Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Miami International Autodrome, 2022

FIA begins new clampdown on underwear and jewellery rules for F1 drivers

2022 Miami Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

FIA Formula 1 race director Niels Wittich has told all teams they must confirm their drivers are complying with underwear and jewellery regulations during events.

Prior to the start of each race weekend, all competitors are compelled by the rules to complete a scrutineering declaration form where teams declare that their cars and equipment comply with the various technical regulations.

Prior to the start of the Miami Grand Prix practice tomorrow, Wittich informed all 10 teams the declaration form will be amended to “include checks relating to compliance with Appendix L to the International Sporting Code (ISC), Chapter III, specifically Article 2 concerning compliant underwear
and Article 5 concerning the wearing of jewellery.”

The International Sporting Code states that drivers must wear “long underwear” as well as other fire resistant clothing that are homologated to FIA standards. It also states that wearing jewellery during competition “in the form of body piercing or metal neck chains” is prohibited. With the new change to the scrutineering declaration form, teams must declare their drivers adhere to both requirements during race weekends.

A note added to the scrutineering form explains that the additional declaration “is written to ensure that the FIA-approved Flame-resistant clothing, including both the outer layer overalls and inner layer in contact with the skin can operate effectively and provide the designed level of protection if exposed to flames.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

“The use of non-flameproof materials in contact with the driver’s skin, and in particular synthetic materials, can reduce heat transmission protection and thus increase the risk of burn injuries in the event of a fire,” it continues. “In the worst case such materials may melt which can hinder treatment in the event of a burn injury.”

Regarding the wearing of jewellery, the FIA states that it is prohibited due to it “reducing the protection” to drivers from their fireproof clothing as it can catch against clothing when it is removed in an emergency.

“The wearing of jewellery during the competition can hinder both medical interventions as well as subsequent diagnosis and treatment should it be required following an accident,” the FIA explained.

“In the case that medical imaging is required to inform diagnosis following an accident the presence of jewellery on the body can cause significant complication and delay. In the worst case the presence of jewellery during imaging may cause further injury.”

The clampdown on drivers flouting the rules comes after driver underwear requirements was raised as part of the drivers’ briefing with race director Wittich at the Australian Grand Prix. Lewis Hamilton said he is unable to remove certain piercings from his body due to how they were fitted.

“They’re stuff that I can’t move,” Hamilton said. “I literally can’t even take these out – these ones in my right ear – they’re literally welded in, so I’d have to get them chopped off or something like that. So they’ll be staying.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 Miami Grand Prix

Browse all 2022 Miami Grand Prix articles

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

94 comments on “FIA begins new clampdown on underwear and jewellery rules for F1 drivers”

  1. Complying with rules? Imagine that.

    1. Yes but do they say ANY or ALL jewellery?

      As we know from Abu Dhabi, there’s a big difference…

  2. That gives Lewis an excuse to retire without blaming himself or his team. I’m fascinated to see how this game of chicken will end but it seems silly and arbitrary.

    No jewelry “in the form of body piercing or metal neck chains” excludes finger rings which seem to me to pose a greater potential risk than jewelry under a helmet or several layers of flame resistant clothing. If we use Grosjean as an example had he been wearing a metal finger ring on his roasted hand his injuries would have been worse, however earrings probably would have made no difference. “Because I said so” may work initially but it will lead to a loss of credibility, a commodity the FIA has little to lose.

    1. I believe that certain scans can’t be performed if you are wearing jewelry so the doctors would cut them out before the scan anyway. I don’t believe that jewelry worn under the helmet would be dangerous in the event of a crash but chains around the neck might. I wonder why they didn’t include finger rings ?

      1. Fire? Heat? Snagging? Jeez … never wear that crap in a racing environment. “Dude-bro!”

        1. The dangers are widely known; men often don’t even wear their wedding ring when going on a night out with the boys.

      2. Correct Most (MRi) scanners does horrible damage if you are scanned with a bodypiercing so i can understand the removeable of all piercings during the weekend. If a driver doesn’t want to remove it just scan him before the race if nothing happens he can race …… easy to control and check

        1. Not if it’s a precious metal. MRI is magnetic, so it would have to be a ferrous bit of metal. They can still throw the readings off, however.

          While I understand the complaints, the primary bits of metal Hamilton can’t remove are in his ears, and unlikely to get snagged on anything, and they’re protected by his helmet during the race.

          Not sure why this particular RD has a bug in his… *ahem* ear.. about this, though.

