Worst Car Accidents

[mick88]

These are unreal.....certainly makes you realise what a big risk it is to venture out on the roads either as a pedestrian, or in a vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/oFkw5JFOmHk


Cheers, Mick.

[Eevo]

sad i enjoy watching these

[Chucaro]

When I saw the first clip of the woman run over on the pedestrian crossing a memory flash of my mother hit me like a ton of bricks :(

[Chops]

Most of those are in the wet and snow,, you would think living in these conditions they would know the risks and not do what seems to be "stupid" things.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Crime and car crashes create employment.

Outside the human tragedy of them, have you ever thought about the economic benefit of these incidents?

The crash itself has direct benefits in employment created to recover the wreck, investigate the incident and to rescue the victims and perpetrator. Then there is the indirect employment, people building and maintaining the tow truck, police car and ambulance, those repairing or recycling the wreck, the insurance company. Employment of hospital staff in the emergency and operating departments, staff in the Police station and court house and then the gaols. The employment created in industries to supply food and goods to the gaols and hospitals. The entertainment industry obtaining all the videos, editing them into shows and the television stations broadcasting them to all us gouls and TV addicts watching.

Just think about all the unemployment without the crashes and crime? ;)

Diana :D

[Chucaro]

Diana, I rather mother have lived more years and without suffering for a week.
IMO, economics do not have a place in things like this, just said that the emergency services are needed regardless of the economy factors on it. :(

[disco2_dan]

Common sense isn't to common these days is it? The complacency of drivers amazes me when I see clips like this!!!

[AndrewGJones]

i was driving out to southern cross before xmas and I had to watch in disbelief as a toyota landcruiser (!) used the over taking lane meant for MY SIDE of the road to pass a truck. luckily, like the good boy I am, I was on the left lane as i should be (not overtaking).

Amazing lack of intelligence coupled with a 600nm twin turbo 4.5 techno-diesel = future youtube fodder.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Diana, I rather mother have lived more years and without suffering for a week.
IMO, economics do not have a place in things like this, just said that the emergency services are needed regardless of the economy factors on it. :(Agree with everything you say anout suffering. However if we didn't have cars, there would be less people injured on the roads and therefore we wouldn't nees so many emergency services, economics has everything to do with it.

Most importantly with no car crashes and the economy behind them we wouldn't get reality TV shows like "Most amazing car crashes", "Cops", "Highway Patrol", "Motorway Patrol", "Road Warriors" and we wouldn't be watching it on YouTube!

[mike_ie]

Crime and car crashes create employment.

Outside the human tragedy of them, have you ever thought about the economic benefit of these incidents?

Um, no, I don't?! You could argue the same point about rape, murder, child porn, etc. Doesn't mean I'm thinking "whoopee! That's a turn-up for the economy" every time someone gets killed....

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Um, no, I don't?! You could argue the same point about rape, murder, child porn, etc. Doesn't mean I'm thinking "whoopee! That's a turn-up for the economy" every time someone gets killed....No I'm not celebrating it either, but both areas of life (crime and crashes) do create a lot of employment and the corresponding economic activity.

Can you imagine having hundreds of unemployed barristers, prison officers, insurance people etc sponging off the public purse. So in a perverse way criminals and dangerous drivers serve as a benefit to society! :o

[JDNSW]

No I'm not celebrating it either, but both areas of life (crime and crashes) do create a lot of employment and the corresponding economic activity.

Can you imagine having hundreds of unemployed barristers, prison officers, insurance people etc sponging off the public purse. So in a perverse way criminals and dangerous drivers serve as a benefit to society! :o
I am afraid I have to disagree - crime and crashes consume economic activity rather than creating it - each of those people employed in these areas could be much better employed in some useful activity - and youo also have to offset against this economic activity the reduction is spending by those who lose - spending on a new car that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, loss of work due to injury etc etc. You can only make this sort of thing into a positive by looking at things in a one-eyed view - same as the theory that war is positive for the economy!

John

[V8Ian]

Agree with everything you say anout suffering. However if we didn't have cars, there would be less people injured on the roads and therefore we wouldn't nees so many emergency services, economics has everything to do with it.

Most importantly with no car crashes and the economy behind them we wouldn't get reality TV shows like "Most amazing car crashes", "Cops", "Highway Patrol", "Motorway Patrol", "Road Warriors" and we wouldn't be watching it on YouTube!

