Whose Fault

[Fed up 0]

"He did just a bit like what Verstappen did to me a few years back. I did the first few corners fine then went into turn eight and had no rear grip and I could not keep on line," said the Colombian, who finished third and set the fastest lap"

[funkejay 0]

What was that about ad hominen arguments again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bajo, it is not an ad hominem attack to identify the tactics in use by others on the forum and conclude that people are not being objective when their arguments fly in the face of the most basic rules of auto racing.

If a proposed interpretation of this accident is contradicted by the rules regarding backmarkers and overtaking, there are only two possible explanations - either the advocates of that argument are ignorant of the rules (and therefore may merely be mistaken), or they are aware of the rules and still maintain that, despite not following those rules, TM did not cause the accident (which is evidence of bias). As we have already reviewed the rules and regulations regarding overtaking backmarkers at length, the only remaining explanation for that interpretation is bias.

An ad hominem attack occurs whenever the opponent of a position does not attack it logically, but instead attempts to undermine the argument by demeaning or derogating the author of the argument. That is a logical falacy. As my conclusion that those who blame JPM for this accident are demonstrating bias is a logically demonstrable one, it is not, by definition, an ad hominem.

[Max Mosley 2]

Do you have anything useful to bring to the table?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes I have already stated my opinion on the matter Monty. It seems you have misunderstood my last point so I will clarify it for you: You are correct that JPM is not guilty this time - but he is for many other mistakes, such as halving the amount by which KR caught up FA in the championship in Turkey.

[Max Mosley 2]

Someone above took me to task, suggesting that I had taken someone's comment about TM being the most successful rookie of all time out of context. I did not take the comment out of context. It was Murray Walker who said it, and it was an unambiguous declaration that TM is the most successful rookie in the history of the sport, as you can see below:

I do not embelish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, we thought the intended meaning was unambiguous too but in fact you have proven us wrong!

[funkejay 0]

Montoya is not at fault for trying to pass a backmarker, he was entitled to do this. However, he had no entitlement to force a collision with the same backmarker merely because he was displeased with the manner in which that backmarker allowed him through.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bajo, as I've said before, I respect your opinion, but I think you've identified the key disagreement that I have with your argument. I think you're suggestion that TM allowed JPM through is fundamentally wrong, and is why I place the blame for this incident squarely on TM's shoulders.

At its core, I believe this discussion can be reduced to a debate over whether backmarkers have a positive or negative obligation when it comes to being overtaken. For my part, I would suggest that backmarkers do not merely have a negative obligation to not interfere with the leaders as they go through (i.e. don't do anything to prevent them from overtaking you as they go by) but rather they have a positive obligation to not impede the leaders of the race as they are overtaken (i.e. take the necessary steps to allow the leaders through as they come through the pack, without impeding them, and interfering with the race at the front).

If I am correct, then TM had an obligation to move out of the way, get off the racing line, and allow JPM through as he came by. If I am not correct, then TM did nothing wrong, but then you cannot say that he allowed JPM through, unless you identify allowing him through as anything less than blocking him.

[Fed up 0]

"He did just a bit like what Verstappen did to me a few years back. I did the first few corners fine then went into turn eight and had no rear grip and I could not keep on line," said the Colombian, who finished third and set the fastest lap"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is obvious from this statement that JPM is trying to justify cutting across TM, blaming the manouevre on a lack of rear grip.

[bajo39 0]

bajo, as I've said before, I respect your opinion, but I think you've identified the key disagreement that I have with your argument. I think you're suggestion that TM allowed JPM through is fundamentally wrong, and is why I place the blame for this incident squarely on TM's shoulders.

At its core, I believe this discussion can be reduced to a debate over whether backmarkers have a positive or negative obligation when it comes to being overtaken. For my part, I would suggest that backmarkers do not merely have a negative obligation to not interfere with the leaders as they go through (i.e. don't do anything to prevent them from overtaking you as they go by) but rather they have a positive obligation to not impede the leaders of the race as they are overtaken (i.e. take the necessary steps to allow the leaders through as they come through the pack, without impeding them, and interfering with the race at the front).

If I am correct, then TM had an obligation to move out of the way, get off the racing line, and allow JPM through as he came by. If I am not correct, then TM did nothing wrong, but then you cannot say that he allowed JPM through, unless you identify allowing him through as anything less than blocking him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jay, in my opinion you have mischaracterized this discussion. While I am very much interested in your thoughts on appropriate conduct of backmarkers, and I am sure the forum would find this an interesting topic for future discussion, we must answer the key question before us: was Montoya's cutting in front of Monteiro and braking heavily the cause of the collision itself?

In my mind, Montoya's poor timing on making the pass, Monteiro's uninspired effort to let Montoya through and the appropriate conduct of backmarkers are all extraneous to this question.

