104 replies to this topic

[Jerome]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's worth a discussion on itself.

The point is this. On this board it is a communis opinio that we are carefull with posting pictures or links of fatal crashes, and do not post pictures of dead drivers. And a couple of months I too held the opinion that pictures of the dead Tom Pryce do not belong in the public domain.

Well, in the meantime I have developed mixed feelings about not showing pictures of dead drivers. On the one hand, I think you should have respect for the dead. For instance, I find it utterly distastefull that the autopsy photo's of Marilyn Monroe surfaced on the internet. But with racing drivers, I'd have to say that not wanting to see the bodies of dead drivers is a bit, well... hypocritical?

I would never post photo's of the dead Rodriquez, or would post pictures of the dead Jim Clark if they excisted. But if they were posted somewhere, I would look at them, even if they are gruesome and will cost me my sleep. Because I think it is not fair to admire young men (and sometimes young women) who do something very dangerous, and then shy away from the possible consequences of that dangerous activity. Its the same thing with gruesome war pictures, I'd rather turn my head, but I feel I owe it to those young soldiers or victims to see, to acknowledge their fate. Because their fate is so intertwined with mine. And I think as a human being, you have to establish if you have a connection with someone or something. And if you admit that connection is there (like between motorsports fans and racing drivers), you have to force yourself sometimes to look also at the less romantic side of it.


Your opinions, please

[Angry Onion]

I see your point, but at the same time I don't think death is something the living can comprehend. Footage of crashes is terrifying and sobering enough; what else can photos of dead race drivers communicate to the people who aren't their family, or specialists who can use these photos to prevent further accidents?

[mctshirt]

I lost interest in seeing pictures of dead drivers the day I happened across a photo of Lorenzo Bandini. At that moment I understood why so many here are against the idea of posting pictures of lifeless corpses. I am now satisfied to read of their demise, to understand how it happened and why but never again do I need to see the result.

Another point to remember is the accident victims had family and friends who find it rather ghoulish that the public need to see their son/husband/father in death and feel it is a more private affair. I know this to be true of pilots when newspapers splash the scene of their loved ones death all over the front page.

EDIT: The above is my personal view of looking at the photo's and in no way do I mean to suggest banning them. A warning is good enough for me. And I was three years old when Lorenzo Bandini died so I hadn't formed an opinion on his driving skills nor taken any joy from them. I now make a choice not to view such photos but would defend the notion that choice be available to others.

[Lec CRP1]

I've seen more than a few photos of dead drivers. I won't make any high and lofty statements about it. I'm morbidly curious, and so are many others (looking my website's referral logs). Yes, I've seen it in real life, though only once. When I was about 8, I was driven slowly past the result of a head-on collision between a motorcyle and a bus.

The infamous clips (no need to mention them here, surely) have proliferated around the internet for years, so widespread that you could never stop anyone seeing them. I've only been a fan for a few years, but I've observed peculiar attitudes on death by other fans. This place being a case in point - the posters in TNF are long-time racing fanatics who love their boyhood idols the way they were (another odd thing is that the Golden Age Of Motor Racing always seems to coincide with each person's teenage years). They don't like the excitement of their races, nor their comfortable (usually one-way) relationships with their racing heroes to be damaged in any way. They flood themselves with uncomplicated joy about someone lapping the entire field, or qualifying 12 seconds ahead of the pack during a rain-lashed practice session, because it keeps away the feelings they don't want to have - desolation, waste and injustice. Using the good memories to forcibly lock the bad ones away. Which is as good a definition of nostalgia as any.

[Wolf]

Actually, I think the crux of the problem is that while some members might find it either unsettling (I'd count myself in that group) or in bad taste there is going to be a bit of strife with those who think nothing of it.

I would certainly hope the thread with souch photo would have warning in title- but the other way is posting a link for such photos, rather than image itself (url tag with clear warniong in the text vs. img tag), lest some unsuspecting poster stumble on the photo he'd find disturbing or disagreeable.

