In principle yes I am all for that; think of all the publicity - however with the costs involved in doing so (even with the membership fees as they are :-)) - I feel that the cost involved would be prohibitive - ps did you see Alan McNish (and the spectators/marshals etc) walk away from his accident at Le Mans?

It's another interesting initiative...which is bound to fail. Whilst it might be good kudos for IOSH I suspect it would do little for the racing team or fraternity. Whether we like it or not, some spectators enjoy the thrills and spills of a sport which despite the improvements in safety, still produces serious injuries and fatalities. The IOSH paradox is obvious, but the concept is incongruous to sport which thrives on high risk.

I have been a follower of motor racing, especially F1, for many years. As the OP has stated the improvements in safety have come a very long way since those 'dark years'. The last time a fatality occurred was at Imola in 1994 when, on one race weekend; Roland Ratzenberger lost his life in practice, Rubens Barrichello had a huge accident, and Ayrton Senna lost his life in the race!

F1 is huge business and costs millions of £'s to run a team. If IOSH wanted to involve themselves in motor racing then maybe sponsor a lower formula or another discipline of the sport.

Or deathrace 2000!

As some responders have already commented, IOSH almost certainly doesn't have the money needed to sponsor even a smidgeon of publicity via Formula 1 motorsport. Also, as I've no interest in or knowledge of motor racing, do any forum users happen to know roughly how many people actually watch Formula 1 motorsport at race courses and also on TV? (My ignorance of motor racing is shown by the fact that I didn't know that there was anything other than F1, mainly because F1 seems to have a monopoly of motorsport shown on TV.) Also, as F1 motorsport has become increasingly safer over the years, has the number of spectators diminished, perhaps because the incidence of crashes and spills has also diminished?

As for press and TV journalists, I guess that they prefer to report about deaths and injuries when they occur in motorsport, not least because there's more to report, and also more for their readers/viewers to read and view. When there's a crash like the recent one shown on the TV news (at Monaco?) and the driver simply gets out of the wreckage and walks away, there's little to report - which might explain the short duration of the news item involved.

However, to widen this topic, if IOSH sponsorship of F1 or similar motorsports is neither affordable nor appropriate, can forum users suggest alternative and cost-effective ways of promoting IOSH? Allied to this, is there a realistic chance of IOSH becoming as well known to most people in the UK, in say the next 5 or 10 years, as RoSPA has been for many years?

thank you for all your posts.

it posted this as a general discussion point

1 to acknowledge that safety has led to better motorsport and as one person stated its all about risk
well now its amanaged risk

an excellent point i thought was how does IOSH sell itself, we tried sponsoring conkers and it fell flat
(is that a pun?)

i love F1 and british touring cars where 'rubbing's racing' and yes a good crash is an 'oh my god, did you see that?'

i think IOSH does need to sell itself inthe way that ROSPA has

if the committee are listening in how about it?

Anything like motorsport is in the public eye and has the means to be viewed by millions. I'm all for IOSH or others to play a part... So long as it isn't detracting from the core area of H&S in the workplace?

I think the 500m jumping through hoops would be more appropriate in this profession. ;-)

i like that answer gerry

GB,

Good point well put.

Good night.