Man held over fatal hit-and-run in Chiba
CHIBA —
Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old man over the fatal hit-and-run of a 58-year-old man shortly before 6 a.m. in Mobara, Chiba Prefecture. According to police, the victim—identified as Seiki Ando—was crossing a road with his two dogs in the Shimonagayoshi area when he was hit by a white minivan.
The driver of the car, a 21-year-old company employee, called police a short time later. Police said he was drunk at the time of his arrest and told them that he couldn’t see clearly ahead of him.
Order by Time Order by Popularity
29 Comments
Login to comment
0
cwhite
well at least he called the police, ambulance might have been better though.
0
timeon
I didn't understand properly, where was the "run" part?
drunk, hit and killed a guy. well dude, you're screwed
Moderator: The story has been amended.
0
elbudamexicano
I feel so sorry for this old guy just going out to walk his 2 little dogs and POW! May he rest in peace! The 21 year old drunk, well I wish the victim's family could have a go at him.
0
CavemanLawyer
I am not sure if I feel sorry for him yet or not. Sounds to me like he was jaywalking since there is no mention of a crosswalk or a light. And you know, it is really easy to see a car coming if people just open their eyes. On the other hand, even a sober driver's view has obstructions.
Yeah, he admitted to being drunk. But nowhere does it say he swerved onto to the sidewalk. It says the old man was crossing the street, and I would put my money on the idea that the old man put himself in danger without a second thought. I bet he could have saved himself really easily, but instead decided to play chicken with a minivan.
It sounds me like the overwhelming majority of fault for the accident lies with the pedestrian. But of course, everyone is going to blame the alcohol. It is possible that had the driver been sober, the accident might not have happened. But I can guarantee the accident would not have happened if the pedestrian had not placed himself in front a moving vehicle.
0
smartacus
CavemanLawyer The driver was drunk. That means he is responsible, not the victim. Your other conjectures are almost certainly wrong. A man walking two dogs would not play chicken with a minivan.
Some of your posts are weird, the way you try to defend or mitigate crimes or reckless behavior.
0
cleo
But if they were big dogs and he didn't have proper control over them, it's possible that they might pull him into the road in front of a vehicle. The article doesn't mention that possibility, though; it just says that he was crossing the road. If there were mitigating circumstances I'm pretty sure the driver would have mentioned them in his own defence. All we have is his own admission that he was drunk and couldn't see clearly. I don't see any cause for Caveman's suppositions.
What happened to the dogs, I wonder?
0
CavemanLawyer
You don't see any reason at all why a man walking his dogs should not be on the street before making absolutely certain that it is safe to do so?
If the dogs did pull him, or say, distract him, do you not think that even a sober driver might not have been able to react to that?
Would not? Try should not. I have seen a million idiots walking the streets here, and yes, some have dogs.
My posts are simply not bound by the assumptions most people's minds have been trained to jump to. Like this:
If you mean that in the legal sense, its as true as it is stupid. But if you mean it in the real world sense, as in a question of what actually happened, well, you just don't have the details for that. You would basically be saying that it is impossible for a sober person to hit a pedestrian, even though it happens as much or more as sober drivers doing the same.
Now, I have said this before and I will say it again: It is ridiculously easy for a pedestrian to either get out of the way of cars or not even get in front of them in the first place. Cars are big. They are generally noisy. They travel almost exclusively on certain paths and courses. Pedestrians can jump, turn, and stop all on a dime. You have to be really dumb, careless, or practically an invalid to get hit by a car while walking. Really.
0
RogueFive
RogueFive standing by. Here's some video news. Straight stretch of road which the driver was apparently flying down.
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/videonews/ann/20081102/20081102-00000010-ann-soci.html
I'd say he wasn't paying attention.
0
thundercat
Thanks for the link Rogue5
Caveman,
Often pedestrians and drivers have to share the same stretch of road. Drivers are always responsible for the safety of pedestrians, not the other way around, for obvious reasons. Pedestrians often do make bone headed moves but that in no way lets the driver off the hook, the bottom line is that they have to be prepared to take whatever action is necessary to avoid an accident with a person. When a driver cannot see clearly it is their responsibility to slow down or even pull off the road until conditions have improved. Add to the fact that the driver was drunk and i'd say it's a slam dunk case of vehicular manslaughter, or in Japan, professional negligance causing death. Judging by the condition of the car after the accident I would say that he was probably flying down the road.