Half of the Baby Boomers wouldn't have been conceived. :D

[mick88]

Half of the Baby Boomers wouldn't have been conceived. :D

I always thought it was due to "Drive In Theatres" :D

[mike_ie]

I am afraid I have to disagree - crime and crashes consume economic activity rather than creating it - each of those people employed in these areas could be much better employed in some useful activity - and youo also have to offset against this economic activity the reduction is spending by those who lose - spending on a new car that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, loss of work due to injury etc etc. You can only make this sort of thing into a positive by looking at things in a one-eyed view - same as the theory that war is positive for the economy!

John

I would tend to agree - according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the global economic cost of motor vehicles alone was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003. To put things inperspective, that's nearly 2 pounds of rice for every man, woman and child in Africa. Now factor in every other preventable crime and think of the economic cost.

I'd like to imagine that those employed in the prevention of crime and mopping up after car crashes, etc, would find just as fulfilling work in other areas. And lets take police, hospital staff, etc. They are notoriously overworked and understaffed. Imagine the benefits to us as a whole if they could actually focus on the ill, rather than just the had-a-few-too-many-to-drink-and-had-an-accident??

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I am afraid I have to disagree - crime and crashes consume economic activity rather than creating it - each of those people employed in these areas could be much better employed in some useful activity - and youo also have to offset against this economic activity the reduction is spending by those who lose - spending on a new car that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, loss of work due to injury etc etc. You can only make this sort of thing into a positive by looking at things in a one-eyed view - same as the theory that war is positive for the economy!

JohnHi John

This could turn into one of those soapbox debates. Crime and crashes do cost (are a net loss to) the economy in financial terms. However the employment of large numbers of people in all the various associated areas create economic activity in their own right, much of it internally generated.

It is all very well to suggest that the society would be better off investing that economic activity in other areas of social benefit, but would that activity actually occur, would Government or industry actually fund it, would the citizens want to have their tax money spent on activities for community benefit if it wasn't an identified need?

The fact that crime and crashes occur, creates needs that must be met and those needs are met by employing people. People who would not be employed without those needs.

Just food for thought.

Diana

[Chucaro]

I would tend to agree - according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the global economic cost of motor vehicles alone was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003. To put things inperspective, that's nearly 2 pounds of rice for every man, woman and child in Africa. Now factor in every other preventable crime and think of the economic cost.

I'd like to imagine that those employed in the prevention of crime and mopping up after car crashes, etc, would find just as fulfilling work in other areas. And lets take police, hospital staff, etc. They are notoriously overworked and understaffed. Imagine the benefits to us as a whole if they could actually focus on the ill, rather than just the had-a-few-too-many-to-drink-and-had-an-accident??

I disagree, there are thousands of accidents in Africa every year which not generate money in the economy, the cost of them denied money for food for the population.
Alos no one have take into consideration the financial cost alone of trauma and hours lost of work.
HERE (http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_332_TRL247_-_Socio-economic_aspects_of_road_accidents_in_developing_c ountries.pdf) is a good document about these issue.

As I said before, I lost my mother due to a vehicle accident (she was run over by a driver drunk crossing the traffic lights) and I believe that is morally wrong look into benefits in the economy as a result of tragedies.
There are no gains.

[mike_ie]

I disagree, there are thousands of accidents in Africa every year which not generate money in the economy, the cost of them denied money for food for the population.


I think you misunderstand my post. I was arguing that the global economic costs of car accidents is around $518 billion per year. Had those accidents NOT occurred, that money could instead feed every man, woman and child in Africa.

I've attended my fair share of accident sites over the years - I'd be more than happy to find something else to do with my time if these accidents were never to occur.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think you misunderstand my post. I was arguing that the global economic costs of car accidents is around $518 billion per year. Had those accidents NOT occurred, that money could instead feed every man, woman and child in Africa.

I've attended my fair share of accident sites over the years - I'd be more than happy to find something else to do with my time if these accidents were never to occur.The issue is: would that money be spent on buying a kilogram of rice for every man, woman or child in Africa? I suspect the insurance/finance companies would divest the savings in dividends to shareholders and the people of Africa would continue to starve.

And all the people who attend to the needs of the victims at the roadside, will continue to their good works whether paid or unpaid.