FWIW I trust TNF members to be quite honest and I haven't seen much, if any, 'unhealthy' interest in drivers' deaths (there was a spell of ghoulish interest in footage of Tom Pryces accident- but those were 'outsiders', much like those quiz-masters). It's in the nature that some people will want to investigate those matters...

[Jerome]

it keeps away the feelings they don't want to have - desolation, waste and injustice

Well, that is really perfectly put. Those are exactly the feelings I have when I think of racing drivers I really admire and who died - like Jim Clark and Mark Donahue. I feel a bit of a fraud when I enjoy motorracing, sometimes, because nowadays, even when a driver breaks a leg immediately a screen is held around them. Privacy? Well...

The question I want to put as well: can you CHOOSE not to see the sometimes gruesome effects or motorracing, like you can chose not to drink a certain beverage? Are you not obliged to yourself to see all sides of something you appreciate? What is the appreciation of a sport worth if you think: 'Oh, I don't want to see the pictures of...'

[jj2728]

I create, both for myself and at times select clients, military miniatures and this hobby lends itself to another of mine, the study of military history mainly The Great War and The Second World War, thus during research for my projects I happen across many many photographs of dead and dying soldiers. It's a sad reality that death in war is a logical extension to the act of war itself and so I do not in the least feel morbidly curious when seeing said photographs.
But I truly do not feel any morbid curiosity when it comes to viewing photographs of dead drivers. Have I seen them? Yes of course. One cannot help but chance upon the occasional image nowadays in this internet age, but I do not go out of my way to view them. I've been to the track on more than one occasion when a driver lost his life in a racing accident and that experience itself was surreal enough for me.
Someone mentioned Bandini's accident at Monaco. I clearly remember watching it and the futile efforts to save him. I was 12 at the time and his death along with Jim Clark's in April the following year left lasting impressions. They were and remain to this day 2 of my 3 racing heroes. What, could viewing their lifeless forms, add to the memories that I have of them? Nothing, not a damn thing.

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
I think it is not fair to admire young men (and sometimes young women) who do something very dangerous, and then shy away from the possible consequences of that dangerous activity

I can do all that without seeing pictures of their corpses

[kayemod]

Originally posted by mctshirt
I lost interest in seeing pictures of dead drivers the day I happened across a photo of Lorenzo Bandini. At that moment I understood why so many here are against the idea of posting pictures of lifeless corpses. I am now satisfied to read of their demise, to understand how it happened and why but never again do I need to see the result.

I think I know which Bandini photo you're referring to, it appears in a book by Louis Stanley, and possibly in one or two others as well. I found this one truly shocking, mainly because it depicts a clear image of a terribly burned Bandini sitting up in the cockpit of his Ferrari, just moments after the flames had been extinguished. He was alive at the time but died a day or two later, and to use a photo of a dying man like that, verges on depravity. Does anyone here think that to show a photo of someone who is actually dead is any less gruesome? I feel that pictures like this should never be shown, if only out of respect to the victim's friends and family, and that's not 'head in the sand', it's common human decency.

[Lec CRP1]

As I said, racing fatal accidents are virtually history for people of my generation. I was 6 when Gilles Villeneuve died, and we never watched Formula One on TV in my house back then. We never saw them live or even soon afterwards, so to find out what the older generation is talking about we have to find out for ourselves.

Also, yes I've seen nearly all the footage that is out there of drivers being killed. I can say, with relative detachment, that Lorenzo Bandini's was the worst from filmed point of view. It's one thing being burned to death; but being burned to death and still being alive afterwards is one of most horrible fates I can imagine.

[wolf sun]

I feel that pictures like this should never be shown, if only out of respect to the victim's friends and family, and that's not 'head in the sand', it's common human decency.

That´s all there is to be said.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by wolf sun


That´s all there is to be said.

Seconded.

[Lec CRP1]

I wonder if Jacqueline Kennedy was ever asked about the infamous 8mm film shot by Abraham Zapruder?

