OPINION PIT + PADDOCK25 JULY 2019 AUTOSPORT.COM 13e’ve all been there – happily driving along the
motorway, minding our own business, when some
dimwit changes lanes without looking. In this
situation, most capable drivers will instinctively
take evasive action by moving over into the next
available lane (provided there is space) to avoid a collision.
But what if you knew the next available lane was reserved for
emergency vehicles, and that driving into your only escape road
carried an automatic fine and penalty points on your licence –
justice served by CCTV, with no appeals or reviews allowed?
Faced with the prospect of a guaranteed penalty and fine,
you might just decide to chance a probable collision with that
wayward fellow motorist. Maybe they’ll see you at the last
minute and swerve? Maybe you’ll gently bounce off each other
with minimal damage done? Maybe you’ll miraculously avoid
each other by some other means?
What’s any of this got to do with track limits? Well, my
point is that all actions and their consequences are dictated
by circumstance, and if you make no effort whatsoever to
account for circumstance when administering rules and
regulations, you create conditions where split-second
decisions can have dangerous unintended consequences.
I’ve had plenty of run-ins with motorsport’s draconian track
limits rules over recent seasons, most recently at Spa, where
I lost victory in the first round of McLaren’s 2019 Pure GT Series
to a 10-second track limits penalty. The official position in such
cases, as dictated by the FIA and explained in drivers’ briefings, is
that the track limits are clearly defined – the white line is part of
the circuit but the kerb isn’t, and a car will be deemed to have left
the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the circuit.
Just stay on the track and stop complaining!
But there is some variation in how this rule is interpreted around
the world. In Formula 1, they basically make it up as they go along:
enforcing strict limits in some places and allowing a free-for-all in
others. In other FIA international racing, you are legal provided
your two inside wheels remain circuit-side of the white line. In
UK national racing, the rules are more stringent – forbidding any
part of the car from straying beyond the white lines or kerbs.
The lack of consistency and clarity across different jurisdictions
is one matter of contention, but the bigger problem is the way the
rules are enforced. Judges of fact – meaning their decisions are
irrefutable and unappealable – decide your fate with no questions
allowed. The problem here is one of absolutism. You cannot argue
your case. The stewards simply tally up your ‘offences’ and penalise
you accordingly. At the court of track limits, you are summarily
tried and executed. There would be no problem with this if all
regulations were enforced in a similar way, but they aren’t.
Inconsistency in officiating is one thing, but it’s not the worst
thing. By taking an absolute approach to track limits, officials
unintentionally make motor racing more dangerous. The
enforcement of track limits has become pernicious, because
drivers are sometimes forced to pick between two bad choices.
My case in point comes from the same Spa race in which I was
penalised. One driver made a mistake at Eau Rouge in a powerful,
heavy GT4 car on old tyres. This driver realised he was not likely
to make it through Raidillon safely, but was concerned about
being penalised for exceeding track limits if he cut the track.
So, he chose to risk trying to make the corner anyway. The
result was an enormous shunt, in which his car was written
off, and from which he was lucky to walk away uninjured.
In FIA events this season, I’m told stewards are instructed to
enforce track limits without discussing transgressions with
drivers. In the UK, drivers usually see the officials to discuss
incidents even though there is no possibility of their decisions
being overturned. I’ve often argued I simply made a mistake and
tried to avoid an accident by running off the circuit instead of
spinning the car – precisely to prevent the sort of terrifying
accident I just described. Faced with a decision between a bad
choice and a bad choice, you can only make the least bad choice.
My fellow racer made the worst of two bad choices as it
transpired, but were officials to take a less stringent approach to
track limits – saving their officiating until after the race, engaging
in proper dialogue with competitors, reviewing any contrary
evidence and working to properly understand the circumstances of
each incident – drivers would know they could exceed track limits
as a safety net, without fear of automatic reprisal. Circuits could
install different run-offs to penalise mistakes, but most would
prefer to save the cash and ask drivers to take more responsibility.
That’s fine, but the point of enforcing rules and regulations
should be to prevent cheating. Sometimes, drivers simply make
mistakes and gain no advantage. Officials – many of whom have
never driven a racing car at proper speed and have no real concept
of the difficulty of maintaining control – need to understand
that. If they did, they would make better decisions, motor racing
would be fairer, and it would be safer too.When officials take a no-questions-allowed approach, it can leave competitors in
situations where they are faced with only bad choices and negative outcomes
BEN ANDERSONThe hidden danger of track limits
“By taking an absolute approach
to track limits, officials make
motor racing more dangerous”
W