IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Renault F1 Team - Worthy of H&S prosecution?
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Martin Savage
Hearing the recent news about the Renault F1 team not disputing the allegation they instructed Nelson Picquet to crash - i.e. have an accident - I would be amazed if the HSE weren't investigating this, with a view to prosecution.
It breaks every H&S law in the book, and contradicts everything we spend all day working to prevent!
The only thing is, are they a UK team, and will they get away with it if they're French? Not sure about the French equivalent to the HaSWA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George S Darmanin
It happened in Singapore, so I think that the host country regulations shall apply.
But definitely support your arguments.
GS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw Have a look at this site, go to About Us on the toolbar on the left, then Prevention in France. Gives an overview of French systems in place. Agree with the prosecution idea. http://en.inrs.fr/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
Generally speaking IMHO the HSE won't go anywhere near a sporting incident because sport isn't work. However, in this case the employer has instructed an employee to carry out an activity that may or may not have been unnecessarily dangerous activity so they're might be case. Ordinarily it would be expected that the sports governing body carry out sanctions. I didn't see that race. Did the driver carry out the request? Was the crash dangerous? (by modern F1 car standards?)
underhand? = undoubtedly
Dangerous? = don't know but not necessarily
HSE? = don't know but very unlikely
Remember also that the driver had control of the car and would not deliberately 'T-bone' the armco (other crash barriers are available) but would be more likely just to put the car out of commission.
Unsafe? = not necessarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Savage
Well the driver crashed at over 100mph - which in my view means yes it was rather dangerous, and very risky.
At those sort of speeds anything can happen, despite all the safeguards built into a modern F1 car.
He spun sideways into a wall.
An employer asking, no instructing an employee to have an accident is quite simply reprehensible. And I'm afraid the word sport doesn't enter into it, it's a straight case of employer / employee!
"Go directly to jail, do not pass go..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
As shocking as it may of appeared, the driver is unlikely to have done that deliberately unless he thought he would walk away from it. I agree that Renault should swing for this but do not agree that H&S law should be used to achieve it. IMHO this is not what H&S law was written for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason McQueen
What about their duty towards members of the public? Whilst the risk to the driver might be calculated (speed of impact, survival cell of the car etc) there was a definate risk that a member of the crowd could have been injured by pieces of flying debris.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
If there was a tangible risk that an accident/deliberate or otherwise at that point on the circuit could cause risk of injury to spectators then I would look towards the owners of the circuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Kelly
There is always a risk to spectators despite all the best engineering efforts in the world. The only real safe distance to have them would be a matter of 100's of metres, how far can a piece of metal fly? This team put the driver, fellow drivers, spectators & marshalls/stewards delibrately at risk in order to gain an economic advantage. This company has over 700 employees and a budget in the hundreds of millions so there is no condoning their actions or saying that it was ok as it was low risk. Asking anybody to crash a high performance and fragile car at 100 mph is just crazy and so should be prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nicholas Sutcliffe
John Packer states "sport is not work", really? the drivers get paid handsomely and it generates income for 1000s of people, sounds like work to me.
Looking at it from another angle, does this not constitute insurance fraud? Another reason for an incarceration term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
I Don't disagree that their actions were unnacceptable. I disagree that H&S laws should be used in this case as that is not what they were written for. What next, PN's for every footballer who tackles dirty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Kelly
H&S laws were enacted to protect employees and others, the remit of Health and Safety enforcing bodies is to take companies to task over serious breaches in that law. Asking an employee to crash a car is a breach of their duty of care to that employee, other drivers and course attendants not to mind spectators. A team of people at the head of this multi million pound company devised a strategy whereby they intentionally put one of their employees at serious risk of death or injury for financial gain. Where is the confusion in that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
I accept that high speed crash in a normal road car can have catastrophic effects but this is a modern F1 car with a highly developed crash cell enveloping the driver. A very experienced young man at the peak of fitness. He wouldn't have crashed it unless he thought he would walk away from it.