          I can also understand the underwear concern, but it’s also going to be 30+ C air temp this weekend, and while they’re near the coast, humidity is still a major issue in this swamp.

          1. Not sure why this particular RD has a bug in his… *ahem* ear.. about this, though.

            Given the fuss everyone was making about the FIA’s application of the rules late last year, I think it’s quite understandable that they are making an effort to apply their rules more consistently.
            And this isn’t even a sporting regulation, but a safety one. There should be no push back whatsoever from anyone.

            And let’s not forget that these guys are elite athletes. Their level of physical fitness is more than acceptable to work (and play) in such conditions.

          2. Indeed on the throw off the readings and precious metal still can heat up.

          3. If they were put in they can be taken out.

        2. Also I believe that some tattoo artists ink is magnetic. Stick that lot in an MRI and see what happens.

      3. I think it’s pretty obvious why they didn’t include finger rings.

        Because a lot of the there drivers wear finger rings and this ‘rule’ is clearly meant to target one specific driver.

  3. …driver underwear requirements was raised as part of the drivers’ briefing

    This makes me laugh.

    1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
      6th May 2022, 12:16

      Me too.

      As for practice starts I wonder if leaving skid marks is avoiding in the drivers’ briefing?

      And as far as the W series is concerned.. regards colour.. don’t go there.

    2. °It’s about fire resistance which undergarments are part of

      1. Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
        6th May 2022, 13:10

        We are joking, briefs = undergarments, get it?

  4. I’m of two minds about this. I agree that the proper flame retardant underwear should be worn, but as far as piercings go, a part of me says they’re adults and once their made aware of the risks they should be able to sign some kind of form and move on.

  5. So what could the penalty be if a driver is not wearing the correct clothing or if they are found wearing jewelry? Will race direction be checking before the race – after the race – not at all? What if the team signs the declaration knowing that their driver has body piercings? This looks to me like a whole new can of worms is about to be opened. Race direction know full well that Lewis has said that he is not removing his ear rings so they will knowingly allow him to race if they are only checking after the race. Somebody is painting themselves into a corner right now.

    1. If someone were to finish in the top 10 on Sunday and post-race pictures from parc fermé show jewellery having been worn during the race, that would put the team having finished 11th (among others) in position to protest the classification of the race.

      1. Are you saying that the penalty could be disqualification? That sounds a bit harsh and is likely to blow up in somebody’s face I think.

        1. I’m saying that whoever finished 11th has all the incentive in the world to have the other team’s apparent infraction checked by the stewards.

          1. @proesterchen This is a safety issue, not a sporting issue. The team and/or driver would probably be fined, warned and receive penalty points. Potentially leading to a race ban if they repeat the ‘offence’.

          2. @psynrg and yet the same arguments that people put forward arguing that drivers should not wear earrings would also apply to the wearing of rings – yet it seems to be the case that wearing a ring is seen as fine by many, even though the same arguments about safety should then apply. If it is meant to be a safety issue, why does it seem to be a rather selective application of that argument?

        2. Wouldn’t it be a bit harsh not complying with these quite normal regualtions…?
          Ignoring them quite obviously can lead to any kind of penalty, DSQ to me seems the most obvious.

        3. Why harsh, it is breaking the safety rules which usually carries the biggest penalties.

          It is not for the driver nor the teams to determine if the FIA safety rules are needed or not. They are rules clearly communicated by the FIA and therefore are to be followed.
          It Lewis wants to be that arrogant saying those rules shouldn’t apply to him because he is special or they are stupid rules than please he can decide to break the rules but then he should also accept the penalty likely to be a time and/or grid penalty.

          What’s next, don’t wear a helmet because it messes up my hair, wear lower spec safety clothes because wanted to spend more on R&D.

    2. I think it will come down to an insurance and liability waiver.
      Insurance will not pay as rules have not been adhered to
      FIA not responsibility as the driver has ignored the rules.
      Team responsible and liable as they have advised the FIA that they comply.
      It is pathetic placing a bit of bling ahead of safety.

      1. So basically if the back of an earing pierces your jugular (Somehow), best effort, but you’re on your own.

    3. A quick underpants check between the interview and the podium ceremony …

      1. Maybe some fan activation? Let them inspect their favorite drivers underwear. If anyone is crazy enough for this, it is Liberty. They would sell their mothers.

      2. “A quick underpants check between the interview and the podium ceremony …”

        I understand DTS is pushing for it to be part of the podium ceremony.

