Just been watching some rallysport (Finland ?) on C4 and was amazed at the quality of the camerawork and pictures. What also amzed me however was just how close the spectators are to these high powered and very fast moving cars. Given all the uncertainties of driving to the limit over such rough terrain I couldn't help wondering just how long it's going to be before a serious tragedy occurs.
I don't know what the rules and regulations are but it seems to me that F1 is far more safety conscious when it comes to spectators. Is this correct and if so why ?
|
|
I couldn't agree more. I watched the same programme and there was a lot of emphasis about the jumps and the time the cars would spend airborne. A stand had been built for the spectators of the carnage predicted by the commentator and as he spoke the camera panned down the road to about half a mile of spectators standing on both sides of the road. I think the rilas and regulations in F1 are more to protect the drivers although the spectators benefit from wide run off areas etc. I you stand by a road when Colin McCrash is going by you take your chances, same as he does, but for a lot less money!
|
Serious tragedy has occured before and will possibly happen again. The thing is, the spectators know this when they set out to watch a rally race. The nature of Rally racing is such that it takes place on open (well, closed to other traffic)roads stretching for miles. There is no way the organizers could possibly fence off that road and prevent spectators getting too close to the racing action.
F1 takes place on purpose built circuits with loads of run-off room and nice big fences. The end result is a much safer event for all involved, but it also winds up being very boring to watch. Its hard to feel the thrill of a car at the limit when you are hundreds of yards away, sat in a comfy grandstand seat, miles above the road. For some F1 spectators, the best view they get of the racing is from the CCTV monitors hung above the grandstands...why bother even going?
The only way to increase the safety of rally spectators to F1 levels is to not race at all. There have been occasions where a stage has been cancelled due to the sheer volume of spectators, but the only people happy about that are the drivers/teams.
|
|
|
|
Why do people get so exercised about this?
You go these events, the danger is part of it, you take the risk.
Next thing is the nannies will be putting rails round our beds via some EU DIrective so we don't fall out in the night and hurt hurt ourselves.
|
Volvoman
I think you are right that danger is present at these events, but since I started following rallying back in the 70s there have been relatively few serious accidents. As others have said, the ability to get so close to the action and watch the experts is one of the great draws. Organisers make every effort to make it as safe as possible within the constraints of the events. As others have said, it is a risk that spectators take and accept, just as we accept risks, for example, when rockclimbing, parachuting, motorcycling, you name it! We are becoming so risk averse in this "do- good" culture we are creating in this country there is a real danger we will stifle our basic freedoms we value so much! I cannot even ride my pushbike these days without someone telling me I'm crazy for not wearing a helmet. Well maybe, but it's my choice, I know the risks, so let me decide, please!!
Baz
|
|
|
Growler - @ 44 I might be old enough (just) to be a grandfather but I\'ll never be a nanny ;-)
I really wasn\'t expressing the opinion that rallying should be banned or subject to the same rules, just commenting on the very great difference between the precautions taken in 2 different motorsports - one of which takes track safety very seriously and the other which doesn\'t seem to.
Of course rallying by its nature can\'t be arranged in the same way as F1 but do spectators actually add anything to such events financially and, if not, are they dispensable ? Do rally drivers actually want hoards of people lining the route and adding to all the pressure/stress ?
Some of the stuff I saw yesterday was crazy but if that\'s what people (spectators) want to do in their spare time so be it. But why do the authorities feel it is OK to stand just yards from a rally track when they\'d move you on if you were doing the same thing next to a motorway ?
Personally, I think it\'s just a question of time before a major tragedy (or series of them) is going to force a major rethink with spectators being banned from certain stages if not all. If a number of leading drivers are killed I believe this too would force a major rethink and spell the end for rallying as we know it.
Funny isn\'t it how H&S rules dictate you\'ve got to wear a safety hat on a building site and kids can\'t swim in a pool full of adults without a lifeguard being present at all times yet you can have a picnic on the edge of a dirt track as a succession of supercars roar by and nobody seems to give a damn.
|
Agree.
If you have a swimming pool in Australia you have to have a fence round it, but you can still load up your Landcruiser with all your kids in it, run out of gas and die of thirst 300km from nowhere. There are stil a few freedoms left.