[Jerry Entin]

I also agree with Wolf Sun. This forum is no place to bring pictures of departed race drivers too. As Wolf Sun has said: Out of respect to Family and Friends we don't need to see these pictures.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by kayemod


I think I know which Bandini photo you're referring to, it appears in a book by Louis Stanley, and possibly in one or two others as well. I found this one truly shocking, mainly because it depicts a clear image of a terribly burned Bandini sitting up in the cockpit of his Ferrari, just moments after the flames had been extinguished. He was alive at the time but died a day or two later, and to use a photo of a dying man like that, verges on depravity. Does anyone here think that to show a photo of someone who is actually dead is any less gruesome? I feel that pictures like this should never be shown, if only out of respect to the victim's friends and family, and that's not 'head in the sand', it's common human decency.

Yes, that Stanley book ("Strictly Off The Record") I found utterly repulsive, as much for Stanley's ego and constipated writing style as his choice of photos. Yes, 'Big Lou' did a lot for safety at Grands Prix, no, I don't think the way in which he documented his contribution was appropriate.

As a counter-example, The Lost Generation contains footage of the Williamson and Pryce crashes and it's obvious there are dead men in them. Yet there is no sensationalism or mawkishness; Tremayne writes those sections with cool and analytical detachment and the photos are almost documents of an accident report.

[chopper]

Originally posted by Vitesse2


Seconded.

i agree.
im more of motorcycle fan ,when i viewed pictures of the crash scene in which joey dunlop died ,in a national paper i was truly sickened ,i will never buy nor read that paper again .

[Rexx Havoc]

I can understand the reason for not showing or not wanting to see photos of injured or killed drivers, but what is the reason for not showing a wrecked car regardless of whether the driver was seriously injured or not.

as in a vehicle being returned to the pits on a lorry and team members strain to keep the car under cover

[kayemod]

Originally posted by petefenelon


Yes, that Stanley book ("Strictly Off The Record") I found utterly repulsive, as much for Stanley's ego and constipated writing style as his choice of photos. Yes, 'Big Lou' did a lot for safety at Grands Prix, no, I don't think the way in which he documented his contribution was appropriate.

As a counter-example, The Lost Generation contains footage of the Williamson and Pryce crashes and it's obvious there are dead men in them. Yet there is no sensationalism or mawkishness; Tremayne writes those sections with cool and analytical detachment and the photos are almost documents of an accident report.

Agreed, more or less, but I think that says more about differences between Louis Stanley and David Tremayne as human beings than about the quality of their published works, it's not what you do so much as the way that you do it. I could never forgive Louis for using that Bandini photo, but found the rest of 'Strictly off the Record' fairly interesting for the most part. I even met Louis two or three times in my younger days, and have to confess that I rather liked him, though I know I'm in a small minority there. I went to the Stanley abode in Trumpington once, he eventually sold it to that pillar of moral rectitude Jeffrey Archer. Don't know if they ever met, but I'd have loved to overhear any conversation between those two monsters, especially if their wives Jean and Mary had also been present.

[Jerome]

Interesting feedback guys, thanks. I stand on the right to disagree slightly, but that's no problem. I think as a familymember, when you strongly oppose to the dangerous activitity of a friend or brother or son, you have the right NOT to be confronted with the possible terrible consequences. If you cheer them on, well... I have to digress with the opinions above.

Niki Lauda described it well (I believed in his book Protocol). Basically he said: 'The driver always portrays an image - and he infects his family and loved ones with that image as well - that-accidents-will-happen-but-they-will-not-happen-to-me. In that sense, it was in a way right that Marlene saw the effects of my accident. She saw me lying there. There was no way to run anymore.'

