I quite agree.
But then the problem with cameras is that they can give a false impression too.
The danger moves from incidents not seen, or not dealt with, to incidents interpreted through a very one-sided lens.
Let us not forget, we had incidents before we had nosecones and sidepods. Indeed, they were introduced because so many drivers suffered from 'boarders' and wheel on wheel 'high jumps' and speeds have gone up quite markedly since then.
(Again, the origins of Formula Blue lie in Formula A of 1989, where what had been 'quick' then is now regarded as 'average' now, even if the current Blue is producing faster laptimes than its old aircooled counterpart.)
Good clerking sees and acts on enough incidents to deter others, just as good camera clerking will do the same. And just as the line between actionable incidents and racing incidents is difficult for a clerk to discern, so too the line of camera evidence will become blurred. Those with the money and inclination to defend blatantly and deliberately poor driving will find ways of doing the same thing with cameras.
And indeed, one is left with the suspicion that the case for 'timed qualifying' is tarnished by the fact that it may be an admission that drivers will punt, and are encouraged to punt, rather than overtake or accept that they cannot overtake a driver on the racing line and not deliberately blocking.
|
|
