what is suitable protection?

[Bodysnatcher]

From the recent FIA report on sportscars and the problems of them getting airborne, they make 4 recommendations, one which relates diectly to us and one indirectly.

Pending the outcome of this research and possible new technical regulations, the FIA recommends that all competitors and organisers involved with sportscar, ‘sport prototype’ and similar competition cars take the following minimum precautions:

3. Organisers should ensure that all marshals and other race personnel working in close proximity to cars travelling at speeds greater than 150 kph are suitably protected.

4. Organisers should take measures to slow the cars at any part of a circuit which would be particularly dangerous for competitors, track workers or members of the public in the event of a car becoming airborne.


150kph = 93mph

The first question I have, is does this apply to all marshals, or only marshals in close proximity to cars >150kph? it could be read either way.
Now this seems to me to be a ridiculously low speed before we go overboard on the protection measures. Any bit of a straight will easily see these speeds - and define a sportscar/similar car - do Radicals count?

So, all posts to be fully enclosed, or at least 3m high chain link barriers protecting us from oncoming traffic? With a roof, remember this is to protect us from flying sportscars and since what goes up must come down...
Helmets? - I noticed all the marshals at Monaco had helmets this year.

Right Octagon, Brands Hatch marshals will require suitable protection at Posts 1,2,3,4,4a,8,9,10, (12,13,14,15,16,17,) 21,22,23,and 24.

Thankfully the FIA has only recommended, it's not compulsory (yet!)

[EvilPumpkin]

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I feel that helmets (assuming they're talking crash helmets) would be a danger rather than a help.

I rely a lot on what I can hear and my peripheral vision when I'm working trackside and both those senses would be impaired by wearing a helmet.

Besides, let's be honest - if a car is about to land on you, wearing a helmet is rather like putting up an umbrella to protect from a scud missile - a la Wile Coyote......

As for enclosed marshals' posts, how many circuits have been getting regular requests for this for years and haven't done anything - even for rain protection, never mind flying cars.

I don't imagine that such bunkers would be impact tested before use and there are probably no guidelines for building them so how well will 20 breeze blocks slapped together with cement hold up to a car impact? And will it give those inside a false sense of security?

This is only my opinion and I'm very interested in what more experienced marshals think, but surely the best defence against flying cars is to run like hell away from the landing point? Being in a bunker isn't going to help - it simply blocks your escape routes and, depending on the angle the car hits, will probably cause you just as much injury if it is unable to withstand the impact or if the impact happens across the opening.

Comments?

[TwoSheds]

Totally agree with all you said EP. As marshals we should be watching the track and cars anyway and would se what's coming our way. I think they need to look a bit harder at the spectators though.

At the moment we have a mixture of breeze block and tin huts at Brands Hatch, neither of which I think would stand up to a "flying" car. Some of them struggle just to keep the wind and or rain out....

[Bodysnatcher]

Originally posted by EvilPumpkin
I don't know about anyone else, but personally I feel that helmets (assuming they're talking crash helmets) would be a danger rather than a help.

no, noones talking about helmets at the FIA - all they seem to have recommended is "suitable protection" I just noted that I'd seen the little monagasque pumpkins wearing helments - kind of like building site ones I think, definately not full face.
As far as I'm concerned 3 layer armco with a bit of dry ground to drop onto in extremis is sufficient for the majority of posts.
Of course marshals have to have their eyes open and pointing in the right direction...

[Stephen Green]

I would have thought this ruling, if applied, would affect just about every marshals post in the country! I could be wrong (shut up Al) but don't the Monaco guys wear helmets every year? I know many of the fire marshals in Italy wear those nice bright red ones with full face protection.

[Morris 1100]

Wakefield Park in Australia has shelters for the flaggies but I don't think they would like a car landing on them!

[EvilPumpkin]

I'm pretty sure there are FIA regs covering correct attire for Fire Marshls in any area where there is high pressure fuel? Can anyone confirm this?

LOL @ morris' picture - remember I was talking about Wile E Coyote with his umbrella....?

[Bodysnatcher]

Originally posted by Stephen Green
(shut up Al) but don't the Monaco guys wear helmets every year? I know many of the fire marshals in Italy wear those nice bright red ones with full face protection.

shut up? NO CHANCE PAL!
right, I'm going to compare the 02 and 01 viddies tonight.
Previously I'd thought it was just the firemen that had shiny visored helmets. The flagggies and incidents had baseball caps.
This year they all seemed to have some sort of white open face helmet.

but yep Stephen, depending on your interpretation of this recommendation just about every circuit in the country would have to change. For info here's parts 1 & 2 of the same document

1. Organisers should ensure that all spectators are sufficiently far from the circuit at any given point to be in no danger from an airborne car, having regard to the speeds of the cars at the relevant part of the circuit.

2. In collaboration with the constructors of their cars, competitors should reinforce the car’s rollover
structure so that it at least meets the latest proposals which have been issued as a draft
regulation for 1.1.2003.

part one should worry Thruxton, Donington, Oulton and maybe Coombe - have'nt they all had cars the wrong side of the barrier in recent years

[Piglet]

From a legal perspective, one of the issues with proving negligence is based on "reasonable forseeability". on one of the other threads someone described these recommendations by the FIA as "arse covering" and I think they are pretty right.

Having raised this as a recommendation, the circuits/organisers are all effectively "on notice" so that they would have trouble claiming that an incident wasn't reasonable forseeable in the event of someone being injured.