[MonzaDriver]

Dear Jerome, I agree this is an argument that deserve a whole thread.
Me personally I would like to see those pictures even if dreadful.
I dont think that I am morbid, just curious to see what I did not see until now. Just like any other picture or footage about golden era of motor sport. Not necessary about accidents obviously.
So I dont want to hide myself under some moralistic point of views. I am just curious.
Just some mounts ago, I've seen an interview with Bandini's sister. You could read on her face the grief for the lost, BUT also the regret of his interrupted carrier. After all this years. So I could imagine that even if she is not able to see the picture of Bandini mentioned on the previous post,
maybe she could be at least consolate by the fact that other drivers did not have had their carrier ended by the same way. In consequence of the campain for safety started by Stanley's use of the picture. Williamson's and Lauda's accident's footage, maybe showed to the world that you need fire estinguishers operated by trained people at each bend of a racing circuit. And even only the rumor created by the fire it's enough to scare me, only the rumor it's enough dreadful.
But the argument that those pictures or footage served to prevent other accidents is obvious.
I have this idea about why those pictures must not be sealed away. Young people must see the dark side of motorsport, and after choose to became a racing driver. The example I've read on this forum about the fact that Jenson Button did not knew the reason why Stewart retired after 99 GP and asked him why he did not made the 100...........it's enough. ( Aside the poor spirit of today's racing driver) I understood the feeling of Chopper about the photos of Dunlop's accident scene,
but maybe someone else seeing those picture decided not to became a bike rider.
What I really cannot define human decency are the rules that led people to use the soft tyres,
" only three laps" that led to Villeneuve death. Or the rules, that led designer to design those big go kart that cost Senna's life. Or the fact that even if the armco were already utilized, Jim Clark died against some trees, like escape road, and there was not armco on the outside of this bend.
That is not human decency.

MonzaDriver

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by kayemod


I feel that pictures like this should never be shown, if only out of respect to the victim's friends and family, and that's not 'head in the sand', it's common human decency.

Add me - strongly - to seconders of this line of thinking........

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

Photos of the corpses?

Nah...that's meat for the dailies...and TNF ain't that.

I've seen horrible images in the dailies...Wayne Kelly's fatal crash comes to mind...and I can do without it. Still haunts me 35 years on. Particularly since he was an acquaintance and I ended up driving one of his FV's some years later.

[Frank S]

Photos of dead humans are a kind of pornography, my view. As in the case of human bodies involved in sexual activities on a "normal"-"perverted" continuum, viewing is not ordinarily a public or social function. I don't think the viewing or exhibiting is necessarily reprehensible in either case; however, I will not expect to be motivated to seek out such material, and will be offended if exposed to it without warning or choice.

Thus far, hearing about it (them) has been more than sufficient.

--
Frank S
Sitting at the edge of the Great Muddy Internet

[Hieronymus]

I have certain no-go areas in life and looking at the bodies of deceased family members or friends are certainly one of them. Here I would also count racing drivers or any well known celebrity that we “share” our daily lives with.

The main reason…the impression of a dead person’s face/body is something that sticks in one’s mind forever. It does not matter how many other nice impressions or memories you have accumulated over several years of someone, the face of death will always be a lasting one.

In the line of my work I have seen numerous dead people, but to be honest I can’t remember their faces…people that I only saw for a brief moment and that had no affiliation to me personally. You forget them immediately.

But then…ask me about a person like François Cevert or Tom Pryce. I by chance was shown photos of them after their accidents…images that will stick forever.

As far as putting photo’s of dead people on Internet or in books. It is surely a matter of ethics. Please respect the family of the deceased. I’m sure for the same reason’s I have given above, they surely do not by chance wish to stumble upon a photo that shows a loved one’s corpse.

If one can't show respect for a dead person, how on earth do you respect living ones!!

[Haddock]

Having seen a very nasty fatal crash at Brands Hatch over 20 years ago, I've no desire to look at pictures of dead racing drivers. Having said that, I make no judgment on those wo do - though I don't think pictures of dead people should ever be published without their family's permission, save perhaps where there is some kind of doubt as to whether a particularly important individual (and here, I'm talking about people of rather more consequence than racing drivers) is dead or alive.

[stevewf1]

In the late '70s - early '80s, I was still dreaming of being a racing driver someday... Until I saw that ghastly footage of Gordon Smiley's "total devastation" at Indy in 1982...