Asking a footballer to 'take-out' an opposition player is no different. The outcome may be different but the offence is the same.
As I said earlier, their actions were reprehensible but H&S law should not be used to seek justice and cannot because the incident outside of the juristiction of UK H&S law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Horrocks
'Asking an employee to crash a car is a breach of their duty of care to that employee'
So movie stunt men are breaking the law?
Top Gear crash.. not intentional crash but a risk of the type of programme.
Pointless discussion as the 'crash' was in Singapore as previously noted by others - outside of UK jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
The incident was outside UK jurisdiction,the driver was not a UK subject and no injury resulted to the driver or anyone else. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story...I would prosecute the company under s2,&3, senior managers under s37 and the driver under s7 of HSWA. If anyone was seriously injured under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. For a fatality the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and for an individual offence gross negligent manslaughter.
Happy days.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
Assuming H&S law wasn't available as a tool to bring about a prosecution in this case, what would you use instead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
I believe that the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore are the HSE equivalent there. Shall we each send an e-mail to them to demand action?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte
What do you think the cost of damage to the car would be in relation to any HSE fine imposed?
Des
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
John
Reckless driving under the RTA, or possibly causing a breach of the peace!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
H&S Law in Singapore will be unlikely to be applied.
There are several issues though ...
Willful damage? (he was not told to crash, he was told to create a safety car incident - according to his own testimony - so he could have done a "Schumacher" and parked in a stupid place).
Criminal damage - all three involved?
Civil case to recover the costs - Renault could sue all three involved.
Endangerment (of crowd, other drivers, marshalls) - prosecution of all three?
Conspiring to pervert results - hence financial reward - so fraud?
What about Renault's action regarding blackmail - still stands? or dropped?
So no-one is in any doubt - I have followed F1 very very closely for 30+ years, the "sport" went out of the equations many years before that. This is high reward business, pure and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
Crashing an F1 car is not overly dangerous, they are designed to be crashed.
As for asking sports stars to injure themselves or others, it's all part of the game.
It's like asking a striker to go over in the box to get a penalty or to go in heavy on the oppositions best player to injure him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuff4blokes
It all depends on what you mean by "get away with it"
Renault are in F1 for financial gain: more screen time and higher placing in the points table = greater credibility as a producer of quality cars. Of course that equation depends on public trust. To be widely believed to be cheating may well dent that public trust (or reduce our gullibility).
I have no knowledge of Singapore H&S laws but I do think that that particular crash was very unlikely to result in anyone being hurt so it would probably be hard to make any prosecution stick. However, I would applaud the Singapore authorities if it ever did come to trial.
Overall, my personal opinion of Renault and their cars has not changed from what it already was! Similarly I have viewed F1 as a dirty sport for many years now ever since that Schumaker incident when his lead in the championship was under threat and no penalty was ever awarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By N Smith
"Crashing an F1 car is not overly dangerous"
In F1 history, from 1953 to 1994, 27 drivers have died during race or in free practice or qualifying session. In addition, spectators or track workers killed or injured.
Massa could quite easily have been killed a few weeks ago!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Packer
Thankfully, due in no small part to the tireless efforts of the likes of Jackie Stewart modern F1 cars are much safer and can protect their drivers in unbelievable impacts. But keep in mind that this wasn't an accident. It was an alleged deliberate act and self preservation would have forced the driver to do only enough to cripple the car.
Renault were wrong and should be held to account but IMHO using H&S law to do it would set a precedence that would be damaging both to the true cause of H&S and to sport in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
"and self preservation would have forced the driver to do only enough to cripple the car."
If you see the telemetry, he was at full throttle before, during and after impact. There is a tiny lift or hesitation - which could easily be explained as a shift of the heel to centre. By his own testimony he was out of control of the car. It was a risky gamble with other people's lives. Surtees Junior died not many weeks ago due to a loose wheel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Renault F1 Team - Worthy of H&S prosecution?
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.