" If the white line stopped where use of kerbs, say on exit of corners, was permitted and white line continued where a kerb or edging was not permitted would that not solve the problem?"
Not really, because it doesn't resolve the basic problem, which is "what is the purpose of a kerb?"
What is so special about a kerb that one should be allowed to drive off 'the track' simply because one doesn't want to stay within the track?
You quote "the exit of a corner" as an example. If the idea of racing is to get round the corners, then why create a rule that says that "if you don't want to go round the track, you can take short cuts".
I can understand why kerbs exist as deterrents to leaving the circuit, or as a distinct sensation to identify 'beyond the track edge' or as a visual aid for observers to confirm from a distance that someone has left the track (like a boundary marker in cricket). What I cannot understand is why one is encouraged to drive outside the track whenever it is convenient on the kerb.
There is a pragmatic point that one is more likely to exceed the track limits at corners, and that not every occasion could be marked, but is that any reason for a rule that says driving outside the track is encouraged, especially if it gains one an advantage.
After all, it is equally true that simply painting the white line on the inside of every kerb solves the problem, indeed it is easier to see if the driver has exceeded the track limits if one can see the bounce at they hit the kerb.
|
|