Talk:2011 M5 motorway crash

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image

I've added an image from Geograph showing the approximate site of the crash, looking south-west towards Taunton; the northbound carriageway is on the right. Images of the area can be accessed from here - knowing the area, this seems the most appropriate one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All the discussion below seems to refer to other images, not to File:M5 motorway near Creech St. Michael - geograph.org.uk - 174393.jpg Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that image because it doesn't actually show the crash site (which is over a mile away round the next bend) and might be misleading.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I might have got that wrong when trying to locate the position it was taken. If it does show the crash site in the photo, do restore it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may well show the area around the next curve, but it is illustrative of the motorway in the general area - that is, pretty straight and flat. In my view it would be a useful image for people who don't know the area at all, but I'd welcome other views. Your original edit gave no explanation for your change, which was unfortunate. What seems significant to me about the crash site is its proximity to the junction slip road, but I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a useful image that should be restored. But how accurate are Geograph co-ords? BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone has deleted it without even bothering to address our concerns...I'm sure it could be used under fair use because there really is no alternative. Polyamorph (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted on Commons, which does not accept fair use images. (No-one there would have seen that comment as it was posted here.) It should be uploaded locally if it is to be used with a fair use claim. January (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I didn't realise it wasn't the commons file talk! We should indeed upload a local file and I think it would certainly satisfy fair use since there is no way of reproducing the image. Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like it was taken from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/gallery/2011/nov/05/road-transport#/?picture=381485144&index=0 Polyamorph (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that would qualify as fair use. Presumably the copyright holder wants to try and recover the cost of hiring the helicopter through sale of the image! However, it is worth noting that The Guardian doesn't hold the copyright anyway, and credits the image to Channel 4. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Please keep this image==

    • If, as seems, this image was copied from a UK newspaper's web site, and as the 2011 M5 motorway crash that it is of, is a very notable and tragic event, I plead for this image to be kept as "fair use": there is no way for a Wikipedia user to re-make this photo for re-upload, as that would need use of a helicopter, and by now much of the wreckage has been cleared away. Readers cannot merely be directed to the newspaper's web site, as newspapers sometimes clear out old news from their websites. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you and think it should indeed be licensed for fair use. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also worth noting that the newspaper doesn't hold the copyright, and credits the image to Channel 4, the British television station. The original creative commons notation showed that the image was from Channel 4! Skinsmoke (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
    • As people say above, we need an image, of such a tragic and major event. I suggest upload one of the newspaper website images, and plead "fair use". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as fair use in British copyright law. The relevant term in the United Kingdom is fair dealing, where there is a get-out clause for reporting new events. However, this does not cover photographs. Unless Channel 4 has licensed the image under Creative Commons, it looks like we're buggered. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's servers are in the United States. See the policy for more information.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant phrase in that policy is Anything published in other countries and copyrighted there, is copyright in the United States. British law is therefore relevant, as the image is copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Incidentally, as far as I can make out, nothing in American fair use allows for justification on the grounds of news reporting. British fair dealing does, but not for photographs. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the link to the guardian website I provided above the image is credited to Reuters, not channel 4. But I think the above comments still apply. What about this one: http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/CachedImages/NewsImageNS-1NSU2231LARGE.jpg . It's provided by the police not the press. It is clearly copyrighted (http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/pop_ups/terms_and_conditions.htm) but it is possible they could grant us permission to use it, if we asked? Polyamorph (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see Pontificalibus has already uploaded an image from the avon and somerset constabulary, however it still includes the copyright watermark on it! see here And I'm pretty sure the licence is invalid, unless Pontificalibus is actually the author, and doesn't include any mention of fair use that we've been discussing! licence is valid per the avon and somerset constabulary terms and conditions Polyamorph (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be copyrighted but that doesn't preclude us using it per their terms and conditions "Any person is authorised to copy and print information contained on this site for informational purposes only provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context". --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misread that, sorry. Polyamorph (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the image [1] could be useful? Polyamorph (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't decide between that image and the current one. In the end I thought the daylight one might be slightly more informative, but feel free to swap them, or include both. I am hopeful that a better image will surface before too long.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we try to get the police night time image included as well? It may not show a great deal, but, in the absence of anything else, it does indicate the chaos and hints at the horror of the scene at the time. In the absence of anything else surfacing (anyone checked Flickr?), these two images are perhaps the best we have available. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may show more if it was brightened in some image-processing program such as Paintshop Pro. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if anyone who lives near here could take a recent photo. Anything copyrighted would fail WP:NFCC#1, and images of nearby junctions etc are not much use.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The motorway has re-opened, a recent photo won't show anything, apart from the stretch of road where the incident happened. the Avon and Somerset police photographs are copyrighted but also licensed as being free to use for informational purposes, so we can upload them here. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added this image to the article, using the same licence as Pontificalibus did for the aftermath image. Polyamorph (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of fatalities

  • The article says "at least 10 dead" but all the sources I've looked at including those used as references for the sentence say "at least 7". Does anyone know of a source for the figure of 10?— Rod talk 08:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC TV channel 1 news at 7 am (by UK time) this morning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That report has now been proven to be false. The article now shows seven dead. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't want people to upload footage...

