The Irish Times: Anatomy of a Car Crash

conorh91

Just wondering what the opinions are on the Irish Times latest series, in which it takes an indepth look at road traffic collisions, sparing us no detail of the collision, the autopsies, the injuries suffered, inquest, and blame.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/anatomy-of-a-car-crash-part-4-the-verdict-1.2031924

Obviously, most of this information is, strictly speaking, in the public domain. But for reasons of respect to the family and the sensitivities surrounding deaths on the road, road traffic collision inquests tend not to receive significant publicity. There is often no public acknowledgement of blame, for example, where the person who caused the crash has died.

In the case above, the dead man who appears to have caused the fatal crash was travelling well above the speed limit, and there was some cocaine, and very high alcohol levels, detected in his blood.

Earlier in the series, the Irish Times gave evidence of the autopsy, with some very graphic information indeed.

Just wondering if people think this kind of coverage goes too far in aggravating the distress of surviving family members -- on both sides?

Or does this coverage achieve anything positive? Is it just voyeurism? Would it make you change your behaviour?

Karl Stein

How was that deemed an accident rather than manslaughter?

conorh91

Karl Stein wrote: »

How was that deemed an accident rather than manslaughter?

The 'guilty' man died so a charge of manslaughter cannot be tried. You can't prosecute the dead.

One of the many reasons for not prosecuting the dead is out of the principle that your liability dies with you. That's a principle that goes back as far as the bible, and probably before it too.

I feel sorry for the families of both dead men, but in the case of the family of the man who caused the crash, is this coverage too much? Is it bordering on the vengeful? Does it stigmatise that family in a way that effectively punishes them for what their relative did?

Shiraz 4.99

I'm aware of it but haven't read it, it eats into my Kim Kardashian time.

Karl Stein

conorh91 wrote: »

The 'guilty' man died so a charge of manslaughter cannot be tried. You can't prosecute the dead.

One of the many reasons for not prosecuting the dead is out of the principle that your liability dies with you. That's a principle that goes back as far as the bible, and probably before it too.

Fair enough but deeming it an accident?

I feel sorry for the families of both dead men, but in the case of the family of the man who caused the crash, is this coverage too much? Is it bordering on the vengeful? Does it stigmatise that family in a way that effectively punishes them for what their relative did?

The family are in no way responsible. The man who was drink driving and bombing up the wrong side of the road at 170Kph was 100% responsible the reckless f.... :mad:

bnt

Haven't seen the series, but one thing that most folks don't realise is the link between speed and the severity of a collision. A 60 km/h collision with a stationary object is not twice as bad as a similar 30 km/h collision, it's four times as bad. (It has to do with the amount of energy in a moving vehicle, which is proportional to the square of the speed.) If I watch one of those Russian Dashcam videos, at least half the time I'm muttering "too fast ... too fast ... yup".

ollaetta

conorh91 wrote: »

Just wondering if people think this kind of coverage goes too far in aggravating the distress of surviving family members -- on both sides?

I thought about that early on but I presume they were consulted in advance. Overall I think it was worthwhile. It's no harm to put real faces on these all to common statistics and the graphic nature of some of the articles was, maybe not totally necessary, but in line with the level of detail we got on the incident as a whole. That description of the engine block being dislodged and flying into where the poor driver was sitting is an image I won't forget in a while.

AlekSmart

conorh91 wrote: »

The 'guilty' man died so a charge of manslaughter cannot be tried. You can't prosecute the dead.

One of the many reasons for not prosecuting the dead is out of the principle that your liability dies with you. That's a principle that goes back as far as the bible, and probably before it too.

I feel sorry for the families of both dead men, but in the case of the family of the man who caused the crash, is this coverage too much? Is it bordering on the vengeful? Does it stigmatise that family in a way that effectively punishes them for what their relative did?

One of the basic reasons why Air Travel is safe is the fact that so much of it's Crash Investigation processes are PUBLIC.

The free sharing of Investigative Resources is virtually worldwide and has enabled Aircraft design,Systems and Operations to be reviewed and,where necessary,reconfigured,often rapidly in response to whatever might be learned from these investigations.

http://www.aaiu.ie/reports/aaiu-investigation-reports

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports.cfm

http://www.rsc.ie/publications/category/accidentreportshistorical/

http://www.mcib.ie/reports/?search=false

Inexplicably,in the case of Road Traffic Incidents,all we know is that the Gardai carry out comprehensive analysis into each fatal accident,and that is the last the public will ever hear of it.

