Taking photos at an RTA

pbucks

pbucks

Messages
774
Name
Paul Buckley
Edit My Images
Yes
I always take my camera with me wherever I go, "just in case". Always hoping to spot something interesting.

The other day, while I was a passenger in the works van, we came across a rather nasty looking road traffic accident.
The police, paramedic and fire service had just arrived. The fire crew had screened off most of one of the cars and were bringing out cutting equipment. A certain amount of blood could be seen in the road. The sirens from more emergency vehicles could be heard approaching fast.

I had my camera available, but just did not feel able to take any shots of the scene. It just felt wrong to be taking photos when someone was obviously badly injured or worse.

Should I have taken shots and sorted it out with my conscience afterwards?
 
You did what you felt was right, and that is always the right thing to do!

Some people wouldn't think twice about it, and some of those people are those who make a living from press/news photography!
 
I think your instinct did you proud. ;)

Most newspapers wouldn't touch an overly gory image like that anyway. There's no specific legislation which prevents you photographing something like this in the public domain, unless you're obstructing the police going about their duties. It's also quite possible that feelings can run high among any bystanders/observers who may well take exception to your seemingly callous action in photographing the accident.

Common sense and decency says you didn't need to take the shot so why bother? On the other hand if you've aspirations to becoming a pap..... :shrug:
 
pbucks said:
It just felt wrong to be taking photos when someone was obviously badly injured or worse.

Should I have taken shots and sorted it out with my conscience afterwards?
Click to expand...

I think you have answered your own question there - you can only do what feels right at the time.
 
I know what you mean, and I also know that photo agencies have started off shooting traffic accidents.
 
I would have , but concentrating on the emergency services doing their 'thing' - if anyone is serious about being a news 'tog, then they'll need to overcome any sense of squeamishness...
Derek Jamieson famously once fired a 'tog who'd put his cameras down to help victims at the Heysel Stadium disaster in Belgium - emergency services were in attendance - his reason being that it's the news photographers' job to record the news, not be part of it.
I have a similar argument with my Bosses who want me to put my cameras down and get involved in fire-fights on Ops...my 'Actions-On' are to take photos and record the other guys doing their stuff, not get 'bang-bang' points of my own...
 
I agree with what people are saying - you went with your feelings, so you did the right thing.

Being in central London, I don't deal with many high-speed collisions between vehicles...but I do deal with a lot of collisions involving pedestrians. We get photographed all the time in London, so it doesn't really bother me. I can only remember getting angry about it twice with a couple of inconsiderate photographers, but it was more because they were being obstructive than were taking photos.

The first occasion was in the run-up to Christmas a few years ago. A young man was dragged under the middle set of wheels of a bendy bus and crushed. I was first on the scene with a couple of colleagues, and we had to pull him out to get medical attention to him. As soon as we freed him (well, 2/3 of him - nothing below the knees), my colleague started CPR. It was a very bloody, gory scene. I can remember a tog crouching next to us while we did this taking pictures (actually blocking a paramedic who arrived shortly afterwards), who was so close I assumed in the rush of everything was actually another police officer. The male under the bus died of his injuries at the scene.

The second occasion was a collision on a pedestrian crossing, and the pedestrian was hit with such force that he was sent flying across the road and skidded across the pavement on the back of his head. The bumpy paving stones that blind people use to help them determine where a crossing is had opened the back of his head like it had been through a cheesegrater. I was on my own, and immediately started the best first aid I could while waiting for help. Almost instantly, I was surrounded by a crowd of people taking pictures - again, it was a gory scene - but they were so close, they were actually touching the pair of us, and ignoring my shouts to get back. I was totally helpless; I could barely move to give the guy any help, and because I was literally holding the back of his head together, I couldn't do anything about the crowd either. He survived the incident, but had life-changing injuries as a result.

I have no problem with people taking pictures at these sort of things, and they weren't pro togs that I was dealing with on either occasion. They were just members of the public who were so excited by the real-life drama in front of them, they got carried away; unfortunately, both incidents happened late at night, so both crowds were quite drunk as well which made things all the more miserable.
 
I seem to remember North Wales police happily a decapitated biker picture to the press a little while back.
 
I for one certainly wouldn't take photographs of a bad accident whilst there were trapped occupants, think of it this way, if it was you stuck in the car, or a family member, would you want people taking photographs?
 
You definately did the right thing. It wouldnt have made a very nice set of photos anyway.

On a different tangent, while its not illegal to take photos of such a thing, you could potentially get your memory card seized if you are seen to take photos. Under sec 19 of PACE (item of evidence relating to an offence) as essentially you are taking scene photos, especially if you arrive before the emergency services and take images before the fire brigade and police start cutting things up to get to people.
 
odd jim said:
On a different tangent, while its not illegal to take photos of such a thing, you could potentially get your memory card seized if you are seen to take photos. Under sec 19 of PACE (item of evidence relating to an offence) as essentially you are taking scene photos, especially if you arrive before the emergency services and take images before the fire brigade and police start cutting things up to get to people.
Click to expand...

That's true, but not something you would need to generally worry about. To seize under s19, you would need to have reasonable grounds to believe that you have some kind of evidence - say, a video recording of the accident itself, or a photo of the vehicle involved if it made off, etc.

A photo of the aftermath of the accident - by far the most probable circumstance here - is evidentially useless unless something fundamental changes in the scene prior to the arrival of the emergency services.