After seeing that, I decided maybe I'd rather be just a spectator...

No, I guess I didn't need to see it - but I'm glad I did - because it was Real... Information (no matter how "raw"), can help make up a mind...

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Those are exactly the feelings I have when I think of racing drivers I really admire and who died - like Jim Clark and Mark Donahue.

Not that big an admirer of Donohue, then?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by David Beard


Not that big an admirer of Donohue, then?

A bit grumpy this evening Mr Beard! did your football team lose?

[MCS]

Originally posted by David Beard


Not that big an admirer of Donohue, then?

[Rexx Havoc]

So riddle me this

For the most part the sentiment is that there is no need to view images of fatal wrecks, correct?

Now if you weren't a fan of the sport in '94 ... your saying you wouldn't go and watch the video of Senna's wreck... knowing how it ends, correct?

edit:
or if the case is reopened in Italy and new evidence is presented that accesses fault in this case, would you not review the incident to judge for yourself?

Now ... honestly, is there anybody that doesn't need to see these images for themselves,
that doesn't themselves want to see what lead to this tragic incident??
The bump in the road,
the piece of debris on the track,
the excessive play in the wheel.
And once you do, can you honestly say that you will stop viewing before the impact
or before the car comes to a rest,
and then not be able to look away before he slumps in the cockpit one last time,
and at that point stop reliving the horror of that day before he is extracted from the cockpit

be honest...

why wouldn't you want to see what lead up to this tragic moment, and judge for yourself, what robbed the sport of one of it's up and coming legend

now if that is the exception, then what is the difference between Imola '94 and any other incident

[JB Miltonian]

Isn't the media being pretty good on this subject? Maybe I don't watch enough TV these days, but I know that I haven't seen the footage of Zanardi's crash since the day it happened (and I CERTAINLY don't want to see it again!), I haven't seen Moore's crash since it happened, I haven't seen Krossnoff's since it happened, etc, etc.

Crashes like Earnhardt's and Senna's aren't particularly disturbing to watch in terms of outright violence to the body of the driver, they look quite survivable despite the tragic results.

I'm sure the broadcasters must have some kind of guidelines to follow in the event of a truly upsetting accident, or (God Forbid!) a car going into the crowd, or a serious pitlane fire.

I don't feel that there was any need to print the picture of Bandini's body, or Rodriguez's. I don't understand the argument of "having something to learn" from it. If you know that Bandini's car hit the straw bales, he was crushed by the telephone pole, and he was trapped in a burning, overturned car for several minutes, then you know the facts. Pictures of the accident are one thing, pictures of his prone body on the ground are something else.

Just my opinion.

[repcobrabham]

you know how you "can't look away" when these kind of things happen? when you drive past a car wreck? when sports news shows replay knees bending unnaturally and legs breaking on the pitch?

i used to be like that until i worked as overnight police rounds reporter for a metropolitan tabloid. a dozen fatal car accident / murder scenes later, i always look away. in the case of sporting injuries, i hold my hands up between my eyes and the screen until i know the replay is over.

i guess the curiousity arises out of detachment. not only from the tangible physical consequences but also from the impact of an accident on the victim's nearest and dearest. and there's the small matter of the deceased not being able to give permission for the photo to taken in the first place...

edit: i don't think i have a problem with watching footage of the fatal accidents occuring - so long as they aren't especially gruesome, like those snapping leg breaks in soccer can be - as the circumstances and dynamics of the crash can be interesting, it's the gratuitous images after the fact that gross me out.

[ian senior]

Originally posted by David McKinney

I can do all that without seeing pictures of their corpses

Exactly. I know perfectly well what death means. I don't need a picture to remind me.

[Andretti Fan]

While I feel like the choice to look at such pictures is best left to the individual, I certainly feel like this fine forumn is certainly not the place to have such pictures displayed.

