Taking pics of car wrecks

mrman · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: Taking pics of car wrecks

Today I saw a car wreck. Police had closed the road, there were no paramedics there, just the aftermath of an accident. i.e. car with roof cut off.

I took a pic, t show my daughter, because I thought it might be one off her friends cars, as it turned out it was.

My missus is extremely unhappy that I took the pitcures, I parked the car and walked to within 100m - no closer.

Just as a background, my missus little sister died in a car accident, so although I dont agree with her, I understand.

So, peeps, am I morally corrupt?

cheers

Dave

XrHiNo · Guest

Not morally corrupt but perhaps a little insensitive

nivapilot · Guest

What he said^^^^

Toseland · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject:

there was a story about this in the news recently.. got me thinking

news story here

This is wrong... plain wrong.. insensitive to the maximum considering she was still stuck in the wreckage

taking a picture of a little fender bender, so to speak (to coin the american phrase that is), provided it doesnt inpinge on peoples right to privacy (ie as above) shouldnt be an issue..

mudplugga · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:35 pm Post subject:

you've gotta ask "why?"

mrman · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject:

why, for me, in this instance, was because there were no visable number plates due to the collision, I thought my daughter would recognize the car. As I said before, there was only a police van blocking the road and all injured parties had left the scene.

The kid in question t-boned someone on the roundabout and had suspected neck injuries, hence they cut his car roof off.

He is home from hospital, and a bit sore. No injuries to the persons car he collided with.

I haven't posted the pics online on any social forum, they were only for my daughter to identify the vehicle and the driver.

As I siad they were from a long range, and I am not collecting these types of images.

Oddly enough, my daughter is studying photography, so I will ask her what she thinks she should be able to photograph and what she shouldnt.

its GED · Guest

wheres the problem?

w3526602 · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:17 am Post subject:

Hi,

It depends on the circumstances.

Can you take the photo without endangering yourself or others. Wil taking a photo cause distress.

Will your photograph assist any future insurance claims, or possible criminal prosecution .... or defence?

Would the participants want you to take the picture, so they can add it to their family album .... like this one?

Barbara acknowedges that she didn't shift fully out of reverse, but denies having her foot on the gas. She wasn't wearing her seat belt, hadn't closed her door ... look where it is. She only wanted to move the car a few inches, as kerb was nipping a tyre.

Will pocture be worth a lot of money if you sell it to the national Press? Now that is a question for your concience.

602

scrunt · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:35 am Post subject:

It can cost you your job.
Your employer contracts etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19712058

george

TheClunk · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:20 am Post subject:

scrunt · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:01 am Post subject:

If you have personal involvement or for the sake of assisting the police or victims i can not really see a problem in taking and keeping the pictures safe and available.

But just to be nosey like i would be, 'publishing them' because you think its big and smart,
or to make financial advantage i think you can expect people to object.
I can think of many places where getting a camera or camera phone out is going to get you hurt.

I think you will find that if the Police or a Prosecutor or Investigator want or advertise for witness's to come forward
& become aware of your photographs at a scene of an incident,
you will be contacted soon enough if you have Photographs or video out there, Google Images or Social Network sites, anyplace public..

Fake Facebook or anonymous accounts would have them enquiring into your employment or type of employment if they need to track you down i would imagine.
& I can not see any Journalist protecting the source of Photographs anymore.

george

xamtex · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:19 am Post subject:

at work we are issued with an accident kit which includes a disposible camera in case we have a bump to take pics.
but taking pics of someone elses accident is treading on thin ice especially since the police warnings after that truck crash on the M1.
as for morals....you were taking the pic for a genuine reason not just for fun so i guess you could be forgiven.....just this once. Smile

GVstu · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject:

I wouldn't take a photo of anything where there were people trapped, I'd be busy trying to get them out!

Smashed up stuff where the people are OK well I'd say that was fair game.

