The outrageous halo debate that must end now

Considering the prospect of a second Formula 1 driver fatality in five seasons is an upsetting task. Yet, unfortunately, there was still a mixed response to Charles Leclerc's lucky escape in the massive first-corner crash at the Belgian Grand Prix.

When Fernando Alonso's McLaren bounced off the halo on Leclerc's Sauber, the impact eliminated any potential for the absolute worst possible consequence. It is not overly dramatic to say Leclerc could have been killed. If the halo's introduction had been delayed a year, as was very possible, he might have been.

What if Leclerc had been killed? Would there still be an argument to keep head protection away from F1? Absolutely not.

Fortunately, the two major pre-season complaints about the halo have now been defeated. It is unsightly, yes, but to be frank it has basically become invisible: it's very easy to not notice it, or be bothered by it, at all. More importantly, any suggestions it wouldn't make a difference have been proven wrong.

The prevailing anti-halo argument from the weekend appears to be that the flying McLaren would never have hit Leclerc himself, and that the halo was only marked because it protrudes above the driver's head. Alonso's MCL33 would have sailed past Leclerc's helmet, this theory goes.

But before you even drill into the details, the fact the halo was hit shows that at the very least the car came extremely close to making contact with Leclerc. Immediately you see the need for something to protect the cockpit, especially as this was the second such near-miss in seven races at Spa.

As safety advances become more sophisticated, so they begin to target specific problems and anomalous incidents. In this instance, it means F1's safety push is trying to eliminate as many freak accidents as possible. Two airborne first-corner crashes in seven races at Spa isn't really a freak occurrence. In 2012, Alonso was lucky not to be struck in the head. In '18, luck played no real part in Leclerc walking away unharmed.

What is that, if not a major victory for the halo? By hitting the halo, the flying McLaren's trajectory was altered. There is no disputing that. And if you watch the various videos of the incident back, you see just how good a job the halo did.

Much of the debate after the initial replays were shown live was whether it was the underneath of the car or the right-front wheel that struck the halo. There were suggestions that, supposedly, a glancing hit to the edge of the halo was not really a danger.

But a crash happens in a 3D-world. In this particular incident we had a fast moving, spinning car that had the potential to end up anywhere. Just because the part of the car that struck the halo might have missed Leclerc's head anyway, how can anyone possibly say with certainty that a trailing part - a wheel, or a wing - would miss?

Leclerc only realised how lucky how he was when he saw the picture of the halo. Twelve months ago he might not have got the chance to revise his opinion

As FIA race director Charlie Whiting put it: "It doesn't take much imagination to think that the tyre marks could have actually been on Charles' head. It would be a bit of a miracle if they weren't, had the halo not been there."

Alonso's car was not approaching Leclerc at low speed, from a 'normal' angle or with no rotation. It was launched at speed and sent spinning, which means all bets are off regarding what part of the car ends up where. Without the halo, Alonso's front-right wheel may well have struck a fatal blow. It is a frightening scenario to imagine but thanks to the halo it is one that we only need to imagine. We didn't need to find out.

The 3D crash argument also dispels the theory that the halo was only hit because it exceeded the 'line' from the top of the rollhoop to just in front of the cockpit opening. For want of a better expression, this is meant to be 'geometrically protective', i.e. that gap is big enough that if a car lands on another, it is stopped from hitting the driver, or if a car lands upside down the driver can get out.

You only need to look at the pictures of Michael Schumacher's crash with Vitantonio Liuzzi in the 2010 Abu Dhabi GP, or Alonso escaping his crumpled McLaren in Australia three years ago, for examples of that effectiveness. But it is wrong to use that imaginary line here because it is a completely different kind of accident, as documented above.

Some might think the crash was not a big deal because Leclerc was unhurt, or because the halo was not obviously 'attacked'. This is a dangerous mindset that does not appreciate the action that can be taken to prevent it in the first place.

Leclerc only realised how fortunate he was when he saw the picture of the halo. He said he was "lucky" in this accident, and later tweeted admitting he has never been a fan of the halo but was happy to have it now. Twelve months ago he might not have got the chance to revise his opinion.

It's very easy to overhype this crash and try to extrapolate conclusions. This is what the FIA will now work to avoid. The governing body has worked extensively on the halo project and with this crash, plus Tadasuke Makino's Formula 2 accident in Spain, it now has two major real-world case studies from which it can extract crucial data.

It can look at how the halo and its fixings held up after the hit, see how much force it took, and take that on board as it develops the next-generation concept - as well as just having a simple validation of how strong the halo is in reality.

Whether you subscribe to the view that the halo saved Leclerc's life or not, it looks awfully likely that it prevented a dangerous impact of some kind and it is outrageous to try to claim the crash does not validate the device's existence.

The argument is so lopsided it is effectively pointless. The halo helped. Doubt has been removed. Luck played no part in this accident not having a horrible consequence.

For a sport that has so often been reactive with safety changes, that is a major victory.