Top Gear Presenter In Critical Condition

[Albert Tatlock]

It was the "I feel so alive!" comments after the second run that made me shiver a bit. Hammond was having the time of his life before the accident - fair play to him - life without risk is a dull thing indeed.

 

Glad to hear though that they're never gonna mention it on air again.

I agree that 'life without risk is a dull thing indeed'.

 

However, though risks cannot be compeletely removed, risks can be minimised. Hammond is not a professional driver and was only doing this for the televisual delights of Top Gear viewers. Whatever people might think, the usual drivers of this vehicle have better training and are more aware of the 'feel' of the car, and may well have picked up on signs Hammond may have missed prior to the accident.

 

I think our wanting to watch the equivalent of a 'Blue Peter' presenter taking such risks, rather than a professional driver, says more about us 'the viewers' that anything else.

 

Apparently Jeremy Clarkson wrote to the Health and Safety authorities in the past, proclaiming H&S as a 'cancer' of society. I agree with that partly, as I think H&S represents much of the sue-the-arse-off-me.com culture which many of us abhor. The crux of what actually annoys me about all of this though, is the worship of celebrity and stupidity. I would have far more respect for Hammond, if he had reported on a professional driver driving the car, and the 'don't try this at home without proper training' approach. As a supporter of SID etc. I feel that this programme in its current format actually encourages bad driving, the perception of bad driving, and even helps to 'justify' campaigns for even more speed cameras and traffic control methods. There are few driving programmes able to defend drivers, and this programme is a missed opportunity.

 

No doubt the crash will be mentioned on air again, as there is a Health and Safety investigation still taking place which could in theory lead to prosecutions. Personally I hope no-one is prosecuted but that the producers and presenters of this programme start to realise that they would do drivers far more good if they rethought the whole approach, and analysed people's perceptions of the programme more closely.

[Miss Take]

Hammond may not be a proessional driver, but he has certainly been professionally trained.

 

As for 'the usual drivers of this vehicle' - did you see the car - it was a jet engine strapped onto a cage with wheels - I don't think there is any such thing as a usual driver! The only training needed to drive this thing (as braking, steering and accelerating weren't really an option) was to have balls of steel.

 

The programme last night showed not only the crash, but the two highly successful runs prior to that. The accident itself was caused by a tyre shearing off the front right wheel. The camera footage along with the analysis of the crash determined that there was a time of 0.4 seconds between the start of the tyre problems and the crash itself - I'd be interested to know exactly how a 'usual driver' would have been able to spot that and correct it in time.

 

For someone who prides yourself on knowing the facts, Albert, you seem to be commenting on this mainly on the basis of hearsay and assumptions...

[The Old Git]

I'd be interested to know exactly how a 'usual driver' would have been able to spot that and correct it in time.

 

Hammond seemed quite happy about his reaction time in the incident but according to one source

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/29012007/140/hams...star-blame.html

 

In The Sun newspaper, Colin Fallows implied Hammond was to some extent responsible by "failing to adhere to the briefing".

 

He said: "Mr Hammond had a puncture and carried on with the tyre deflated", adding he "stood on the brakes" after the blowout.

 

Mr Fallows added: "Once these cars are in motion you don't touch the brakes. You stay on the prescribed line and should always be aware of the unexpected.

 

"By failing to adhere to the briefing, what would have been a controllable incident ended in a major accident."

[Miss Take]

I'd be interested to know exactly how a 'usual driver' would have been able to spot that and correct it in time.

 

Hammond seemed quite happy about his reaction time in the incident but according to one source

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/29012007/140/hams...star-blame.html

 

In The Sun newspaper, Colin Fallows implied Hammond was to some extent responsible by "failing to adhere to the briefing".

 

He said: "Mr Hammond had a puncture and carried on with the tyre deflated", adding he "stood on the brakes" after the blowout.

 

Mr Fallows added: "Once these cars are in motion you don't touch the brakes. You stay on the prescribed line and should always be aware of the unexpected.

 

"By failing to adhere to the briefing, what would have been a controllable incident ended in a major accident."

 

If that's the case then perhaps the hamster only has himself to blame and is indeed a very lucky man. Always the cynic, though, it isn't surprising that the owner of the car seems to be trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the tyre on his car wasn't up to the job.

[The Old Git]

Always the cynic, though, it isn't surprising that the owner of the car seems to be trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the tyre on his car wasn't up to the job.

