You couldn't get better replies than the two above.
People live and people die. No-one was in the wrong and no-one's to blame. It's our nature to push ourselves, push the boundaries and take risks. That's what life's all about.
|
The trouble is that the people who want children to wear goggles and protective gloves when they play conkers tend to end up working for organisations like The Health and Safety Executive.
--
Robin Reliant, formerly known as Tom Shaw
|
|
Its a little silly to ascribe ludicrous interpretations of the law to HSE, who were not involved in that issue! BTW, The investigation has hardly started, we have no facts other than the injury to Richard. We'll have to see what is learned from this, which is actually what HSE and the police will be aiming at.
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think Richard was mad to try running at high speeds in this vehicle.
The Prime Time Land Speed Team essentially consists of a pilot who wasn't selected to drive the Thrust SSC, and a bloke who used to be an RAF jet technician.
By comparison, take a look at Thrust SSC's site: www.thrustssc.com/
They had Ron Ayers, who also worked with Richard Noble on the DieselMax car, as Chief Aerodynamacist.
Designing a high-speed vehicle is a very complex business.
|
Richard Noble's comments in today's Telegraph he states "We started from a different position from the Top Gear guys. You need to create a safety culture from day one. "
"What you have to look out for is the man who is getting some kind of thrill out of the experience," he said. "You need to get a man like that off the team. He will not do as he is told and will put the whole project in jeopardy."
From another article 'Witnesses to Wednesday's crash at a disused airfield near York said that Hammond, 36, had become increasingly "euphoric" as he increased his speed during test runs during the day. ' According to Richard Noble this would rule Richard Hammond out as a potential driver for him.
Although this was an accident, and accidents can happen at almost anytime and place, I feel reasonable precautions were taken and Richard Hammond knew what he was doing was not risk free.
The third link is to another Telegraph article "Our risk-averse culture hates fun" which sums up why programs like Top Gear should continue to be made.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006...l
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006...l
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinio...l
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
You are born, you live, you die.
Life if full of risks, calculated and uncalculated.
People should be free to make their own decisions as to what is "unnecessary" risk, provided any risk they take won't endanger the innocent.
The H&S executive are there to ensure that unnecessary risk isn't imposed on the innocent - but they can get over zealous sometimes!! (or is it just reporting bias?).
With the "Hamster incident", we are all just glad Richard seems to be improving, and wish him the best.
----------------------------------
Colin-E
----------------------------------
|
But there was a hint in today's coverage that the Top Gear film crew, or some of them, had complained about being nearly mown down by a 'test driver' during filming for the programme. I suspect it may have been not the Stig but one of the stars in a reasonably priced metal jelly.
Bit depressing that people involved in TG are apparently willing to have it emasculated by the nanny wonks.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you chaps. Just move back a bit next time and use a longer lens.
|
RH the 'driving god' getting thrills from driving?
If people can't have fun what's the point?
|
What Richard Noble is talking about isn't spoiling people's fun, but self control. Remember the old saying? There are old pilots and bold pilots but no old, bold pilots.
If Hammond was going for the record that should have been his only reason for being on the track in the car. Every cell in his body should have been focussed on that and every action should have reflected that. Doing it for kicks is a much riskier thing. Of course we don't know what his attitude was. With a bit of luck he'll be able to tell us one day.
|
|
|
|
Only yesterday there was an item in the news where a Council had asked for doormats to be removed from its council houses over health and safety concerns after one person had tripped across one.
Outstanding!
Perhaps we should sue the HSE for not legislating in repsect of R Hammonds accident. Honestly, how can they not have forseen that something at some point would go horribly wrong and therefore be minded to legislate against it.
We should be grateful that the civil service is not around everytime someone invents something.
Given R Hammonds experience with wild and whackey vehicles I cannot imagine that he would not have been in a position to say no if he thought he couldn't handle it.
|
Flying fighter planes off aircraft carriers is exceptionally dangerous. I don't know what the figures are but long-serving pilots stand a good chance of being involved in a life-threatening incident. The moment of greatest danger is not takeoff, although that too has to work properly, with vast forces and complex mechanisms involved, but landing, with the aircraft brought to a halt by a cable stretched across the deck which is caught by a hook let down from the rear of the plane.
