When the worst happens

[EvilPumpkin]

After the tragedies that motorsport has experienced this year, the question has been raised - if a competitor is fatally injured at an event, should the event be cancelled as a mark of respect - or should it be continued as a tribute to the driver(s) involved.

All comments/opinions welcome and valid.

[Peter Mallett]

Initial reaction is to cancel the meeting and go home. But what if the poor person dies later in hospital? Its too late to cancel the meeting then.

[neilwaynesmith]

Difficult one.

My personal opinion is that the round involved should be cancelled (obviously) but that the days racing should continue.

At least thats what I would like if I was driving, or even marshalling.

But that's just my opinion. I have been at one meeting this year involving a fatality and fully respected the opinion of the club and competitors in cancelling the remainder of the day.

There are both sides to an opinion, my ideas may seem right to some, but shocking to others. One thing is certain; I bet anyone who has read EP's question has found coming up with a measured answer about as easy as juggling chainsaws.

[jase]

Neil, you've got it in one, there is no right or wrong answer to EP's question.

I suppose it would come down to circumstances, the wishes of the family, whether the competitors themselves want to continue, and whether the police have given the go-ahead for an event to continue.

I can't answer this, it would have to be based on variables I cannot apply right now.

[neilwaynesmith]

Originally posted by jasongore
...and whether the police have given the go-ahead for an event to continue...

I forgot about them, technically, is it a crime scene?

[EvilPumpkin]

Ok I think I should rephrase the question.

Given your role in motorsport (driver, driver support/crew, marshal/safety, organiser, spectator), if someone was fatally injured would you want the event to continue or stop. Or indeed if it was you, would you want the event to continue or stop.

If it was me personally, I would prefer the event to be stopped. Not as a mark of respect, but for safety reasons.

Regardless of personal relationships, marshals form a close knit community. I know that if I was at a circuit where a marshal was killed, I would not necessarily be able to continue functioning for the rest of the event with the level of efficiency that our competitors deserve.

[alfaman]

Fortunately I've only been at one meeting when a driver was killed. And that was at Thruxton in 1992 when the Formula 3 driver Marcel Albers crashed at the chicane.

In that case after the police had examined the scene and the car was taken away the racing continued. But that was a decade ago and I think things have changed - people are now more likely to want the meeting to be cancelled out of respect.

There are 2 schools of thought here - the ones who say the show must go on and the others who think the rest of the meeting should be cancelled.

I think at the end of the day it has to be down to individuals. The Marcel Albers crash shook me because I saw it happen in front of me and I have pictures of it. But if it had happened out of my sight it may have affected me differently.

Sunday's fatality at Thruxton has caused a lot of debate and criticism aimed at the Formula Renault drivers for wanting to race on. I think that criticism is unfair. They might be wrapped up in their own championship, especially as it was the final round, but does that make them callous for wanting to carry on?

I think that in the event of a fatal crash it has to be down to the organisers, the championship co-ordinators, the teams, the drivers and the marshals to make the decision. As spectators we have to respect that decision.

It's a very difficult situation and unfortunately this year seems to have had it's greater share of serious accidents than before.

Let's hope it's the last this season.

[ss_collins]

Its a dangerous sport and we all know the risks, I have been lucky enough to have never found myself in the situation, I guess I would personally still want to race but who knows. this is a very melancholy thread.

[EvilPumpkin]

Yes ss it is, but it's directly following on from a conversation in another thread and people seemed to want to discuss it.

[neilwaynesmith]

There's nothing unhealthy or wrong in discussing the possibility of encountering death. Either in Motorsport, or in any other activity.

[Marshal]

I have had the unfortunate experience of being at a number of meetings when a driver has been killed. All left me saddened, but none diminished my desire to go racing. If people are happy to race after a fatality, then I'm happy to marshal for them. Just my personal view. If anyone isn't happy to go on, in whatever capacity, they are free not to.

[Craig]

I used to think differently but, having been through the loss of a friend in the sport, I now think it's extremely disrespectful to continue racing if there is a confirmed fatality. Apart from the H&S investigation there are all manner of other things to consider - how can seeing and hearing cars continuing to race help the relatives of those concerned if they are still at the circuit ? How about those close friends that those concerned may have at the circuit ? How about the safety crews ? I'm sorry but, no matter how major or minor the fixture, those competing should show some respect and give the racing a miss - just that once.