        But regardless of when, even the drivers with fireproof underwear won’t like the propane torch test. Smart thing is to race commando to avoid underwear flammability tests entirely.

    4. Well they DQ a driver from WRC few years back for not wearing right kind of underwear

    5. They will be required to give up a place to the following driver, every time they gain an advantage by racing with piercings.

  6. Dam these sporting Gods.

  7. Strip search after each session to verify underwear compliance

    1. If as race direction say that this is a potential safety issue then surely they should be doing the strip search before each session. Can’t see this working out very well. Somebody is going to have to back down here.

    2. No need, any club level racer can likely confirm they have had to present all required safety equipment as part of scutineering. This includes all safety equipment required under the regulations such as socks, underwear, HANS devices, helmet, boots gloves etc. In my experience this is done at the beginning of the season and is subject to ad-hoc spot checks throughout the season coupled with a declaration of compliance as part of event entry. The onus is on the driver to ensure they are compliant with regulations THEY have signed up to compete under.

      If it’s good enough for a local individual who participates in motorsport for recreation to comply with the rules I don’t really understand why a professional should have issue or be treated differently.

      1. Exactly. I have had my marshals check me for watches and chains (along with other competitors), on the grid. It is no big deal, unless a driver screams “no, you can’t look at my wrist or neck! They should just cite Grosjean’s accident. If he had a bracelet on, it could have ended up slicing through his worst to the bone.

        1. What about a finger ring? I don’t know but if Grosjean had a finger ring on during his accident / fire on him episode, it could have been worse. So why does the regulation seem to exclude finger rings?

  8. It might seem trivial but I think they have to clamp down on this. It’s either a rule or not and there’s going to be a lot of other series, from karting up that will follow the example being set.

    Presumably they haven’t just said this for the sake of it and if it’s causing safety issues as some piercings definitely do then it needs to be dealt with.

  9. I guess Lewis will be going full van Gogh then…

  10. To me it seems like if the driver is willing to accept the risk then that’s that. Someone having a piercing isn’t endangering anyone else whatsoever, just the driver themselves. Really bizarre they’re clamping down on this yet we had an entire championship decided at random and against at least two very clear cut rules.

    1. It’s likely there are situations where drivers’ jewelry could cause unnecessary complications for trackside medical crews after a crash, notably driver cockpit extraction.

      I suspect they’re clamping down on it in F1 since the way the rules are enforced would filter down into the lower series.

      1. The ‘Z’…..??? Isn’t that a sign anyone other than people from a certain country at war would prefer to avoid..?

    2. Like the Halo you mean?

    3. @davidhunter13 Of course it is somekind of a safety risk but I can’t help thinking when FIA are going to ban tattoos for being to radical. If I remember correctly FIA has banned all kinds of t-shirts with a “political” text and still Vettel wears them. It is a double edged sword. FIA wants to focus on safety but at the same time they want to make drivers as perfect as possible.

  11. I’d leave the underpants alone, but it isn’t just about a driver’s personal safety. Ad I mentioned above, if Romain had had a gold neck chain on and a bracelet, he would have been much more seriously hurt. In California club racing, there have been drivers caught in fires with jewelry on that basically sheared through wrist and neck. Allow it to happen and you risk not only the driver, but traumatizing family of the driver, fans, marshals, etc. and getting hit with a big lawsuit. In California (I think it’s ridiculous, but it’s the law), indemnity waivers at tracks aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. You can’t sign away your right to sue. Gold Sue S of A (and CA consumer protection laws)!

    1. Why does autocorrect always want to change as to ad? So annoying.

  12. Reading between the lines, I suspect that there’s more of a focus on underwear than piercings – they specifically mention “long” underwear.

    I’m wondering if there’s been a little bit of fudging going on to try and reduce weight.

    Either that or the new Race Directors have made it their mission to immediately pick up where Masi left off by ensuring they’re getting airplay and print time instead of being in the background and getting things done.

    1. @dbradock Given that one of the race director’s primary duties is to ensure the meeting runs in accordance with the rules, checking that they’re all being adhered to is surely the definition of “getting things done.”

    2. I understand the issue is rather that they wear different underwear UNDERNEATH it – which could, if made with stuff like elastan etc, melt and hurt them. Many drivers have mentioned that the fireproof stuff itches, so they wear something underneath it @dbradock

      1. fireproof underwear you can get in many forms but it’s nessesary as you said @bascb I think they could find non itches ones.

