Live data from Hacker News

Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

slate.com

181–190 of 255 posts

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

#181
Alternate title: Why Americans intentionally kill home invaders.

It's a much more economical choice than suffering through a civil suit and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and medical bills to a criminal who, for all the court cares, wanted to rape and kill you. In the end, it's capitalism working as intended, top to bottom.

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When referring to the execution, 'hanged' is used. To say someone is hung means they have a large benis. I'm not making this up.

http://grammarist.com/usage/hanged-hung/ (doesn't have the benis part)

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

#183
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are basic human instincts not to hurt people. citation needed I don't think this is "human instinct". Looks more like a moral construct.

Not the best source, but this is common knowledge in many circles: "In a squad of 10 men, on average fewer than three ever fired their weapons in combat. Day in, day out — it did not matter how long they had been soldiers, how many months of combat they had seen, or even that the enemy was about to overrun their position. This was what the highly regarded Brigadier General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, better known a…

S.L.A. Marshall made up his figures from whole cloth. There's no evidence he ever did the research he claimed to have done upon which those figures are based.

Below quote from http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marsha.... Emphasis not in original This calculation assumes, however, that of all the questions Marshall might ask the soldiers of a rifle company during his interviews, he would unfailingly want to know who had fired his weapon and who had not. Such a question, posed interview after interview, would have signalled that Marshall was on a particular line of inquiry, and that regardless of the other information Marshall might discover, he was devoted to investigating this facet of combat performance. John Westover, usually in attendance during Marshall's sessions with the troops, does not recall Marshall's ever asking this question. Nor does Westover recall Marshall ever talking about ratios of weapons usage in their many private conversations. Marshall's own personal correspondence leaves no hint that he was ever collecting statistics. His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in Men Against Fire. The "systematic collection of data" that made Marshall's ratio of fire so authoritative appears to have been an invention.

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you mean "general disregard of the law" by "culture"? Because the cultures are light years apart.

Are they? Which culture do you feel is more ahead in terms of trust?

That's a very narrow perspective. There are (possibly literally) uncountably many other dimensions of culture than level of trust in society.

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

#185

I could not finish this article. I have read about and seen a lot of disturbing things, but this bothers me far more than any horror movie or shock film ever could. The situation exposed in this article evidences something really fundamental about human nature: the banality of evil. That someone could run over a toddler and then reverse back and forth over them just so they only have to pay $50,000 instead of $400,00…

Yes it's sickening, and also broadly understood to be a logical thing to do in China.

Let's play the devil's advocate and understand the motive behind it-

The average annual wage of a Chinese citizen is $7,500 USD, whereas the average annual wage of an American is $45,000.

Which means that $400,000 is worth 400,000 x 45,000 / 7,500 = $2,400,000 . And that's only over 23 years so far. You have to keep paying until the day the victim dies. That's the equivalent of $105,000 for Americans per year.

If you refuse to pay, the victim will take you to court and confiscate all your belongings. If you still refuse to get a job to pay, the court will throw your ass in jail and (here is the important part) force your family to pay, indefinitely, until the victim dies.

So are you going to have your family pays $105,000 per year while you sit in jail, or are you going to make sure the victim is dead?

Trust me when I say no one wants to kill another human, but when the law is lay against you in such way, well don't be surprise that humans can override their natural instinct.

(I am from Hong Kong that, while most people there do not share the same sentiment, but can understand the math behind this horrific logic.

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

#186
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a pedestrian or cyclist is killed by a car in the US, so long as the driver is not drunk and does not leave the scene, the driver will almost never face criminal penalties. What we call car accidents are considered an unavoidable part of life to be resolved by civil courts and insurance payouts. I'd say say the US has a cultural mess regarding cars too.

Yes, we all understand that stupid little non-analogy that you US haters use. The template is as follows: Something bad happens in some other country. The America hater immediately responds with something that the US does that is usually nothing at all to do with the point of the story. Yes, we understand your retarded tactics. Try again.

Yep. As a non-American, it gets a little boring when people keep bringing America up in threads that aren't about America.

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

#187

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…

I have a thoery that a human life isn't as valuable in places with huge populations.

I rem reading about how people value time so much in the Scandinavian countries because they see so little of the Sun and how in tropical countries the concept of punctuality is close to non existent.

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

#188
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But when Mao made his speech in 1974, that was way into the sino-soviet split.

Mao didn't invent the term...

Right, but China was technically third-world (non-aligned) at that point.

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

#189
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some burdens are simply too severe to levy on a single person for an accident. These should be borne by a combination of insurance, the community, and/or the state.

The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true.

> The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true.

It's an accident because it's not on purpose. If you intentionally kill your ex with your car then people don't call it an accident.

Moreover, there are less than 5000 pedestrian fatalities per year in the US, and the reason there are that many is that US drivers drive three trillion miles a year. That's less than one pedestrian fatality for every 600 million miles. At 12,000 miles a year it would take more than 50,000 years before the average driver would kill one pedestrian. And that isn't doing any accounting for the cases where the pedestrian was at fault.

Most drivers never kill anyone. And that remains true even though almost all drivers are idiots at least some of the time. Because to kill someone you have to be an idiot and be in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time. But you can't control random chance, which is why we have insurance.

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

#190
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle?? Or are you speaking less formally: that you might never get caught for the kill if there's nobody to turn you in?

> Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle? Yes. If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder. It's entirely pos…

> If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder.

In some states you will be immune from civil action if you win your criminal case on self defense. Florida, for example [1].

If no criminal case is brought in Florida, and you are sued civilly and prove self defense in the civil trial, the court is required to award you attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and expenses incurred for your defense.

[1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

Post reply on HN