No photograph is worth dying for.

munch

munch

Messages
2,642
Edit My Images
No
In May 2014 I was one of the first on the scene when 3 "spectators" were killed on the Jim Clark Rally. They had been in an area that was considered out of bounds. Although they had returned, so one of them could get a "good photograph" of a rally car, as it came over a bridge. One of the rally cars "lost it" on landing and hit them. We tried our best to revive them but (as has just been Released following the FAI into these deaths) their injuries where "incompatible with life"

At the time it was widely reported in the press, but I along with many others were told not to talk about it. (my wife and I were interviewed (under caution), individually for over 2 hours over the events of that day) Hence I have not said anything until now.

I will not go into details, but it does make you question, what price a photograph.
 
Last edited:
Sadly whether for reasons of "a good photograph" or not people do seem to persist in putting themselves in harms way.

Tragic & sad for their families but unless event organisers are able to budget for 'policing' in this case a track/route of a motoring event with enough staff there will continue to be those that are too cavalier about their own and others safety :(

PS good on you and other first responders who did your best and possibly put your yourselves at risk ~ respect.
 
Last edited:
Yes this is tragic and I agree no photo is worth dying for

I am surprised that, as someone who went to help, you were interviewed under caution. Seems a strange thing to do in the circumstances.
 
Tragic event but a knowledge of the risk involved is an adult decision, however I 'heard' that one of the deceased in one of the inquiries saved an 8 year old. THAT is verging on the inexcusable to have a child in such proximity in my view.
 
Peter123 said:
Yes this is tragic and I agree no photo is worth dying for

I am surprised that, as someone who went to help, you were interviewed under caution. Seems a strange thing to do in the circumstances.
Click to expand...
I agree Peter, a witness statement should suffice BUT the author had rendered aid to a person who had passed, so any statement would have to be made under clear cognisance that they knew undoubtedly that what they said would be that used in determining the cause of death.
 
I
Peter123 said:
Yes this is tragic and I agree no photo is worth dying for

I am surprised that, as someone who went to help, you were interviewed under caution. Seems a strange thing to do in the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I perhaps should have explained we were there in an official capacity as I was the crew chief on one of the rescue units that attended.
 
Having previously marshalled on a number of big stage Rallies and driven in some smaller club rallies, the stupidity of spectators is utterly gobsmacking.Spectators don't actually realise the speed of a sliding car and how quickly it can go wrong. Iv'e seen some very big accidents in my time fortunately with no major injuries. Like you say no photo is worth dying for. Sadly spectator behaviour is even worse on the continent
 
I guess not in this case, but recent storms members of the public including some photographers have put other peoples lives at risk as well, mainly Police officers having to put them selves in peril telling said members of the public not to be daft and get away from seafronts.
 
Depends what is meant by putting yourself at risk - some would find me guilty of that while standing in the naughty fields at Duxford, although the risk for me is minimal (and actually no different to the people travelling on the M11 next to it) when compared to a car passing a few feet from you in this case. However, what is the factual risk of this? How many deaths occur compared to the instances of people doing this (genuine question) ?
 
Life is full of risks... all you can do is mitigate the risk to a level you find acceptable. I think that applies to photography as well.

So yes, a pic may well be "worth dying for."
 
seaodyssey said:
I guess not in this case, but recent storms members of the public including some photographers have put other peoples lives at risk as well, mainly Police officers having to put them selves in peril telling said members of the public not to be daft and get away from seafronts.
Click to expand...
Seen that, people standing close to the waves to get great shots. Also people on the edge having crossed fences. Yosemite was simple amazing the risks people were preparder to go to
161428832.jpg
 
Makes me wonder. Why would you even be close by the path of speeding cars driven at the edge of their traction ability where the tiniest driver error could send the car anywhere as a 600kg+ stray bullit. Not long ago two young voluntary officials here in DK where killed under similar circumstances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sk66 said:
"Polls have shown that 30% of all photographs taken by 18 to 24 year-olds are selfies"

:eek: cell phones are killing people, photography, and the camera industry!
Click to expand...
Phones don't kill people, people do :thinking::exit: or rather their stupidity. There is still work to do for the people behind Darwin Awards :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sk66 said:
Life is full of risks... all you can do is mitigate the risk to a level you find acceptable. I think that applies to photography as well.

