In 1853, Elisha Graves Otis, the proud engineer at the head of a modest engineering company headquartered a little outside New York, had a grand total of three elevator sales. Not really enough to keep a small company growing. Going up and down the ever taller buildings of the growing New World was being addressed, with varying degrees of success, by numerous companies just like that founded by the good Mr. Otis. His engineering was no better or worse than anyone else's.
If he was to remain in business selling elevators his sales needed, well, a lift.
Now this is the mark of a worldly smart engineer. Rather than refine his design even further, Elisha turned to the world of showmanship marketing.
Moving forward to 1854 and going to New York's Crystal Palace (built for the World's Fair) Elisha stood atop one of his elevator platforms, suspended high above the crowd by a single rope.
Then, with a panache befitting Richard Branson, he had a suitably muscular axe man swing hard and fast, severing the rope.
To the shocked gasps of the crowd the platform plunged no more than a few scant inches before stopping soundly thanks to Elisha's unique safety brake with Otis smiling cheerfully down. "All safe, gentlemen!" Cried the canny engineer, as a sales bonanza was born.
To this day Otis remains a leading elevator company with an exemplary safety record. Of the approximately twenty deaths each year related to elevators most are caused by people accidentally entering an empty lift shaft or by illegal acts of riding on the outside of lift cars.
Safety sells, and safety matters. We all have a level of risk we personally deem acceptable. One man's bungy jump, is another's poisoned cup of tea. One lady's life-affirming base-jump is another's heart attack.
In engineering and manufacturing circles it is not unusual to talk of SFAIRP as a risk mitigation and management strategy. This stands for So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable. Using this approach means identified risks must be addressed as far as is reasonably practicable, given sensible restrictions of cost, time, and residual risk once the risk has been mitigated to some (reasonable) extent. It also recognises the role of the individual in maintaining their own safety and that of those around them by suitably reasonable safe behaviour.
While the wider population does not use this term too often we actually all tend to practice this approach to managing risk. Might rain? I'll take an umbrella. Might hurricane? I'll stay home. Might scramble my brain all over the concrete falling off my cycle at 25 mph... I'll wear a helmet. Might scramble my body so small there is nothing left to bury. Better not base-jump.
Our personal limits vary considerably, but we all have a not unreasonable assumption that our environment is not going to jump us and whack us simply walking down the street. We expect buildings to remain solid and up right, and we expect buses to travel safely down bus lanes. We expect libraries not to explode, and restaurants not to poison us.
We expect cars to be reasonably safe transport. Without going down the rabbit hole of safe speeds (hint; there are none, get real... Stupidity can kill while stationary) we buy what we assume are safely designed and constructed cars, and then drive in what we consider a reasonable safe manner. Again this varies somewhat from driver to driver, and frequently between younger drivers, and older passengers as to the precise definition of driving in a safe and reasonable manner. Here in Australia young males between 18 and 40 years of age are more likely to commit suicide than die in a motor vehicle accident. Yes, really. This says much for the safety of our roads that is good, and much about our pastoral care which causes grave cause for concern.
So what if we stop "what-if" thinking about base-jumping and youth suicide and focus on some motor racing mayhem? We expect to drive safely to the track, eat and drink there without being poisoned, and to be able to relax track side in "reasonable" safety. These are reasonable expectations. Mercifully spectator deaths at motorsport events are a very rare outcome. Organisers doing all that is reasonably possible, short of not attending, to make spectating safe.
What if we then elect to drive in a Motorsport event? We would like to think dangerous mechanical failures are highly unlikely, and that in the event of running wide on a corner, or brushing against another competitor we will have nothing other than our own embarrassment with which to deal in a peaceful manner. The racing car should be built, so far as is reasonably possible, to deform gracefully in a crash, to handle in a predictable manner, and in the event of mechanical failure to grind to a halt without killing the driver in the process. One need look no further than Fernando Alonso's start to the year to see a perfect example of a track and car both designed to offer every possible chance of survival.