Whether we like it or not,if we are to learn from our mistakes,they MUST be made public...otherwise the investigations themselves are worthless.:o

Deathwish4

The BBC ran something similar a few years back for the UK - Link Below

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15975720

"In 2010, the police recorded 1,850 deaths, 22,660 people seriously injured and 184,138 who received light injuries. But this is still a fraction of the true number of people hurt in road collisions.
Though police say every death is recorded, there is widespread under-reporting of injuries. In fact, government officials estimate that around 730,000 are either killed or hurt every year."

embraer170

Far more should be done to investigate car crash, release relevant information, and take relevant safety actions. There is massive potential to improve car crash investigation but very little is actually done.

conorh91

Karl Stein wrote: »

Fair enough but deeming it an accident?

Yes I agree that 'accident' is not the most appropriate word for jury verdicts at inquests. They could refer to it as a 'collision' without running the risk of appearing to convict a dead man.

AlekSmart wrote: »

One of the basic reasons why Air Travel is safe is the fact that so much of it's Crash Investigation processes are PUBLIC.

That still doesn't explain why we should need details of the autopsy procedure, for example.

Inexplicably,in the case of Road Traffic Incidents,all we know is that the
Gardai carry out comprehensive analysis into each fatal accident,and that is the
last the public will ever hear of it.

But why pick one family at random, and publish the most intimate details of their relatives' final moments in full graphic detail? Maybe the relatives consented, but their consent would not have been necessary for the Times to publish every gory detail.

We could achieve the same outcome by publishing aggregated statistics on road deaths.

If we were to go down the road of 'naming and shaming' the dead, in a quasi-trial situation, it seems possible that no valid objective is achieved, except the stigmatisation of innocent family members of the 'guilty' driver.

In this case, there was no trial, but the family feel every bit as much of the guilt of a conviction, without having had the 'luxury' of a proper trial.

Highflyer13

I would like to think any paper that publishes this level of detail would have got relatives consent prior to publication.

Cyclingtourist

Read most of it and after initially thinking 'why do we need so much detail' I eventually concluded it was a useful exercise to raise public awareness around issues of personal responsibility.

Could see 'cocaine' being a factor after reading part III. Think there was more to this case than came out in the coroner's court.

Karl Stein

conorh91 wrote: »

the 'guilty' driver

Why are you wrapping guilty in inverted commas? A was driving home stone cold sober, B was intoxicated and speeding up the wrong side of the road and wiped out A. B is 100% guilty of murder killing another human being.

In this case, there was no trial, but the family feel every bit as much of the guilt of a conviction, without having had the 'luxury' of a proper trial.

You don't know how the family feel. They might be angry with him for driving while intoxicated and killing another completely innocent man. Why are you focusing your sympathy on the family of the reckless intoxicated driver who killed an innocent man?

kippy

embraer170 wrote: »

Far more should be done to investigate car crash, release relevant information, and take relevant safety actions. There is massive potential to improve car crash investigation but very little is actually done.

Do people really think this?
Dont people know the primary reasons for car crashes and how to reduce the risk factors?

I mean the data from these investigations surely goes towards car and road design, whether directly or indirectly.
new signs, road reallignments as well as traction/stability control, ABS, multiple airbags, side impact etc and other safety improvements didnt just come out of thin air. Am sure research into the cause of accidents and ways to reduce same did.
Havent people noticed the ads and promotional material on road safety the past number of years? Arent these a direct result of causation of accidents?

Excessive speed for conditions/driver impairment and failing to adhere to the rules of the road are common causes of accidents......

Granted the elephant in the room is the lack of change to the driving test itself but the timelines around that in relation to amount of lessons, graduated license etc have all changed in the last few years. What do people think has caused these changes? Id suggest analysis of data on road safety.

Think the series is good by the way once permission was gotten from all sides.

Cyclingtourist

conorh91 wrote: »

Just wondering what the opinions are on the Irish Times latest series, in which it takes an indepth look at road traffic collisions, sparing us no detail of the collision, the autopsies, the injuries suffered, inquest, and blame.


Just wondering if people think this kind of coverage goes too far in aggravating the distress of surviving family members -- on both sides?

Or does this coverage achieve anything positive? Is it just voyeurism? Would it make you change your behaviour?

I think The coverage was a healthy exercise and while undoubtedly upsetting for the families and friends of the deceased it made me think about my driving and hopefully it had some effect on others.

It also highlighted the fact that you can be an exemplary driver and still die or be seriously injured on the road.

We all have an interest in more enforcement and the elimination of legal loopholes.

Well done Irish Times.