You always pull the 'sober drivers doing the same...blah blah blah' but the fact is that this guy was drunk and you can never rule that out as a contributing factor in the accident. The only way to rule it out is to not be drunk. BTW, this accident happened at 6am which leads me to believe that the driver had been drinking all night.
0
CavemanLawyer
Thank you for the video RogueFive. As I thought, not a zebra crossing in sight.
You know, its interesting that I have not said one word about letting the driver off the hook. I have merely been pointing out how the pedestrian could easily have saved his own life. The driver was drunk and speeding, and those things in themselves are wrong, regardless of an accident or not, and he should be punished for them. (However we do not know to what degree he was drunk or speeding, and I bet speeding down that straightaway is as common as the asphalt its made of and the pedestrian knew that).
But the pedestrians have the choice of whether to enter that road or not. The drivers cannot use the sidewalk or jump into fields or people's yards. The drivers have almost no choice but straight ahead. Everybody knows it. And anybody who jumps ahead of a car should expect to get plowed.
Are you saying that pedestrians have no responsibility for themselves or even the drivers? You know, sometimes the occupants of the vehicles also die because of the carelessness of pedestrians. I will agree the EVERYBODY should be as careful as the can. I sure do not want to hit anyone even if its totally their fault. But to totally absolve the careless and put all the blame on another because he was careless too and the other is dead? I can think of several reasons to do that and none have anything to do with an honest analysis of what happened.
So was this guy blind or what? The blind are supposed to have one dog, not two, and that dog should be trained to cross at crossings. If this guy could not be bothered to get the seeing eye dog, or actually judge the speed of on-coming traffic on such a straight and clear stretch of road, then I find him more than half responsible for his own demise. The fact the car was speeding makes it more difficult to judge, and the driver was wrong for that, but come on! How long does it take to clear one lane of the road? How hard is it to judge that you and your dogs won't make it before the car hits you?
One ton plus masses of steel should be respected when they are going so much faster than a man can run. Everybody knows they cannot stop instantly like the gosh darn Road Runner. One look and you know exactly where they are headed and you have to be a darn fool to just get in front of it when you could just wait for it to pass.
Speeding is wrong. Drunk driving is wrong. But it is also wrong to blame a man so much for the death of another when that other could easily have saved himself.
The video contradicts what is said in the article. The video says the guy was not looking ahead enough. Another bad of the driver, yes, but the pedestrian still could have saved his own butt.
0
bamboohat
Man, when I was a kid, it was drilled into my head over and over again to look both ways before crossing the street. But here, man I only sometimes see people even turn their head. Old people walking, kids on bikes, they just walk out and expect the driver to stop, which luckly they usually do, but I've seen some ladies driving while looking at cellphones, dudes shaving, I can't imagine walking out into the street and not making sure somebody wasn't barreling my way. That said, the driver was drunk and he is 100% responsible, but jeeze poor old dude, you at least coulda looked....I hope you went quickly without any pain, and your last memory on earth was a peaceful early morning dog walk..bad a bad way to go I reckon..
0
CavemanLawyer
A lot of Japanese wouldn't. A lot of Japanese totally buy into the whacky idea that they are 100 percent responsible just because they were driving and the other was walking, (even some of us do) and therefore, they do not quibble or make a fuss, and just quietly take what they think they would receive anyway. Its a very Japanese thing to do. The fact that he was drinking and speeding only adds to his own sense of guilt.
But if the dogs were pulling the guy, he should have let go of them. Again, he could easily have saved his own skin with ease.
0
helloklitty
When crossing a road and a car is coming, it's a good idea to make eye contact with the driver. If you can't, get out of the way. Drivers don't always do what their supposed to do. You have to assume they are drunk idiots.