        1. Yeah, I would think that in this day and age we should be able to fine-tune the garments for that. Funny how even here we read from a few amateur racers who are content to oblige the safety rules, accepting it as what is necessary but these professional drivers seem to feel they can partly ignore them @macleod.

  13. Alternative title: FIA continues to protect driver safety (over vanity and childish “but I wanna” -sentiment)

    1. @uneedafinn2win we have also been informed that the FIA has also been bending, or even breaking, its own safety and technical regulations to allow circuits like Jeddah and Miami appear on the calendar.

      It thus seems rather odd that the same organisation that claims to be protecting driver safety on the one hand proceeds on the other to increase the risk to the drivers for commercial benefit by allowing circuits with sub-standard safety standards onto the calendar.

      1. That’s true, anon, but double standards aren’t for everyone. Just Liberty and the FIA.

        1. Meanwhile, in reality FIA requested Jeddah make changes and while those did fall short the organizers are claiming lack of time due to there only being 4 months between races from 2021 to 2022. Point being FIA were not ignoring the concerns. I suspect they will now have time to affect further changes for the next time they race there.

          Meanwhile the cars are heavier in no small part due to even further safety measures in the name of ever more stringent crash tests, particularly addressing what happened to Grojean’s car during his fiery crash.

          As we know safety concerns are an ongoing thing in F1 and are ever evolving and improving year to year.

  14. …leak of notes from a top F1 teams advertising revenue meeting…

    “Some Sponsors wont want the Buttock branding location so we might offer a discount there …. sort of an entry level offer?”
    “The Nipple area might be sensitive for some viewers as well but it does contain some interesting points that we might be able to latch onto in light of the jewellery regulations.”
    “Monster have already come up with some really eye catching designs for the Groin region that I think might even encourage the drivers to actively encourage inspection.”

  15. Oh come on Lewis, you’re a professional sportsman. If the rules say you can’t wear jewellery then don’t.

    Most of us that work in an office environment have had to abide by a “no visible piercings” rule for years and we don’t get paid millions of pounds to drive amazing cars in exotic locations.

    And if your ear piercing won’t come out, sue the the person that did it as it should!

  16. Christopher Horton
    6th May 2022, 9:21

    It’s easy. They’re the rules, comply or don’t compete. The FIA have given their reasons and I get that drivers don’t necessarily like them, but it’s a choice at the end of the day.

  17. The issue here is when you spend years not enforcing rules then suddenly deciding they must be applied rigourously, it kind of calls into question the motivation for why they chose to do this now. A cynical person might suggest the timing makes this a vindictive snipe at Hamilton for not just capitulating to the terrible calls the FIA made last year at the final race.

    I personally think it’s the right thing to enforce these rules, it’s just unfortunate in the timing they chose it. Ultimately though they have at least given a couple of races notice prior so it’s not like the drivers didn’t have chance to prepare.

    1. @slowmo

      The issue here is when you spend years not enforcing rules then suddenly deciding they must be applied rigourously,

      Correct it’s an excellent way to undermine your authority.

    2. Not everything in F1 is about Hamilton, come on.

      Yes, they didn’t enforce it for years. Is that a reason to never enforce it?
      They have been talking about this already for several races.

      1. Is that a reason to never enforce it?

        That was kind of my point. This is what happens when you don’t enforce rules properly over time and then decide to enforce them. The question is why now? I mean you could argue that new leadership in terms of a new race director has meant they’ve decided to stamp their mark on the sport and be more rigorous in applying rules that were previously not being monitored. Or you could argue that there is other sentiments at work.

        I did concede in my post that they had at least not made it a last minute change, it’s been coming for a while.

        1. @slowmo However, there are instances when the rule has been enforced, so to say otherwise is false. And it is pure cynical speculation and tabloid stuff to suggest this is about LH and his ‘not just capitulating,’ lol. If it has anything to do with LH perhaps that might be because he goes around with a lot of bling.

          So I don’t know what is ‘unfortunate’ about the timing of this unless one is in a paranoid frame of mind. It might just be that they are always looking to play as safe as possible and just want to reiterate the rules surrounding jewelry. The consequence for not complying sounds like it may be a small fine.

          1. Cynical was the word I used, not paranoid. The point stands that if you don’t enforce the rules over time there is a cost.

  18. …Miss Polly had a F1 who was, sick, sick, sick. And she called for the Doctor to come quick, quick, quick.