If there is an incident the FIA can hold their hands up and say well we told them so...

[EvilPumpkin]

LOL - and they'll turn right back around to us and say "Motorsport is dangerous - it says so in the program"

[Piglet]

Indeed, the concept of volenti non fit injuria (she says showing off!!!). They can't always rely on it though, no matter what they tell you!

[EvilPumpkin]

volenti non fit injuria - contributory negligence?

[Piglet]

The dictionary version is "that to which a man consents cannot be considered an injury", so basically if you agree to something that is risky you can't sue.

In the context of a marshal & motorsport you are consenting to all risks that are "normally inherent" in the activity.

Sports cases have held that you do not consent to acts of negligence by others, so in the case of a footballer, he consents to normal tackles but doesn't consent to something that is "excessive", the problem comes with deciding where the line is between normal and "excessive".

So in Motorsport you are consenting to normal risks but could argue that if you were the other side of a safety fence and a car went through it because if was faulty and the organiser/circuit owner should have known that it was faulty, then this is not due to the normal risks of the sport but due to their negligence so they would be less likely to be able to rely on "volenti".

I find it interesting, but I'm sad like that!

[EvilPumpkin]

you'd be a lot sadder if you weren't interested in it but you were still doing it!

[Peter Scillitoe]

Originally posted by Bodysnatcher
Of course marshals have to have their eyes open and pointing in the right direction...

Well, that rules me out then

[Stephen Green]

Doh!

[Bodysnatcher]

Going back to the suitable protection question.

Monaco marshals and helmets - since Stevie Green does'nt believe me, I reviewed the 01 and 02 tapes last night(sad ole git that I am). I was of course absolutely right
In 01 the track marshals had green baseball caps.
In 02 the track marshals had white open face helmets.

We may not like the idea of a helmet, but since they were all wearing them, it was probably compulsory.

Thanks for the good wishes Steve, lets see if the Canadians give us helmets, since after Monaco and Albert Park, it's one of those tracks where you're really close to the cars. Admittedly they have the chain link fence (with occasional gaps) on top of the armco/concrete.
See y'all after the mega marshalling marathon.

[flaggie1]

Well bodysnatcher, Albert Park went the whole way of doubling the height of the fences along 4 of the 5.6(or so)kms of the circuit. This bought abotu a whole new set of problems about establishing lines of sight to the next points on either side of us at turn 5. They also had workcover safety inspectors wandering the moat observing the points and where the equipment is. We were in baseball caps (even the fires) and there were no helmets in sight for trackside workers. The only thing that hadn't changed was the distance that the spectatos where back from the track still about 1.5 to 2 metres back. It's all well and good for the FIA to stipulate these rules but(as i've said) in other threads on this forum. They won't know what is safe until they come out and see what is going on in the marshals moat and the spectators area.

[brickkicker]

Well at least if we all wear helmets then the drivers have got something else to aim at. If we were told to wear a helmet I dont think id realy want to but if its for saftey then I guess we cant complain. But then the question is who pays for them I guess they aint cheap will the track buy them the FIA as it seems to be there idea or will it be the marshals??

[Stephen Green]

I would imagine it will be the same as protective glasses, the organising clubs will have to foot the bill.

[Jim Lamb]

Interesting thread on personal protection.
I have taken to wearing a Safety helmet this year when running on the Rescue Unit and would consider doing the same trackside, if I wasn't having a break to reconsider my participation in the sport!
This for me fulfills several functions 1. It protects my head which invariably I crack or graze on the nearset bit of car I come into contact with(Accident prone!), 2. It identifies me (i.e; Rescue Crew Chief) and means I have to do the Job properly i.e Stand Back and Command & Control an Incident, 3. It contributes to the fact that I go home to wife & kids in one piece.
I think back more years than I care to mention when we lost a marshaling friend due to a head injury at a circuit and wonder if better protective gear would have saved him?
Yes taking risks is sometimes fun, however there is nothing more precious than life and I think we all need a reality check from time to time.
Stay Safe, regards,

Jim Lamb

[Stephen Green]

Jim. I notice the BARC rescue unit that was at Brands for the CSMA meeting had members wearing yellow helmets. Were you one of those?

[Morris 1100]

I have worked in an FIV at Bathurst where I had to wear a Helmet for 4 days and during the race from the start to finish (1000km race) the drivers in the race get a break why can't I!
I have done a lot of other meetings in the FIV without a helmet and I feel a lot safer without a helmet!
If you are comfortable you work better and safer.

[BFC]

re higher fences at Albert Park might have made it safer for spectators but cranes werent able to work behind them to lift cars the old case of no-one thinking ahead everyone going into panic stations even to building flagpoint escape routes at the wrong end if car hit flagpoint all u could do was run into deadend opening was in direction of incoming car

[andrew_powell98]

When I heard about the fences being doubled I spoke to a couple of marshals over there and a friend who worked ( and still has contacts within CAMS) I was informed that as it was all organised quickley due to the inquest that not every avenue had been looked into. As it seems the extra high catch fencing is still going to be there next year I am lead to beleve there could be some more changes to make it safer and take in some of the comments raised by the sector marshals, and chief marshals.
Personally for F1 I can see that the helmet aproach could be rolled out the downside is you loose some peripheral vision. No mater what any organiser whether CAMs or MSA do there will always be pros and cons to everything and sometimes as marshals we have to adapt to something which is done to protect us but is instigated without talking to the people who will be using the equipment.