Absolute racing rules force drivers into bad choices

We've all been there - happily driving along the motorway, minding our own business, when some dimwit casually changes lanes without looking. In this situation, most capable drivers will automatically 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 exclusively 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 definitely smashing your face into the rock of a guaranteed penalty and fine, you might just decide to chance your teeth on the hard place of 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?

But what has any of this got to do with track limits?

Well, the 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 is not, 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 F1, it's basically made it up as it goes along - with strict limits enforced in some places and a free-for-all allowed in others. In other FIA international racing, you are legal provided your two inside wheels remain circuit-side of the white line (see picture below). 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 un-appealable - decide your fate with no questions allowed.

Faced with a decision between a bad choice and a bad choice, you can only make the least bad choice available

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 hardline approach if all sporting regulations were enforced in a similar way, but they are not.

Inconsistency in officiating is one thing, but it is 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, facing only negative outcomes.

A 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, you usually see the officials to discuss incidents even though there is no possibility of their decisions being overturned.

I have 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 available.

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, most importantly, working to properly understand the circumstances of each incident individually - 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 automatically, 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.