It's just a matter of time and priorities. The nannies are working on taking away our responsibility for living our own lives. The gaps you mention are just the stuff they haven't gotten around to yet.
|
The question is why ? Who/what is it that dictates that rallysport escapes the attention of the safety brigade? Why are some safety rules totally OTT whilst other, sometimes more serious, safety issues are seemingly ignored ?
I have a young son with special needs. He has all sorts of allergies but (fortunately) only needs to have antihistamine syrup at times. About 2 years ago he'd been taken horseriding by his school and had suffered a very distressing reaction to the horse hair - something we'd warned the school about and given them syrup to deal with. Rather than administer a single spoonful of syrup on site and thereby solve the problem before it got worse, they decided it was best (safer ???) to drive him all the way back to base so a qualified nurse could do it. By this time my little lad was covered in a red itchy rash and feeling extremely unhappy !! Now what was the logical thought behind that ? How many kids have died choking on a spoonful of syrup given by a responsible adult for God's sake !! Surely it was far more dangerous to do what they did as his reaction could have been far worse. I suspect though that whilst we may have been able to sue them if there'd been a serious problem as a result of giving the syrup, we'd not have had that route open to us if they'd been seen to have followed the rules no matter how stupid the rules were/are.
Sorry to digress but I felt it was a point worth making and there was some motoring content :-)
|
|
|
|
By the law of averages its bound to happen one day VV but it has to be carnage before it will make some ruling authority change the rules.
Air shows were in the same position before the big accident in Germany and now the pilots are banned from performing over the crowds.
I recall F1 changing after wheels flying into the crowd and killing many.
The professional works teams themselves opted out of the isle of Man for their own safety.
My own view of rallying is that some of the spectators seem to have a death wish and thats OK by me but I just wish they would keep children away from it.
|
|
|
"Of course rallying by its nature can't be arranged in the same way as F1 but do spectators actually add anything to such events financially and, if not, are they dispensable ? Do rally drivers actually want hoards of people lining the route and adding to all the pressure/stress ?"
V: You added this post whilst I was two fingered tapping way on the other answer.
Yes spectators do add something and I would say they are not dispensable. Firstly the sport needs revenue and, like F1, a significant amount of that comes from sponsorship and advertising. With that comes a lot of car development which filters its way down to road cars. More than F1 I would say but that is debatable admittedly. But no spectators no sponsorship, and I really don't think you could get enough interest if it were just a TV spectatcle.
Secondly by virtue of the fact that spectators do congregate at tricky places its a good observation link to a driver that there might be something to watch out for.
Thirdly when you go off, and if you don't have an off from time to time you ain't trying hard enough then 99.9% of the time its spectators who get you back on the track, or tend to you until help arrives. I have personally seen spectators who are off duty medics treat injured crew whilst the marshalls deal with stopping the stage and directing the ambulance crews in.
Finally I've probably answered the last point about do drivers want spectators lining the route and providing its controlled then no problem. Camera flashguns are a PITA though at night. Not when you are ready for it but a sole photographer flashing right in your face when its not expected is not safe IMO.
|
|
|
|
Actually Growler I think you are right on the money. Almost all of the specatators, will have passed signs saying "Motor Sport Can Be Dangerous" or some other equivelant.
I have to say, and this sounds harsh I know, but on a stage the concentration focus is such that the spectators are just relegated to the level of being another tree albeit a softer one. In Finland, and other essentially forest events, there are a lot of natural obstacles behind which the crowds appear to melt if a big off starts.
Needless to say, if one is in the process of an off, assuming one could choose between hitting spectators or trees, one would choose the trees every time even though the personal risk of injury is greater. Trees do NOT give.
Where spectators *are* off putting is on some of the stages typically in Latin cultures. Where the roads are bounded by two continous lines of humanity with not much natural terrain for them to hide behind. Somewhat scary to barrel along a road filled by spectators who part at the last minute. Hence quite a number of stage cancellations have resulted this and recent years.
Balancing the desire to preserve life and limb of ones fellows against the "comments" from team managers is rather difficult. When questioned why were you a second per km off the pace, an answer of "well some spectators were in the way" sounds a little lame.
