Obviously my first thoughts are for Bianchi himself and for his family, friends, fans and team

Don’t forget Marussia – they are a small outfit who have already had the tragedy of Maria de Villotta, following an incident with earie similarities, to come to terms with. (The Spaniard hit a truck at Duxford after a testing session in 2013. She died of her injuries a year later.)

That said, there are a number of talking points.

From the (very graphic) camcorder video that’s now circulating online, it looks as though Bianchi did indeed hit the caterpillar truck at an angle, rather than head-on. This is fortunate for two reasons. Firstly, with a side impact, the roll hoop would hit the truck first, reducing the impact on the driver’s head. Secondly, the driver’s head would have room to move to the right, braced by the HANS device, not crushed against the bulkhead. I strongly doubt that a fully head-on impact would have been survivable.

Typhoon Time

I felt before the race that it would have been prudent to start the race early (to avoid the typhoon) as the FIA are thought to have suggested twice to the promoter. But although the weather conditions had deteriorated by the time of the accident, they were not outrageous (see below) and I don’t think that decision can be blamed for the crash.

The safety of the Dunlop curve should be looked at. Former McLaren test driver Gary Paffett said in a BBC interview that there could have been a ‘river’ running across the track at that point. That is possible but none of the other drivers mentioned aquaplaning (ie where the car literally floats) in that area, although some mentioned it at other parts of the track.

1994 flashback

Some will remember that Martin Brundle had a very similar accident at the same corner in that ill-fated season of 1994, almost hitting a caterpillar that was recovering Gianni Morbidelli’s car. Whether this is just a coincidence or not needs to be considered (I’m not sure if the drainage that area has been modified since then, I assume the track would at least have been resurfaced).

Should the safety car have been brought out sooner? I don’t think the conditions alone justified it. Sutil crashed lap 42, all cars had another lap before the safety car came out to pit, but hardly any (Jenson Button was an exception) came in to put on extreme wet tyres. Virtually all cars (Button, Magnussen and Maldonado excepted) were on the shallow-grooved ‘intermediate’ tyres. Although some may have declined to change tyres thinking that the race would finish behind the safety car, Nico Hulkenberg and Sebastian Vettel did stop on laps 44 and 45 respectively and put on fresh sets of inters. Although Raikkonen did put on extremes on lap 45, none of this suggests the track was too wet for the intermediate Pirellis to work at all (as opposed merely to being slower) and it certainly doesn’t suggest that it was wet enough to justify bringing on the safety car solely on the basis of the conditions.

Should the safety car have been used due to the accident? There certainly need to be questions asked about the use of Caterpillar trucks (which cars could go under) without a Safety car, even under double waved yellows. But putting a safety car out any time there is a car that needs to be recovered would be a very big step.

Considered response

I would advocate some ex-ante risk management procedures, taking into account the conditions, the speed and difficulty of the corner and any other relevant factors. In any case, there are many factors to consider.

To conclude, we should never forget that for all the safety improvements in F1, racing drivers still put themselves at considerable personal risk to provide a show that entertains millions and a testbed of technological progress that benefits everyone, in terms of road safety, the environment and the many jobs that depend on it. In doing so, some drivers have made the ultimate sacrifice. I really do hope that Bianchi does not join them.