So yes, a pic may well be "worth dying for."
Click to expand...

Sorry but did you really just say that (genuine apologies if I've misunderstood you)? Try telling the children & widow/er of a dead photographer 'Sorry about the death, but it was a one in a million chance to get the perfect photograph.'
 
Lawsyd said:
Sorry but did you really just say that (genuine apologies if I've misunderstood you)? Try telling the children & widow/er of a dead photographer 'Sorry about the death, but it was a one in a million chance to get the perfect photograph.'
Click to expand...
But it is not Steven's job to say/explain that, if he takes the risk it is between him and his family (OK and those who have to pick up and pay for picking up the pieces may have a say).
 
No picture is worth putting you life at risk, On every ticket sold there is a warning motorsport is dangerious so why put yourself in danger by going into areas that are off limits.
 
In my opinion there are a number of people at fault.

If the organisers cannot control the movement of spectators or think that plastic tape is the answer, the event shouldn't take place.
If spectators are at the side of the road, the event should be stopped immediately.

If you think you are safe standing at the side of an uneven single track road whilst a car passes you at 80+mph, you're an idiot and lack basic common sense.

I feel sorry for the drivers who hit these people.
 
It’s complicated.

Rallying isn’t like circuit racing, it’s impossible to safely Marshall a crowd in a 30km stage, the organisers will create ‘safe’ spectator areas, but they’re for spectating not photography. Photos from the typical speccy pen would look like photos taken from the crowd at a gig, pretty pointless.

Once we walk out of a speccy pen, our safety is pretty much in our own hands, the organisers mark off areas as ‘dangerous’ and mostly they get it right, I’ve been ‘moved on’ from a lot of very safe places in my time, and occasionally stood my ground when a ‘marshall’ has tried to move me from a safe place to a less safe place.

But it seems on this occasion, the photographers were in a clearly marked dangerous area they shouldn’t have been.
 
Phil V said:
It’s complicated.

Rallying isn’t like circuit racing, it’s impossible to safely Marshall a crowd in a 30km stage, the organisers will create ‘safe’ spectator areas, but they’re for spectating not photography. Photos from the typical speccy pen would look like photos taken from the crowd at a gig, pretty pointless.

Once we walk out of a speccy pen, our safety is pretty much in our own hands, the organisers mark off areas as ‘dangerous’ and mostly they get it right, I’ve been ‘moved on’ from a lot of very safe places in my time, and occasionally stood my ground when a ‘marshall’ has tried to move me from a safe place to a less safe place.

But it seems on this occasion, the photographers were in a clearly marked dangerous area they shouldn’t have been.
Click to expand...

Then its pointless until they can get it right. The cars have cams and should be used to monitor the race, when they pick up people in no go areas the race should be stopped.
 
dcash29 said:
Then its pointless until they can get it right. The cars have cams and should be used to monitor the race, when they pick up people in no go areas the race should be stopped.
Click to expand...

Only on the top rallies do many cars have cameras, I’m afraid that’s completely unworkable, even with a car completely covered in cameras, it’d take a team of staff to monitor the output, and at the speed they’re travelling how would that be effectively monitored.

Edit to add:

It’s not ‘pointless’ incidents are very rare, when you consider in the late 90’s there’d be millions of people out in the forests for rally GB, and accidents involving the crowd were very rare (I recall Carlos Sainz hitting some spectators once), given this is staffed by ‘volunteers’ I think it’s bloody amazing.
 
Last edited:
Lawsyd said:
Sorry but did you really just say that (genuine apologies if I've misunderstood you)? Try telling the children & widow/er of a dead photographer 'Sorry about the death, but it was a one in a million chance to get the perfect photograph.'
Click to expand...
Yes. And why would I need to explain it to someone's wife children?
It's more like my wife/children would have to accept that I died while trying to get a particular picture. Just like they would have to understand if I died while riding my motorcycle, kayaking in the river, rock climbing, or slipping in the shower. I'm not saying it's ok to be utterly stupid, or worse to put someone else at risk. But yeah, I would put myself in a position where there is some risk of injury/death for a particular picture as long as I didn't think the probability was too high... actually, I have more than a few times.
 