0
MeanRingo
Caveman, I usually agree wholeheartedly with your posts, but today you seem to be a little ridiculous. You seem to want to ignore the fact that the guy was drunk. Boom, as soon as that happens the driver is in the wrong. The guys life could have been saved if the driver hadn't started up the ignition. Had he not done it, his life wouldn't have even been in danger. Don't try to blame some guy for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and don't think a 58-year-old can flip, twist and turn to avoid an on-coming drunk idiot. Now, I surmise from your handle that you are somehow connected with the legal system, but it is not a crime to be walking outside along a public thoroughfare. I've seen the sidewalk end in Japan a million times. To the point where I believe it is a danger to pedestrians. Where else are people supposed to walk? Bottom line it is the duty of the driver to avoid hitting pedestrians.
0
Disillusioned
And, let's not forget the newspaper on the steering wheel trick either. Japanese drivers are generally totally irresponsible, reckless and careless. Drunk driving is rampant outside the major cities and the police do very little other than token breath testing from time to time and always in the same places. Furthermore, the breath test is usually a cop asking you to blow into his face. It comes as no surprise people are getting knocked off by drunk and speeding drivers. For 90% of the drivers there are no consequences. It's only very few of these reckless twits that actually get caught - or confess! As for pedestrians, they are just as reckless, but the responsibility is on the driver of a vehicle to be aware that most pedestrians are just plain stupid!
0
Statistician
Hard to believe some of the posts here.
This is a small town in the boonies in Chiba-ken, not the bright lights of Tokyo.
I can't remember the last time I even saw a 'sidewalk' around here let alone walked on one. When you drive you have to expect pedestrians at the side of the road. Jeez.
0
noirgaijin
Wow!!! CavemanLawyer would be one hell of a Defense Attorney and many others here as Prosecutors. Here's my take on it; Suspect driving while intoxicated, under the influence or whatever, clearly is a factor in the incident by law. The victim was out walking his dogs with the same lack of caution many have here and truly thought any driver would be looking out for him regardless of the weather conditions, big mistake! Cell phones and high tech gadgetry in cars have removed the "room for error" in safe driving. How often do you see someone cruising along and text mailing or yakking away on the cell. Add in a few drinks to that and no one is really driving the vehicle anymore.
0
BlackFlag
neanderthal thinking in some posts whose basic argument comes down to "the guy wouldnt have died if he had stayed at home"
0
thundercat
Caveman, You are too funny. Ok, so you think because the old man was 'crossing' the road where there was no 'crosswalk' it is his fault that he was hit. Considering there are no sidewalk how can we even be sure that he was trying to cross the street. You want to pretend that alcohol in no way contributed to this accident than I think nothing the old man did contributed to this accident. No one is responsible. Now we can do away with the entire judicial system and hopefully you at the same time (as if you are really a lawyer!)
As I said before, don't want alcohol to be considered a factor in a road accident, don't drink and drive! The driver is criminally negligent anyway you look at it. Case closed!
0
CavemanLawyer
Well he was not hit at the side of the road. He moved directly in the path of a moving vehicle.
And if you watch the video linked above, you can clearly see the sidewalks. Yes, there are sidewalks on both sides. But Mr. Dogwalker could not be bothered to use them to get to a zebra crossing, let alone stand there and wait for the steel death box to pass.
0
CavemanLawyer
I think I clearly stated it was mostly his fault, but not all his fault. And not mostly because of the lack of a zebra crossing, but because he moved in front of a speeding vehicle he obviously did not take the time to look for.
Considering how little time it takes to clear just one road land for a pedestrian, the guy must have either stepped right in front of the guy or walked extremely slowly. Even when a car is moving quickly, it still has to be pretty close when you stepped on the road for it to actually hit you.
Another person who could not be bothered to examine the evidence. Why do you people even argue with me?
It probably did. I never said anything to contradict that. What I am saying is that we do not really know if it did. The driver may not have been looking forward for a variety of reasons, including a pretty skirt on the other side of the road which even sober drivers look too long at. Its one of the many reasons I never expect a car to stop for me, not even when the pedestrian light is green.
It was more of what he didn't do.
Do think there is nothing this guy could have done to prevent getting hit by a car? Come on now, think!
