Photos: Three Vehicle Collision On Front Street

June 24, 2013

[Updated] Emergency services responded to Front Street near the No. 5 Car Park at approximately 2.30pm this afternoon [June 24] to a three vehicle collision involving two vans and a taxi.

We unofficially understand one person with unknown injuries was transported by ambulance to King Edward Memorial Hospital for treatment. Traffic flow was disrupted as officials were dealing with the accident and buses were forced to turn around and take an alternative route.

The road was cleared of debris and traffic flow returned to normal at approximately 3.15pm. Details are limited at this time, however we will update as able.

Update 5.12pm: A police spokesperson said, “Around 2:30pm on Monday, June 24th police and first responders attended a reported three vehicle collision on Front Street in the City of Hamilton near the junction with Burnaby Street. Details are unclear at this time; however it appears that a taxi and two vans were involved.

“Initial information suggests that there were no serious injuries sustained and at least one of the vehicles was damaged. There were temporary traffic delays in the area; however, traffic flow has since returned to normal. Inquiries into this collision are underway.”

Update June 27: The full police statement is below

Around 2:30pm on Monday, June 24th police and first responders attended a reported three vehicle collision on Front Street in the City of Hamilton near the junction with Burnaby Street.

It appears that two vans and a taxi were being driven along Front Street when the vehicles collided. The driver of one of the vans, a 66 year old Devonshire man and the taxi driver, a 42 year old St. George’s man, sustained minor injuries.

There were no other injuries reported; however all three vehicles were damaged, two extensively. Traffic was temporarily delayed in the area. Inquiries into this collision are ongoing.

Share via email

Read More About: ,

Category: Accidents and fires, Accidents/Fires, All, News, Photos

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ontherivet says:

    Hmm...a taxi? doing one of their patented 180 degree u turns on front street possibly - I really don't know - just conjecture...

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  2. ontherivet says:

    Oh I see that the photos show otherwise - I could have sworn that it was a taxi doing u turns on front street as I've only seen that happen a million times...

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  3. Truth is killin' me... says:

    And why do these taxis always block the tourists and locals alike from crossing the road by parking outside the bank in front of the crossing intended for pedestrians at the traffic lights!? Answer me that Bermuda Taxi Association!

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  4. bdaphoenix says:

    Saw the after math of this... white van struck the back end of the taxi with some force which then pushed the taxi into a van in front of it.. all three vehicles were damaged...the little van had both air bags blown... book u-turn radio's today..

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
    • Mike Hind says:

      You missed the taxi in front of the first van... the one that drove off.

      Like(0)
      Dislike(0)
  5. qingtao jiao says:

    Is there any update for this accident?

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  6. Triangle Drifter says:

    Ahhhh, the results of tailgating. We will never learn. Nobody has ever heard of the the 2 second rule, let alone apply it.

    As usual check driver cell phone records.

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  7. Nuffin but da Truth says:

    Welcome to Bermuda,where the speed limit is what,err,hmmm,oh I don't know.
    I'll text and get back to you with an answer,oh hang on,my grannies on de phone now...

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  8. Lorne says:

    I saw the whole thing. 1st white van was stationary at the red light, the blue taxi stationary behind him, and the 2nd white van ploughed into the back of the taxi, sending the taxi into the 1st white van. No tailgating, no taxi making crazy maneuvers, just a small white van that didn't stop in time.

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
    • Mike Hind says:

      I'm not sure you did, as you didn't mention the fourth vehicle, the taxi in the front of the pileup.

      Like(0)
      Dislike(0)
      • Zombie Apocalypse says:

        If there was a taxi right at the front, it was blameless. It was the idiots behind who failed to prevent their vehicles hitting the one in front.

        Like(0)
        Dislike(0)
        • Mike Hind says:

          Never said it wasn't.
          Just pointing out that the chain of events wasn't quite how it was described here.

          Like(0)
          Dislike(0)
    • Zombie Apocalypse says:

      "No tailgating"? It is always your responsibility to make sure you don't hit the vehicle in front of you. If you do, you were tailgating.

      If the taxi was stationary behind the first white van when it was hit by the second white van, that doesn;t mean it was blameless. It was the taxi's responsibility to have a brake on (foot or hand), to prevent it being pushed into the vehicle in front.

      Like(0)
      Dislike(0)
      • Really?? says:

        You've obviously never been rear ended before. I was at a stop light (with my foot on the brake) and was struck from behind by a car that pushed me to the other side of the intersection. Doesn't matter if you have your brakes on, if you are struck hard enough the car will move forward. Not to mention that your foot can slip off the brake when you are struck. I'd like to see how steady you can keep yourself after being struck by a car.

        Like(0)
        Dislike(0)
  9. Gabbs says:

    Mike don't be so stupid, why would the person mention the vehicle in front when nothing happened to the forth vehicle.

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
    • Mike Hind says:

      A) Nice way to speak to people. Real classy.
      B) I'm not being stupid. The first taxi DID have damage.

      Like(0)
      Dislike(0)
  10. Nicole says:

    Zombie Apocolypse - the taxi was at a standstill, brakes on, at the stoplight. The white van hit it with such force that it flew forward into the white van. It could not prevent ANYTHING. The white van subsequently was jarred forward with stuff inside flying everywhere. That shows you the amount of force involved. Brakes, in this situation, would not have mattered. Furthermore, the white van in the back obviously did not brake before hitting the taxi - look at the damage to that vehicle. That shows you the force involved.

    There was not vehicle in front of the first white van. It was the first vehicle at the stoplight.

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
    • Mike Hind says:

      I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. There WAS another taxi.

      Like(0)
      Dislike(0)
    • Mike Hind says:

      You can see that none of these vehicles were at the stoplight. This happened outside the Emporium.

      Like(0)
      Dislike(0)
  11. Bermyman says:

    All the tourist leg distracting people!

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  12. Smiths says:

    The person who had the little van ,he feel a sleep he day but the should have tested him for drunk driving.
    He should not have that job that y that y it happen he should br fired how u go from a chief to cleaning a shop
    And mrs Barbara finess knows better. So I hope they make her and him pay everyone's damages.lol

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)
  13. The Ombudsman makes a statement and says:

    Some of you guys are real idiots...its called an accident for a reason...smh

    Like(0)
    Dislike(0)