Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans
Maldo can't get a ban, his daddy wouldn't allow it.
There's no argument here MOA, just because of the FIA's inconsistencies, there's no reason to say that Grosjean should not have been banned. In my opinion Maldonado should have been banned after the Lewis incident and five races after the Perez incident.
There's no argument here MOA, just because of the FIA's inconsistencies, there's no reason to say that Grosjean should not have been banned. In my opinion Maldonado should have been banned after the Lewis incident and five races after the Perez incident.
I think the big argument here is that Grojean did not mean to cause the accident, it was just an error. Where as Maldo meant to take the other drivers out.
There's no argument here MOA, just because of the FIA's inconsistencies, there's no reason to say that Grosjean should not have been banned. In my opinion Maldonado should have been banned after the Lewis incident and five races after the Perez incident.
This is why I think the ban is unfair, there should be fair and consistent punishment for all drivers, no matter who they are, but that doesn't seem to exist within the FIA's stewarding panel and punishment seems to be handed out based on who they take out. We'll see what happens next time Maldonado takes out someone due to reckless driving, if he escapes punishment or gets time added to his race time after he has finished out of the points, we'll know there is bias towards certain drivers.
I think the big argument here is that Grojean did not mean to cause the accident, it was just an error. Where as Maldo meant to take the other drivers out.
See my post on the last page - it clears that up. It was reckless conduct, (which can be described as causing the incident by acting in a manner where the outcome was a foreseeable consequence of an action that was under the control of the person in question - in this situation it could not be any more textbook that Grosjean is at fault for exactly these reasons), which has for hundreds of years been accepted as being the secondary mental condition necessary to aportion blame / liability in criminal jurisdictions around the world, and is directly interchangeable with the intention to commit an act for the majority of 'criminal' acts where liability has to be decided.
Let me give a simple comparison. If somebody goes to Oxford Street in London, puts on a blindfold, takes out a sharp knife and runs down the street screaming and waving it about. Most people see or hear them coming and jump out of the way, but eventually somebody 50 yards doesn't hear them and doesn't move quickly enough and is cut with the knife. Did the person with the blindfold intend to hurt that person? No. Was it foreseeable that by carrying out the act they did that somebody would be hurt as a direct result of that act? Yes. Should they therefore be liable for their actions, even though they didn't intend to cause the damage to the person they did - obviously yes!
In our scenario - did Grosjean intend to collide with Hamilton - no (I don't actually think that anybody is saying he did - I certainly don't think so). Was Grosjean in control of his car through the act of moving across the track - yes. By carrying out the large swerve he did, across the breadth of the entire track, in circumstances where 24 cars are accelerating at different rates, taking different lines at slightly different rates is it reasonably foreseeable that he might cause a collision resulting in potentially serious consequences - yes. Did the foreseeable end result occur - yes. Should therefore liability and punishment be apportioned - yes.
Does this explain my thought process? As I say, it would be entirely clear cut in court room, and this is exactly the logical flow that would be used (was there intention - yes / no, if yes then clear cut, if no was the conduct reckless. If no reckless conduct (i.e. something broke on Grosjean's car) then no liability. If there is reckless conduct (i.e. were the consequences reasonably foreseeable and the accused was in control) then there is liability.
And as I say, in many cases the reckless conduct is not viewed as a lesser offence than that of intention, it is instead directly interchangeable.
There's no argument here MOA, just because of the FIA's inconsistencies, there's no reason to say that Grosjean should not have been banned. In my opinion Maldonado should have been banned after the Lewis incident and five races after the Perez incident.
This is why I think the ban is unfair, there should be fair and consistent punishment for all drivers, no matter who they are, but that doesn't seem to exist within the FIA's stewarding panel and punishment seems to be handed out based on who they take out. We'll see what happens next time Maldonado takes out someone due to reckless driving, if he escapes punishment or gets time added to his race time after he has finished out of the points, we'll know there is bias towards certain drivers.
Ah now this I agree with. Now that they have made the decision they should follow it if any other driver (Maldonado or otherwise) makes a comparable move causing a similar result even if it is at the back of the field, as it could still technically affect the outcome of the WDC or WDC - just because it's not the title leaders shouldn't make a difference as ultimately the safety levels are the same for all of the drivers, not just the leaders.
I think the big argument here is that Grojean did not mean to cause the accident, it was just an error. Where as Maldo meant to take the other drivers out.
See my post on the last page - it clears that up. It was reckless conduct, (which can be described as causing the incident by acting in a manner where the outcome was a foreseeable consequence of an action that was under the control of the person in question - in this situation it could not be any more textbook that Grosjean is at fault for exactly these reasons), which has for hundreds of years been accepted as being the secondary mental condition necessary to aportion blame / liability in criminal jurisdictions around the world, and is directly interchangeable with the intention to commit an act for the majority of 'criminal' acts where liability has to be decided.
Let me give a simple comparison. If somebody goes to Oxford Street in London, puts on a blindfold, takes out a sharp knife and runs down the street screaming and waving it about. Most people see or hear them coming and jump out of the way, but eventually somebody 50 yards doesn't hear them and doesn't move quickly enough and is cut with the knife. Did the person with the blindfold intend to hurt that person? No. Was it foreseeable that by carrying out the act they did that somebody would be hurt as a direct result of that act? Yes. Should they therefore be liable for their actions, even though they didn't intend to cause the damage to the person they did - obviously yes!
In our scenario - did Grosjean intend to collide with Hamilton - no (I don't actually think that anybody is saying he did - I certainly don't think so). Was Grosjean in control of his car through the act of moving across the track - yes. By carrying out the large swerve he did, across the breadth of the entire track, in circumstances where 24 cars are accelerating at different rates, taking different lines at slightly different rates is it reasonably foreseeable that he might cause a collision resulting in potentially serious consequences - yes. Did the foreseeable end result occur - yes. Should therefore liability and punishment be apportioned - yes.
Does this explain my thought process? As I say, it would be entirely clear cut in court room, and this is exactly the logical flow that would be used (was there intention - yes / no, if yes then clear cut, if no was the conduct reckless. If no reckless conduct (i.e. something broke on Grosjean's car) then no liability. If there is reckless conduct (i.e. were the consequences reasonably foreseeable and the accused was in control) then there is liability.
And as I say, in many cases the reckless conduct is not viewed as a lesser offence than that of intention, it is instead directly interchangeable.
But that argument supports Maldonaldo being worse, if you believe that he intended to hit other drivers, no? Realtive to normal standards of safety, Grosjean deserved his punishment I think, but Maldonaldo's other incidents should have been punished more harshly by the stewards, whereas Grosjean has a serious punishment but Maldonaldo hasn't picked one up (yet).
See our F1 related articles too!