Phil V said:
Only on the top rallies do many cars have cameras, I’m afraid that’s completely unworkable, even with a car completely covered in cameras, it’d take a team of staff to monitor the output, and at the speed they’re travelling how would that be effectively monitored.

Edit to add:

It’s not ‘pointless’ incidents are very rare, when you consider in the late 90’s there’d be millions of people out in the forests for rally GB, and accidents involving the crowd were very rare (I recall Carlos Sainz hitting some spectators once), given this is staffed by ‘volunteers’ I think it’s bloody amazing.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
I’ve been ‘moved on’ from a lot of very safe places in my time, and occasionally stood my ground when a ‘marshall’ has tried to move me from a safe place to a less safe place.
Click to expand...
From what I gather the injured and the families of the dead are stating the organisation is inadequate, plus you even raised your own concerns of the so called marshals, probably inadequately trained, knowledge lacking volunteers. Therefore the event shouldn't take place until more stringent measures have been taken.
 
dcash29 said:
From what I gather the injured and the families of the dead are stating the organisation is inadequate, plus you even raised your own concerns of the so called marshals, probably inadequately trained, knowledge lacking volunteers. Therefore the event shouldn't take place until more stringent measures have been taken.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Because of the size of some international events, some of the marshals can be more concerned with ‘the rules’ or what they’ve been told than with common sense. But generally speaking marshalling at rallies is very good.

The people were in a clearly marked area, my guess is they knew exactly what they were doing, the family are just trying to shift the blame.:mad:

Millions of people spectate rallying every year, accidents are very rare. You’re more likely to be killed on the road on the way to an event. In fact I had a mate who died in a car crash on his way to a football match. I Which was to blame? Do you want to ban cars or football?:police:

Edit... in fact, Rally spectating is very safe, these people died trying to get ‘interesting’ photos, maybe photography should be banned till we can find a way of making it safe o_O
 
Last edited:
Very sad story and three lives lost. But let's not blame the organisers of these events. They were the ones who chose to go there, you don't need a Marshall to tell you it's dangerous, that much is obvious. The families obviously had some loud voices on there side for this verdict to come out how it has?
 
Lawsyd said:
Sorry but did you really just say that (genuine apologies if I've misunderstood you)? Try telling the children & widow/er of a dead photographer 'Sorry about the death, but it was a one in a million chance to get the perfect photograph.'
Click to expand...


On the other hand, try putting your point of view across to Robert Capa, half the Bang Bang club, Tim Hetherington and all the rest of the photographers that have died as a result of conflict. Except you can't.
 
Reading a bit more about this particular incident it seems there were a multitude of failings. The people who died were not apparently paying much attention or were not very familiar with the sport. There was also a photographer who was with them who moved out of the way when he saw the car was out of control, and who had discussed moving earlier due to concerns (presumably w/ the others). It also seems that the area was intended to be marked as prohibited as it is a known high risk location, but it wasn't due to some failure. And because it wasn't marked correctly, the marshals didn't know either.

So, yes... a sad story.
But no-one who died was a photographer taking pictures.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-40812681
 
munch said:
I


I perhaps should have explained we were there in an official capacity as I was the crew chief on one of the rescue units that attended.
Click to expand...
As someone who interviews people under caution I understand the requirements of PACE and am too surprised that you were interviewed under caution. You only read someone their rights when you suspect them of an offence. There is no other reason to caution someone unless you suspect them of an offence as it affords that person certain protection.

We’re you suspected of an offence?
 
dcash29 said:
If the organisers cannot control the movement of spectators or think that plastic tape is the answer, the event shouldn't take place.
If spectators are at the side of the road, the event should be stopped immediately.
Click to expand...

