |
27 May 2016, 07:23 (Ref:3644778) | #29 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
That points directly to driver error, especially as the double yellow flags were waving prior to the scene. |
|||
|
27 May 2016, 07:34 (Ref:3644781) | #30 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
27 May 2016, 07:55 (Ref:3644789) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 May 2016, 08:08 (Ref:3644792) | #32 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 May 2016, 08:16 (Ref:3644794) | #33 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,703
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
27 May 2016, 08:30 (Ref:3644795) | #34 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
27 May 2016, 08:37 (Ref:3644796) | #35 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
||
|
27 May 2016, 08:41 (Ref:3644798) | #36 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
27 May 2016, 08:46 (Ref:3644800) | #37 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
27 May 2016, 08:46 (Ref:3644801) | #38 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 186
|
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" |
|
|
27 May 2016, 08:54 (Ref:3644803) | #39 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,638
|
Quote:
This is what his dad actually said, which seems totally reasonable to me given the circumstances:- Quote:
|
||||
__________________
It's just my opinion. |
27 May 2016, 08:54 (Ref:3644804) | #40 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Martin Hunt There are two things I've learned: There is a God. And, I'm not Him. |
27 May 2016, 09:03 (Ref:3644807) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 May 2016, 09:27 (Ref:3644813) | #42 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
Quote:
There have been quotes elsewhere that have stated that the family want Jules exonerated completely, and this is what is driving them. |
||||
|
27 May 2016, 09:49 (Ref:3644815) | #43 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
So there is more to it than just one point and the contention that he was driving excessively fast.
|
|
|
27 May 2016, 10:15 (Ref:3644820) | #44 | ||||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Simplef act: If the crane wasn't a hazard, Bianchi wouldn't have hit it. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
||||||||
|
27 May 2016, 10:15 (Ref:3644821) | #45 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,213
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
27 May 2016, 12:11 (Ref:3644845) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,256
|
Quote:
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. |
||
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
27 May 2016, 13:21 (Ref:3644859) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
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? |
||
|
27 May 2016, 13:34 (Ref:3644864) | #48 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,692
|
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. |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
27 May 2016, 14:53 (Ref:3644884) | #49 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
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. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
27 May 2016, 15:57 (Ref:3644891) | #50 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,886
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australian Grand Prix Corporation To Launch Legal Action Against A1gp | GTRMagic | A1GP | 34 | 22 Sep 2005 04:27 |
Here we go again - car makers to launch legal action against the FIA | Super Tourer | Formula One | 1 | 14 Oct 2004 14:56 |
Legal action against Ferrari | paulzinho | Formula One | 28 | 20 May 2002 11:18 |
Legal Action | Speedworx | ChampCar World Series | 24 | 27 Feb 2002 20:29 |
AVESCO Commence Legal Action Against Calder Park Raceway | RaceTime | Australasian Touring Cars. | 4 | 7 Sep 2001 23:35 |