What F1 can learn from a Niagara Falls stuntman

Rulemaking in Formula 1 is best compared with tightrope walking across Niagara Falls. In 2012 high-wire artist Nik Wallenda drew a crowd of 125,000 that thrilled at his 600-yard crossing of the waterfall situated on the USA-Canadian border, with a billion television viewers cumulatively tuning in to watch the first successful crossing of the Falls.

Gaining permission entailed a two-year lobbying battle with officials on both sides of the Niagara River, with a one-time exemption to New York State's anti-stunting law - introduced after a host of daredevils died at the same spot - being granted on condition that Wallenda wore an approved safety belt. He described his legal battle as more daunting than the crossing itself, but it was a case of no belt, no go.

So the 32-year-old wore the mandatory cable clip for the first successful crossing directly over the Falls, but still a crowd most race circuits can only dream of waited with bated breath for a misstep as swirling clouds of spray and high winds buffeted his every move. During his half-hour walk he even defied the conventions of tightrope walking by staring down at the torrential waters as though daring them to swallow him.

Now the point of this comparison: how many more folk would have made the journey to Niagara had Wallenda NOT worn a safety harness? The answer is, of course, impossible to quantify, but it is not as though the American walked to empty shores or zero camera interest. No one exclaimed they would not watch because he wore a safety clip.

No promoter sneers at a billion+ global audience - almost double F1's current 20-race cumulative total - and, tellingly, many of those who tuned in had already been made aware of his successful crossing by social media and traditional channels, so can hardly be described as morbid gore hounds.

Next question: how many folk would, though, pay to watch the same Nik traverse the same distance on the same day on the same cable under the same adverse conditions, but on a cable of the same thickness strung just a yard above a parking lot across the way from the Falls?

You've guessed it: probably just his wife, three kids and dog, despite the actual skill sets being absolutely identical, whether the cable was strung way up in the air or a couple of feet above the ground.

According to sources at the Strategy Group meeting, one of the points of centred on making the halo voluntary and letting teams/drivers decide whether they wish to race with the device

If you'll excuse the pun, the comparison illustrates perfectly the tightrope walked by the FIA with every rule change, whether for F1, WRC, WEC or its other championships: how to improve safety for spectators, officials and competitors without compromising motorsport's spectacle; how to thrill fans with high-wire antics, yet provide the safety afforded by a cable clip without stringing the cable a yard off the deck.

Many of motorsport's old school believe that safety should be voluntary; indeed, according to sources present at the "halo" Strategy Group meeting, one of the points of discussion centred on just that: making the halo voluntary, and letting teams/drivers decide whether they wish to race with the device. Of course, the logical question then is: will the halo make cars any quicker or slower due to its aerodynamic effects?

For obvious reasons speed would be the decider, rather than the halo's safety advantages - even if taken on balance of probabilities alone - while, perversely, its detractors would suddenly acclaim it to be the most beautiful device ever fitted to a race car were it to improve performance by a second per lap!

But why not then make HANS, full-face helmets, fireproof overalls and safety belts optional? These devices do not, after all, offer any performance differences save for, possibly, their weight - which could so easily be compensated for, as with halo - and surely do not impact on spectator safety. After all, if some clowns have a death wish, why not indulge them for profit?

There are, though, numerous compelling arguments against discretionary safety.

While there is no stopping idiots with death wishes, the impact on motorsport would eventually be terminal, for every fatality fuels the fervour of the "ban motorsport" brigade. Consider Switzerland: the country outlawed the sport after the 1955 Le Mans disaster (in France), and, 60 years on, still prevaricates about unbanning motor racing. Indeed, a proposed Formula E fixture is struggling to materialise for that reason.

Arguments with authorities that "Driver A died because he refused to use helmet/halo/fireproofs/HANS" would see such motorsport associations dragged through the courts for acting irresponsibly, in addition to their being sued by all and sundry. The Jules Bianchi tragedy prompted litigation, proving that only an extremely thin line separates passion from emotion.

It is fallacious to argue that selfish decisions to refuse personal safety devices affect only those individuals: scores of situations can be imagined where dazed or injured (or even burnt) drivers are unable to extricate themselves after accidents, putting the lives of others at risk. The opposite does not, though, hold true under any circumstance.

Equally, a wayward item could well strike an unprotected driver, who in turn collides with another competitor - or worse, involves spectators/officials - in what could well have been an avoidable accident. That is not as far-fetched as some make out.

Motor racing is in rude health simply because it is deemed to be safe. Formula 1 sets the standard, with its advances trickling down, in turn attracting competitors to the sport. Would any responsible parent let their kids loose in karts without safety gear simply because certain F1 drivers exercise that option? Of course not - what sort of example does that ultimately set?

The FIA needs to walk a fine line when it comes to safety

Would the parents of any of the current crop of international drivers have allowed them to take up the sport as youngsters had motorsport's safety record been as dismal as it was in the 1960s? Not without good reasons were the minimum ages for karting and car racing 16 and 18 in those days.

The FIA does, though, need to walk a fine line when it comes to safety. To introduce technical changes under the auspices of safety, such as the introduction of V8 engines in the previous decade during the reign of then-FIA president Max Mosley, can be fallacious, for it implies powerful cars - as the current crop are - are too dangerous, when the motivation back then was seemingly to reduce the political clout of car makers.

By that token, had officials insisted Wallenda wear red sandals rather than the thin-soled boots he wore during his historic crossing that would have qualified as politicking, whereas the safety catch requirement made perfect sense - as is the case with all effective safety devices.

Effective safety is founded on scientific research, yet too often its emotional facets are used as political footballs. Let us blame the politicians for insisting that Wallenda use a cable - but to what end? Enforcing safety without impacting upon the overall spectacle? Did the safety cable really detract from his feat?

Consider the flipside: without a safety cable Wallenda would not have been permitted to go where no other person has successfully ventured - six previous applications (by other artists) had, after all, faltered over the past 40-odd years. One could argue, though, that Wallenda was in control of his own destiny the moment he stepped on a high wire just two inches in diameter - and that no spectators would be harmed by a slip.

However, rescue crafts would have sped to his plight, arguably placing the lives of rescuers at risk - all for want of a simple cable and clip. Wallenda was required to post a $50,000 bond in the event that water rescue was required - which, mercifully, it was not. Amazingly, though, footage shows the cradle he used to support his balance bar to be not unlike a halo or HANS device...

In Wallenda's case safety was not negotiable. Nor was it voluntary, or discretionary. In the end his safety gear was not required, which was the outcome all had hoped for. That "all" includes not only members of his direct and extended flying family, but every person sitting on both sides of the scenic divide between two countries - plus a massive global audience watching his performance live.

Next time safety devices of any type are introduced in motorsport - and there will be many more to come in future years as it strives to improve its already impressive record - they should be measured against that effectiveness of the simple safety clip Wallenda wore, not be the subject of hysterical outbursts.

Safety does not spoil the thrills, but it could save red spills - and in so doing safeguards the sport from legislation. That alone makes every effort worthwhile, even before the human element is totted up.