Being too cautious could destroy F1

It was a year ago last Sunday that Jules Bianchi died, having survived for over nine months in a coma after suffering a 254g impact with a recovery tractor during the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix.

The event was held in atrocious conditions due to the approach of Typhoon Phanfone, a Category 1 storm that struck Japan's eastern coast - along which the Suzuka circuit is situated - early that Sunday morning.

The Frenchman, grandson of sixties sportscar driver Mauro, who was badly burned in a race, and great-nephew of Formula 1 driver and Le Mans 24 Hours winner Lucien, who died testing a sportscar, slid off the track at the very spot where Adrian Sutil had pirouetted off a lap earlier, his Marussia going straight into and under the vehicle sent to recover Sutil's Sauber. Double waved yellow flags had been displayed vigorously.

In the aftermath of the incidents there were outcries about the refusal of the race promoter (a subsidiary of the Honda-owned circuit) to move the race start forward - itself no guarantee of better weather, for the storm was scheduled to hit Japan on Monday - and why the highest ranking on-site Formula One Management official was F1's 'paddock policeman' - as Pasquale Lattuneddu is jovially referred to.

The fact is that Honda Mobilityland feared repercussions from fans who could not make the circuit on time were the start to be brought forward, while TV slots and satellites are booked months ahead and cannot simply be shifted at short notice. Nor, for that matter, was it the first time Lattuneddu had held the F1 fort, with the other instances going off without issues.

According to sources, the agreement between commercial rights holder FOM and governing body the FIA permits the commercial rights holder to determine the start time in conjunction with the local promoter, provided safety standards are adhered to. On that basis, the FIA had zero input (bar caution) into the matter, while the safety car versus double yellow flags debate in the aftermath of Sutil's accident is clarified by this definition:

Two waved yellows at the same post indicate great danger ahead. Drivers must slow down and be prepared to stop; no overtaking is permitted unless a driver is lapped.

The race was started behind the safety car and then red flagged after two laps due to atrocious conditions before being resumed 20 minutes later after the weather improved. The race was red flagged again, this time for good, on lap 46 after the Bianchi accident.

After being transferred to his native France for further medical attention, Jules passed away in a Nice hospital on July 17 2015, having suffered a diffuse axonal injury.

In a 396-page FIA accident panel report the investigators found that Bianchi "did not slow sufficiently to avoid losing control" when he crashed.

However, after the accident the FIA announced plans for speed limits under yellow flags via the virtual safety car concept and at the end of the year the governing body approved regulations that require at least four hours between the start of a grand prix and sunset unless events are deemed twilight or night races at circuits with approved lighting - a rule change that immediately affected five grands prix.

In May this year, during the Monaco Grand Prix weekend, the Bianchi family revealed it was taking legal action against the FIA, FOM and Marussia - the last-named a defunct entity after the team entered administration in the wake of the accident, eventually emerging via a company voluntary administration plan.

Announcing the litigation, Stewarts Law partner Julian Chamberlayne, representing the Bianchi family, said: "Jules Bianchi's death was avoidable.

"The FIA Panel Inquiry Report into this accident made numerous recommendations to improve safety in Formula 1 but failed to identify where errors had been made which led to Jules' death.

"It was surprising and distressing to the Bianchi family that the FIA panel in its conclusions, whilst noting a number of contributing factors, blamed Jules.

"The Bianchi family [is] determined that this legal process should require those involved to provide answers and to take responsibility for any failings."

Of the trio facing litigation, the most vulnerable party is the FIA. While FOM's income amounts to billions annually and Marussia is to all extents and purposes a new entity reborn as Manor, the FIA is a not-for-profit motoring organisation with a finite income.

So why this summary almost two years after the accident and 12 months after the talented driver's tragic passing? In a nutshell, because of the safety car start in the last grand prix at Silverstone.

For months the circuit had ramped up towards its biggest sporting spectacle of the year, selling virtually every square inch of space at eye-watering prices that rival Monaco and Singapore in the expense stakes. Television viewers, too, were wooed, for not only did F1 face its annual viewer challenge from Wimbledon, but UEFA's European Championship football final was scheduled for later that day.

A week on from the collision between Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton on the final lao of the Austrian GP, the anticipation for a great race in Great Britain was fuelled by the needle-match between a German and a Briton at the head of the points, both driving for the same German manufacturer that builds its F1 cars up the road in Brackley and engines in Brixworth.

Then, 15 minutes before the start, a typical British summer shower soaked the track.

As the rain's intensity increased, so an official was heard to murmur: "Safety car start." Really, why? For a few drops of rain that will probably disappear before the start? "Don't forget the FIA is facing litigation..."