[Vitesse2]

Just as an aside, I wonder if this is an "Anglo-Saxon" prejudice? In my fairly extensive library I think I have only three pictures which could be described as "mawkish". One is the frankly horrifying image of Bandini in Louis Stanley's book. The other two are both - oddly enough - in French publications: Pierre Darmendrail's Pau book shows the moment of impact of Alborghetti's Arzani-Volpini, with the driver already half-way out of the cockpit, while Jean-Robert Dulier's book on the Paris-Madrid shows the lifeless corpse of one of the drivers laid out at the roadside.

Perhaps the French are less squeamish about this?

[David McKinney]

I think you could be right, Vitters
I have seen Argentine books and magazines which have no qualms about printing such photographs

[Jerome]

Thanx for keeping up the discussion, lads. And oh my dear, I misspelled Marks Donohue's name. When fingers do the talking... Quick question, and don't google this, just for fun. Spell the name of the co-author of Marks book: The Unfair Advantage. It is a Dutch name, originally. And it's a hard one...

On topic again: I want to emphasize that I don't propagate using pictures of dead drivers on THIS forum. It's just that the current use of even being carefull not to show a wounded driver seems to be over-cautious, and raises the questions I stated in the topicstart. Geez, that's a long sentence.
Regarding: 'I know what death is without having to see a corpse'. Well, that's what I always thought. But it is a little bit different talking about 'one day my parents will die', and seeing your father in a coffin. Am I gratefull I have that picture in my head (of my dead father)? Nope. But he IS dead, and he WAS in that coffin. And Zanardi DID lose his legs in that crash.

Interesting aside, if you think that gruesome pictures are educational: they are. In the Netherlands we have had years of campaigns warning about the dangers of fireworks (a big thing over here, with new year), and they achieved zilch. Untill...posters were printed with actual victims showing the fingers or hands... wait. Showed the parts of the body where formerly a handy attachment had been. With a quick headline: 'Put four strikers in a scotchtape. And lit it.'
After these campaigns the accidents with fireworks sank to a hitherto unreached low level.

[stevewf1]

While I don't "like" seeing pictures or videos of horrific events, I'll look because it's educational... Just like watching the sheer beauty of a racing car at speed, it's also important to know what can happen if things go wrong...

Sometimes I wonder if new teen-age drivers should be shown pictures of a mangled car after an accident as part of thier driver's education... Hey, that nice shiny "safe" car you're driving really can get itself wrapped around a tree like that...

[2F-001]

Jerome - it's Paul van Valkenburgh, isn't it? Although I've seen it spelt a variety of ways - even when it's the by-line to a pice he has supposedly penned... so, who knows!

[Jerome]

Excellent! High marks for you!

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Regarding: 'I know what death is without having to see a corpse'. Well, that's what I always thought. But it is a little bit different talking about 'one day my parents will die', and seeing your father in a coffin. Am I gratefull I have that picture in my head (of my dead father)? Nope. But he IS dead, and he WAS in that coffin. And Zanardi DID lose his legs in that crash.

I've had to put two beloved pets (cats) to sleep and both times I was there with them, holding them in my arms when they died... The last one, her name was "Honey" (my Avitar) occured about 3 months ago...

Did I like seeing that? NO. Did I like doing that? NO... But there was no way I could just ignore it - it was something I needed to face - and I'll forever be glad I did...

There's an old saying "take the bad with the good" because both certainly do exist in this world and I think it's important to see it all...

[kayemod]

Originally posted by JB Miltonian
Pictures of the accident are one thing, pictures of his prone body on the ground are something else.

