Red light accident

[snopes]

Comment: is this a dummy or a real rider. i think its real. i can't get anyone here at work to agree with me.

[TuFurg]

I guess it could be one of those new dummies that moves around after getting hit by a car...

[mags]

I can't imagine how he could possibly be moving around at all after a hit like that. But, truth is stranger than fiction. Nothing about it screams faked to me.

Looks real to me. This illustrates my argument with my brother in law in the RCMP, who says traffic cameras are safer. Umm...looks to me like the car ran a red, and if a red light camera was installed, it would only show what we saw here. I wouldn't have stopped the accident in any way. Some argue that if a driver knows the city has red light cameras, they will drive more cautiously. I say shenanigans on that...besides, what about out of town drivers? They'll continue to drive as they normally do.

[callee]

Originally Posted by JD65

Looks real to me. This illustrates my argument with my brother in law in the RCMP, who says traffic cameras are safer. Umm...looks to me like the car ran a red, and if a red light camera was installed, it would only show what we saw here. I wouldn't have stopped the accident in any way. Some argue that if a driver knows the city has red light cameras, they will drive more cautiously. I say shenanigans on that...besides, what about out of town drivers? They'll continue to drive as they normally do.

I half-agree with you. I don't think the red-light cameras make it any safer, but the warning signs for them do. Whenever I see one of those signs warning me about a red-light camera at the next intersection I am totally extra paranoid about it and even stop for the yellow light just to be sure! I never bother - come to think of it - to check whether there actually are red light cameras there, the sign alone worries me enough (I can barely afford insurance as it is!) So I guess I'm saying the government should save the money it would spend on red light cameras and just put up the signs.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by mags

I can't imagine how he could possibly be moving around at all after a hit like that. But, truth is stranger than fiction. Nothing about it screams faked to me.

The rider was making a left turn and wasn't going that fast: it was more than a second between his appearance on screen and the collision. I'd estimate 8m/s (20 mph 30 kph, about the same speed as falling 3m)

With the angle of the collision he wasn't hit by the car, the motorcycle struck the car and catapaulted him as it got stuck.

He could walk away once they checked his neck out.

[Amigone201]

Where's the blood?

Also, this doesn't prove it's fake, but that guy with the shoulder bag sure did come "racing to the rescue." Good to know that pokey is nearby when the chips are down!

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Originally Posted by JD65

Looks real to me. This illustrates my argument with my brother in law in the RCMP, who says traffic cameras are safer. Umm...looks to me like the car ran a red, and if a red light camera was installed, it would only show what we saw here. I wouldn't have stopped the accident in any way. Some argue that if a driver knows the city has red light cameras, they will drive more cautiously. I say shenanigans on that...besides, what about out of town drivers? They'll continue to drive as they normally do.

New research on red light cameras reveals that they can reduce road injury crashes by up to 30%.

Originally Posted by Amigone201

Where's the blood?

Also, this doesn't prove it's fake, but that guy with the shoulder bag sure did come "racing to the rescue." Good to know that pokey is nearby when the chips are down!

People don't explode into fountains of blood like they do in the movies. I sliced the heel of my hand open with an Xacto knofe, it didn't bleed for at least 30 seconds. I think me nerves and calls were in as much shock as I was.

Speaking of shock, I've seen people get hit by vehicles. Most times people, if they react at all, do react slowly, again due to shock.

Originally Posted by Stoneage Dinosaur

New research on red light cameras reveals that they can reduce road injury crashes by up to 30%.

Briefly looking at the research study, it is just that, a study of 10 other studies taken in various countries. My only problem with that is 10 studies is not a very big pool to say definitely there is a difference. It reads "up to 30%" but doesn't mention the range...is it 10 to 30%, 25 to 30%, 1 to 30%?

Mentioned in the study is support for callee's view that the cameras themselves don't necessarily reduce collisions, but the warning signs placed to warn drivers do.

The clip probably isn't a red light camera anyway, the angle is not correct, it wouldn't be able to grab license plates well. It looks more like a news crew, or other type of media, was setting up for filming or an interview, and the driver of the Subaru may have been distracted by watching that, and ran the light. The guy with the shoulder bag could be a cameraman or something like that.

[Singing in the Drizzle]

Originally Posted by callee

I am totally extra paranoid about it and even stop for the yellow light just to be sure!

Aren't you suppose to stop for the yellow light, that is unless you are to close to easily (not slam on brakes) make a stop. Maybe this it the reason the driver behind me get pissed then I stop for the yellow. I doing it wrong.

The person in the video drove through the intersection only 10 seconds before the light turned green. I know 10 seconds is a long time, but maybe the driver of the car thought he had the lights timed and would pass through just as it turned green.

Anyway the video look very real. I think the guy on the bike was luck to land on top of the car. While it looked nasty it may have reduced the damage since the car will give some when hit and the road will not. The person running with the back, looks to be some sort of traffic officer since the people in the cars seam to react to him when it points. This also lead me to believe that this may have been a portable camera and traffic officer looking for people running red lights.

[justusfour]

Looks real to me. The other bikers who had gone through the light just before this rider turned their heads at the sound of the crash, and then turned their bikes around to go back to the intersection.

That man who comes jogging up to the scene looks like a police officer of some sort. I'm curious as to why he runs over to direct traffic rather than see about the injured person.

