Posted By Ron Young
If the Hamster disregarded his safety brief, why go for Clarkson?
It's about time that we stopped looking for Clarkson gaffes, accept that it is good TV (my opinion) and that we as a profession need to grow up!

Posted By Mark Eastbourne
I doubt whether Richard Hammand would refuse a safety briefing on a car which can go that fast!

"The BBC and Mr Fallows' firm, Primetime Landspeed Engineering, may be prosecuted for failing to take due care, the paper said."

Sounds like blame shifting to me.

Posted By rks
Repeated weds night

Posted By Diane Thomason
I can't believe the owner thinks that Hammond should have been able to keep control after the blowout. This wasn't a BMW or something, it was a rocket! I recall Hammond said something like it was 0.4 seconds between the blowout and the vehicle veering off wildly. It was pretty well instant. Didn't he also say it doesn't have normal brakes?
Surely at that kind of speed in such a crude vehicle, it just wasn't possible to regain control after a blowout?
I agree, this sounds like blame-shifting.

Posted By GSP
I though Jamie Oliver destroying the reasonably priced car was hilarious.

Posted By ITK CMIOSH
Glad the increase in my licence fee is being spent well.

Posted By Squirrel
My take on the video footage was that it clearly showed something going wrong with the tyre.

Now - i carnt help but wonder as to whether or not the tyres were 'up to' another run. Should they have been replaced with new ones prior to each run? Should the tyres have been put under such enormous pressure so soon after Hamsters last speed attempt?

No matter how excited the Hamster was, surely someone (not under the influence of adrenalin pumping through the body) should have taken the sensible step of not pushing things, or the car any further.

Posted By Salus
I would like to know if the treatment was carried out under the NHS (using up bed / nurses and other resources) and tax payers had to pay for it.

They all know the risks on this show,and they have all assessed them, very low risk of anything serious happening while doing the show,against £100.000 grand + and all the perks, (celebrity talks etc.)per annum.

Posted By Mark Mace
another thought,

the BBC presumably has a Health & Safety Expert, consider him having to do the accident investigation on this one.

He/She will probably already have done the RA for many riskier programmes than driving a car at 300 mph, maybe he/she thought he/she had covered everything and every outcome, maybe he/she was advised that the tyres were good for the number of runs planned, maybe he/she did a very good job, maybe he/she will be saddled with the blame and now have no job.

Spare a thought.

Regards
Tony

Posted By GSP
Figure this one then, pikeys/skag heads/druggies/criminals/council estate scum/bums in general all don't pay any taxes. They steel from us, leech off us, make our life's a misery and make the UK look like crap on a daily basis.

But they are entitled to NHS treatment when they contribute nothing.

Hammond probably pays more taxes than you even earn, he entertains millions and his NHS bill is probably a fraction of what he has paid in taxes through national insurance and taxes so you argument is a crock of sh@t.

Posted By Salus
GPS, yeh you are right they should not get it either!

Posted By Dave Wilson
winners and watchers spring to mind, I think the brief should have been "if you get a catastrophic blow out at 300mph pray!"

There was nothing he or anyone else could have done when this occurred, so why the grief?

I think it is great that we have people in this country, from all walks of life, who try to push the envelope that little bit further, unless you try something which makes you feel alive then you haven't lived!

Good on him and I'm glad he is OK.

Posted By SeanThompson
Another well contributed thread by Salus........ if only

Posted By S R Robinson
Some good comments here.

I'm a big Top Gear fan and I think this accident shows that H&S was at work rather than neglected. An accident at that speed should kill you. It just should not be possible to survive, (think how many accidents result in fatalities on our roads at the fraction of the speed).

However, Richard Hammond did survive due to the safety features of the car and the prompt response of emergency services, (who were on standby as per the RA I presume).

Not sure if this is off topic but can anyone think of other Top Gear H&S situations. My offer would be the rolling of the jeep in the lake with Clarkson and Hammond on board. I honestly thought one of them would get trapped under at one point.

Posted By David Brede
Ray,

Donald Campbell Snr was killed when Bluebird boat struck a submerged log at high speed.

It will be interesting to see if any or all of the suggestions for the accident in this thread were checked for, such as the tyres after each run and had any debris got on to the runway?

What happens at Santa Pod? Do the dragsters and the track get checked? Or indeed at other land speed record attempts?

Posted By Crim
Did anyone really watch this programme or just the bit about the crash?

I thought the road work item was worse as far as breaching health and safety. Clarkson obviously enjoys slagging us off, the safety induction took up too much of his valuable time and at one point he even showed a piece of new tarmac where he said they had buried the health and safety man.

Personally I did see the funny side and laughed with them, as I realised it is only a TV programme after all, but one of the most entertaining at present!

The programme even outdid the final Big Brother for viewing figures.

Posted By David Brede
Yes, the road works thing was bad,

Inexperienced, unqualified roller drivers going over water stop cocks (laugh), throwing food and stuff under the rollers (laugh again), having no welfare so peeing on the side of the road and going to the local chippie for 70 portions of fish and chips (roll around on the floor)!

Having worked on rail jobs during long blockades to get jobs done quickly and minimising the disruption to the public everything is possible and you do not have to sacrifice elf and safety (hoot, hoot) to do it.

Posted By Stupendous Man
I don't think the choice of venue was a problem - exactly where else could they have done it?

I know that Pendine sands was used in the past, but I don't even think that location would be suitable for this particular type of car. And there aren't any salt flats in the UK yet (although according to the global warming brigade the entire country will resemble a salt flat by Friday unless we ban 4x4's - but I digress).

While I agree that it is foreseeable that suspension, steering or tyre failure may occur, these risks are usually controlled to an acceptable level through design, engineering and inspection controls.

Has anyone analysed the number of accidents this car has been involved in as a proportion of the number of 'runs' it has made? (Please - no jokes about Hammond making more runs in the jet car than the England cricket team did in the Ashes...)

Posted By David Brede
Hi Stupendous man.

I was not thinking of cricket runs when I saw your post!!

Posted By Simon Drohan
I echo the comments about the safety devices in the car doing a sound job and clearly despite a horrendous event, the designers and fabricators of this equipment should be congratulated.

For me, the costs associated with Hamsters recovery are associated with the human desire to push the envelope and are a fair price to pay when balanced against the risks involved. Without people who are prepared to put themselves in harms way in the interests of science, we would not enjoy the lifestyles and longevity that we currently take for granted. Indeed, without previous risks taken in the development of medical science, he would not have made the recovery in the same way.

It's also worth noting that as the vehicle was being used to attempt a land speed record, that the vehicle has to make 2 runs in opposing directions, and the average speed taken from the 2 runs to confirm the record. As I understand it, the runs have to be completed without any additional work on the vehicle, so changing the tyres after each run is not within the rules of the bod(y/ies?)(FIA?)that govern the activity.

Does this reduce the likelihood of a thorough safety inspection after the first run and put pressure on any inspector(s)? Do the rules for this type of activity support risk management or compromise it?

I don't think it is fair to criticise anyone for this accident - everyone involved in this kind of activity is aware of the risks and given the profile of the event and the TV coverage, I believe that the vehicle will have been scrutinised and prepared to the best standard possible by the experts who built it. The engineers who designed and constructed this machine will no doubt be absolutely devastated by the outcome, and if they choose to continue in the field after this then they should be supported.