  19. Priorities.

  20. Good, it’s common knowledge that jewelry is to be taken off before a Motorsports event for safety reasons.

    If Lewis or whoever can’t be professional and not look like a Xmas tree while participating then simply stop them from driving until they comply.

    1. can’t be professional and not look like a Xmas tree

      Now that’s some well thought out opinion there. I mean I can’t even count the times anymore when Lewis’ xmas tree look hindered his safety and professionalism. And anyways, trees belong in the forest not on racetracks, am I right?

  21. Underwear rules in Florida … because you know, “the children!”

  22. Mercedes made a very clear and decisive push to get new race direction and more “by the books” rulekeeping. They got it.

    Now they complain about it when there’s rules they don’t like.

    Pick a lane, Mercedes, Lewis, Toto, stick to it.

    1. Like Horner after turn one in the last race last year with his “let them race” outlook. Wasn’t so keen on that philosophy then was he. You can find hypocrisy anywhere if you look for it.

      1. I don’t understand @slowmo, what does “let them race” have to do with the replacing of Masi and the directive to have more strict following of the rules as written?

        1. There are plenty of complaints against rules and interpretation that smack of hypocrisy in this sport. Singling out Mercedes seems a strange choice.

  23. Does Lewis recommend MIG welding or TIG welding for piercings?

  24. I don’t especially care either way if drivers wear jewellery or not.

    My issue with this is the way it’s been handled as it feels like the change of stance on this came up very suddenly without any consultation & is been pushed by the FIA in a rather combative way. It comes across to me more as the FIA trying to prove a point more than them trying to act against valid concerns.

    I’d have thought the best way to handle this would have been to get drivers together pre-season, Tell them what you want to do & detail why you want to do it & then discuss it. Some drivers may not like it but if you show them your reasoning & try to convince them that what your doing is a safety benefit to them then maybe you win them over or are at least able to come to a compromise.

    Just suddenly getting very hardline on it & been fairly competitive about it is only guaranteed to rub people the wrong way & make it more difficult to get them to see your reasoning.

    1. Again, the teams, Mercedes in particular, pushed very hard for new race directors and more by-the-books rule keeping.

      So this is what that means as a result. Now the rules are applied as they are written, by the new race director, as instructed after a push by a team. Not like they didn’t give teams a few months heads-up either, so it’s not really sudden. They said this at the first race, and we’re now at the fifth race and it’s again restated. Far as I know, nobody got a penalty in the mean time. Seems like plenty of time to me.

    2. What I can’t understand is why anyone would argue against this in any way, as it’s been written in the FIA documentation for a long time. Long before it was brought up this season.
      Safety regulations aren’t for making friends, they are for keeping people safe. The ISC is something that all FIA licensed competitors agree to abide by.

      I don’t think you need worry too much anyway, @stefmeister. The FIA is still the FIA, and everything will applied in the way they see fit. Usually not very strictly or consistently.
      And don’t expect to see any penalties or fines for breaches, because those same people arguing against this are the ones who say applying penalties makes F1/FIA look amateur and weak.
      And we can’t have F1 looking like it’s not above rules, can we? This is the pinnacle, after all…

  25. I don’t know and I don’t care if this affects Hamilton or whether this has been brought on by Mercedes. The fact is you can not let people/organizations get away with breaking the rules and expect them to just fall into line when you decided to bring the rule book out again.
    This will be sorted out eventually and everyone will move on, in the meantime, there will be some unhappy people.
    It has been badly handled again!

    1. If applying (existing) rules makes people unhappy, then that’s just tough.
      Rules are there for everyone, not just the people who want them.

      This, again, is such a prime example of F1. ‘Fans’ arguing against everything – including safety regulations that aren’t even specific to F1.

      If I was as discontented with F1 as some people here are, I’d seriously have to ask myself why I bother watching it anymore. There really is no joy for some people, is there – or perhaps there’s just a bit of masochism going on…?

      1. Fans made this sport what it is. Without the decades of fans backing the sport it wouldn’t be anywhere near the entity it is today. For their loyalty and passion over the years, you could be forgiven for thinking they’ve earned a little right to have a say in how its run. See what happened to the teams involved in the european super league of football if you want a recent example of what happens when those involved in a sport run rough shod over the opinion of the fans.

        This is a minor change but we’re between races and it’s a fair talking point about what the motivations are for enforcing this rule all of a sudden and the impact. Maybe you’re on the wrong site if you don’t like discussion, the clues in the url.

        1. I do like discussion, @slowmo, but endless complaining isn’t conducive to discussion.
          I prefer a bit of balance in a discussion, which is why I usually only go against the crowd here – regardless of my own personal opinion.