Fleet Air Arm pilots were well known as the maddest flyers. The navy would take pilots who were too psychologically dodgy for the RAF. Was driven by one in a Sunbeam-Talbot before 1960, and can confirm his barminess.
|
|
|
|
The very first time I did any TV that involved car to car filming I was expected to drive at 40mph along a winding country lane 2 metres behind an MPV with the back door propped open and a cameraman hanging out of the back on a strap filming my car. I was completely blind so had my left foot over the brake all the time. The MPV driver knew the risk so would not have braked suddenly. But even that was heart in mouth kind of stuff. Another camerman asked me to handbrake turn another car so the back of it came within a metre of him. Top Gear would not get the kind of pictures you see without that sort of thing being routine.
HJ
|
By definition, accidents will never be abolished despite the concerted efforts of the likes of the HSE.
Whatever happened to the concept of personal responsibility? Why does everything that happens have to be somebody else's fault? Richard Hammond is a well paid, intelligent man who blatantly loves speed and fast machinery. He have his full consent to do something that most of us of a similar persuasion would jump at the chance of doing, and something went horribly wrong. Unless the car had a fault that the owners can be proven to have known about, or Hammond was forced at gunpoint to get into the car, that surely is the end of it.
Only an idiot would claim to be ignorant of the risks of getting in a 300 mph rocket powered car, and I'm pretty sure Richard is not one. He clearly felt it was worth it, for the experience along, or for the paycheque he gets from the BBC. I feel sorry for the guy, but assuming he made the decision to get in the car of his own free will, that should be the end of it.
Cheers
DP
|
|
Couldn't agree more DP. He is a well informed and intelligent adult, therefore should be free to take that sort of decision. H&S should only be about protecting those who need to be protected (kids for example, although I think this goes too far) and protecting others (ensuring crowd safety at a race for example).
|
|
|
Firstly let me make it plain that I feel sorry for 'The Hamster' and pray to God for a full recovery.
Am I alone in thinking that the the media have gone over the top again in reporting the crash . He was only a Motoring Corresponent/driver. Presumably because of his connection with the BBC they have been thumping it and with all the ills in the world it has featured as prime news item more than once. Would they have done the same for HJ?
A Tornado pilot can take up a Cessna, throw it about the sky virtually with impunity. But can a Cessna pilot do the same with a Tornado. I think not. Horses for courses. Was Hampsters run the horse for that course or should he had proper training?
Interesting too is that many moan about the Police not attending/investigating accidents but in thus case we have a full Police Collision Unit attending a single vehicle accident, not on a road but on private property. Why ?
DVD
|
|
|
|
According to The Times this morning, the police are jointly investigating this incident with HSE. Can any legal types on here explain the processes involved. I always believed that the police would only become involved if allegations of a wrong-doing were made?
Cheers
Baz
|
This is the report from the Telegraph on Police and HSE.
Crash investigators move in at airfield
By Anil Dawar
Richard Hammond's crash is being investigated by North Yorkshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive.
A senior officer from North Yorkshire's Roads Policing Group will lead the joint investigation to establish the cause of the accident.
Once the police are satisfied there was no criminal activity outside health and safety legislation, control of the investigation is passed over to the executive.
Initially, specialist police investigators will concentrate on the state of the runway and the condition of the jet-powered vehicle itself.
They will be helped by Colin Fallows and Mark Newby, the engineers who designed the dragster and were overseeing the event, airfield officials, on-site emergency services and other witnesses.
While police concentrate on the runway and vehicle, health and safety officials will be talking to the BBC about how it prepared for the event.
A major accident such as Wednesday's has to be reported to the HSE by law. The executive's investigation will be looking for any failures by the BBC under employment law which ensures a duty of care for employees.
Keith King, a principal inspector with the executive, said: "One would expect the BBC to have organisational arrangements and risk assessments for dealing with any production-related activity on a site like this."
Two HSE investigators are already at Elvington airfield near York looking at the preparation and emergency planning.
