As other posters have pointed out, we try to minimise additional risk to the driver and rescue workers as much as possible. Pulling a car out of the barriers quickly could potentially injure a driver that was perfectly fine.
The data will also be useful in post-analysis, as much of the time it can take up to 2 minutes for us to reach a driver at some circuits. If we can see that a driver wasn't moving and had low blood sats, that could be useful info when deciding on further treatment/imaging/etc.
I drive the F1 Medical Car, and came up with this system together with my colleague Dr. Ian Roberts, and have spent the past 2 years developing it. Any questions, ask!
In the extreme, ejection seat aircraft often have instructions for activating the canopy/seat on the ground, if necessary to "extract" a pilot. A twice-broken back is better than burned to death.
I guess F1 is a much more controlled environment, due to car and circuit design working together as a safety system.
Perhaps F1 safety focuses on minimising injury when things go wrong, whereas aviation systems are optimised to avoid things going wrong in the first place?
Actually, the goal is generally not to pull a driver out of a wreck as fast as possible. For example, if the driver has some broken bones (especially spinal ones), rescuers might want to act carefully to avoid any further damage if the circumstances allow that. But if the wreck is catching fire or the driver is in danger of suffocating (as potentially detectable with those gloves), they'll have to act faster and "trade" potential additional injury for saving the driver's life.
Someone will be at the scene asap regardless of data. They will check for fire and breathing issues. If either driver isnt talking or car on fire, driver is comming out now. After out, or sometimes before, gloves are off and other sensors applied. Decisions such as the use of a spinal turn on danger, not medical data: always a spinal unless car about to explode. I dont see the case for this data as it only means something long after more apparant dangers have already dictated decisions.
(In my work i regularly draft ERPs for aviation crashes, a similar senario. I just last month completed a hypoxia course in a hypobaric chamber where o2 sat was a very big deal)
We would have really liked to know what happened while we were underway to the scene in this scenario: https://youtu.be/QOM5SzxEFGU?t=1m50s
And a driver under a few 100kg of Tecpro barriers takes a while to get to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJN-b-ovkQQ
It wasn't until 2014 when Jules Bianchi crashed in Suzuka that F1 saw another death during a race. Now, a biometric sensor probably would not have helped Jules, but it may have alerted the medical team to the seriousness of his injuries. Oximetry and heart rate may not have indicated much, but I think it's a great first step towards other sensors that could eventually be incorporated.
F1 tries to be at the forefront of automotive technologies. Driver safety always has been and should be a huge part of that.
The Hans device, protective monocoque, wheel tethers and other incremental improvements are nothing short of stunning, and though he has many legitimate gripes against him, Max Moseley was key in pushing this forward in his time as head of the FIA.
But we can all agree no one like the halo... (I kid...)
It might also change how the incident is handled on track. Generally F1 prioritizes keeping the race going (deploying a safety car only if absolutely necessary). Knowing a driver is critically injured would likely trigger a "red flag" stop to the race, allowing rescue personnel unrestricted access to the track.
If, on the other hand, they know the driver is dead in a couple minutes without intervention, some of those steps are going to get skipped (that's what I meant by the "acceptable level of risk" changing).
For what it's worth, I'm a firefighter/paramedic, and have cut many people out of (ordinary) cars over the past decade or so.
Nope. Not true. Track personnel are trained to be cautious. They shouldn't be on a live track unless absolutely necessary. Anything that increases their ability to discern "absolutely necessary" from "not necessary" is a good thing.
[Former amateur race car driver]