Morality and the CPdB

[Everso Biggyballies]

Latest post of the previous page:

@PTRACER

[acerogers58]

Personally, I never added the photos taken inside Dale Earnhardt's car after his accident, reason being they're a bit gruesome but also can be easily found on other sites with a google search, but if the photos in question are from a private collection or hard to find, I think they should be added, obviously with the graphic content warning..

[PTRACER]

Personally, I never added the photos taken inside Dale Earnhardt's car after his accident, reason being they're a bit gruesome but also can be easily found on other sites with a google search, but if the photos in question are from a private collection or hard to find, I think they should be added, obviously with the graphic content warning..

Those are on the forum, but I do not see the need to put them in the CPdB and I would request them to not be added.

[MonteCristo]

For what it's worth from the perspective of a user rather than content admin... I just looked up the Earnhardt wreckage photos (indeed easily found), and personally I'm not too disturbed by them, but I'm just one person.

Perhaps a solution for more contentious images is to link to them from wherever they were found. The natural risk is that the link breaks at some point...But then if people *really* want to know/see more, then they know extra images exist.

[PTRACER]

For what it's worth from the perspective of a user rather than content admin... I just looked up the Earnhardt wreckage photos (indeed easily found), and personally I'm not too disturbed by them, but I'm just one person.

Do you mean the photos which show the car interior after the crash?

[MonteCristo]

For what it's worth from the perspective of a user rather than content admin... I just looked up the Earnhardt wreckage photos (indeed easily found), and personally I'm not too disturbed by them, but I'm just one person.

Do you mean the photos which show the car interior after the crash?

Yeah, those ones.

[Motorsportrace]

Well, we all have equal say here. The 'responsibility' to make the final decision only rests on me because my name is associated with this domain/website. Meaning that if we get any complaints from anyone, the blame will be mine as I am the site owner.

The point I wanted to make though is that we have to draw the line somewhere. It doesn't matter whether there is a written rule about it or not. If we, the contributors, look at certain photos as we upload them and start to think, "Well, maybe we shouldn't include that", then we shouldn't. Even if there are more graphic photos in the database. Even if this person in the photo lived and recovered, while others died. I feel that about this Roth photo and the Canadian marshal entry. I don't have any issues with them being posted on the forum, whether that be in Crash Photos or in a hidden section, since access to them are limited, but on the CPdB they are fully in the public domain.

Certainly, as @DaleJuniorFan says, autopsy photos are a definite, definite NO. Never, never, never.

Hospital photos, showing the driver recovering (E.g. like Stirling Moss), which were published widely in the press, no problem.

Photos of the driver in hospital on a breathing machine with tubes and things coming out of his body? Definitely not.

Open casket photos? Well, this is a hard one. In some of these cases, the press were invited to the funeral and asked to photograph the event. So, I guess it's okay, but let's use our discretion.

The Bonetto photos are borderline. I really, really don't like them but I don't have a strong feeling to delete them. One part of me says that this was so long ago, that maybe they are just about okay. Another part of me says that these photos are so clear and in such good quality, that they are beyond distasteful and should not be in the CPDB at all. If they were poor, newspaper quality images, like with the John Masariu, maybe they would be less of a problem. Ambiguity is always going to be there, we just have to work our way through it as a team.

Regarding the 1941 Indy fire photos or the 1960 Indy scaffold collapse, I don't see an issue.

Thanks for the explanation.

We need to make a list of what photos/entries should not be added to the CPDB, then.

- Autopsy photos (obvious);
- Photos of drivers in intensive care;
- Etc.

Also, maybe we could make a list of "censored" photos, so that if someone wants to see them, they can find them here.
Roth's hospital photo and the pictures of the unfortunate marshal are some examples.

[PTRACER]

Thanks for the explanation.

We need to make a list of what photos/entries should not be added to the CPDB, then.

- Autopsy photos (obvious);
- Photos of drivers in intensive care;
- Etc.

Also, maybe we could make a list of "censored" photos, so that if someone wants to see them, they can find them here.
Roth's hospital photo and the pictures of the unfortunate marshal are some examples.

What do you think of this one?
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/cpdb/cras ... itid1=3240

[Motorsportrace]

Thanks for the explanation.

We need to make a list of what photos/entries should not be added to the CPDB, then.

- Autopsy photos (obvious);
- Photos of drivers in intensive care;
- Etc.

Also, maybe we could make a list of "censored" photos, so that if someone wants to see them, they can find them here.
Roth's hospital photo and the pictures of the unfortunate marshal are some examples.