[AndrewGJones]

perhaps too many links in the argument that they (crime and catastrophy)are "good for the economy"? People are employed yes, but they are usually having to fight pretty hard to get paid well.

Nurses (my wife is one) get crap money for what they have to do, while miners get fantastic money for doing relatively easier work (read: not having to mop up **** and blood and get abused for doing their job). It points to one being funded out of necessity the other out of abundance.

If the human animal could think clearly without the bucket load of instincts driving it, we indeed would be doing things differently. Taking our foot of the gas pedal would be alot easier for some I think as well.

it always has struck me as nonsensical to be able to buy a vehicle (if i so choose) capable of over twice the maximum legal speed limit, which itself is probably twice the speed safe to actually drive at.

The point could be made that society decries tragedy, but daily sets itself up for it.

[Sleepy]

Hi John

This could turn into one of those soapbox debates. Crime and crashes do cost (are a net loss to) the economy in financial terms. However the employment of large numbers of people in all the various associated areas create economic activity in their own right, much of it internally generated.

It is all very well to suggest that the society would be better off investing that economic activity in other areas of social benefit, but would that activity actually occur, would Government or industry actually fund it, would the citizens want to have their tax money spent on activities for community benefit if it wasn't an identified need?

The fact that crime and crashes occur, creates needs that must be met and those needs are met by employing people. People who would not be employed without those needs.

Just food for thought.

Diana

I am with Diana.

We shouldn't try and cure Cancer because we'll have all those unemployed Medical staff.

We shouldn't try and stop arsonists because Scania will sell less fire tenders.

We shouldn't stop terrorism because Chubb will have to lay off staff.

Geez, we shouldn't stop the Arms Race because General Electric will have to stop building thermonuclear devices.


I haven't even considered all those poor insurance salespersons and lawyers that will be out of a job.

:twisted::angel::p

[JDNSW]

......
it always has struck me as nonsensical to be able to buy a vehicle (if i so choose) capable of over twice the maximum legal speed limit, which itself is probably twice the speed safe to actually drive at.
....

Few vehicles are designed for a particular maximum speed - in most cases the maximum speed capability of a vehicle is the result of designing it to be able to, for example, travel at maximum legal speed fully loaded up the steepest incline likely to be found - without specifically fitting a maximum speed governor, this results in a maximum speed well above the legal limit - and of course, this also begs the question "the maximum legal speed where?". I also find it difficult to think of any place where the speed limit is actually twice the safe speed, at least in normal conditions - my experience would be the reverse applies.

John

[Davo]

Cripes, I thought Diana was just making a particularly bad joke.

[AndrewGJones]

good points, John. By 'safe speed' i mean the difference between a survivable 60kmh head on crash and a 'can't work which body part came from which car' 110kmh head on crash.

I enjoy wondering wide eyed the way we all can pull off the death defying act we call 'driving' at the speeds we do, it is pretty amazing passing within a meter of each other with little margin for error, it's just something that I notice as being completely foreseeable in how very wrong it can go so quickly and for what?

i would love to have the time to slow right down, rushing everywhere all the time is wearing a bit thin.

[JDNSW]

good points, John. By 'safe speed' i mean the difference between a survivable 60kmh head on crash and a 'can't work which body part came from which car' 110kmh head on crash.

I enjoy wondering wide eyed the way we all can pull off the death defying act we call 'driving' at the speeds we do, it is pretty amazing passing within a meter of each other with little margin for error, it's just something that I notice as being completely foreseeable in how very wrong it can go so quickly and for what?

i would love to have the time to slow right down, rushing everywhere all the time is wearing a bit thin.

I think you are confusing "possible" with "probable". Driving can be dangerous, but so can many other aspects of life, and road accident statistics, as I have pointed out, have been going down ever since reliable figures started being collected. And for that matter, so has the incidence of most causes of death. And deaths from smoking still are far higher than those from driving, despite the fact that only about 20% of Australians smoke, where almost all are exposed to road accidents.

An interesting point, relative to your wonder - when I was learning to fly, almost sixty years ago, all the instructors and students had no hesitation about wearing full harness when flying (we were training in aerobatic aircraft) but ridiculed me for wearing a seatbelt while driving, where, as you point out, we pass within a metre of each other at speeds comparable to light aircraft, where in these we are almost never anywhere near that close to anything we can hit, except the ground when landing or taking off.

