Who says the bolded? You seemed to have made up that to argue against the halo because you personally don't like it. It wouldn't have saved Bianchi's life. It undoubtedly saved Grosjean's life. It undoubtedly saved Hamilton from serious head/neck injuries. There has been a few other F2 incidents similar to the Hamilton one where wheels would have landed on the driver's head if not for the halo. I don't believe there are many other, if any, incidents where anyone said there would be death if not for the halo.
Also, the only problem you seem to think it creates is to block the exit of the driver. They thought of that when it was first implemented
In its tests the FIA determined that there was no scenario where it felt that the halo might have to be removed after an accident, though it has allowed for that possibility.
"Are we sure that there is not one scenario where the halo is going to be completely deformed over the driver's head, and we would want to remove it?" says Mekies.
"At first, if this is happening, we would probably all be happy that the halo was fitted to the car in the first place, because if something deforms that device, you can only imagine what would have been without it.
"We investigated a lot of tools and equipment in order to cut the halo, and we sourced something that is small enough to fit in our medical car, and would cut the halo in no time.
"So even in a very extreme scenario that we couldn't exactly picture we feel that we can cut the halo in basically no time."
Tests show it would take two seconds to cut the front pillar, and five seconds apiece to cut the two rear supports.
The FIA's decision to insist Formula 1 adopts the halo as cockpit protection for 2018 has prompted a backlash, but several myths around the device are easily dismissed
www.autosport.com
So it would take an extra 12 seconds to extract someone from an incident where the impact is so powerful that it deforms the halo device. What's worse, 12 seconds or likely death?