What do you think of this one?
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/cpdb/cras ... itid1=3240

It's quite bad, but those photos were taken just after the accident.
From what I understand, the woman who died is not shown in the photos.

EDIT: Or maybe she's in the last one.
I don't think they should be removed.

[Michael Ferner]

What's the fascination with dead bodies? I mean, I come to the CDB to find pictures of crashed cars, because I'm interested in car histories and accident damage is important information. I'm also interested in driver histories, but if I read about a fatality or even only an injury, I don't need to see pictures of it - these are people, not cars, they have a life and privacy, they are not inanimate matter. So, what is it that makes you want to see pictures of injured and dead people? Tell me, I'm seriously curious about that.

[sadsac]

I understand the morality of putting certain images on this site but as long as they are properly highlighted with warnings it is up too the person browsing too click on them , i don't think this site is intentionally promoting these types of images such as (a certain gore fest site that craves and has loaned a few pics of this site)a mention no names site
if people want to look at them Google will almost certainly provide what they are looking for
So if there is no complaints outside the forum keep it as is with a obvious reduction in gory and graphic content

[Motorsportrace]

What's the fascination with dead bodies? I mean, I come to the CDB to find pictures of crashed cars, because I'm interested in car histories and accident damage is important information. I'm also interested in driver histories, but if I read about a fatality or even only an injury, I don't need to see pictures of it - these are people, not cars, they have a life and privacy, they are not inanimate matter. So, what is it that makes you want to see pictures of injured and dead people? Tell me, I'm seriously curious about that.

It's quite difficult to explain.
I'll need to take some time to elaborate a reply.

I think it has to do with the fact that a driver/rider has an important "role" in a crash.
So, if I see a picture like this:

***WARNING***
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/images/cp ... _okjkj.jpg (Tom Pryce)
***WARNING***

I'm seeing a part of that crash.

Trust me, I don't have any pleasure in it, and I always place warning tags when I post a gruesome photo here (it's not like posting a picture of a wrecked car, at all).

[PTRACER]

What's the fascination with dead bodies? I mean, I come to the CDB to find pictures of crashed cars, because I'm interested in car histories and accident damage is important information. I'm also interested in driver histories, but if I read about a fatality or even only an injury, I don't need to see pictures of it - these are people, not cars, they have a life and privacy, they are not inanimate matter. So, what is it that makes you want to see pictures of injured and dead people? Tell me, I'm seriously curious about that.

Luckily I found a way to hide all of those images, so you won't see them now unless you want to. [E.g. I don't recommend clicking on Motorsportrace's URL]

As for the fascination, I am sure some people consider looking at gore as a personal interest, but for regular people I just think it's natural human instinct to want to see them. Just like when there is an accident on the road and everyone slows down to take a good look at the aftermath.

[Sedre]

... but for regular people I just think it's natural human instinct to want to see them.

I can confirm it for myself. Several days ago while reading one popular forum I found a link to a thread about an NSFW accident in a factory with video where in discussion were some other NSFW videos. I watched three (all of them were from security cams so qualify was thankfully worse than average) - factory accident, one traffic crash with several unfortunate coincidences which led to tragedy and suicide of some Asian man where by-standers were injured when it went wrong. Did not have any psychological traumas but also did not have any wishes to watch them once again (third video I rewatched because I don't fully understand what exactly happened). 
In the same thread there were at least two videos of murders with huge warning but I scrolled them down - I just can't imagine why I should watch how some maniac kills other people on camera. Maybe it's also instinct that it is not a big deal to saw deadly accident but another thing is to saw murder.

[Motorsportrace]

... but for regular people I just think it's natural human instinct to want to see them.

I can confirm it for myself. Several days ago while reading one popular forum I found a link to a thread about an NSFW accident in a factory with video where in discussion were some other NSFW videos. I watched three (all of them were from security cams so qualify was thankfully worse than average) - factory accident, one traffic crash with several unfortunate coincidences which led to tragedy and suicide of some Asian man where by-standers were injured when it went wrong. Did not have any psychological traumas but also did not have any wishes to watch them once again (third video I rewatched because I don't fully understand what exactly happened). 
In the same thread there were at least two videos of murders with huge warning but I scrolled them down - I just can't imagine why I should watch how some maniac kills other people on camera. Maybe it's also instinct that it is not a big deal to saw deadly accident but another thing is to saw murder.

Yes, that can be applied to me too.

One thing I can't stand: animals killing/injuring people.
I don't know why, but I really don't want to watch that.
I can't say the same for the other way round, though...

[Jacob]

hi,
Is there a posibilty for a closed space in the CPDB for these photos, where only researchers, journalists and member have a special access? But completely hidden from public