Elmer Blooker

Interesting to note that the "cocaine" was in fact cut with a drug withdrawn from human use in the 80s and now used only in veterinary medicine - in other words only fit for animals. Thanks be to jaysus I never go near the stuff!

Jarrod

I read the whole series and yes, I did wonder what sort of contact there had been between the IT and the families of both deceased before it was published. I also felt, at times, it was unnecessarily graphic. Having said that, I think the attitude towards drink driving, and dangerous driving/speeding in general in this country is shocking. A lot of people don't seem to realise the responsibility that comes with driving a car on roads that other people are using. When driven safely, and by people in a fit state to drive, cars are fantastic. If you get into a car drunk, or on drugs and start speeding, you turn your mode of transport into a lethal weapon.

As an aside, did anyone read this article http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/drink-driving-charge-dismissed-because-garda-handcuffed-man-1.2032923 ? Makes my blood boil.

LuckyLloyd

This is real investigative journalism that offers a detailed (and grim too) insight into what goes on around incidents all too common on Irish roads every year.

We should want more journalism like this, not less. It's a journalist going around and actually talking to people; analysing documents first hand; making calls; etc. Not filling a paper from end to end with wire copy.

Grayson

Jarrod wrote: »

As an aside, did anyone read this article http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/drink-driving-charge-dismissed-because-garda-handcuffed-man-1.2032923 ? Makes my blood boil.

That's annoying. the guy actually hit someone but got off because of a technicality. fair enough to the judge, he ruled in line with the law. It's one of those occasions where the rule of law was followed rather than the spirit of the law.

If you google the guy there's a video of him hungover on youtube. Obviously a stand up guy

Grayson

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is real investigative journalism that offers a detailed (and grim too) insight into what goes on around incidents all too common on Irish roads every year.

We should want more journalism like this, not less. It's a journalist going around and actually talking to people; analysing documents first hand; making calls; etc. Not filling a paper from end to end with wire copy.

It's actually more investigation than most "reporters" perform in a year.

Del.Monte

Disappointed with the thread title, I thought it was going to be about the decline of the once great newspaper into a chip wrapper.

EazyD

As bad as it must be for the families, I have to say this is one of the best ways of getting people to wake up and reflect on their own driving. Be safe out there folks and don't take chances, it really isn't worth it.

floggg

conorh91 wrote: »

The 'guilty' man died so a charge of manslaughter cannot be tried. You can't prosecute the dead.

One of the many reasons for not prosecuting the dead is out of the principle that your liability dies with you. That's a principle that goes back as far as the bible, and probably before it too.

It think the pointlessness is probably the main reason.

Canis Lupus

AlekSmart wrote: »

One of the basic reasons why Air Travel is safe is the fact that so much of it's Crash Investigation processes are PUBLIC.

The free sharing of Investigative Resources is virtually worldwide and has enabled Aircraft design,Systems and Operations to be reviewed and,where necessary,reconfigured,often rapidly in response to whatever might be learned from these investigations.

http://www.aaiu.ie/reports/aaiu-investigation-reports

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports.cfm

http://www.rsc.ie/publications/category/accidentreportshistorical/

http://www.mcib.ie/reports/?search=false

Inexplicably,in the case of Road Traffic Incidents,all we know is that the Gardai carry out comprehensive analysis into each fatal accident,and that is the last the public will ever hear of it.

Whether we like it or not,if we are to learn from our mistakes,they MUST be made public...otherwise the investigations themselves are worthless.:o

Well that depends I think. I understand your point but with air travel the governing body dictate to manufacturers and airlines when services need to take place, when parts should be repaired and they have detailed procedures for almost any eventuality should things go weird in the cockpit. In a plane, generally, when **** goes bad you have some time to page through a book and see what you need to do to counter what is going wrong.

You can't translate that over to driving within a population and as such there's little benefit in having 'open' investigations. I'm not saying there's no cause to NOT have them but I'd imagine the vast majority of car accidents are not mechanical in nature but in driver error/bad judgement (ie drink driving). No amount of open investigations will change the overall number of accidents.

exgp

embraer170 wrote: »

Far more should be done to investigate car crash, release relevant information, and take relevant safety actions. There is massive potential to improve car crash investigation but very little is actually done.

There are very detailed investigations in to serious road crashes. That's why the road can be closed after one for up to twenty four hours, to carry them out.

cassid

I read this a few days ago and it has still stayed with me. I think its a very effective way to get the message across. It brought life and meaning to what can be just a number. When you hear there has been another death, you normally say to yourself, gosh thats awful. But this piece in the times it gives a realisation that its not just another number.