truck crash,fire,explosion,italy,highway,dead Huge Crash on Italian Highway 7 dead August 8, 2008

Huge Crash on Italian Highway 7 dead August 8, 2008

posted by aspartam

3 months 3 weeks ago • 1944 views

tags: truck crash, fire, explosion, italy, highway, dead

You should also watch
“Countdown: Bushed! August 6, 2008”

Happened in Italy on August 8, 2008, on A4 Highway. 7 people died. It looks like it was caused by a blown tire. This got bad really fast.

Comments

sad.

written by rottenseed

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Did that 18-wheeler have a tire blow-out?

written by shuac

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Not much news going on here, just a gory peep show if you ask me, hence downvote, sorry

written by dannym3141

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Dude, isn't this kinda snuff? Just askin'.

written by brycewi19

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This seems like borderline snuff to me. *discuss

written by Sarzy

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by Sarzy.

written by siftbot

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

not snuff at all, imo.

written by rasch187

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

"The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

If were going strictly by this rule I would have to say it seems to be snuff BUT and I hope I'm not getting off the subject of this video too much, how is this different from a video of a bomb being dropped on a target in Afganistan or Iraq? Those videos seem to get moderate amounts of votes a pass the snuff test where as this might not. Is there plausibly deniability that someone isnt inside the target area and thus no snuff in the military videos?

I don't mean to sound snippy with my questions at all if I do, the question has just been milling around in my head for a few days and this seemed like a good opportunity to address it.

written by MrConrads

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Well, the difference between this and a video of a bomb dropping in Iraq (in my mind at least) is that the bomb video deals with a war that is ongoing, and is something that people should probably see as it deals with important world events, whereas the only value of this video is to take pleasure in a spectacular crash that happened to kill a bunch of people. Just IMO, of course. Let's get a couple more opinions then * return it if that's the consensus.

written by Sarzy

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

My personal opinion is: it all depends on the person viewing it. I watched the video and replayed it several times. The first viewing for "what happened"? And the subsequent viewings to see if there was anything anybody could have done differently that would have prevented the huge death toll. I watched it purely for "education" per se. (Also, the reason for the several times is that particular player doesn't operate like YouTube's, i.e., when you click along the bar, it wouldn't just drop you to the frame in question...by I digress)

As long as the video is labeled appropriately so that you know what you're seeing going in, I don't have a problem with it. Now, if the video was labeled "Guy in police chase outruns cops" and turned out to be this video, then we'd have some words.

Also, isn't that why we have the voting in place? If it turned off enough people, they'd downvote it to -3 and it'd be gone. No need for a * discard...ahem.

written by videosiftbannedme

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Meh. It's not like someone was being shot pointblank or anything. I vote to return it. It's newsworthy.

written by blankfist

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I think this isn't snuff - you don't actually see anyone die, and it was posted without an insenstive title - I'd be happy to * return this - I will leave here a little longer for anyone else's views - but t me, this should not be an issue.

just my 2 cents

written by Zonbie

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

meh. i've seen worse

written by kulpims

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Okay, seems like we have a pretty good consensus. *return

written by Sarzy

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by Sarzy.

written by siftbot

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

"Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

If we are actually going to stick to the posted rules then how does this video not fit into that definition? It's nothing personal aspartam, if anything I'm putting up this argument to get a better understanding of the rules. If this isnt snuff then what does that quoted sentence from the FAQ apply to? It can't be ok to let a video like this pass just becasue the title was done in a tactful way.

>> ^Zonbie:
I think this isn't snuff - you don't actually see anyone die, and it was posted without an insenstive title - I'd be happy to return this - I will leave here a little longer for anyone else's views - but t me, this should not be an issue.

just my 2 cents

written by MrConrads

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

hmm, interesting to see everyone's point of view on this. It had never even crossed my mind that it might be snuff. Snuff to me is a video that is extremely graphic, and enjoyable to a very limited minority of sicked twisted people. I understand some might have different definitions, but this is no way graphic or hard to watch. At least not compared to all of those eia videos of skateboarders breaking their legs sideways or soldiers throwing puppies of a cliff. I find those hard to watch. And on the polar extreme, we have gratuitous videos of cats that are automatically voted in the top 15 for no reason other than that there is a cat in the video. I find those hard to watch as well.

my 2 cents.

written by aspartam

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 3 ▼ | flag spam (0)

After thinking about it for a while I have to admit that I have a bias in regards to this video. I live in Minneapolis and I was down at the 35W bridge about 5 minutes after it collapsed. I saw a lot of things going on none of them all that graphic on the surface other than the utter chaos that insued. One thing that stuck out to me that day as I stood there was seeing the burning 16 wheeler on the south side of the bridge. It was only a day or two later when more details came out that I learned that the driver was still in the truck and had burned to death. In short I watched that man burn to death, not up close and personal but I watched him burn. I don't like watching a man burn to death in real time or on video. That being said Id like to think that I was fighting for the stated rules for the most part.
anywho... my 2 cents as well and I'll leave it be.

p.s. I hate a lot fo the cat videos that make it to the top as well

written by MrConrads

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Meh. I've seen better.

written by blankfist

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Damn and scary!

written by ant

| 3 months 3 weeks ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I know I've argued that this was snuff once before and was shot down, but in light of this clip being deemed snuff and not suitable for the sift, I see no reason at all why this should be allowed to stay. If anything, this has less value then the other one, and that was discarded -- so this should be discarded as well. I've always felt a bit queasy about this being on the sift, so I'm glad to have an excuse to put it back on the chopping block. *discuss

written by Sarzy

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by Sarzy.

written by siftbot

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I second that...

written by rottenseed

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Screw you guys. Seriously, screw you guys. Just like the Supreme Court, why can't this be handled by the "you'll know snuff when you see it".