The police will also be looking at the competence of Richard Hammond to handle cars at that speed and whether or not the BBC had taken that factor into account when making its risk assessment.
If the BBC is found to be at fault, it could face a criminal prosecution for health and safety breaches with an unlimited fine and the possibility of a jail term if action is taken against a company and its directors.
The BBC launched its own internal investigation on Wednesday night saying it would fully co-operate with the police and HSE.
Baz. Hope this answers your question.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
Thank you Roger, yes, it does...partly! I can fully understand the HSE investigation but still find it a little disturbing that the police are involved at all at this stage. If I tripped over a power lead at work and bashed my head, ending up in hospital with a head injury, would the police be involved in that at an early stage? I think not. So what's the difference?
I find it all most depressing and couldn't agree more with DP's comments above and Quentin Wilson on the BBC earlier. We are in danger of creating a society where we literally cannot function for fear of HSE regs. I genuinely hope Clarkson et al can weather this storm which will undoubtedly ensue.
|
One of the reasons the Police are involved also revolves around the potential for this to have been a Sudden Death inquiry (note capitals) they would report directly to HM Coroner. It is routine for them to be involved early on so as to preserve evidence.
I am less critical of the HSE than many here, I have seen the work they do first hand and also I see where they come from (as an employer) and how H&S legistlation protects both employer and employee.
|
|
None of the ridiculous measures associated with "health and safety" are really anything to do with health or safety. They're implemented purely to shift blame, in order to avoid being sued. The irony of course is that all the ludicrous H&S policies are resulting in more and more court cases being won by the lower echelons of society who only want the "compensation", and fewer genuine cases getting to court, for feer of being tarred with the same brush.
Every job contains risk - but I'd rather be driving a rocket-powered car at 300mph than sitting on my backside in an office all day. In fact, without people whose life experience consists wholly of sitting down in front of a desk, maybe "health and safety" would change for the better.
|
"None of the ridiculous measures associated with "health and safety" are really anything to do with health or safety."
I'm not sure how to respond to the above.
Having worked in construction for a few years I saw and read of many accidents where sensible H&S measures were not taken resulting in injury or death. (Construction has the worst death rate iirc of any UK industry).
But
"The irony of course is that all the ludicrous H&S policies are resulting in more and more court cases being won by the lower echelons of society who only want the "compensation", and fewer genuine cases getting to court, for feer of being tarred with the same brush."
contains a number of assertions which may or may not be factual.
"more and more court cases being won by the lower echelons of society who only want the "compensation""
? Proof please?
" fewer genuine cases getting to court"
? Proof please.
It is a sad fact of life that many from the "lower echelons of society" do work which is dirtier and more dangerous than those from the "upper echelons" and hence more likely to result in injury. (see Construction..)
Every job contains risk? Yes but in some cases the risk of falling from a ladder is minimal (cos they don't climb them everyday) and in others quite high (as in window cleaners..)
As far as RH is concerned, Quentin Wilson interviewed on TV appeared to me to infer that RH took risks driving the jet powered dragster that a professional driver would not have. If the HSE/Police investigation agree with that assessment then imo the BBC would be open to charges under the H&S Act for allowing someone to take part in that operation.
The key thing is that the HSE don't say you cannot personally take stoopid risks.. but NO person or company should assist someoen in taking such risks as to endanger their life.
I think that's a perfectly sensible way of looking at risk taking..
As far as local councils and stupid cases, if the HSE looked at the current UK Army operations in Afghanistan... what would be their reponse?:-)
madf
|
|
I remember in an "intro to law" type course at Uni, we discussed a Health and Safety case where somone ripped their finger off when climbing shelving instead of using a ladder and then fell - his ring got caught. He tried to get compensation from his employer but the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted him instead for breaking safety rules...
|
I don't know how long ago you were at Uni but under the current culture, the HSE would want to see proof that he'd been trained that climbing shelving was dangerous, that no other employees ever climbed shelving (or that disciplinary procedures were taken against those that did), that risk assessments had been done for the use of the shelving, and that a ladder was easily available (and that he'd been trained to use it. And a court would probably award the compensation.
|
|
In response to madf...