          This isn’t a change, it’s just a reminder that this rule exists and that every competitor is expected to abide by it. It is, in fact, a condition of their entry and participation in any FIA competition.

          As for what F1 is and why… I think you overestimate the power viewers have in this toxic ‘relationship.’
          It’s akin to a dealer and his junkie, and does not at all resemble a mutually beneficial or respectful partnership.
          Provided ‘we’ keep paying, there’s no problem. And of course many will because they are addicted.
          We aren’t entitled to anything at all. We are nothing more than consumers. If you want to be a stakeholder, you’ll need a very obese bank account.

          Interesting example… Remember that the F1 teams support sprint races, which apparently every ‘real’ F1 fan hates.
          Equally, those same teams unanimously support the $200m anti-dilution fee to maintain their share of the prize money and raise their own sale value (if/when they do so) meaning no new teams will enter in the foreseeable future.
          Is that what the fans want?

          F1 won’t suddenly collapse like the proposed football league though, as there is no viable competition to it. It will probably just atrophy over time until it gets swallowed up by – sorry, merge with – something else. Like FE, for example.

          1. I’ll not assume I speak for all fans because we often live in echo Chambers but I think most see the writing on the wall for the sport and are just hoping to keep it as long as possible. Maybe that’s just me being negative lol.

          2. Indeed, @slowmo.
            Some of us saw it 30 years ago (or more) and just choose to accept that F1 is constantly changing, usually away from the safety of what we already know.
            Doesn’t make it all bad, though.

      2. S Well said and there certainly are some posters around here who seem to only find the negative in all things F1 and I too start to wonder why they bother watching. In this case FIA stresses a rule that has existed since 2005 just to ensure teams and drivers are reminded of it, and suddenly that is being hypocritical or heavy handed and worthy of examining their motivations. Sheesh.

        Meanwhile, when F1 has to make the cars heavier in no small part in order to comply with ever more stringent safety measures and protection for the drivers, the halo being one of the things that added weight, not to mention the very much tougher than ever crash tests the 2022 cars had to pass, there is no applause towards F1 for that and rather just derision for the heavy cars.

        1. It’s why I think of F1 as the pinnacle of complaining, @robbie.
          No other motorsport – or any other sport for that matter – that I watch has such vocal and eternally discontented viewers wanting to turn back the clock and undo every decision taken in regard to the series’ direction.
          Seriously, you’d have no idea that F1 is one of the most technically dynamic ‘sports’ in the world if you just looked at the self-described ‘core fanbase’ which is mostly against every change.

          More respect to Jackie Stewart and Sid Watkins (and many others) for pushing through such resistance when they were trying to bend F1 just to keep people alive. Plenty of complainers then too. Probably some of the same ones that still haven’t seen the positives in what was being done then are here now.

      3. S
        There is no problem in upholding rules there is a problem with ignoring them for some time, then decoding to enforce them, it’s poor management.

        1. So is your issue with the rules themselves, the fact they ignored them for a while (which can’t be undone) or that they are now revisiting their importance, @johnrkh?

  26. The rationale for the fireproof drawers seems obvious. But the one for the jewelry and piercings, that it hinders medical intervention, seems less obvious. Maybe there is a doctor or emt who knows why that would be. I would think the main reason not to have jewelry is you don’t want hot metal on your body in a fire. And yes if you have a 1 inch gold chain on it could choke or constrict and can’t be easily removed.

  27. The Dolphins
    6th May 2022, 14:32

    I find this comment section interesting. When driving while having contracted COVID-19 was the question there were a lot of comments along the lines, “It’s the driver’s choice. Let them drive.” regardless of how the virus might spread to people around them. When underwear and jewelry are brought to question a lot of comments are claiming, “it’s the rules, can’t wear jewelry!” even though this would only endanger the driver.

    1. Some people are certainly inconsistent.
      To suggest that anything affects only one person goes completely against reality. The driver may be the only person physically injured in such an event, but there are a lot of other people affected by it, directly and indirectly.

  28. I dare say they should review this rule and consider whether it needs updating as I dare say the “lax” enforcement of it previously was due to no one wearing anything either highly heat conductive or loose (Hamilton wouldn’t have had his earrings welded in for a laugh, after all). I mean, if they’re so concerned about jewelry being potentially “unsafe” then what about glasses? Or even the in-helmet cameras they want every driver to have?

Comments are closed.