 

The though crossed my mind as well

[Chinahand]

I think both the claims about 0.4 seconds and the failing to adhere to the breifing turning a controllable incident into a major accident are both very partial statements.

 

The 0.4 seconds is the time from the tyre bursting to it starting to spin totally out of control. But for seconds prior to the tyre bursting it was delaminating - would a professional have noticed and depowered and opened the parachute in time to stop the tyre bursting we don't know.

 

The slaming on the breaks is what Hammond did after the tyre burst. The drag the bursting tyre put onto the car made it spinning out of control inevitable at the speed it was travelling - the idea that Hammond breaking for 0.4 s was a significant factor in the car spinning flies in the face of the evidence.

 

I have no idea what pulling the parachute after the tyre burst would have done, but realistically it is impossible - the 0.4 seconds is entirely relevent in this case.

 

So I think neither of the quoted facts will be relevent to the Health and Safety executive investigation. However what is relevent is the delamination of the tyre - whether it might have been apparant, but unnoticed prior to the run; and whether a professional driver would have noticed in the seconds prior to the tyre bursting and taken action safely.

 

We will see: the BBC must be nervous - prosecutions could result if they are found wanting and the trial would be a circus.

 

I agree with Albert the trend to make a circus of putting amateurs in dangerous situations may make for high ratings on the telly, but it isn't something we should be encouraging.

[Miss Take]

But at what point does an amateur become a professional - most of the time isn't a professional just an amateur with more experience than other amateurs?

 

It's quite possible that someone can be considered as a professional in something that they only do part time.

[Bombay Bad Boy]

But at what point does an amateur become a professional - most of the time isn't a professional just an amateur with more experience than other amateurs?

 

It's quite possible that someone can be considered as a professional in something that they only do part time.

The usual acid test, the line that must be crossed, is do you do it for a living (which raises a schoolboy smirk when someone describes themself as a 'professional woman')

 

If, for example, you compete in the Manx Rally, have an FIA licence and everything, and even win a few things, and during the week you are a spanner monkey to earn a crust, then you are not a professional racing driver.

 

Someone who works as a motoring journalist, and gets to hoon around tracks in fast cars is a lucky bast is still not a professional racing driver.

 

People like Tiff Needell, Jason Plato, are professional racing drivers, i.e. its their day job, who happen to do other things.

[Miss Take]

I thought that someone would come up with that distinction and it is a workable one, but there will always be situations where the best 'amateurs' are more capable than the worst 'professionals'. It just so happens that they haven't made a career out of what they're pasisonate about.

 

It's certainly not a distinct line between the two.

[Lonan3]

In the days when the England cricket team used to actually win matches (you'll need a lo----nnnng memory!), most of their players were 'amateurs.' They played for England because they were better than the 'professionals.'

[Mr. Sausages]

That's a bit like with driving - e.g. taxi drivers are professional drivers, but they're not as good as most amateurs.

 

I bet there aren't many professional jet-car drivers in the world.

[Lonan3]

That's a bit like with driving - e.g. taxi drivers are professional drivers, but they're not as good as most amateurs.

 

Do not step off any pavements without looking both ways... very carefully!

[Albert Tatlock]

That's a bit like with driving - e.g. taxi drivers are professional drivers...Highwaymen

Fixed your post.

[Bombay Bad Boy]

Skill level is not the issue here. Mobeats, Kos and Ray Marshall are as good at DJing as any number of professionals, but they all have day jobs. I'm better at fixing PCs than most computer shops I go into, but I'll never earn anything from it, et cetera ad nauseum.

 

Some quick googling, which demonstrates what I just said:

An “Amateur Owner’s” license would only be granted by NFs to those competitors who have formally signed a statement that he/she does not earn money for riding other people’s horses, giving riding lessons, riding sponsored horses, or for publicity or commercial purposes

The contest is open to amateur photographers only. Professional photographers (persons who have been paid for their photos in the past one year) are not eligible

 

And on wikipedia:

It was claimed that it is in the interest of the professional to receive the highest amount of pay possible per unit of performance, not to perform to the highest standard possible where this does not bring additional benefit.

 

But we've kind-of blown the tyre of discussion, and departed from the runway of argument.

[Mr. Sausages]

...and crashed into the field of debate, before dribbling and monging into the air ambulance of disagreement.