He was “penalised for unsafe driving”, but that’s not the same as driving dangerously: it was the way in which the rule is written that snared him. I don’t believe he did anything dangerous, and the majority view—certainly among drivers—seemed to be broadly the same. His wheel-banging behaviour in Baku was far more worthy of punishment, but even then that wasn’t anywhere near mortally dangerous.
So I think he’s got every right to say what he said. It’s an abstract point about whether the spectacle as it stands excuses death, I think, because there’s no simple correlation between entertainment and mortality. I’m guessing he just disagrees with the view of some, that mortal danger is an inherent part of the appeal to the spectator.
The fact of the matter is that the human body is only robust up to about 20mph impacts, so where you’re doing ten times that speed, carrying a hundred times the energy, you’ve got your work cut out to reduce risk of injury and death. You achieve it by engineering the cars, the tracks, the rules and other control systems—each of which affects the nature of the on-track action—because fundamentally when you put racing drivers alongside each other in a racing car they have one aim: to win. I forget who it was that said that if you give a racing driver the choice of a car that can be crashed without consequence, or a car that will kill him in a crash but is a second a lap faster, he will choose the latter every time.
They’re compelled—psychologically and financially—to push to the very limits of the equipment, the tracks and the rules. It’s in their interest to have equipment, tracks and rules which, even when pushed to their limits, don’t punish basic mistakes or mechanical failures with death.
But, again: they’re doing 200mph. The probability of a fatal incident is never going to be zero.