John

[Scouse]

i was driving out to southern cross before xmas and I had to watch in disbelief as a toyota landcruiser (!) used the over taking lane meant for MY SIDE of the road to pass a truck. luckily, like the good boy I am, I was on the left lane as i should be (not overtaking).

Amazing lack of intelligence coupled with a 600nm twin turbo 4.5 techno-diesel = future youtube fodder.Providing he had a broken line on his side of the road, then he was overtaking perfectly legally.

[AndrewGJones]

I can't be sure, (I'll have a look next time I'm out there) but I think there are double white lines at the overtaking points. i thought that is the whole point of the extra lane being on my side of the road, so I can overtake without the danger of having oncoming traffic, if it was intended that the other side could also use it (through having a broken centre line) seems to defeat the purpose.

don't all dual carriage ways have continuous centre lines? Now you have got me thinking!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I am with Diana.

We shouldn't try and cure Cancer because we'll have all those unemployed Medical staff.

We shouldn't try and stop arsonists because Scania will sell less fire tenders.

We shouldn't stop terrorism because Chubb will have to lay off staff.

Geez, we shouldn't stop the Arms Race because General Electric will have to stop building thermonuclear devices.

I haven't even considered all those poor insurance salespersons and lawyers that will be out of a job.

:twisted::angel::pWhile you're agreeing with me, I dont necessarily agree with your explanations.

Skipping the first, Scania will still sell fire trucks because arson is not the only cause of fire.

The people at Chubb have jobs because of criminals and terrorists. Stopping terrorism will employ more people.

Making thermonuclear devices and missile systems is not the problem, using them is the problem, so employ as many people as you like in manufacture and security of devices but employ no one in missile control! :twisted:

You neglected to mention the employment of all the people making and distributing car crash videos!

[mike_ie]

I can't believe I have to actually put this in writing, but continuing to push this theory that car accidents are great moneyspinners for the local economy and that we wouldn't have TV shows such as "Most amazing car crashes", "Cops", and "Highway Patrol", when someone else has repeatedly pointed out that he has lost a family member in the exact circumstances that you are describing.... well, at best, it's extremely insensitive, at worst.... well who knows.

You can argue all day about what how we'd never have judges, lawyers, insurance reps, etc, but you can't put a dollar value on what a family has to go through when one of theirs is killed in such a manner. Nor can you put a dollar value on what the rescue services have to do to scrape parts of a body off the road, pull a dead kid from the wreckage of a car, the list goes on. Theres no "economic value" in that.

Ny $0.02, for what it's worth.

[Scouse]

i thought that is the whole point of the extra lane being on my side of the road, so I can overtake without the danger of having oncoming traffic, if it was intended that the other side could also use it (through having a broken centre line) seems to defeat the purpose.

don't all dual carriage ways have continuous centre lines? Now you have got me thinking!You'd have priority over any oncoming cars but providing the road markings were suitable, then the other car is entitled to use your overtaking lane.

Here's a road near me where this is the case (Heathcote Rd near Liverpool):
-34.029481,150.963553 in Google Maps & go to street view.

[Sleepy]

Skipping the first, ...

Ner ner.....I win:p

Annnnnnd.....If they stop making Defenders, think of all the Chiropractors that will be unemployed.

[Sleepy]

Cripes, I thought Diana was just making a particularly bad joke.

No she wasn't.....I saw no :p or :wasntme: or even a ;)!

:ninja::ninja::ninja::ninja: Maybe it was a ninja troll attack!:ninja::ninja::ninja::ninja:

Damn, if aulro closed, then all the mods would be out of a job...:p












Oh that's right.....'Love not money'

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I can't believe I have to actually put this in writing, but continuing to push this theory that car accidents are great moneyspinners for the local economy ....

... the list goes on. Theres no "economic value" in that.

Ny $0.02, for what it's worth.Remember the second line of my first post?
Crime and car crashes create employment.

Outside the human tragedy of them, have you ever thought about the economic benefit of these incidents? ....I am not saying that this sort of human tragedy is a good thing, but I am saying that there is economic activity caused by it.

There are also many many millions of people who get perverse pleasure from watching (and compiling) videos of these car crashes, many times where people die. There are also TV production companies who make profit off this tragedy of other people. And police forces who make money selling the police car video of these incidents.