All comments will be reviewed before publishing. Comments will be published within 24 hours of submission. Views and comments appearing on this page do not reflect the opinion of NewsOnF1.com.

NewsOnF1.com cannot guarantee that all comments will be published. NewsOnF1.com has the right to edit comments if deemed necessary.

What others are saying:

Jackie Stewart also said that F1 crashes are more like aircraft crashes than car crashes. I was at the Aust. GP 2001, and I saw the site of the crash where the marshal was killed. YES safety can be improved big time for the marshals. 
The drivers get all the wiz bang million dollar protection, the guys that make it all come together get holes in mesh fences between them and aircraft crashes. its criminal, and someone should be made to pay bigtime. Deaths like this should not be possible. a simple flap covering the access holes could easily be made up to protect the spectators and marshals alike, so says I AND the coroner. The cover-ass approach of race organisers has gotta change. 
Its just too easy for spectators and marshals to be killed going to the races on a sunday arvo! - Stewart S - Australia

Of course F-1 can be made safer, but the improvements should be made in the run off areas and the barriers, NOT by making the tracks slower or by making the cars slower.  Admittedly this would be difficult at some tracks, but we don't need slower races - Jeff S - USA

Jackie Stewart used to say that he was paid for his skill, not for risking his life and I think that's the issue FIA must address.  Recently in the U.S. we learned that cars on some courses can be too fast for the drivers: a CART race in Texas was cancelled because the "G-forces" were simply beyond human limits with drivers suffering dizzyness.  So there is a human limit to consider.  But in F1 the courses have managed to keep G forces in the reasonable range while allowing higher speeds.  But Spa certainly looks like a place where changes need to be made in the track, not in the cars or the drivers.  What was perfectly safe when max speeds were in the 110-20 mph range has become terribly dangerous when the speed goes up to 180-200 mph.  This is simple physics.  You fix the course or you must slow the cars.  It's a matter of time until someone is not as lucky as Burti at courses like Spa and Monaco.  On the other hand, you can never prevent shunts like Michael's and Burti's at Hockenheim: that's racing.  The other is simply the wonderful human capacity we all have for denial.  Before someone points out the concrete walls at Indy, I also think it's important to remember what Tony Hulman has done there: he has changed the regs to slow the cars and designed the F1 track to minimize the danger as much as possible.  I don't see this happening in either Belgium or Monaco - Jim W - USA

Well I don't think there is much more to do because every driver races for the thrill of danger, They all know the consequences. I totally disagree with Mr. Anonymous from the USA, if you want to slow them down why not let them race in powered granny carts with Marlboro stickers down the side - Chris - Australia

F-1 is mostly a "laboratory" where every development made for automobile industry is applied. Safety is one of the most important things that industry looks for and F-1 must not be slowed to be safer.
Don't forget today's production cars are every day faster and technology makes them also safer.
Why then F-1, the highest tech cars in the world couldn't improve safety at same speeds ?
Long live to the super-fast Formula 1 and good luck to engineers to make it even safer !!! - Conrad R - Paraguay

F1 cannot be totally safe.  It is a high risk sport.  Bear in mind that this year is the 1st year in a tire war which have not seen since 1998.  So it is logical and obvious that lap times will drop because of the tire competition.
But F1 needs to address the issue of engine specifications, which have not changed since 1995.
Technology has pushed the present formula of 3-liter, 10-cylinder V configuration engines to its
limits.  The FIA should reduce engine sizes by one-half or a full liter and limited the cylinders to just 6. And maybe introduce either weight penalties or rev limiters on certain circuits - No name provided - USA

If one look at safety in Formula 1,  I think safety concerns three areas that can be considered. 1) The drivers, 2) the cars and 3) the tracks.
As far as the drivers are concerned I think the Gonverning Body has that under control in the requirements for granting a Superlicense. They have to make sure that only competent drivers are allowed to race and I think they are succeding very well in this regard.
As far as the cars go I think they are very strong and safe given the nature of the sport and I think they are as safe as is techincally possible. There may be advancements in the future but I am not technical enough to be able to contribute proposals in this field. But I do not think one should make them slower to achieve this. After all F1 is all about speed. That leaves the tracks and I think improvements in saftey should be concentrated in this area more than the others while not discarding the others altogether. And as everybody so far has pointed out, the run off areas are of critical importance. Address this and you will have a much safer environment already. In this regard consideration must be given to the construction of gravel pits, the barriers and the materials and methods they are constructed of etc. Create a bigger margin for error. In fact consider the whole area alongside the track and improve the high risk areas where you can - Johan M - South Africa

Well...what more can you do to make F1 safer??
Formula 1 is an extreme sport and so it should be and of course you always have to remind yourself of the high risks involved in the sport.
I really don't know!! I don't think that engines should be slower or tracks should be full of corners and no speed trap as it would take all the excitement of overtaking away "such as Hungary" but I do agree with Coulthard saying that maybe barriers at the sides of the track should be made safer "maybe if Burti would have smashed into something else rather than pumped-hard tyres he would have jumped straight out of the car unhurt" but then again I am not sure of the answer!!
Great site anyway - Rob - Australia

I agree with most of what Ian M. pointed out but I'd add: c) down-hill fast corners
perhaps is not a great idea neither d) as D. Coulthard said, run-off areas should
always be long enough.
About other barriers form, I wonder why not using parachutes in the cars (in case the
driver turns just a passenger) and why not using airbag-like buffers (or just hay bags!)
in front of the (netted) tyres?
About car and track speed I prefer fast cars and slow tracks with enough room for
overtaking (the two combined not going beyond 300 km/h, to say a limit) - Alberto R - Paraguay

Hi there NewsOnF1,  Keep up the good work.
Luciano's accident proves (for the second time this season) that the safety codes imposed at F1 tracks throughout the world are exemplary.
This does not mean that Charlie Whiting and his group should not continue to improve whatever can be improved
BUT
this must not be done at the cost of the speed of the F1 cars or the thrill and excitement which this generates. High speed corners are the real test of the drivers. Not jarring chicanes. Otherwise they might as well rule that F1 should be powered by electric motors for 200x !!
The lessons to be learnt from the latest accident are probably:
a) that down-hill run-offs are not a great idea on fast corners and that 
b) there needs to be additional barriers-forms designed to slow the cars in these situations. Luciano's car was travelling too fast over a down-sloping gravel pit = airborne !!
Thus a) the run off needs to be built up so that the cars can dig in to the gravel and b) perhaps the tyres should be wrapped in netting (probably NOT nylon) and anchored down.
regards, Ian M - Australia