[brickkicker]

I was at mallory this year on the post before the Alfa driver was killed, after this most drivers went home weather it was out of respect or if it just hit home what can happen if it goes wrong. However the F Fords wanted to race, now after what I had seen I was a bit worried for drivers other marshals etc, but they came round a full speed and with no apparent intent to slow down after what had happened. For this at least they had my respect after knowing what had happend. And although we were not told that he had passed away on the way to hospital till after the meeting I think that at least for the marshals and crews that were there it should have been stopped.

[Nissan]

This whole sad and sorry situation leaves me stone cold, I still believe that the organising authority, in this case the BARC, should have taken more action and taken the responsability away from the drivers by cancelling the meeting immediately.

It was my understanding that in Italy law dictates that in the event of a fatality during F1 then all racing MUST be abandoned, hence why both Senna and Rattzenberger were not certified dead at the circuit.

As a competitor not at the circuit I feel for everyone there at the time, but surely what fun and enjoyment could any driver get out of competing after such tragic news, well done to TOYO for making the stand that they did.

With all of the current threads asking for circuits to reduce costs and take more notice of the drivers, it really doesn't help our case when a select band of individuals put their own enjoyment before the family or friends of Mark had chance to gather their thoughts or feelings.

I am also disappointed that the BARC have failed to post any mention of condolence on their own web site, after all it was a BARC championship and on the BARC home circuit.

As stated elsewhere not a good day for motorsport !!

[Chigley]

My own personal point of view is that racing should have been abandoned for the day out of respect for the friends and family of Mark. I must admit my heart was not comfortable at going back out onto the bank but I and we did. With gritted teeth I can understand (but do not agree with) the desire of the Renaults to complete their last race with so many of them in a championship winning position; but could not understand some of the insane moves that were being made out at the back of the circuit. You almost wondered if they had no recollection of the days previous event and it was a case of win regardless of risk.
What to me was totally reprehensible was the modified saloons taking to the track. WHY? What had they to achieve apart from hack every one off, show that they were totally callous and what did they achieve, nothing, apart from disgust.

[Stephen Green]

It was my understanding that drivers are not normally certified dead at the circuit because it means the 'scene' has to be kept clean for the coroner. That's why in most cases the driver is pronounced 'dead on arrival'.

On the matter of whether racing should have continued, I fall into the camp that believes the meeting should have been abandoned as a mark of respect to the family.

Having been at a race meeting where not one but two drivers died on the same day, I can remember exactly how I felt. Let's say dazed and bemused are but two of the emotions.

In these circumstances one has to question the ability of the officials (marshals and rescue units) to act in a professional manner. Now don't take this in the wrong way, I am trying to say that delyed shock etc can sometimes set in which can impare our ability to function in a 'normal' manner.

[EvilPumpkin]

Totally agree Stephen - hence my comments earlier.

Just on Chigley's comment, I have to wonder. It's not uncommon for those affected by a death to behave recklessly - it's almost a case of "It's not going to happen to me" - giving the digit to fate/death whatever. It is one of the known reactions to shock/grief. I wonder if this may have contributed to the fury of the racing - and if so, maybe that's another reasons to cancel a meet in the event of a fatality?

[tfg]

My feelings have been made known on the other thread but there's 1 thing I want to add. My wife and son were with me at Thruxton and although I had already decided not to race out of respect for Mark and his family, my son asked me if I was going to race and get killed as well. Could you race that day after that? My wife had said nothing and she would have said nothing if I raced. Racing drivers are selfish by nature ( to a degree) but we are also humane.

[Stephen Green]

I have to say tfg that your post just bought a tear to my eye. It's not something many of us consider I guess?

[Sato san]

Originally posted by Stephen Green
In these circumstances one has to question the ability of the officials (marshals and rescue units) to act in a professional manner. Now don't take this in the wrong way, I am trying to say that delyed shock etc can sometimes set in which can impare our ability to function in a 'normal' manner.

that is a very good point , as after all they are the backbone of having a race meeting in the first place .

