An extraordinary report about the failure of safety measures to cut deaths and injuries in Grand Prix racing has begun to make the rounds of scientific publications and wire services. A press release vaunting the article ahead of its print publication in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, has warned that, "Safety Measures for Grand Prix Racing Drivers Haven't Worked."
Picking up on the press release, several news outlets have published, in all seriousness, that, "Most of the measures introduced over the past decade to boost the safety of Grand Prix motor racing, have not cut death rates or curbed speed, as intended."
The full BJSM report is available on a PDF, and any fan who reads it closely - or even with half their attention - will see that not only is this a horribly inaccurate summation, a kind of academic version of sensational Fleet Street reporting, but while the report has covered a lot of true and interesting developments in safety, it has so many incorrect statements that it cannot be taken seriously.
One of the main problems with the report, is that it groups together the MotoGP motorcycling series with Formula One, as both use the same word "Grand Prix." But that's about all the two forms of racing share in common, so they should not be grouped together. And, yes, MotoGP is more dangerous than F1. And yes, drivers continue to be injured and killed in MotoGP, as they have in the top levels of U.S. open-wheel racing.
Unfortunately, while there are some interesting figures in the report about injuries and fatalities in motor racing generally, the report and the press release fail to make it clear as they should that Formula 1's safety record since 1994 has been absolutely phenomenal, and that is thanks to the safety measures of the International Automobile Federation. Despite what the press release says there has not been a death of a driver in Formula 1 since Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna died in 1994 at Imola. In fact, the report itself also says that is the last fatality, but it also ties together MotoGP and F1 under the same category, saying fatalities continue in Grand Prix racing.
Robert Kubica's accident at the Canadian Grand Prix in June, not mentioned in the report, was testament to the extraordinary progress that has been made Formula 1.
I'm not trashing the report in order to praise Formula 1, since the period between the death of Riccardo Paletti and Gilles Villeneuve in 1982 and that of Senna and Ratzenberger in 1994 was 12 years, and we are now at over 13 years and keeping our fingers crossed. But the inaccuracies of the report beg a correction. It talks about serious injuries in F1 that have prevented drivers from racing for long periods of time, without specifying what those injuries were. It says that Ralf Schumacher's two accidents at Indy, in 2004 and 2005, forced him to miss the last part of each of those seasons. In fact, Ralf missed several raced in 2004 after the accident, but returned for the last three. He missed none in 2005, finishing seventh at the race after the U.S. Grand Prix and scoring two points - some injury. The report also says that Jacques Villeneuve missed half the season last year due to an injury after a crash, when everyone knows that although Villeneuve had a crash and then quit, the crash was a pretext. Villeneuve quit the team because he was insulted by being asked to cede his place to Kubica for a few races while they try out the rookie. Villeneuve was fine the day after the crash, a little sore, but all right.The last13 years has been free of any major injuries - Michael Schumacher's broken leg at Silverstone in 1999 aside...and that could have happened while skiing. Luciano Burti had it bad in the tire wall at Spa, too, a few years ago. But he is fine too, and broke no bones.
While it is true that the FIA has a problem reducing speeds on F1 cars, not even the points the report makes on that are precisely clear. The grooved tires and other measures of recent years have indeed made the cars slower...until the engineers find other ways to speed them up. That is racing. A constant cat and mouse game between the FIA and the engineers. I have spoken to FIA people about this, and they say that if they had not taken the measures, then the cars would be so phenomenally faster now, and deadly. In other words, the cars are being effectively slowed down. If the report uses one track as an example of where they have increased over the years, it does not take into adequate consideration the amount that the cars and tracks have also developed their safety by, thereby allowing a little more speed.
Every once in a while a prestigious academic journal or other publication takes a look at some aspect of Formula 1 racing. Usually that is good for the sport and informative for the reader, as the reporting is in-depth and interesting, and the academic journal's prestigious name rubs off on the sport. I'm thinking of recent stories in Nature magazine, for instance, or I seem to recall one in Science or New Scientist, but I cannot pinpoint it.
But this particular report is neither good for the racing, nor good for the reputation of academic research. Check it out and let me know if I've missed something!
Comments