Another death during a Rally

Circuit races have become safer and safer but Rallies seem to still be in the prehistory of safety.

Until somebody can afford to create 500km+ worth of rallying track that is as protected as a modern 5km circuit, then the danger will continue to exist.

If you cannot make the roads safer maybe you can make the cars safer.

Gareth Roberts was killed by the unsecured end of an armco barrier wasn't he, same as Kubica's injuries. Those ones can and certainly should be prevented.

They have to do what they can, not just say "it's dangerous".

Those shouldn't allowed full stop. Just means the things cannot do their job properly in the case of a normal RTA.

Gareth Roberts was killed by the unsecured end of an armco barrier wasn't he, same as Kubica's injuries. Those ones can and certainly should be prevented.

They have to do what they can, not just say "it's dangerous".

Very sad news.

My greatest fear with rallying is always the danger to the spectators - I find it amazing that there aren't more spectator deaths.

Regards rally safety I don't know the details of this latest accident, but the armco barriers are certainly a concern.

Quite. Though the rally organisers are supposed to check it aren't they?

And I think crews are entitled to know what they're driving next to: if it's trees then they know the risks involved in having an off; if it's armco they should be able to gauge that risk accurately too.

I would expect it, but they would not be able to do any repairs and I doubt the local authorities would rush out to help.

My greatest fear with rallying is moronic spectators causing a driver's death. I can't get over how unbelievably and insanely stupid some rally spectators can be. If they die, they frankly usually deserve it. However, I do believe rally organisers could and should do far, far more to control spectators and get them out of the drivers' way.

Those armcos that aren't correctly finished also kill "civilians" in normal road accidents, and I can sadly tell about it, because I lost a family member when one of those things got into her car.
I really wished such absolutely avoidable deaths, which could be prevented just taking the time to bury the end of the armco in the ground, would stop. But it seems it's not something authorites worry about (anywhere).

Motor racing is dangerous. Competitors know it and still choose to take part. Armchair critics make a fuss everytime there's a serious accident and expect changes to be made. Oddly, they seldom bother to ask the drivers what they think.

Health & Safety has it's place in motorsport, but not to the point that the competitors might just as well be going for a ramble in the countryside.

do rally cars have energy absorbing foam in the sides, and strong solid sides ?

Motor racing is dangerous. Competitors know it and still choose to take part. Armchair critics make a fuss everytime there's a serious accident and expect changes to be made. Oddly, they seldom bother to ask the drivers what they think.

Health & Safety has it's place in motorsport, but not to the point that the competitors might just as well be going for a ramble in the countryside.

Edited by DrProzac, 16 July 2012 - 16:21.

Edited by DrProzac, 16 July 2012 - 20:27.

Right. But isn't it quite obvious? Still it doesn't mean that no effort should be made to improve safety (without knee-jerk reactions). I doubt that Martin Semerad or Craig Breen would say "nah, it's ok, let's not even try".

i thought 130mph would be banging on the limiter, top gear with a long gearbox?

Never forget this.

Yeah sure; once upon a time people used to hammer Jackie Steward with that 'logic'.

Edited by 7MGTEsup, 17 July 2012 - 15:50.

Yeh back when Jackie Stewart raced 33% of drivers were killed every time they got into a car according to him. If people can't accept no matter how safe you make racing it will always be dangerous then maybe they should watch something less dangerous? At the end of the day travelling through a wooded area at over 100mph isn't a safe thing to do. No matter how strong you make a car the the driver is a soft organic material that doesn't like 50+g deceleratios.

Way to make up something Sir Jackie never said 7MGTEsup.

I doubt any one here is suggesting rallying can be made completely safe, but that doesn't mean attempts to try and improve safety should be disparaged with such intentional ignorance as that displayed in the post I referenced.

Neil

Well, he did say that one of three F1 drivers got killed in a period. Grand Prix - The killer years I think the BBC-program was called.

But he didn't say that "33% of drivers were killed every time they got into a car" as 7MGTEsup stated.......

Last time I checked 1 in 3 was 33% is it not? His words not mine. I didn't say I wanted to see more deaths I simply stated that you can never cover every eventuality and driving a car fast in a wooded enviroment carries alot of risk and no matter how strong you make a car you cannot defy the laws of physics.

Last time I checked 1 in 3 was 33% is it not? His words not mine. I didn't say I wanted to see more deaths I simply stated that you can never cover every eventuality and driving a car fast in a wooded enviroment carries alot of risk and no matter how strong you make a car you cannot defy the laws of physics.

Nobody ever suggested otherwise, since it's just stating the obvious. Is safety effort worthwhile or not?

I never said it wasn't worth while, just that you can't make rallying safe as seen by the wooden post coming through the back window on the video posted.

The reason I picked up on what Jackie said was that I think its an exaggeration that 33% of the drives he raced against didn't survive through his career.

That's not really an exaggeration.
Take the grid of the 1965 Belgian GP http://www.forix.com...5...amp;b=0&s=0
I count 9 of those 20 drivers that died on a race track within 7 or so years.

Have just been on wiki and counted all the drivers that competed in F1 from 1965 - 1973 and there are 115 and 11 of those men died in that time so that comes out at 1 in 10. Maybe he was referring to drivers that he was close to?

That number is obviously wrong (I glanced at the 1968 Belgian GP entry and I already saw 3 more apart from those 9 from 1965, and of course people like Cevert or Williamson hadn't stepped in yet by then), but a meaningful way at looking at it is just glance over the starting grids of all those GPs.
In the early part the death rate is almost 50%, in the latter parts you see quite a lower number, and that's partly the result of Jackie's crusade.

Didn't realise he was referring to all types of motorsport and not just F1 so that number might be closer but still think its a bit high.

Edited by scheivlak, 17 July 2012 - 22:05.

Semerad hit an oak tree side on at around 130mph. The fact that both weren't killed was a miracle....
No vehicle currently used in motorsports could come close to withstanding that impact.

I doubt any one here is suggesting rallying can be made completely safe, but that doesn't mean attempts to try and improve safety should be disparaged with such intentional ignorance as that displayed in the post I referenced.

Neil

Well, he did say that one of three F1 drivers got killed in a period. Grand Prix - The killer years I think the BBC-program was called.