People in and out of motorsport were delightfully amazed when Fernando walked away with hardly a hair out of place from a crash that would have surely killed him as recently as a decade ago. The FIA, manufacturers, teams, and all the safety advocates over the years are all to be praised for raising the bar so very, very high on what Formula One considers "so far as is reasonably practicable" when it comes to keeping the driver alive. Fernando is unquestionably thankful.
Can one take "so far as is reasonably practicable" too far? Depending on the activity, and the urgency with which an action must be completed, I'd say yes.
A mountain rescue team refusing to rescue folk trapped in an avalanche because "It looks slippery out there" should be given a hurry along. A base jumper having departed the cliff top has passed the point where asking "Should I be doing this, it doesn't feel very safe?" Can be meaningfully addressed.
The endless warnings we see all around us every day; coffee that's served hot; buzz-saws that are sharp; swimming pools that are filled with water; lasers that it's best not to point into one's eyes; some are over-done, but you can bet a company somewhere got sued prior to all the others going mad with the yellow stickers.
So was Jules let down by those around him that tragic day in Japan?
The track is designed to challenge, and for the most part has well designed run off areas and barriers, as mandated by the FIA. The track marshals are well trained, and medical facilities and evacuation helicopters are again provided to mandated FIA standards.
The race was under the enforcement eye of Charlie Whiting and he has more experience than most people living of staging, marshalling, and otherwise controlling the safe running of a Formula One race weekend. Did Charlie, or other decision making members of FOM, fail in their duties that weekend? Had they done everything as far as was reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of all involved?
Finally Jules and his team. Did they do everything so far as reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of themselves and those competing around them?
It is this question the Bianchi family now wish to formally ask, and in return be given a fair and reasoned response, via the English legal system. Based on the limited information released so far, it would appear they believe several parties, other than Jules or his team, failed to do all that was reasonably practicable to keep drivers safe that weekend. It will now potentially be a matter for the English Courts to assess evidence placed before them, and, on the basis of that evidence, issue a ruling on the extent to which each party discharged their duty of care.
The existing FIA report into the incident places blame on Jules for not slowing enough, that is not as far as was reasonably required, given the conditions on the track, the previous incident with Adrian Sutil's car, and the recovery activity already in motion as Jules came through that particular corner under yellow flag conditions. Given the safe passage of cars prior to, and after, Jules tragically left the track and had the horrid poor fortune to collide with a recovery vehicle, this may well have been a significant contributory factor.
If the recovery vehicle had not been there he would have in all probability slid gracelessly into the barricade and climbed wet and embarrassed from his car to drive another day. Was a waved yellow providing safety to drivers as far as was reasonably practicable, or should the race have been red flagged, or the safety car already deployed? Was it reasonable for race control to assume drivers’ sense of self-preservation would exceed their desire to maintain, or grow, on track advantage by not slowing as much as other drivers?
In a previous article on the tragic loss of Jules I reflected on the chance for this sad event to bring F1 closer. For the drivers, I believe, we are witnessing this happen. This potential legal action tends to suggest that for the Bianchi family this is currently far from the case.
We can only hope some good comes from the pain further examination of this tragic event will cause and that sophisticated lawyers with an immense grasp of the nuance of clinical English are not the only ones to profit.
Mr Otis paved a way to taller buildings, the modern high density city centre, and the safe provision of rapid transport to millions of office and apartment dwellers around the globe. All based off a showmanship safety case that took elevator safety as far as is reasonably practicable in a clear and obvious manner.
When the axe swings to prove a point in the safety case of Jules Bianchi one can only wonder what ties will be cut, and who, other than the safely financed lawyers, will be left smiling down at the crowd. We can only hope F1 safety sees further improvement, beyond that already provided by the excellent Virtual Safety Car. It's a painful question to ask. Would Jules have asked it?
Max Noble.
Learn more about Max and check out his previous features, here
sign in