15 replies to this topic

[Gareth]

This term has been bandied about quite a lot this season so I was interested in what people's defenitions of it were.

I'll post mine later.

Gareth

[pRy]

When something (a collision) happens between two drivers who are genuinely racing, rather than one intentionally taking the other off for their own gain.

MS & JV Jerez was not a racing incident. MS & JM at A1 Ring was.

[Mumbler]

A collision in which no one party clearly holds the majority of the responsinility.

[schumy_fan]

The most hackneyed phrase used by the drivers. It simply means shirk your (wrong)doings on some one else.

[MuMu]

It would be interesting to see what the FIA's definition of this is - anyone have any idea?

[Gareth]

I think Mumbler is closest to the definition. When people say something is a racing incident they are saying no one should be blamed for it. Therefore some element of blame has to come in to the definition. PRy's definition only seems to include acts done to intentionally take your opponent off as blameworthy. For me this is makes the term 'racing incident' too wide, it will cover all but 3 incidents in F1 that I can think of:

Suzuka 1989
Suzuka 1990
Jerez 1997

Making the defenition this wide makes the term useless, 'racing incident' virtually becomes 'incident'.

It therefore seems to me that the term must include an element of blame.

So I think a racing incident is therefore an incident between two drivers in which neither driver is to blame.

Gareth

[BRG]

i think Mumbler and Gareth are right - I would cynically define it as an incident where both drivers are too embarrassed to admit it was their fault

[tifosi]

A racing incident is whenever a driver you are pulling for knocks someone else off the track.

It is NOT a racing incident whenever the person you are pulling for gets knocked off the track.

There that was simple and judging by the threads on this BB, 100% accurate.

[BRG]

Tifosi

Now that IS cyncial (but I have to admit, also probabaly TRUE)

[Garagiste]

Quite. May I also add that it's a racing incident if the FIA say so?

[Clatter]

Tifosi, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

[Mila]

Originally posted by Mumbler
A collision in which no one party clearly holds the majority of the responsinility.

I would second that, too.

[Singing in the rain]

To me an incident is an almost coming together or slight coming together where both drivers are able to continue.
A crash is a crash...

[JPMCrew]

Originally posted by Mumbler
A collision in which no one party clearly holds the majority of the responsinility.

I disagree with this definition. A racing incident is an accident that is a clear and inevitable consequence of racing itself. i.e. an accident that results from the fact that neither cars nor drivers can ever be 100% perfect.

Examples:

Jos taking out JPM in Brazil
Montoya-Schumacher at the A1-Ring

It is clear that Jos holds most of the blame for the Brazil accident, but it was a racing incident nonetheless. The Montoya-Schumacher incident was the result of an error by Montoya, but it was a racing incident as well.

Actions that don't qualify as a racing incident would include any accidents intentionally precipitated by either party and accidents that were the result of an unusually unintelligent or naive action by one or all parties involved.

[Gareth]

I think having read this so far I would say that a 'racing incident' is one where:

An incident between two drivers where neither driver acted recklessly.

This takes into account the fact that drivers do make errors, but if they make that error recklesly then it is not a racing incident. I'll go and look at a criminal law book to find out a definition of reckless and post it tomorrow.

Gareth

[tifosi]

Im sure under most criminal law books, driving 180mph would be considered reckless, as would "tailgating" at the extremes that some F1 drivers seem to do on race weekends.