[bajo39 0]

It is obvious from this statement that JPM is trying to justify cutting across TM, blaming the manouevre on a lack of rear grip. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's refering to his off which allowed Alonso through not his collision with Monteiro.

[Jenson_Rules 0]

Are you still under the influence of Booze. Go back and read my post, it says "Most of the Jenson fans dislike JPM"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No i am not!

[bajo39 0]

Fedup, Bajo is going with the assumption that JPM was displeased with TM's move and cut across the line on purpose and caused the collision. I say that was not the case as he was trying to regain the racing line to negotiate the corner. Given the fact that his tires had flat spotted, there is no way that he would have made the corner taking it from the dirty line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come off it Monty, the Columbian is known for his temper and tendency to let it boil over into on-track stupidity, as was most certainly the case in Turkey.

He would not have made the corner on the dirty line? What rubbish, all he had to do was brake earlier but he never should have been attempting to pass Monteiro at that corner anyway, with a 9 second lead he was in no rush.

[funkejay 0]

Jay, in my opinion you have mischaracterized this discussion.  While I am very much interested in your thoughts on appropriate conduct of backmarkers, and I am sure the forum would find this an interesting topic for future discussion, we must answer the key question before us: was Montoya's cutting in front of Monteiro and braking heavily the cause of the collision itself?

In my mind, Montoya's poor timing on making the pass, Monteiro's uninspired effort to let Montoya through and the appropriate conduct of backmarkers are all extraneous to this question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bajo I don't have time to leave a detailed response - I'm heading out on the road to leave for the weekend, but I have an analogy to make.

If I am driving down the highway, and another car is driving directly towards me in my lane, is it my fault that he hits me because I didn't stay out of his way? I'm not suggesting that this is a direct analogy to the JPM/TM incident (I'm in a hurry so I didn't have time to think of a better one - but I will later) the logic is correct. You cannot say, ignore the circumstances leading up to the incident, now tell me who's fault it is. Your distinction is false and arbitrary if you insist on ignoring TM's actions leadig up to the incident. He was ignoing the regulations that apply to lapped traffic, and that must be taken into account in apportioning blame. To do otherwise is to mischaracterize the incident and take it entirely out of context.

And if we know anything, it's that context changes everything.

see ya after the weekend - I'm outa here!!!!!!!!!

[bajo39 0]

bajo I don't have time to leave a detailed response - I'm heading out on the road to leave for the weekend, but I have an analogy to make.

If I am driving down the highway, and another car is driving directly towards me in my lane, is it my fault that he hits me because I didn't stay out of his way? I'm not suggesting that this is a direct analogy to the JPM/TM incident (I'm in a hurry so I didn't have time to think of a better one - but I will later) the logic is correct. You cannot say, ignore the circumstances leading up to the incident, now tell me who's fault it is. Your distinction is false and arbitrary if you insist on ignoring TM's actions leadig up to the incident. He was ignoing the regulations that apply to lapped traffic, and that must be taken into account in apportioning blame. To do otherwise is to mischaracterize the incident and take it entirely out of context.

And if we know anything, it's that context changes everything.

see ya

[kup 0]

None of them (JPM, TM) or Both a little, a bit =)

p.s. why Poll starter made just 2 answers ?

it`s 4 at least = 1st, 2nd, both, none

=)

[Monty 0]

[bajo39 0]

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhahaa. Good one Monty.

[pumpdoc 2]

Come off it Monty, the Columbian is known for his temper and tendency to let it boil over into on-track stupidity, as was most certainly the case in Turkey. 

He would not have made the corner on the dirty line?  What rubbish, all he had to do was brake earlier but he never should have been attempting to pass Monteiro at that corner anyway, with a 9 second lead he was in no rush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

more words of wisdom, and to add to it, as he had a flat-spotted tyre he should have been very conservative in his pace as to save his car from potential failure ala Kimi.............

[bajo39 0]

more words of wisdom, and to add to it, as he had a flat-spotted tyre he should have been very conservative in his pace as to save his car from potential failure ala Kimi.............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Montoya conservative?

[kiko01 0]

Montoya conservative? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah! Montoya and conservative are two words that can

[Fed up 0]

Now.  I am not ignoring Monteiro's poor etiquette, I fully acknowledge that he should have slowed down more and gotten off the racing line but he didn't do that.  Montoya should have taken him to task for this after the race but he should absolutely not have cut him off in a braking zone such that the Portugese could not hope to avert a collision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly

[Fed up 0]

Ahhahaa.  Good one Monty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice one Monty

[bajo39 0]

Exactly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is elementary really... Perhaps after a weekend of relaxation Jay will come to his senses.

[pumpdoc 2]

Montoya conservative? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sorry I lost my head

[Monty 0]

A bedtime story for you bajo39....

clickity here

[kiko01 0]

A bedtime story for you bajo39....

clickity here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I

[bajo39 0]

A bedtime story for you bajo39....

clickity here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's stick to the facts Monty...