Yes, and that's the whole point. We began this thread by questioning whether images of dead or dying human beings should be shown, it's only in the last few posts that the crashes that cause death and injury have been brought up, and I don't think they are relevant to this discussion. Violent crashes have always been a part of motor racing and always will be, I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating media censorship of such incidents. Cars don't have friends, families or dependants, but their occupants do, and this is essentially an argument about morality and human decency. Vitesse mentioned that truly horrific photo of a dying Lorenzo Bandini, I don't want to rub anyone's nose in this, but I think that particular image has to be seen to understand what this thread is all about. I can think of another example that has haunted me for many years, one of club racer Peter Proctor, kneeling naked and engulfed in flames after escaping from his crashed car, and that photo appeared in several daily newspapers. Although horribly burned, Proctor did survive, though he wasn't expected to at the time. News editors used that picture in the expectation that the man would be dead by the time their papers appeared the next day. Like I said earlier, this is a question of morality. You can just imagine the story that some tabloid writers would have loved to run beneath it, "And how are you feeling right now about your husband's crash Mrs Proctor....?"

[2F-001]

With regard to controversial or 'sensitive' pictures appearing within this forum... I think we should remember that some people are distressed by such images, whether or not they know the person involved and whether or not they feel there is a constructive purpose to their display. Within what is, I hope, a respectful community of like-minded enthusiasts (TNF) it isn't too much to ask to be restrained in such matters. I can think of at least one case of the partner of a driver (grievously injured in a race car) who has posted here routinely and very informatively and I'd dread to think of them stumbling, unsuspectingly, across such an image with personal connection. Where reference to such imagery is deemed necessary to illucidate some topic, then I'd be more comfortable with it being accessed by a link, with a caveat.

Having said that, the issue of safety promotional campaigns using such imagery - whether it be burns from fireworks, faces that have been through windscreens, or people struggling in the advanced stages of some smoking-induced illness - raises further questions. Who decides what is fair and appropriate use? Which aims justify such means. And that's above and beyond whether or not the photographer/subject/relatives consent to such usage. Tricky subject... and as you have suggested, one that possibly doesn't evoke common cross-cultural responses.

One of the most distressing 'images' I've seen is the film of David Purley at the scene of Roger Williamson's fatal accident and there is no body visible in that - but knowing in hindsight what went on, and that someone is in there dying seems at least as bad

With regard to showing images of RTA victims to young drivers... the problem there is, I suspect, that many of them may well understand that such things can and do happen... but not to them.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Just as an aside, I wonder if this is an "Anglo-Saxon" prejudice?

IIRC there's a number in an Italian book on Ferrari that came out a few years ago (in A4 format).

[Jerome]

2F-001 wrote: "With regard to showing images of RTA victims to young drivers... the problem there is, I suspect, that many of them may well understand that such things can and do happen... but not to them."


Exactly. That is one of the questions that reared its ugly head AFTER I started this thread. I thought: 'Suppose I was ten or eleven years old again... and I would not only hear about fatal crashes but be also able to see them, on the internet (if it had been developped, by some magic way), not only the crashes but also the dead bodies... would I become a motorsportfan again? Would I fantasize about being a GP-driver... again?' So what I've never set foot in a racing car. The question is still valid.

I know the title of this thread is about pictures of dead drivers. But it is also true that untill the internet, and untill the arrival of sites like video.google and youtube.co it was very rare that you could see footage of fatal accidents in themselves, let alone pictures of dead drivers. Now they are there, with a click of a mouse. ESPECIALLY for the unsuspecting watchers. Aren't they the ones who should watch the stuff? I am not preaching that everyone who watches F1 should also watch dead bodies as a token (although the idea of making it mandatory for everyone who wants to start on a trackday is alluring)... but just think about the romantic ideas and also self allusion we have about the dangers of motorsport. 'It's all part of the sport.' I've heard that sentence uttered a many good times, but I never got the feeling it was really heartfelt.

