Wave Your HANS In The Air, Like You Just Don't Care

The FIA has made one glaring mistake in the use of the HANS (Head and Neck Support) system. It has nothing to do with the physical design or concept of the collar and brace like contraption which aims to protect the driver's head and neck in accidents, notably neck snap injuries from forward momentum crashes. Their mistake comes from making the item mandatory.

The compulsory use of the HANS system is a further example of choice being taken away from drivers and my mind immediately goes to studies one of my Leicester University tutors conducted into safety and boxing.

Many people hail the introduction of the modern boxing glove as a great moment for the sport. The padded boxing glove has been deemed to soften the blow and protect boxer's head and hands and indeed to the naked eye this would seem so, certainly the amount of broken flesh and blood is severely reduced. However, recent studies have shown that the very structure of the glove increases the amount of movement and shaking of the brain within the skull, leading to the long term brain injuries that are common. The very item deemed to increase the fighter's safety, and lessen skin injuries which are visible and unattractive though not necessarily a long term danger to health, contribute to a longer term and more serious injury.

But what I find so fascinating about this scenario is not the physical aspect of creating a safety item but the way in which the process has been brought about. There has long been a social stigma attached to boxing, the stereotype of the none too bright and working class sportsman. The fighter who is saved from the mean streets by his fists and does what he has to with little intelligent input. As this social perception was taken onboard there were those who felt they were (and are) better placed to protect the fighter, the classes above them and the better educated made it their cause to fight for the fighter, championing the safety cause on the boxer's behalf. Bring this alongside the development of motor racing from the early 20th Century. Throughout the first 100 years of motorsport the drive (sic) towards safety was never conducted from the outside. The well meaning did not take on the cause of the racing driver who was likely to die on the track, why not? Because the participants of motorsport were not just from the middle-class and more often the upper class. They had the benefit of education and the social perception that they knew their own minds and were aware of the risks they were taking, a far cry from the 'dumb fighter'. In fact, the risks of the 'heroic driver' is glorified. So when there has been safety campaigning in motorsports it has also had at its hub the actual participants, the drivers who were directly involved and who actively took part in debates surrounding the safety issue and it is through this that the vast majority of modern safety practice has been brought about.

With the introduction of safety procedures such as helmets, fireproof overalls and even seatbelts, items we take as granted today, there were of course those who dissented against such 'cissy' ideas but it was with sustained, open debate that the value and continued developments of these procedures became the successful and ultimately compulsory ways of today.

As Rubens Barrichello has said "I am all in favour of continuous work to improve safety for the drivers, but I think it should be a matter of personal choice as to whether or not a driver uses HANS."

Many aspects of a driver's life in the modern sport is a pre-packaged deal. Much of the choice of life is removed from drivers in the most mundane areas of living as they are surrounded by a team and entourage who take care and do on their behalf befitting the ultra slick world of Formula One. I doubt many of them would care to take back the reins and sort out the most trivial aspects of their day but this is to ensure they can commit and concentrate to the matter that consumes them - driving racing cars. In this area of their life they must retain full input, the day they do not is the day they are undermined and I highly suspect this is what grieves many about the compulsory use of HANS.

Whilst it may not be apparent from the outside, indeed even when you talk in great detail about the risk of driving to a driver it is often easy to forget just what level of realisation they have so accustomed to it that they are. Their working life can conclude, in none to finer point, in a working death. As in many other workplaces from the forces to the emergency services there is what's called volenti non fit injuria, the voluntary assumption of risk. Drivers partake knowing they are at risk and you can never assume, like many do about boxers for example, that the racing driver is a gullible dope. One only has to look at the growing legal intolerance to sports related injuries to know whilst they accept the risk of their sport many will draw a line where they will not accept injury where a risk could be lessened hence the involvement of the GPDA (Grand Prix Driver's Association) in safety debates. The GPDA disintegrated in the 1980s as the safety crusade became more and more centralized within the sports governing body, removing much of the process from drivers, and at that time many admitted to not minding. It was resurrected after the deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger in 1994 as drivers realised that to ensure effective input into their own safety they must form a coherent system to communicate with authorities, a system that allowed them to have representation of their choice. There was also a much more deep emotional reason for the reformation of the GPDA summed up by Martin Brundle, "To a certain extent, part of what drove us to have our meeting was the guilt feeling". In the wake of the 1994 deaths many drivers expressed privately that they had felt guilt and remorse having not spoken out on issues of safety the years before. Why they chose not to speak out is speculative but I am sure for many reasons included the fear of being seen as wimping out, time constraints, discouragement from those who felt it was not their place and the feeling the governing body had everything under control.

The initial discussions on the HANS system were encouraging, especially from a driver's point of view. As David Coulthard recalled to Reuters after a meeting held at the 2002 British Grand Prix, "Charlie (Whiting, FIA Technical Delegate) said in front of the stewards and team managers that we would not be forced to wear it if we could not get comfortable with it". This approach highlighted and acknowledged a driver's right to choose. Indeed, it was David Coulthard who liased with the manufacturers of HANS to advise on modifications to make the brace more comfortable, modifications which were presented to the GPDA and in turned presented to and accepted by the FIA.

Despite these modifications some still feel physically and fundamentally ill at ease with the HANS concept. They have been given the data, given the chance to test the system and come to their own conclusions. Given the initial meetings with the FIA drivers expected that their decision not to use the system would be acceptable. By the end of 2002 the FIA changed its tune and decided regardless of the driver's input the system would be mandatory for 2003. The reason for this about turn was the FIA believed unless they enforced the HANS system the drivers would not use it. In effect the FIA overruled driver's own judgement.

It would be trifling to suggest drivers should grin and bear the system for their own good as discomfort is not the only issue and drivers are well aware that the pay off for safety is often a degree of discomfort. Drivers such as Jacques Villeneuve have expressed deeper concerns that HANS could in fact hinder aspects of safety, Villeneuve stating had the HANS system been in use when Pedro Diniz crashed at Nurburgring in 1999 he believes it could have contributed to a fatality.

With the possibility the system may contribute to injury, Peter Sauber wrote to the FIA earlier this year to ask they accept responsibility for any accident resulting from the system. This will become a pivotal point in the use of the HANS system. Should a driver who is forced to wear a system against their will and should they suffer an injury that can be proved to be partly or totally due to the HANS system the argument will be taken from the sporting authorities into civil legislation. Therefore the FIA must come to a conclusion, either keep HANS mandatory and accept full responsibility for the system's use or allow drivers to withdraw from using the HANS system and accept full responsibility for their action.

©Rebecca Hobbs

(c)RH PR 2007