"There has been a tremendous response from the public and I would like to thank them. Again if you have any footage of this incident please contact us and do not upload them to the Internet." Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, incident commander. Should we mention this? It didn't explain why they don't want footage of the crash to be released, and I have no idea how trustworthy this source is... http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=24542&t=1&lid=1 207.159.187.115 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume because certain footage might be distressing to the families of the victims? I guess this is a pretty standard thing for them to say and I don't think we really need to mention it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although very unlikely, such footage has the potential for being used as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings, and if already made public might be inadmissable in a court of law. So I think yes this is standard procedure. The police are also obviously very keen to get hold of any footgage which might help explain what happened. And yes there may certainly be issues with distressing victims or families of victims. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just heard on BBC Radio 2's 11pm news that police are treating the investigation as a criminal investigation, which I assume must be the reason why they don't want people to upload footage to the Internet. Any such footage could, as stated above, be used as potential evidence. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal investigation confirmed by this source. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worst crash since 1991?

The lead contains this assertion: "The crash was the worst traffic accident in Britain since the 51-car crash on the M4 motorway in 1991 in which ten people died." I think we need to review that statement as 13 people were killed in the 1993 "M40 minibus crash". FactController (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of numbers of vehicles involved, the 1997 crash has to be the worst, though thankfully the number of deaths was low. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're into a discussion here of what "worst" means - number killed, number killed or injured, number of vehicles, length of resultant tail-back, time for which road closed, etc., etc. How many parameters over which do we compare? Do we state parameter(s) in any comparison? BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we probably need some kind of guideline to determine what factors to include. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should include anything. The media absolutely loves to say "said event is the worst since [some arbitrary point in time]". The 1991 link that I added was sourced (as being the "worst"), it has now been replaced by the 1993 crash which is only sourced as being "one of the worst". The 1991 crash involved a multi vehicle pile-up, whereas the 1993 crash involved a minibus. It was tragic, because most of the victims were children and passengers of the minibus, but it wasn't the "worst" crash in terms of number of vehicles involved and overall carnage. Perhaps remove the sentence altogether since it's an arbitrary comparison. Polyamorph (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We can add a see also with links either to individual articles or to the List of road accidents. Polyamorph (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safety issues

Back in 1986, Jimmy Savile made this safety video about stubble burning. This is a known problem for farmers, and is covered by UK law, which says that "Under the Highway Act 1980, it is an offence for smoke from a fire to spread to the public highway and to endanger traffic." This could be added if more evidence emerges about smoke as the likely cause.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes quite. This source [2] tells us
Danger to traffic caused by smoke:
Under the Highways Act 1980, anyone lighting a fire and allowing smoke to drift across a road faces a fine if it endangers traffic. If this happens, call the police.
I think there have been a number of test cases regarding stubble-burning which have hinged on the culpability of the landowner insofar as a change in weather conditions may alter the predictability of how far smoke will drift. But I'm not sure there have been any connected with Guy Fawkes Night bonfires as such? BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full text is here, and says "If a person (a)lights a fire on any land not forming part of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway; or (b)directs or permits a fire to be lit on any such land, and in consequence a user of any highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway is injured, interrupted or endangered by, or by smoke from, that fire or any other fire caused by that fire, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale." This could be an unusual test case, as this area of the law is usually associated with stubble burning. The current maximum UK standard scale fine for level 5 is £5,000.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Act also says "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, lights any fire, or discharges any firearm or firework, within 50 feet from the centre of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway, and in consequence thereof the highway is damaged, he is guilty of an offence." However, it appears that the rugby club was a fair distance from the road. There is more detail in this BBC story.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 Florida crash