But in essence the spectators know the risk, and they know that some cars will crash. Why do you think they congregate at the trickiest spots?
|
I would love to philosophise on this but Mark will zap me. Anyway you have my PM. Life without risk isn't ----------- scroll down....
Life??
Take care out there all the same.
|
|
|
I think I have the answer to this. What's gonna happen sooner or later is that someone's gonna be killed and a successful legal action will be brought resulting in a massive compensation claim. The warning signs will be deemed to be insufficient (cigarette warnings) and the governing body will be held accountable for not ensuring the safey of spectators. I'm sure it will happen.
Bow to your far superior knowledge/experience FIF when it comes to the role of spectators and what drivers think. I know what I'd think but that's why I'm not a rally driver. Your points are very valid and I really am not suggesting that rallying should be banned or anything - just wondering why it hasn't been yet !
BTW - glad to hear someone else out there uses 2 fingers to type. Mind you after the weekend of late night clubbing and excessive drinking I've just had celebrating our anniversary with the lovely Mrs V, I'm surprised I'm here typing English at all :-)
|
|
|
|
"you take the risk"
Agree almost entirely, G, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair on the driver who inadvertently mows down a group of spectators, however stupid. Still, that Darwinism for you, I suppose...
|
|
|
|
volvoman - as you seem very concerned about this, what are you going to do about it?
Note: {P} - indicates that I am advertising that my profile can be viewed.
|
eMBe - If the dangers of rallying are what you're refering to, it really doesn't affect me/mine so I won't be doing anything about it. Got enough to worry about without tackling the causes of others.
As I said earlier, I'm really just making an observation about the apparent difference between what's considered safe and acceptable in one motorsport as opposed to another. I feel it's up to all those involved to take up the safety issue and if the prospect of careering into a nearby crowd of spectators worries drivers then they should be the ones to do something about it.
If, however, you're referring to the misguided fixation with so called safety regulations pertaining to the administration of medicines etc, to minors (takes a breath), well I've written to my MP and taken the matter up with the staff and managers involved. Since my son no longer attends the school in question there's not much more I can do but I do try to challenge this sort of illogical nonsense whenever it rears its ugly head. Sadly, most of the other parents I know couldn't give a stuff about this sort of thing and would never bother to complain about it which is probably why it still goes on and teachers are even banned from giving a little TLC to a little 'un who's fallen over and grazed their knees.
|
"teachers are even banned from giving a little TLC to a little 'un who's fallen over and grazed their knees"
Totally agree, VM! Not just schools, either - companies are required to have first-aiders, but are not allowed to keep even basic medications (Savlon, TCP, etc) in the first-aid boxes. Teachers live in mortal fear of reprisals from litigious parents if anything goes wrong, and I even have to tread carefully before posting sports day pictures on our school website!
To return to the original topic, perhaps rally spectators would behave more sensibly if they knew that no-one would give them any medication until the ambulance arrived...
|
The PC freaks will be the death of all of us.
|
G - more likely to be the death of the service (whatever it is). In simple terms the progression seems something like
- 'service' is provided for appreciative public
- health/safety problem(s) arise leading to legislation
- some members of public invoke this to claim damages
- lawyers see this as a growth industry and encourage it
- service providers react to protect backsides, or volunteer organisations may be forced to cease.
So in some examples the net result is that the only way to achieve a satisfactorily safe service is to withdraw it, so life gets poorer (though maybe there are fewer deaths). Surely if all participants are adequately aware of all risks to make their own choices, that should be enough, provided their individual choices only affect them and not others?
|
|
|
|
Agree with the G. Live motorsport is becoming a very sanitised experience. The old days of feeling the speed, the noise, the smells and yes the fear has gone. Rallying is the only thing that still captures those things slogging thro forests, choosing your own viewing area and getting up close to the action is still motorsport at its best - not for long alas.
|
|
I too was shocked when seeing some film of rallying by how close spectators are to the 'action'. I am sure that a major tragedy will occur and the result will be a major rethink. Does anyone really think that the death of let's say 10 spectators and scores injured would have no serious consequences for the nature of the sport? I think the nanny state is becoming more and more of a reality as the years go by ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