I am for showing the graphic nature of life in all it's weird facets, I feel that too much is sugar coated these days. Perhaps if a few of these boy racers saw the ultimate consequences of their actions they may tone it down a little, on the other hand hasn't this sort of study been done already? Hmm.

Certainly wouldn't want to find pics of my loved ones all smashed up in a car accident on the internet if it happened, I'd be even less pleased with the sort of comments some people write.

Minefield! Stay away and just take pics of impressive bacon sarnies.

w3526602 · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject:

Hi,

Do a Google for BLACK BOX, get a video of the car about to tail-gate you. Prices seem to start at about £20. If you only need it once, it will pay for itself.

602

w3526602 · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:28 pm Post subject:

Hi,

Sorry, I should have said do an EBAY search for BLACK BOX.

602

ebbadger · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject:

Stal1878 · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:57 pm Post subject:

They are already ****** so you taking a piccy isn't going to hurt.

Someone I saw today said he passed a car accident on the way to work and there was a body still inside, not looking to alive, is there any laws to stop him taking a picture of that?

ebbadger · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject:

4x4rick · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject:

no one moaned when i posted this

http://forum.difflock.com/viewtopic.php?t=66580&highlight=

ebbadger · Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject:

its GED · Guest

TheClunk · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:06 am Post subject:

There is no law that prevents you taking any photograph, anywhere. However, if you do it somewhere sensitive like an MOD site, or Buckingham palace, you can be arrested under the terrorism act.

Trust me on this. It has come up several times in my life.

It is a bitter sweet thing really. It's good that you can snap away care free, but it also allows unsavoury types taking photos of things they shouldn't.

The main reason they can't outlaw it, is that the same law would prevent the use of CCTV, ANPR Police cars fitted with video equipment, and speed cameras.

GVstu · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:13 am Post subject:

RichardD · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:57 pm Post subject:

w3526602 · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject:

Hi,

While in France, my neighbours kids asked me to take their photographs. I later learned that this is not allowed.

In UK a bloke nearly got himself lynched for taking pictures of kids on a playground slide. The lynch mob were not bothered by the fact that they were HIS kids.

Er ... how come they can photograph of children in their vests and pants, Shocked

and publish them in mail order catalogues. Very Happy

.

A little girl has gone missing in West Wales, last seen climbing into a van. Is now the time to say that I am in favour of CCTV, provided that it is used passively - only played back when a crime is known to have been committed.

I earlier mentioned a Black Box. This is a device that records video of the road in front of, and behind, your car. Not expensive. It would be very useful if every car and truck was fitted with this ... but again, only examine the footage in circumstances like this.

It might discourage tail-gaters, too

602

LlaniGraham · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject:

Toseland · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:25 pm Post subject:

Xpajun · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:09 pm Post subject:

mudplugga · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:23 pm Post subject:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009...hersrights-v2.pdf

Photographers rights - it's been around for a long time but word is, nothing has changed.

I have no problem with anyone that takes pictures of an accident for a purpose. I've done it and will continue to so. I can understand a genuine press photographer taking a wreck picture and a photo editor using them - if there is some over riding public interest.
But someone rubbernecking and posting pictures on Facebook for others to share in the rubbernecking by proxy, no, I think that's as wrong as it is unnecessary.
Perhaps I'm old fashioned ? I just don't see the point in rubbernecking other peoples grief just for the sake of it.

w3526602 · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:07 am Post subject:

Hi,

Todays AOL Home Page headline is "VIDEO - Dead farmer eaten by his own pigs" There is a photo of a pig, don't know if it was THE pig. I haven't clicked the link, not interested, and anyway, thats normal behaviour for pigs.

Some months ago, there was a report of somebody dying, and being eaten by his two hungry Dobermen dogs. Personally, in that situation, I would rather my dog ate me, rather than starved to death. But I don't think I'd like photos in the local rag. Well .... maybe a piccy of the dog would be acceptable.

602