Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by mikerichards » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:15 AM UTC

dmm wrote: post #3

mikerichards wrote: post #2

Holy cow, that's some messed up shit. I've never heard of such a thing. And that they're getting slaps on the wrists if any punishment at all because cops are believing their insane stories. What a cultural mess.

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.

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

#32

Post by nicklaf » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:15 AM UTC

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…

I was unaware of Mao's Three World theory.

I had assumed that kelukelugames meant the phrase in the European sense of the term, coined in 1952 by Alfred Sauvy (according to Wikipedia).

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

#33

Post by revelation » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:15 AM UTC

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]

These are just some of the more outrageous failings. Don't kid yourself, the only reason people are not backing over victims in the US is that there is literally no need with a "legal system" happy to excuse drunkards and the plain irresponsible long past the border to criminal recklessness.

0: http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/09/12/driver-jumps-a-curb-an...

1: http://nypost.com/2013/03/12/deadly-wipeout-van-jumps-curb-a...

2: http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/07/17/nypd-no-charges-for-dr...

(This comment merely serves to dispel this notion some readers may get that this is an injustice that surely only happens in these third-world countries)

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

#34

Post by mikeash » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:16 AM UTC

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…

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.

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

#35

Post by chatmasta » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:16 AM UTC

malkia wrote: post #14

I've heard of a similar story, but in a different context. One of the asian airlines (I don't remember whether it was Taiwan, South Korean, etc.) had problems and lots of crashes. Turns out, people were not accustomed of questioning their bosses, and if this boss was your other co-pilot you would've never even try to correct them. I can't find the article, but it went something like "a western professor" goes to the…

You're thinking of the story from a Malcolm Gladwell book, either Blink or Outliers, I don't remember which. It analyzed the countries with the most airline accidents. South Korea followed by some South American countries was the worst, for the cultural customs of deference that you describe.

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

#36

Post by brianpgordon » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:16 AM UTC

malkia wrote: post #14

I've heard of a similar story, but in a different context. One of the asian airlines (I don't remember whether it was Taiwan, South Korean, etc.) had problems and lots of crashes. Turns out, people were not accustomed of questioning their bosses, and if this boss was your other co-pilot you would've never even try to correct them. I can't find the article, but it went something like "a western professor" goes to the…

Something similar happened on Tenerife in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

It led to widespread reform encouraging aircrew to speak up if something is wrong.

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

#37

Post by mgraczyk » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:20 AM UTC

Did anybody watch the last video? It looks like the person with the young boy pushes the boy under the truck. http://www.fzjfw.com/xxzx/aritcle194.html

I'm surprised that wasn't explained in the article.

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

#38

Post by spacehome » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

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…

> Causing injury can mean responsibility for lifetime care.

As well it should.

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

#39

Post by netforay » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

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

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

#40

Post by Retric » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 2:22 AM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #30

Retric wrote: post #27

In many of these cases bribes are what get people off not stupidity. PS: Granted, in a functional democracy changing the perverse incentives is a much better option. But, unfortunately in China the only reasonable response to this IMO is to find and brutally kill the driver and then publish this after the fact. Accidents happen, but murder should never end up as the 'better' option.

So your 'better' option to "getting off the hook" is murder? On a related topic - if you're dying on the streets of China, your chances of receiving help are slim. Anyone who attempts to help you is responsible for your medical bills. They'll let you die on the streets. The problem here is laws regarding expenses.

When the state executes someone for a crime it's generally not considered murder.

Vigilantism is considered a wide range of things in various cultures, but even in the US if a someone saw a driver drive back and forth over there kid and they pulled out a gun and shot the driver in rage then they would likely get off.

Doing the same thing in cold blood would be considered murder in the US, but we have a mostly functional court system. Without that Vigilantism may preform similar functions as state sponsored executions. Sure, it's far from ideal, but so is cold blooded murder of a child.

PS: Actual death would not be a requierment, but a level of harm that causes people to avoid murder is.