Poll: Canadian Grand Prix 2022, Montreal - Race 9

[Deleted member 651465]

Well I guess we'd better stop all forms of motorsport then

I am only speaking from a H&S perspective as that is my field of expertise and job. I'm not entirely convinced the legislation applies to motorsport, although I'd be amazed if it wasn't applicable without seeing an exception in the regulations.

Unfortunately, whilst @wonko is correct in so much as the Vibration Regulations do cover the risk of whole body vibration (WBV) through the use of vehicles at work (it is geared toward fork lift trucks and tractors) there is a caveat in there by the HSE that "...further study is needed into the impact of WBV."

In other words, the enforcing authorities want to reduce WBV but they don't know enough of the long term impacts.

If you're going to use local laws how are you going to calculate the exposure? Lets use merc as an example, located in UK and race here once a year. The drivers are only exposed for 3 days for about 3hrs per day. You could argue that the few hrs in 3 days over 12 months is not excessive.

This is where a risk assessment would come in to play. The teams will have a shed load of data from the sensors on the car and may well be able to argue that the risk is low due to the limited exposure (across a typical 2hrs race)... but then it really does depend on the values they're recording.

Taking sound levels as an analogy; You would be able to argue that workers don't need to wear mandatory PPE as they're exposed to noise at 80dB* for 5 minutes BUT you wouldn't be able to make the same arguement that they don't have to wear PPE because they're only exposed to 120dB for 5 minutes.

*I realise this is the first action level before some funny bugger tries to say "but it's not a requirement anyway!11one".

 

[wonko]

If you're going to use local laws how are you going to calculate the exposure? Lets use merc as an example, located in UK and race here once a year. The drivers are only exposed for 3 days for about 3hrs per day. You could argue that the few hrs in 3 days over 12 months is not excessive.

I just looked up the UK situation as an example, and I'm not trying to offer a solution but just curious about the existing legal position and the mess that this could lead to. (Or will lead to, given F1's history).

I imagine that the FIA (as organiser) and teams (as employers) have to comply with all local legislation of all the countries they are based in and visit, and the H&S laws in some countries will be more onerous than others. I'd be interested if anyone knows if there are motorsport exemptions for the UK/elsewhere and what they cover.

Assuming that different countries have set different legal vibration limits and methods of calculation then, unless there are exemptions, then surely the teams already have to comply with all of them. This leaves me a bit puzzled what the FIA's role is in this, as they aren't directly responsible for how the car is designed and set-up.

Either the existing defined limits and calculation methods driven by legislation are appropriate ('safe') or they aren't. If they are appropriate, but they aren't being complied with (or won't be complied with when a country is visited with tighter H&S limits) then the teams as employers surely need to address this for legal reasons without waiting for the FIA to do something. If the legal limits are too lax but are being met, then all teams have a common problem in setting appropriate limits - I can see the FIA could do this on behalf of all the teams but this isn't how I understand it's happening.

Short version of the above: Why isn't existing Health & Safety legislation (of multiple countries) sufficient to manage this issue? And why are the FIA issuing TDs when it's presumably the teams that employ the drivers that are legally responsible?

 

[wonko]

I am only speaking from a H&S perspective as that is my field of expertise and job. I'm not entirely convinced the legislation applies to motorsport, although I'd be amazed if it wasn't applicable without seeing an exception in the regulations.

Unfortunately, whilst @wonko is correct in so much as the Vibration Regulations do cover the risk of whole body vibration (WBV) through the use of vehicles at work (it is geared toward fork lift trucks and tractors) there is a caveat in there by the HSE that "...further study is needed into the impact of WBV."

In other words, the enforcing authorities want to reduce WBV but they don't know enough of the long term impacts.


This is where a risk assessment would come in to play. The teams will have a shed load of data from the sensors on the car and may well be able to argue that the risk is low due to the limited exposure (across a typical 2hrs race)... but then it really does depend on the values they're recording.

Taking sound levels as an analogy; You would be able to argue that workers don't need to wear mandatory PPE as they're exposed to noise at 80dB* for 5 minutes BUT you wouldn't be able to make the same arguement that they don't have to wear PPE because they're only exposed to 120dB for 5 minutes.

*I realise this is the first action level before some funny bugger tries to say "but it's not a requirement anyway!11one".

All fair comment, and I don't pretend to be a H&S expert although I do know a bit about system safety risk assessment and associated legislation. Re use of risk asessments, the UK ALARP principle and risk basis for legislation aren't adopted worldwide, and even in the UK it would appear that the Regulation limits for WBV probably aren't being met, and neither is a risk assessment in place to justify what is 'safe' for F1.

Anyway, my guess is that the teams have found themselves in an uncomfortable situation.