[TuFurg]

Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses

With the angle of the collision he wasn't hit by the car, the motorcycle struck the car and catapaulted him as it got stuck.

Looks to me like the rider did hit the windshield and put a decent dent in the edge of the roof right where the roof meets the windshield. Not easy to see and perhaps I'm seeing things but pause it at :50 and you can see this damage before the car hits the cement.

Originally Posted by Morrs_Raven

That man who comes jogging up to the scene looks like a police officer of some sort. I'm curious as to why he runs over to direct traffic rather than see about the injured person.

I also found that odd at first but I think his concern is getting the cars to stop so there isn't more damage. Not a bad idea;-)

what it looks liek to me is that it was dummy, and until that guy runs acrossed the frame it doesnt apear to be moving, somethgn just seems off to me. but then again i havent slept in a while

[Kev-O]

This is probably an intersection that is notorious for accidents, and the cameras were set up to prove that a better system for controlling the incident rates was required........they got the footage they needed...

[Wolf333]

That man who comes jogging up to the scene looks like a police officer of some sort. I'm curious as to why he runs over to direct traffic rather than see about the injured person.

Probably to prevent further accidents. I know, it should seem obvious to NOT drive through an accident zone, but that doesn't always happen.

what it looks liek to me is that it was dummy, and until that guy runs acrossed the frame it doesnt apear to be moving, somethgn just seems off to me. but then again i havent slept in a while

It seemed odd to me also, until I viewed it more closely. The biker's jacket has partially come off, giving the arms a more floppy (and dummy like) appearance.

[Dark Blue]

This illustrates my argument with my brother in law in the RCMP, who says traffic cameras are safer. Umm...looks to me like the car ran a red, and if a red light camera was installed, it would only show what we saw here. I wouldn't have stopped the accident in any way.

Just because this ONE accident wouldn't have been stopped doesn't mean your BILs statement is false. If he said traffic cameras completely eliminate accidents then maybe but just because it woudn't happen to stop this one particular accident doesn't mean they wouldn't stop others.

Some argue that if a driver knows the city has red light cameras, they will drive more cautiously. I say shenanigans on that...besides, what about out of town drivers? They'll continue to drive as they normally do.

How big a percentage of drivers through any given intersection do you think are out-of-towners, (or at lest people who do not drive the road on a regular basis)? Do you really think it is such a large percentage as to alter the driving habits enough to not make cameras effective?

I don't think the red-light cameras make it any safer, but the warning signs for them do.

How long do you think they will make it safer, especially for those who travel the road frequently, when the people find out there is no actual enforcement associated with those signs? Do you really think people won't find out that there are not actually enforcement cameras there, and when they do will still drive more cautiously because of the signs?

Originally Posted by Dark Blue

Just because this ONE accident wouldn't have been stopped doesn't mean your BILs statement is false. If he said traffic cameras completely eliminate accidents then maybe but just because it woudn't happen to stop this one particular accident doesn't mean they wouldn't stop others.

My argument is that having a camera does not in itself make it any safer. Red light and speed cameras sole purpose is to generate revenue for the municipality they are in. Period. If the municipality really wants to stop accidents, they would put patrol cars at high incidence intersections, but because they can't due to infrastructure and manpower, and the prohibitive cost of doing so, they reason that a red light camera would at least bring in revenue. How does a camera, an inanimate object, do anything to stop an accident? It can't. It can only record what has already occured.

Originally Posted by Dark Blue

How big a percentage of drivers through any given intersection do you think are out-of-towners, (or at lest people who do not drive the road on a regular basis)? Do you really think it is such a large percentage as to alter the driving habits enough to not make cameras effective?

It depends on the size of the city. I live in a town of 4500 people, with 4 traffic lights on the main drag through town. Which also happens to be the only east-west link in this part of southern British Columbia. On any given day, at any given time, it is likely to be at least half of the vehicles on the road are from out of town and just passing through. Actually, late at night, as in 3 or 4 in the morning, the majority of traffic is from out of town in the form of long haul trucks, or vacationers. You'll see more out of province license plates at night than local vehicles here. A larger city I used to live in, with 3 main highways passing through the city had similar traffic patterns.

Originally Posted by Dark Blue

How long do you think they will make it safer, especially for those who travel the road frequently, when the people find out there is no actual enforcement associated with those signs? Do you really think people won't find out that there are not actually enforcement cameras there, and when they do will still drive more cautiously because of the signs?

In the last city I lived in, it was not legal to put up a sign stating there were speed or red light cameras unless they actually existed in at least one location of the city. In other words, there was no false advertising, the cameras did exist, they just didn't have to specify where. Initially, the law was to indicate by signs where the enforcement was taking place by placing signs at least 50 meters ahead of where the camera was. In these instances, drivers did slow down, or stop at amber lights, but would carry on any bad habits once out of the zone. The signs made it safer IN THAT AREA only.

No, I don't think drivers will drive more cautiously if there is only a sign, and no camera, but in the examples in the cities I've lived in, you can't just put up a sign willie-nillie saying there is enforcement, if there isn't enforcement.

[missy_pooh_1997]

Am I te only one who thought the driver was pulling on the injured guys arms like he was just gonn ahop up and walk away?