Simultaneously a grid shot of an agitated Felipe Massa, a vociferous safety proponent since his 2009 accident - caused by a wayward lateral damper spring from a Rubens Barrichello's car ahead - pointing to the sky as he spoke to FIA president Jean Todt showed on-screen, prompting said insider to comment, "That's not going to help, either".

Whether or not the Brazilian was requesting a safety car start - a decision the pragmatic Todt no doubt left in the hands of his race executive - is not the point. The fact is that drivers increasingly lobby for safety car starts at the first signs of slight drizzle, with what you could call the 'cruise and collect' older generation, who perhaps crave the income but no longer the risks associated with being an F1 star, having the loudest voices.

In this day and age of restricted testing and complex machinery the older generation is much in demand, and with engines and transmissions increasingly 'lifed', running in wet conditions is minimised. Therefore not only do drivers no longer drive extensively in wet conditions, but many are accustomed to risk-free careers.

So just when the watching world was waiting with bated breath for the incredible spectacle of 22,000 horsepower hurtling towards the first corner, TV screens across the globe showed arguably the highest-tech cars on the planet weaving slowly behind the silver safety car for five laps - despite the fact that the cloudburst had ceased before the start of the race! Talk about anti-climax on a day when F1 most needed to strut its stuff.

It is truly ironic that in April the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, which counts most of the older drivers among its membership, included the following in a statement that criticised the current direction of F1: "Formula 1 is currently challenged by a difficult global economic environment, a swift change in fan and consumer behaviour, and a decisive shift in the TV and media landscape. This makes it fundamental that the sport's leaders make smart and well considered adjustments."

True, there was residual water at some corners, but surely an additional formation lap (or two) to enable the drivers - who, in their statement punted F1 as being for the "fastest racecars from the top teams on the coolest tracks against the best drivers in the world" - to acclimatise themselves to the conditions before letting them get on with their job, would have done the trick.

Life is risk, and every driver and his family knew the risks when they first got involved in motorsport - and the Bianchis more than most. Drivers (and/or parents) are reminded of those dangers as they rise up the ladder and are reappraised of them as they apply for renewals, yet still they sign up. To them, the payoff is driving thoroughbred cars at the absolute limit in the face of severe consequences.

Minimising risk is utterly laudable; removing it is totally unacceptable, for in one swoop the very essence of this great sport is destroyed - as those five excruciatingly slow laps behind the safety car proved before drivers switched straight to intermediate tyres.

But remember that litigation and recall it again when discussing the halo (a misnomer if ever there was one, given that the word is defined as 'ring of glory') that could be mandatory next year despite virtually all fans, most team bosses and even drivers being opposed to the device - designed to minimise head injury - on both visibility and aesthetic grounds.

The device would not have saved poor Jules - indeed, it is doubtful whether a fully armour-plated tank turret cockpit could withstand those forces. It is unlikely the outcomes of the Ayrton Senna, Roland Ratzenberger, Riccardo Paletti, Gilles Villeneuve or Ronnie Peterson accidents - covering all F1 driver fatalities in competition back to 1978 - would have been any different with a halo equivalent fitted.

For drivers seeking the perceived safety of closed cockpits there is always the World Endurance Championship, but to suggest that is to stand accused of callousness and political-incorrectness. Yet viewers are increasingly switching off as a result of nanny-state meddling with the pinnacle of a sport once viewed, by Ernest Hemmingway no less, as up there with bullfighting and mountaineering in the adrenaline stakes. The rest, he said, were "merely games."

While safety is spoken of in motor racing circles as being 'non-negotiable', by its very nature it is a compromise of a variety of factors, with the primary ingredient being straightforward common sense.

It would be utter stupidity to allow, as was customary in the sixties, drivers to hit speeds of 200mph on tree-lined circuits. Equally, tank turret cockpits are no option, either.

Ultimately it is a question of balance - between resource, technology, spectacle, aesthetics, sporting purity, human challenge, and, last not but not least, courage and skill; the courage to do better than the next by harnessing the outer-worldly skills these superstar drivers possess. To deny the best drivers in the world that opportunity is to do them an injustice, while robbing fans of what could have been a fantastic spectacle.

Clearly, that balance has fallen out of kilter and is spinning out of control. In the process, it is threatening to destroy F1 in the face of declining TV numbers.

Put bluntly, F1 no longer sits proudly beside some of the world's most extreme sports, but behind tennis and football in the Sunday spectacle stakes.

The pending litigation, and any residual effects of it, will only demote the championship further.