I have seized camera phones a couple of times when people were recording their mates using fighting dogs, bar brawls and even posing with a firearm, but never off a tog at something like this. The power of seizure was only invoked because the people would never have given the police any willing assistance. In my experience, members of the public at scenes of accidents are generally very helpful and offer to give statements to help us build a picture of what happened. If a witness had some evidentially worthwhile photos of a crime scene, I would bend over backwards to secure their willing cooperation. Seizure would be an absolute last resort!
 
I think I would have felt the same way.

However, perhaps instead of taking a photograph of the crash, which you appear to not feel it is correct to do so, you could have taken a photograph of the firemen or paramedics performing their duty in a non-explicit manner? It sounds to me that you are regretting not taking a photograph. I think that should you have caught the firemen running from their truck with their equipment etc. that this would have been an acceptable capture of the moment. It did not require the car or accident to be explicitly captured.
 
As a freelance photographer I would have photographed the situation. If you are first on seen, photography wise, it is always best to get those intial shots. I would draw the line if the people can be seen who are injured.

Tip: Shoot with two memory cards, taking the first shots on one card and then safely putting that away. Take other shots using another card - This helps if Police are wanting to look at the photos, or even take the cards away.
 
Just_Dave took an awesome photo of a helicopter taking off after a RTA and rather than condemnation he received a presented print from the helicopter base and was published I believe.

I myself would think twice before taking RTA shots but distant shots without any blood and gore would be okay in my opinion. Common sense should be used in each situation.

When I was visiting my local canal many years ago I saw the police recovering a body and had my camera only 15 ft away but I decided to leave it in the car whether right or wrong. Maybe it would have got published but as previously said I would be thinking of how the family would feel first. No one would want to publish close up gory shots anyway.
 
Help where you can, take photo's where you can't help. Most importantly, do what you think is right.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I seem to remember North Wales police happily a decapitated biker picture to the press a little while back.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the CC of that patch came in for some serious stick for that; I believe it was done w/o the permission of the NOK.
Wasn't this the same guy that reckoned motorists doing 31 in a 30 should be prosecuted and tested his own forces Tazer?
Is he still in post?

BTW. Back on Topic, you made the right call IMHO.
 
you did what you thought was right, which made it the right thing to do.

I'd have to think twice about it, newsworthy pics are worth taking, but if I could help people on the ground I'd do that but tbh it'd depend on a circumstance
 
Thanks for all the replies.
I'm glad to see that I'm not in a minority.

Part of me though wishes I had taken some shots. But then I suppose if I had, I might be wishing I hadn't.
 
zeugma said:
If I recall correctly, the CC of that patch came in for some serious stick for that; I believe it was done w/o the permission of the NOK. Wasn't this the same guy that reckoned motorists doing 31 in a 30 should be prosecuted and tested his own forces Tazer?
Is he still in post?
Click to expand...

The CC you're referring to was Richard Brunstrom, who is now no longer in post, having retired in July 2009. He had a variety of views - like you said - about speeding, and also called for the decriminalisation of heroin and cocaine. Brunstrom repeatedly gained media attention with some very outspoken views. Sadly, I must withdraw from any political debate on such matters.

Brunstrom was Tazered in 2007, but the first CC to have it done to him was Michael Todd of Greater Manchester Police in 2005. Here is a wonderful photo - note the grin on the face of the firearms officer. It's not every day you get to shock your boss with 50,000 volts.

article-1058730-008FBDF500000259-57_468x480.jpg


*puts book of Boring Police Facts away and puts the topic back on track*
 
Reminds me of this thread a while back (I'll remove the link if it offends anyone/either of the original posters don't want it here). I can see both sides of the argument, and am firmly on the fence with this one.

Chris
 
zeugma said:
Wasn't this the same guy that reckoned motorists doing 31 in a 30 should be prosecuted and tested his own forces Tazer?
Is he still in post?
Click to expand...

The taser cop was Manchester's CC, who sadly passed away in the Welsh hills last year after battling with depression :(
 
working for a local free sheet years ago, I would always take shots at RTA's if I came across them, but would try to ensure I did not have a body or any gore in the shot. editors, and readers alike don't want that.

Dramatic shots of the vehicles being removed worked well pictorially, and did not draw complaints. Obviously the best sceanrios were those which looked dramatic, yet nobdoy was injured - A prime example was a light plane which came down in a car park in Blackbushe - Plane damged, a couple of cars damaged, dramatic image and nobody suffered any more than a couple of bruises. I'll try to post it up if I can find my copy of it.
 
I took shots at an accident the other month but rather than take images of the injured took images of the emergency services and the Northwest Air Ambulance and recovery vehicles lifting the damaged cars on the back
 
danbroad said:
If you do take shots of RTA's, then we might want to see them if we're not on scene. Mechanism is everything, and sometimes a photo is the best descriptor.

Don't be offended if your memory card is borrowed. A £20 card might help save a life.
Click to expand...

I guess that is one possible drawback to shooting digital - the image is accesible straight away on the scene. At least with film, it has to be taken back to the darkroom and procesed before it is any use to anyone.

We would of course have been willing to allow the police access to any of our shots if needed, but they still had to be processed and printed, so they could have a copy and so could the paper.
 
zeugma said:
If I recall correctly, the CC of that patch came in for some serious stick for that; I believe it was done w/o the permission of the NOK.
Wasn't this the same guy that reckoned motorists doing 31 in a 30 should be prosecuted and tested his own forces Tazer?
Is he still in post?

BTW. Back on Topic, you made the right call IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yep thats the bloke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top