I am currently in a job which would be described as "unskilled manual work" - I was trying to find a politically correct way to describe people who are prepared to sue anyone for anything, genuine or not, if there's a few quid in it.
Each one of us is born with a brain - some choose to use it, and some don't. For example, if I were working as a window-cleaner and was presented with an old creaky wooden ladder, I would refuse to use it - if my actions resulted in me being sacked I would be on to my union. If I was given an adequate ladder, and fell from it, I would not sue anyone, as it is a risk of the job which I accepted when starting the job.
Why must every worker "play dumb" and just go along with whatever their employer says, and then sue them when something goes wrong? People should take some responsibility for the risks they take in the course of their job - that's "proper" health and safety. Taking doormats out of council houses is merely a symptom of the lunatics who are now running the asylum.
Common sense is the key factor in risk-reduction IMO. Passing the buck, and suing, won't help anyone, other than the ambulance-chasing "law firms" which regularly post leaflets through our doors and advertise on TV.
Richard Hammond was driving that car because he wanted to - apparently he'd been driving it during the day without incident prior to losing control. If I had access to a car like that, and fancied a go, I would. He was driving it in a straight line, on a runway. Driving a normal car on a motorway at 70mph is a risk, and a tyre blow-out could result in a similar accident, although I doubt the outcome would be as positive as Hammond's.
|
|
|
|
I had heard they were not going for any land speed records at Elvington.... there were no officials there to confirm any record. Therefore it must have been only for the thrills. So what was the point really. You can go fast in a lot of cars but how many of us can handle 0-270mph in 6 seconds.
Although he was reaching speeds of around 300mph, given a long enough runway a Bugatti Veyron will top 250mph (autobahn perhaps). Okay the Veyron needs longer than 6 seconds to get to that speed but a wealthy person could crash a Veyron at 250mph. And VW/Bugatti are meant to be working on a 270mph+ version too. Food for thought??
|
An investigation as per usual is taking place. The outcome will hopefully determine what the exact cause of the crash was.
It could have been driver error, or a nechanical fault.
One thing is for certain that a more experienced driver (as in any vehicle that sone one is famialr with) would have stood a better chance of controlling the rocket car.
EG: When I recently bought a new car (A mercedes as opposed to Adui's which I have driven for years) the controls were alien to me for the first few days and weeks, ie, automatically rreaching out for the air flow to demist without full speed fan - using the remote radio/cd controls - climate control speeds. Some gadgets have auto settings, but not to my taste.
What I'm saying is that at 280mph, things may or may not have being going wrong and pulling/pushing the wrong switch could have contributed to the unavoidlae scenarion.
Richard is pretty good at what he does, but he is a jack of all trades and defo not a master of rocket cars.
When Mr Hammond took to the rocket car, he would have gone through 3 rigourous risk assesments
1: The Health and Safety official
2: The BBC's stunt co-ordinator.
3: The rocket cars ownners.
Mr Hammond knew full well that at speeds in excess of 100mph and being thrusted to 300 mph within 7 seconds meant that any minior mechanical problem on the car could end in disaster. He also would have been aware that drag racing cars are knownfor their accident rates.
We blame no one as mechanical parts are prone to failure at these great speeds and especially when a car is blasted to 300 mph within a few seconds.
Richard knew the risk he was taking and that is life.
I hope he is well enough to be accpeted back on TG. I also hope that this does not damp the TG programme.
Finally, let me give you a little example of how things can go wrong: I got my first car at 17 when I passed my test and now 42 years old. I used to drive with 100% confidence and through skill/luck never had an accident or been booked for a road traffic violation. We change our main car every 2/3 years and the smaller car every year. Every time I change my car or before I drive my wifes car, I note where all the essential controls are, iw, horn, wiper/light controls, demisitng controls, etc. About 15 years ago, I go my first auto and afters years of a manual car, the auto is like sitting in an armchair and turning the wheel. However, for the firt 2/3 years, I nearly nudge the car in fron at the lights as I eased off the footbrake as I used to on the manual cars. Just shows that to drive a car like that rocket car, you need a lot of experience under your belt before being allowed to blast yourself from 0 to 320 in seconds.
