Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 255 posts

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#51

Post by nitrogen »

hirsin wrote: post #25
nicklaf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, China was a Second World country (at least, back when the distinction still made sense). Of course, at some point, "Third World" became synonymous with "poor", and was euphemised to "developing".

When Mao created the notion of the Three Worlds, he included China in the Third World [1]. It was (ostensibly) unaligned, whereas Europe (and to an extent Japan) was aligned, making it Second World. He (via Deng) specifically called out the Third World as underdeveloped. [1] “Speech by Chairman of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of China, Teng Hsiao-Ping, at the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly: A…

This appears to be the speech cited: https://books.google.com/books?id=c1hUAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchw...

There's likely to be a better source available to someone wanting to spend the time to find it.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#52

Post by FilterSweep »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #42
revelation wrote: post #33

Well, in the US it doesn't matter, there are no consequences either way. You can literally rampage up a sidewalk and send a bunch of kids to hospital, and have city council line up excuses for you. [0] If you do manage to kill someone, no worries, just tell police you were grasping for some milk carton. [1] If you go by police, there are literally plenty of cars of all makes and forms randomly losing control! [2] The…

Traffic violence in the US is absurd. If you want to kill someone you might as well just do it in a car. Nobody will even bother investigating. The most recent atrocity was this week when a notorious reckless driver ran over a child and killed her. The driver is not charged with anything, but an outraged bystander who assaulted the driver at the scene was charged. http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/09/02/da-ken-thompson…

Well, if you have alcohol in your system you'll be hypothetically hung in court.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#54

Post by afarrell »

mirimir wrote: post #18

There's a similar dynamic in Mexico. Causing injury can mean responsibility for lifetime care. Another factor is Napoleonic law aka presumption of guilt. So one may end up in jail until trial. The third factor is ubiquitous graft. After an accident, the party with the most cash gets to tell the official story. So yes, advice is to flee with plates and registration (if any). But I didn't get that killing victims was c…

> Another factor is Napoleonic Law AKA presumption of guilt.

Wait what?

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#55

Post by meric »

mikeash wrote: post #34
hirsin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Mao created the notion of the Three Worlds, he included China in the Third World [1]. It was (ostensibly) unaligned, whereas Europe (and to an extent Japan) was aligned, making it Second World. He (via Deng) specifically called out the Third World as underdeveloped. [1] “Speech by Chairman of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of China, Teng Hsiao-Ping, at the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly: A…

According to Wikipedia, Mao's concept is different, despite the similar name. The term "Third World" comes from 1952 and was used to refer to countries not aligned with either the US or USSR, which would not have included China at the time.

In 1952 China was aligned with the USSR. It was in the midst of the Korean War of 1950-1953 where Chinese Communists funded by the USSR is helping North Koreans to fight against the South Koreans allied to the US.

The Chinese Civil War where the Communists were funded by the USSR and the Kuomintang were funded by the US just finished 2 years prior.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#56

Post by pvnick »

sandworm101 wrote: post #49

Forgetting the laws, what sort of people can so casually kill like this? There are basic human instincts not to hurt people. Armies have to train soldiers to ignore these feelings because without training most won't kill even under combat situations. So when I see someone kill so casually I have to believe that they have rehearsed the scenario in their head beforehand. That means a large number of chinese people driv…

People throughout history have killed, seemingly casually. It's human nature. I would contend that modern society has instilled these feelings of guilt associated with murder specifically against the natural tendency of man.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#57

Post by enraged_camel »

netforay wrote: post #39

Even though it is something I wanted to know, unfortunately this is not a story that I want to read at hacker news.

If you don't want to read it then don't. But if it's being upvoted to the front page it usually means other people here find it interesting and want to discuss it.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#58

Post by codyb »

netforay wrote: post #39

Even though it is something I wanted to know, unfortunately this is not a story that I want to read at hacker news.

I thought it was very interesting to learn about the effects of certain societal aspects on human behavior in societies at large.

Hackernews serves as a distribution vector for most content which expands the mind to new technologies, cultures, science, or entrepreneurial techniques.

For you, there is still quite a fair amount of technical content posted daily :-).

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#59

Post by mikeash »

meric wrote: post #55
mikeash wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Mao's concept is different, despite the similar name. The term "Third World" comes from 1952 and was used to refer to countries not aligned with either the US or USSR, which would not have included China at the time.

In 1952 China was aligned with the USSR. It was in the midst of the Korean War of 1950-1953 where Chinese Communists funded by the USSR is helping North Koreans to fight against the South Koreans allied to the US. The Chinese Civil War where the Communists were funded by the USSR and the Kuomintang were funded by the US just finished 2 years prior.

Sorry, double negative in my comment which is probably confusing. I meant that China was not included among the unaligned countries at the time, because it was aligned with the USSR. In short, yes, what you said.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#60

Post by jmspring »

Not the same, but...an anecdote from when I went through driver's education. This was many moons ago and it was meant tongue in cheek, with a bit of truth -- if you hit a pedestrian to the point they are severely injured, you better hope they don't survive.

Thinking seems to be -- A car versus a pedestrian (or cyclist) unless a glancing blow is going to do a lot of damage to the ped/cyclist. Personal liability could be huge in the case of injury, much more so (potentially) than wrongful death.

We see this commonly in the Bay Area in motorist killing a cyclist, the criminal penalty (if any) is often not as severe as it should be.

(The above said, even when the motorist hits and the ped/cyclist survives, getting justice can be long and involved -- classic case is the Los Gatos/Los Altos business man who severely impacted a cyclist who was permanently injured -- http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20884491/saratoga-businessman-... )

I don't advocate such, just a story and some bay area experiences I remember.

Post reply on HN