This is on the 6 o'clock news. I'm sorry some crybabies are sad because they watched someone burn alive. WTF, what if you didn't know they died? Does that make a difference?

I'm going to start saying someone died in all the accident videos and see if that makes any difference.

written by joedirt

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

6 o'clock news? Wow, I want to know what news shows you watch.

And I don't think you need anyone to tell you that at least a few people died in this accident. It's pretty massive.

written by Sarzy

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ -1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This is not snuff... let the voters sort out its placement.

written by K0MMIE

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I still vote for a return. I also think Doc_M's video of the missile strike should not have been discarded. These are news worthy, in my opinion, therefore okay to stay.

I vote return.

written by blankfist

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I agree that the Iraq video should have stayed, but that was deemed snuff with no room for argument. By that precedent, I don't see any possible argument for this staying, since this is more gruesome and has much less redeeming value.

written by Sarzy

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ -1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I don't think you guys know what snuff is. A snuff film is a (usually pornographic) video that is made explicitly to show a murder on film. This is so far away from that it's absurd.

For what it's worth, the other video Sarzy is referring to shouldn't have been discarded either.

*return

written by nibiyabi

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by nibiyabi.

written by siftbot

| 3 weeks 5 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Nibiyabi, this isn't about the dictionary definition of snuff, this is about what is and is not acceptable on videosift, and what is considered to be "snuff" under videosift's rules (which is quite different from the true meaning of the word). The other video was found to be snuff by the community and (most importantly) the sift's admin. It follows that this is snuff as well (under the sift's definition of snuff) and should be discarded as well. The only reason I haven't discarded this myself is that I don't particularly want to risk being temp-banned (what do you want, I'm a coward

). *discuss

written by Sarzy

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by Sarzy.

written by siftbot

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Nibiyabi and Sarzy in the Thunderdome! Two men enter! One man leaves! Let's get it on!

written by blankfist

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I stand by my original statement above. If people don't want it, they'll vote it off. If you don't want to see it, then don't watch it.

See how easy that was?

(no sarcasm intended; just trying to show how easy problems can be solved)

written by videosiftbannedme

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

You could say that about any post that's against the guidelines. But the fact is that we do have these guidelines - and IMHO they have served the community well. We don't want to glorify death.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
I stand by my original statement above. If people don't want it, they'll vote it off. If you don't want to see it, then don't watch it.

See how easy that was? (no sarcasm intended; just trying to show how easy problems can be solved)

written by dag

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

You could say that the guidelines are like the California Supreme Court - and voting this out of the queue is like Prop 8. Sometimes you need to have rules that look beyond the popular vote.

written by dag

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Dag, I thought you said once if the clip can be considered newsworthy (and generally not awful) then it's okay to stay - I cannot find that video for reference, so feel free to say no and prove me wrong. In my opinion, there's a difference between posting the beheading of Eugene Armstrong and a video like this or the nearly clinical night vision shots of war. My $0.02.

written by blankfist

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Is this newsworthy? Or is it just a big car pile-up that killed people?

written by dag

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Well, I suppose that's based on perspective. To me, it's newsworthy.

written by blankfist

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

what the fuck would cause that? The guy was driving fine.. then he fucks it all up.

written by NordlichReiter

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I think whether or not this is newsworthy is debatable, but since there's absolutely no context at all (ie. what happened here? What caused the crash? Blown tire? Driver asleep at the wheel?) and all chaos, I would say that just seeing the accident alone isn't particularly newsworthy. Now the Iraq clip is a different story, but again, since that was deemed unacceptable, there's no possible way that this is okay.

P.S. Way to downvote every comment that goes against your opinion without actually contributing anything to the discussion, UsesProzac. What a constructive thing to do.

written by Sarzy

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

^Yeah, but she upvoted all of mine which makes her cool.

written by blankfist

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 2 ▼ | flag spam (0)

My mom told me never to play with rabid animals. Or ridiculous people.

written by UsesProzac

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

A wise man once told me that if you think something is against the rules you should just downvote it and let democracy work by negative vote discarding.

How is this any different? Return it!

written by Abducted

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

It may be newsworthy as might any video which catches on tape people being killed. Being newsworthy alone does not disqualify the content from being snuff.

The only narrow gray area in VideoSift's snuff policy is for brief loss of life that is part of a longer newscast or documentary.

Any short video that just panders to the "OMFG watch the horror of these dudes getting killed" primal curiosity, like this one, does fall into the snuff definition in the posting guidelines.

If this video is allowed we will be setting an ugly precedent that would then allow every one of the hundreds of fatal car accident videos available. From there everyone will be pushing to allow more gore. It's a slippery slope.

If you're that interested in seeing people die, spend 5 seconds on LiveLeak and you'll be hit with an avalanche of death videos that will satisfy anyone's blood thirst.

written by lucky760

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Okay, I think the fact that both Dag and Lucky agree that this should go means I can safely *discard it.

written by Sarzy

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Discarding this post - discard requested by member Sarzy.

written by siftbot

| 3 weeks 4 days ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Ahhh, it's like closing my eyes and taking in the smell of history, while standing on a great battlefield. Sucks that the losers won here. Good video.

written by CaptainPlanet420