I feel certain he would have signed some such paper, GUEST. Even when one goes on those "team-building" jollies, say paint-balling or quad-biking, they have to sign one. I think it's inconceivable that Hammonds would have been let anywhere near the vehicle before doing so as well.

And he carries insurance, which no doubt because of the risks he takes, would be a lot higher than yours and mine. And the BBC carries incurance too. All this talk of "my insurance premiums are high because of people like Hammonds" is misplaced - my car insurance is high because of other road drivers, not vehicle-testers or TV programme makers.

Yes, someone has to pay for it; his insurance and the BBC's does. And their next premiums will be higher because of this accident. THEIR premiums for staff insurance, not yours and mine for car insurance or home insurance or third party liability insurance. It isn't all one big bucket, insurance is slightly more complex and sophisticated than that.

So this isn't about money. Neither is it about teaching the youngsters (if their parents are waiting for the BBC to educate their children, they have abdicated responsibility). It is about the question of where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk; and between the lines, perhaps a also little about people venting on the next TV personality that comes to their attention.