As I get older I'm getting a bit angry because the reckless stupidity of some causes so much grief for families, onlookers and responders and so much expense for the taxpayer and inconvenience and annoyance for people going about daily life.

People stand in taped off dangerous spots at rallies so it'll have to be immediately stopped, people get drunk and fall in rivers so the river bank has to be fenced off, ditto cliff tops, erect sighs everywhere and fence them off, people walk onto train tracks despite the signs, barriers and flashing lights... the list goes on and it's the fault of the organisers, the council, the government but never the individual. Death is tragic but it also elicits anger. If I could save these people I would but I'd then give them a hard slap across the face and a piece of my mind.
 
I was at a forest stage a few years age, hairpin bend , cars were sliding round it pretty quick , outside of the hairpin had a ditch then bank about 6ft high

This guy decides it's a good idea to get low in the ditch and shoot up, there was a log in front of him about 1ft dia , he was there until one car went wide, put a wheel in the edge of the ditch and hit the log, there was a collective ooo from everybody else then he thought better of where he was, even though you could hear cars coming people decided that was a good time to cross the track , nothing like the italians in the 80s though
 
Brazo said:
As someone who interviews people under caution I understand the requirements of PACE and am too surprised that you were interviewed under caution. You only read someone their rights when you suspect them of an offence. There is no other reason to caution someone unless you suspect them of an offence as it affords that person certain protection.

We’re you suspected of an offence?
Click to expand...

You have to remember this happened in Scotland, and they where "collecting" information for the Procurator Fiscal, something that doesn't happen in the rest of the UK.
 
Last edited:
munch said:
You have to remember this happened in Scotland, and they where "collecting" information for the Procurator Fiscal, something that doesn't happen in the rest of the UK.
Click to expand...
Thanks but I’m still not sure I get it though. Whilst I dont understand the ins and outside of the procurator fiscal the caution is intended for suspects. Are you sure you weren’t read some sort of ‘you must tell the truth’ statement rather than a caution?

This is the England and Wales version:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

The Scottish caution is different but along similar lines.

“You are going to be asked questions about (give a brief description of all the suspected offences). You are not bound to answer but if you do your answers [will be noted] [will be tape recorded and may be noted] and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?”

Both cautions are based on a suspect and their defence.

It would be a sad state of affairs if first responders were automatically cautioned and suspected of offences they very obviously didn’t commit as their role is in fact to respond when an offence/emergency occurs.
 
Last edited:
wack61 said:
I was at a forest stage a few years age, hairpin bend , cars were sliding round it pretty quick , outside of the hairpin had a ditch then bank about 6ft high

This guy decides it's a good idea to get low in the ditch and shoot up, there was a log in front of him about 1ft dia , he was there until one car went wide, put a wheel in the edge of the ditch and hit the log, there was a collective ooo from everybody else then he thought better of where he was, even though you could hear cars coming people decided that was a good time to cross the track , nothing like the italians in the 80s though
Click to expand...
Jeeze... outside of a corner and anywhere immediately after a jump is a bad place to be w/o substantial protection. If you don't know that much you shouldn't be there at all (outside of the stands).
 
sk66 said:
Jeeze... outside of a corner and anywhere immediately after a jump is a bad place to be w/o substantial protection. If you don't know that much you shouldn't be there at all (outside of the stands).
Click to expand...
And on the inside of a corner all it will take is some oversteer and you might find a car heading in the opposite direction towards you. In this particular instance people were standing near some wall or fence and popping further out to photograph the cars and then pulling back. The car lost its rear end and headed exactly towards them. Unless they were behind a "solid" wall or on a hillside (and even then) they were exposed. It is just a convenience to blame the organisers who had they put some yellow tape all round the course on both sides of the roads it would have protected the visitors ... (well 50 metres from the road it may have done but I doubt people would stay behind the tape).
 
Don't usually see a vehicle leave the track to the inside by much... uncorrected oversteer in a corner usually results in spinout or going wide. This situation appears to have been caused by the driver getting crossed up after going airborn.
Even on a straightaway there are no guarantees...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top