Florida crash: 10 killed in multi-vehicle pile-up is in the news today. In this case, fog and smoke from a bush fire have been given as the cause. This incident does not seem to have a Wiki article at the moment, although it is worth bearing in mind if the investigation into the M5 crash rules that smoke was the cause.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Not got a copy of today's Daily Fail in front of me, but the referenced timeline seems to indicate that the fire engines didn't arrive until around two hours after the pile up was reported to have occurred. This sounds extremely unlikely to me, especially considering that the incident occurred very close to the slip road of Junction 25. I think until more information regarding the timeline emerges and a number of reputable sources can be cited, it would be better not to report something so potentially controversial.AustinspaceTI (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail article is online here. I agree that it is almost certainly highly misleading - I suggest the section be entirely removed until there is more authoritative information available. I don't think that "newspaper" is routinely considered a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It seems that the version of the timeline in this wiki article differs from the that in the DM article - which states that ten fire engines arrived within minutes.. and reports that at 10.20pm they were continuing to fight the fire. Sounds like someone's just misread it. AustinspaceTI (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the section out. I really don't think a tabloid article like that one, which is clearly provocative as well as misleading, should be given a high profile here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Thanks. AustinspaceTI (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it took 2hrs because there was a tailback... Lugnuts (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mail article does say that 10 fire engines arrived "within minutes". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was at Bridgwater Carnival, and at about 20:30 a fire engine, that was parked up observing the procession, turned around and left on blues. Assumably towards the M5. They wouldn't have taken two hours to get appliances on scene. Squirrel684 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to clarify, the only suggestion that they took longer than expected came from someone who appears to have misread an article in the Daily Mail. End of story. AustinspaceTI (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police v newspaper references

I have re-inserted a newspaper reference that was replaced by one from the police site. In my experience, reports on many police sites are removed quickly after an event has ceased to be newsworthy whilst newspapers tend to archive their stories. To future-proof the article as far as we can we should try to have a media source in addition to the police site IMHO. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

This should not really be in the article at the moment: "There have been contradictory claims that the crash was caused by fog or by smoke. These two causes are not 100% distinct, as the bonfire smoke and the firework gunpowder smoke would contain many cloud condensation nuclei making the fog worse, as in smog." It is unsourced, and typical of the sort of rolling news speculation that occurs after any event of this kind. Let's wait for proper explanations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources that have been added appear to be a clear attempt at WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The police have said that they are looking into the fireworks display at the rugby club, let's leave it at that for the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pure speculation and I've removed it once again after it got re-added. Just because something is sourced does not mean we should include it in wikipedia. No one can possibly know the true cause until after the publication of the investigation findings. Even then details may not be certain. It's best to stick with the official statements made by the police leading the investigation and not speculate any further. Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is amplified by the words of Andy Sampson, father of one of the casualties, who has now released a statement on the A&S Police site saying: "We don't know what the cause was and the media should wait for the facts from the police investigation before they draw any conclusions." I don't think wikipedia is often thought of as "the media", but I would suggest that his sentiment applies equally here. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of injured + names + inquest

This BBC report says the total number injured was 53 not 51 as we have in the article. It also names several of the dead - should these be included? The West Somerset Coroner has also announced that the inquest will be opened on Thursday (presumably this will be identification evidence and then adjournment) should this be included?— Rod talk 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a statement in Parliament this afternoon which confirmed 51 injured. We can add Hansard as a source when available. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the inquest details should certainly be added. But I am much less sure about adding names at this stage. Obviously names will be in the public domain, but I'm not sure what the precedent is here with wikipedia articles on similar fatal events. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we dont normally name victims unless they are notable (normally indicated by having a wikipedia article). MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M5 crash: No weather warning

This story is on the BBC website today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

It would have been nice if the Did You know nomination had been mentioned on this talk page before it appeared on the main page but what is done is done. Nice work anyway all. Polyamorph (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explosions

I keep trying to say that the cars exploded, but there is always someone who keeps removing it and telling me not to fucking put it in! How else would the fire have started? And:

Whoever keeps reverting my edits: Please STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.145.113 (talk • contribs) 16:28 UTC, 9 December 2012‎

Do you have a reliable reference that the cars exploded?, the current bbc source only mentions a fireball not any explosions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some sub judice issues here. See also [3].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all fires in road traffic accidents are caused by explosions. It is, rather, much more likely that a small fire will itself lead to an explosion, if the fuel tank of any of the vehicles involved gets hot enough. Heavy Goods Vehicles have larger fuel tanks, which can lead to larger explosions. It seems very likely that there would have been a number of explosions in this huge accident, not just one. But we can't rely on eyewitness accounts as the basis on which to add this kind of information. Information about any explosion(s) can be added only if based on a reliable source. If no sources have been found to date, it seems very unlikely that any will now be found. Swearing at other established editors is very unlikely to get the information in any quicker. In fact, it's likely to lead any further edits being dismissed out of hand. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, 1: This is not a law court and 2: I said the F-word because I was angry 85.210.145.113 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your explanation. Many editors get frustrated here, from time to time, and for a whole range of reasons. You obviously have some strong feelings about this incident. We do know that Wikipedia is not a law court. But there is an ongoing prosecution of seven counts of manslaughter. It is my own personal view that, because of this, we ought to be careful not to add unsupported material that might unduly influence any potential jury members (although I'm pretty sure that this is not Wikipedia policy). Editorial policy is quite clear, however - information must be supported by reliable sources. If you feel very strongly about this matter and wish to contribute further, might you consider registering as an editor? It should help you to edit and discuss more easily. It's very easy and you can edit as often or as infrequently as you like. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2011_M5_motorway_crash"