But i do think we have to accept that not everyone deals with these very sad incidents in the same way .
tfg , i can only imagine what you felt when your son said what he did to you , and i understand exactly what your saying.

But , i really think that a situation like this is so complex , because emtions are different for so many people . But yes , the familys wishes should always come first and be respected in full .

[MaxxUK]

Originally posted by Nissan
This whole sad and sorry situation leaves me stone cold, I still believe that the organising authority, in this case the BARC, should have taken more action and taken the responsability away from the drivers by cancelling the meeting immediately.

I agree 100% with this, having a vote across drivers is IMO more of an insult to the deceased and his/her friends and family, even if the race does not run because of a majority decision.

I assume no-one consulated the Marshal's for a vote, or the various officials etc. or for that matter the spectators.

I think all organising clubs should have a rule which states the race meeting will be cancelled in the event of a confirmed fatality.

Personally, had I been the fatality, or a friend of, I couldn't have cared less if the meeting carried on or not, BUT as a competitor I would not have had the stomach or level of concentration required to compete. Some may have, and thats fine but many may have felt pressured to take part. They would likely have been a big danger and also felt pretty rotten about it afterwards.

Maxx

[jase]

Sorry Nissan/Maxx, gotta disagree with you, what you are implying is that the drivers do not have the intellegence to make an informed and rational decision after such an incident. It is upto each and every individual to make their own decision based on the facts known.

For me, it would depend on whether I saw the incident as either official or competitor or knew the person involved as to whether I would continue. If I were the fatac, i'd want people continue, but in the end i'd want it to be their choice.

[MaxxUK]

Sorry Jason, I didn't mean to imply that, more that I think it's a cop out by the organising club to leave it up to the drivers to decide. I perhaps did imply that some drivers wouldn't perhaps be able to make a rational decision, in part I think that is true of some. Also, one rarely is in possession of all the facts at times liek this.

I've been thinking about this a little since I posted as I realised I perhaps would not expect a top-line/professional event to be cancelled, such as F1, Cart, Touring Car etc. I guess I think this because of the amount of disruption it would cause vs. cancelling a club race meeting, also the fact that the drivers are effectively employed to race. I realise this amounts to a double standard and I'm not comfortable with it.

I think it's a much tougher question and perhaps there can be no hard and fast rule - I suppose my views that the driver should not be put in that position is the fact that I would not like to have to make the decision, which is maybe just me copping out.

Thinking more whilst writing I can look at this a different way now. I'd looked at it as drivers being asked to vote if they wanted to race, and if there was a majority the race would go ahead. If I look at it that racing was going ahead (by default) but drivers consulted as to if they felt they could not/did not want to race then, if a majority didn't object then the race would go ahead.

I know it's the effectively the same process but does "look" different in the way it's interpreted. Those drivers that did take part, rather than "vote to race" could be looked on as having "not objected to racing" or felt that they should continue, perhaps as their own way of showing respect.

It does seem that they are being judged as uncaring and putting their own championship aspirations above that of showing respect, I'm not so sure that was the case with many of those that took part.

I don't think I've read one response yet from anyone who, if THEY suffered a fatality, themselves or to a friend, would want the meeting to be abandoned. I'm slowly coming around to the view that maybe what they did (giving the drivers chance to vote if they did not want to compete) was perhaps the best way of dealing with this situation.

I'd hate to have to be placed in that position but, even having thought about it (or as a concequence of thinking about it) I really have no idea how I'd vote on the day.

Maxx

[Stephen Green]

Malcolm,

Like you I have sat back and tried to digest the responses so far and am led to conclude the following:

In the sad event of a fatality it is very likely that few of the competitors will be aware of the scale of events. If that is the case then I believe it is the duty of the organising club to make the decision whether to continue racing or not. Not everyone will be happy with whichever decision is made, but in the interests of good taste and safety, I would suggest the meeting be cancelled forthwith.

[ss_collins]

If I was told by the organisers that the event was to be stopped due to a fatatlity then I couldn't see any reason to want to race, but if the onus was put on the drivers well I just don't know. Maybe it would depend if I knew the bloke. I was at Goodwood when that Aussie MP and the Marshal bought it as soon as I saw the ambulance going up the hill in a hurry I thought I've had enough I'm off. I didn't find out about the tradgedy until the next day.