I wish my little friend 'hamster' a speedy recovery and return to tv asap!
|
If you are feeling ghoulish you can probably buy a DVD composed entirely of drag racing crashes, many at similar speeds to this one. Few injuries. No deaths.
The cars are built to a design that anticipates extremely high speed crashes and the kinds of forces exerted, with the pilot inside an incredibly strong safety cage.
During the drag racing season in the USA, significant numbers of cars exceed 250mph in the quarter mile every week. I don't have a Guinness Book of Records to hand, but perhaps a Backroomer who does can check the current records for piston engined and jet powered dragsters.
The reasons for so much news coverage is that Richard Hammond is an extremely popular bloke, the crash was spectaculer, and there were all sorts of people waiting in the woodwork to take a pop at 'Top Gear', a fear I expressed in the original Richard Hammond thread.
HJ
|
|
The fastest top fuelers can attain terminal speeds of over 530 km/h (330 mph) while covering the quarter mile (402 m) distance in roughly 4.45 seconds.
|
the South African Castrol Edge Jet Dragster pulls 9.5g under full acceleration.
....Santa Pod's resident Jet Car driver, Martin Hill, put in a stunning pass in the "Fireforce 3 Jet Funny Car", on the throttle all the way down the track and clocking a 5.793 second run at 336.10mph which is the fastest quarter mile terminal speed by a Jet-powered drag racer ON THE PLANET! The previous fastest was 330.90 by US Jet Dragster pilot Bill Mattio.....
So, quick and scary. I was at Santa Pod when they did a run a few years ago - the noise of the jet is just unreal.
|
..................and there were all sorts of people waiting in the woodwork to take a pop at 'Top Gear', ...................>>
If TG is tonned down or worse still, talk about axing it - Then I will rest until those misfits that were wating under a damp stone to have a po at my fav prog have an easy ride.
Importantly, and with reference to the race with the motorised boat in the quarry. IMO, the water was 50-200 deep if not more, and if RH fourwheel drive went in at 80mph, that would have been the end of him and Top Gear.
TG has taken uncalled for risks like the example given - so I still want the stunts, but better risk assesments carried out by people that are not employed by the BBC.
|
If TG is tonned down or worse still, talk about axing it - Then I will rest until those misfits that were wating under a damp stone to have a po at my fav prog have an easy ride.
They'll most likely axe it and replace it with another dreadful "fame academy" or "how clean is your house", or "you are what you eat". Masculine programs are an endangered species, especially on the BBC.
|
|
There has been no mention, in this thread, of the high winds that were present on the day of the accident. Were they not a possible factor in the cause of the accident?
|
|
I too had wondered if that was a factor. Seems highly likely if there were indeed high winds there that day.
|
I like Top Gear and think that people should be able to take risks.However I think going 300 mph in a jet powered car is far too risky, especially when you have got a wife and two lovely children.
I hope Richard Hammond gets well soon.
|
Going at 300mph is no more risky when you've got a wife and two children as when you are an unmarried Billy No Mates.
There wouldn't be many race drivers if the sport were restricted to single people.
--
Robin Reliant, formerly known as Tom Shaw
|
I'm afraid I rarely watch TG as I don't really care for it.
I'll be interested to see the results of the HSE investigation..
madf
|
|
I had heard they were not going for any land speed records at Elvington.... there were no officials there to confirm any record. Therefore it must have been only for the thrills. So what was the point really. >>
What is the point of anything? Why not stay in bed all day 'just in case'? RH had the chance, knew the risks and did it. Good for him. Not so good now but that was the risk HE took. No-one else was at risk. His call.
|
|
We can speculate for ever. This has the potential for criminal proceedings so I would suggest a halt to protect this site's reputation.
|
I'd agree with PU, so the thread is locked.
|
Sorry, everyone. Pugugly has kindly explained his concerns in detail so the thread has to remain locked for sound legal reasons. Not because of what it's about, but because of some of the directions it could go.
HJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