[D-Type]

To my way of thinking, there are several separate but related issues here
[list=1]
[*]Should we show images of the bodies of dead rivers on this forum? Emphatically No! There is absolutely no need
[*]Should images of dead drivers bodies be shown anywhere on the net? Again an emphatic No! It can only serve to feed the ghouls. I can see no educational or informative value. The type of thing I mean would be a picture of Senna's helmet with the suspension part embedded in it (it hurts to even type a description)
[*]Should we show pictures of fatal and serious accidents on this forum? In deference to the feelings of fellow forum members, we should not show images. If it is a necessary part of a discussion then I feel it is acceptable to show a link.
[*]Should images of fatal accidents be readily available on the net? This is something we can have no control over. It worries me when I come across sites with names like 'crasherama' 'racing crashes' etc as they are obviously revelling in the crashes. Even more worrying was a thread on another forum titled 'Best race crashes'. Some of the younger members couldn't see what was wrong about referring to 'good' crashes.
[*]If you transpose the question to paper publishing, it is easier as a book or magazine defines what it is. For example a published study into race injuries is a world away from 'The Boy's book of Motor Racing' but this is obvious from the cover.
I would take exception to a wide circulation magazine such as 'F1 news' or whatever it's called carrying graphic images of the Senna helmet, but protographs illustrating how an accident happened or might have happened should be OK provided the more graphic images were not printed.
[/list=1]

[Keir]

A ghoulish subject at the best of times and better left unposted and unsaid.

[Jerome]

A ghoulish subject at the best of times and better left unposted and unsaid.

That is too easy, Keir, or I have been very, very unclear to express my feelings and thoughts about this subject. I don't know if you've read any other posts or even threads by me, but I hope I've tried to express how much I love motorracing, and really grieve about the loss of people like Hawthorne, Clark and Donohue. Amongst others.

[MonzaDriver]

Well there are a few persons of my idea in this thread.
I need to clarify a couple of things, in order not to be misunderstood.
I did not specify, but it was obvious, that I dont want to make a click on the thread's page ..and voilà....... the picture of Bandini's body lying on the tarmac.
There must be a link and an advice before to see such pictures.
I think also Jerome intended that way. I am sorry but if I re-read this topic, I became more Louis Stanley's mind. Speaking about Zanardi, and his orrible in every sense accident.
In his book Zanardi wrote that also the spotter of the driver that stroke him, could not do nothing!!!
Sorry......... I did not knew, there is a person that look over the bend, and then he tells radio-linked with the driver,
" yes you can go at 300 km/hour inside that bend " or " there is a car spinning lift off........"
Dear members of this forum.......... is that motor racing??? To me not.
To me they are more close to stupidity, in this days on an oval, than to the courage.
Until the mortal accident of Paul Dana this year. I cannot watch that footage not becasue is gruesome but becasue it's stupid it's like a bowling ball inside the skittles. I am sure they need another Louis Stanley in F. Indy or IRL or whatever. Alway Zanardi tell us about the Lotus with Active or Intelligent suspension in '92, at the factory they show him that forcing in some way the system, you could move around a F1 with the hands, just like the vacuum cleaner at your home.
Surely it's terrible to see the Zanardi's accident at Eau Rouge, that year, and to see his head throw violently on the wheel and beyond, but if you dont look away you could see a very stupid Active suspension system, and an incredibly stupid bend. Because Eau Rouge it's something to eliminate. The doctors that look after Zanardi, before the race, made a reconnaissance tour on the various hospitals around the circuit. And decided that even if Berlin was the farest, they knew it was the more well equipped for such a desperate case. I know it's impossible to look at Zanardi inside the cockpit: half the car half the legs. But if you look beyond you will see the professionality and the real courage of those who saved his life. Berlin's doctor send their compliments by press to the crew's doctor for the way they prepared the legs and the hips for the transport. Compare this professionality ( passion ) with the one of the people who wrote the regulations...................
Its' sure that you have to take the good and the bad of everything in life. I mean all those terrible footage and photos, lead us toward a more deep reflections, nearly they compel us to do it, other than teach to designer doctors and marshals about their future actions.

About this thread, maybe we have Twin Window who could specify more. Because when he wrote about Jo Gartner he wrote about a friend not a preferred driver.

MonzaDriver

[Jerome]

Indeed, I never intend to force pictures like that on people, Monza. You guessed right (thanx!). But at the moment we seem to try to prevent that people see pictures that are graphic.

About Twinny: I really would be interested to hear his comments, if he has direct experience with friend-drivers being killed...