More rows over electric in F1 as Toyota go for record- James Allen on F1

I'm of the opinion that electric cars, of whatever type - fuel cell or mains-powered, or whatever - are the future. I'm not sure that anybody seriously believes that petrol will remain the dominant means of supplying energy indefinitely, or that we don't have to worry about what will come after "petrol runs out," any more. Obviously petrol will not run out in one big wallop, but it will become more expensive and the supply will gradually reduce.

Motorsport will have to come to terms with this too. Admittedly, electric-only in the pitlane is more symbolic than anything else, a bit like KERS today - if it were gone, nobody would really miss it. The fact that teams are developing high-performance hybrid cars, however, is surely something of great relevance to sponsors. Celebrities were great fans of the Prius when it came out, as I remember, simply for the perceived green credentials. As Bernie surely knows, Formula One makes its money from sponsors, who use it as a form of advertising. Part of the reason people watch formula one is because of the spectacle of these prototype cars. If the cars are no longer "ahead of the curve," part of that appeal will fall away.

Bernie's main argument is that electric cars are silent, and therefore dangerous in the pitlane. Admittedly, I have not been in a pitlane in my whole life, so he speaks from a position of greater authority than me. But I think he is being a bit disingenuous. Firstly, the pitlane is already identified as a place of danger. People are already aware of the danger of cars - that will not change. Silent cars will not suddenly see pitlane personnel bowled like skittles. Secondly, a car is still capable of being detected even if it is silent. People have eyes. They can use them. A deaf man is capable of crossing a busy road. Finally, even today when people have been knocked over in the pitlane, it is usually the result of driver error. To say that "people could be killed because they won't hear the cars coming" wrongly implies that the driver plays a passive role. Perhaps a lower pitlane speed limit could be employed if necessary.

So, if all that is reasonable enough, why does Bernie object to technical development? Surely there is a safety trade-off; there will be less risk of a fire in the pitlane, and presumably less risk of an accident like Heidfeld's recent one. I don't understand his position; either he is engaged in a political play that I disagree with, or he is just stuck in the past. Maybe both. He's pretty old.