The five lights are ON!!! And we are on the way to another Grand Prix.
The inside of the cockpit is hot, the water available is not enough. The first turn is
approaching..aargh...somebody is trying to outbrake me to it, whoa! that guy is in trouble.....bad crash.
Okay okay let me calm myself down. WHERE IS MY CHECKLIST???!!! Uh oh, another corner coming!....damn I have to slow down to check the checklist.... oh I found it...alright.. (1). Did I cut the corner? No. (2). Did I touch any car? No (3). Did I ..... 4. Did I... (and so on).
HEY WAIT!!! S***t, others are passing...oh no...I forgot to drive while I was looking at the list, I have to chase them, okay, lets go....Oh No! another corner passed...WHERE IS MY CHECKLIST AGAIN?....
The above paragraph is a guess on what might go through a driver's mind in future. Do we make rules or tdo he rules make us? In the near future, will driving skills be succeeded by rule memorizing abilities?
These are questions I am throwing to all other bleacher creatures, as I do not have the right answers.
I have always believed rules should exist for only two purposes: safety and fairness.
But, then I find myself leaving the decision to a bunch of people who some times have never felt what it is like to be in a 750 BHP car or make decisions in a hundreth of a second.
I also admit that enforcement of adequate rules is what keeps everybody in line. So what do you suggest? Should the rules be as they are now: totally confusing with every clause arguable based on perspective?
Or should rules be made clear-cut, simple, and objective?
Each side has its pros and cons. Complicated rules let the stewards impose them at their fancy. On the other hand, it is the ambiguity of those rules and decisions that allows resistance!.
For example, if the rule on surrendering an unfair advantage had a numerical value of relative speed difference to be surrendered, then the Spa issue would not have have happened.
Over to you bleacher creatures.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!