LOL, yeah different world, sort of really old school motor racing. Do you think this would be allowed in F1 these days? please log in to view this image
Sadly, I don't think this is possible. Attitudes have changed and the "Risk of Danger" brigade have influenced the current thinking that deaths in sport namely F1 cannot be tolerated and must be avoided at all costs. I don't believe we can have the exciting motor racing we experienced early to mid last century without the very certain risk of people getting killed, Times and attitudes have changed and so has motor racing, we will just have to get used to it. Incidentally a driver died at my very first F1 event in 1971 at Brands Hatch.
the 'risk of danger' brigade = insurance companies, and they, as anyone who's made a claim knows, don't like to part with their money. The premiums won't go down, of course, but the risk of paying out does.
What was wrong with the 90s/00s gravel traps. From 2009 the sport turned into a shadow of it's former self.
Yeah, I agree with that. It meant that a mistake was punished but the driver was safe. These days they have gone too far the other way and their is basically no punishment for mistakes. I do remember a couple of battles being ruined by the driver falling off the track and getting stuck in a gravel trap so there does need to be a balance.
If a driver makes a mistake under pressure and falls off the track into a gravel trap, that's too bad! Whoever wins a race, or a WDC, should be the person who drives the fastest and makes the least mistakes. It's too easy to make a mistake and nothing happens, and then there is the argument of whether a person kept/took a place whilst being off the track and gaining an advantage, which ends in a not606 bloodfest as people get involved and either complain about the drivers or the stewards! Grass, gravel, no doubt. Mistake is punished.
there was plenty of 'track limits' shenanigans going on during that GP, I think at least 2 passes were made off track, but I think the stewarding was about right, they looked a bit 'crowdy' to me. Alonso's move on Massa was a bit questionable, but I think he only ended up going off track because the contact meant loss of grip. It was an enjoyable GP and didn't need a 'card-happy' ref, so to speak.
Basically I believe the entire argument revolves around "Risk of being sued in the event of injury or death" essentially any trackside feature designed to impede progress or decelerate on contact has the potential to cause injury or death, be it hay bales, catch fencing, tyre walls, gravel traps, concrete blocks, whatever. Americans being a litigious society are all eager to participate in law suits and that why Austin tried its very hardest not to find itself being sued due to someone being injured at their circuit, hence the relaxation of the run off rule, purely down to money !! nothing else.
They all agree to the current risks, it's like the Lauda quote: "I accept every time I get in my car there is a 20% chance I could die, and I can live with it, but not 1% more." Whilst we're nowhere near the 20% risk these days, I wouldn't feel comfortable watching a sport where a group of drivers sign a disclaimer at the start of the year essentially saying "It's fine if 4 of us die this year, we won't sue". Legally, it's surely a minefield to try and up the risks. Making a change to the rules which knowingly ups the risks of a fatality surely puts them in a very sticky situation.
The insurance carriers wouldn't let them increase the risk, and it isn't the dead driver that sues, it's the family, Bianchi's for example.