Its funny the way things happen, but what I am about to tell you is completely true. I went to the grocery store last night and stepped in front of a car. I think I missed it because it did not have headlights on and a pole and other cars blocked my vision. What did I do? I stepped back, full reverse almost instantly. The driver of the car, much like a driver of a train, could not do anything remotely like that to prevent hitting me. And if he had hit me, I truly would only be blaming myself (and maybe the people who designed the parking lot).
0
smartacus
CavemanLawyer
Hah, you don't know when you are licked. The driver was drunk. That makes him guilty of DUI. Case closed. Unless, of course, you have a video showing the man and his dogs lying down in the middle of the road. And even if you did, the driver would still be guilty of negligent driving resulting in death.
0
CavemanLawyer
smartacus, yes, I know what the law says. But the law is not God's truth my friend.
The reason that the law is so hard on drivers is because they want to impart a sense of doom on drivers to make them extra cautious. After all, a pedestrian should have a very strong sense of doom when crossing the road by common sense alone. We should not need to do much to convince the pedestrian to save his own life, or so one would think.
But if we tell drivers the simple truth that a pedestrian can save his own life far easier than than drivers can, then the stupid drivers (and there are many) are going to interpret that as they can be less cautious. But we want everyone to exercise as much caution as they can. So the truth would seem to be counter-productive for the intents and purposes of reducing accidents.
I think the trouble in Japan is that the pedestrians have totally bought the idea that the driver is at fault, and focusing on that, have lost the sense of doom they should have. They think "well, that car has to stop and let me pass, or he is in the wrong". Instead of thinking "If the driver of that car has somehow not seen me, I will be a pancake if I cross his path. Better wait." Giving pedestrians the right of way has back-fired in Japan if you ask me. But again, as good intentioned as that rule is, it is still not the truth of what is happening. Many of you are just refusing to part with the programming that the authorties have instilled in you. Maybe that makes the world a safer place, but it sure does not make it a fair one.
Have you ever considered why bullets have the right of way? Even if they could stop and 99.9999 percent of the time were nice enough to do so, I would still give all bullets the right of way, and wait for all to pass if I saw them coming. Think about that.
0
CavemanLawyer
So, let me get this straight: Many of you are actually defending a man's right to cross the road where ever he wants, whenever he wants? Is that correct?
Or does it only count when the man is walking Lassie and Toto? Or does it only count if the driver has been drinking and/or speeding, so walking in front of drunk speeders is totally sound practice?
0
thundercat
Caveman, you are clutching at straws.
The law is designed to eliminate alcohol as a possibility. Every driver is aware of this fact before getting behind the wheel. If you choose to deliberately break the law other factors are not important because you can never answer the question 'Had he not been drunk, could the accident have been avoided?' Whether this is fair or not is beside the point. The driver knew he was breaking the law but figured he could get away with it. Drunk driving + kill a pedestrian = significant jail time. Case closed!
You want to be sure that alcohol was not a factor? The only way is to not drink and drive, pretty simple stuff.
0
BBLeo
Yes he was drunk, but at least the called the police. However, there is no excuse being boozed up while driving. Lock him up.and give him soft drinks while he is behiond the bars.
0
CavemanLawyer
How can fairness ever be beside the point???
Look, I am not saying he should not be punished for drinking and driving, or even for speeding. I am saying it makes no sense to completely blame him for an accident the other guy had 20 times the power to prevent.
It would be different if his drunkness caused him to drive up on the sidewalk and kill someone there. But that is not what happened. The pedestrian, with no blind spots but those we all have, far fewer obstructions to vision than anybody in a car, moving at a speed so slow he can stop instantly and without fear of getting slammed from behind, no one to worry about but himself and his stupid dogs (unlike the driver who has to watch everybody), walked off the sidewalk onto a long straight stretch of road despite there being NO CROSSWALK there. That is what happened. Anybody could have hit that fool. He was breaking the rules and common sense as much as anyone. He may have been punished too much for his mistake, but I do not think the driver should be over-punished if we have the choice, and we do. Because fairness is never ever beside the point.
Maybe many of you take glee in making examples of people. Well, I think the best example here is the fool who wasn't paying attention crossing the road. Anybody could have hit him sober, and it does happen. Oh sure, maybe if the driver was sober he could have locked up the brakes and narrowly avoided hitting the guy. Is that the way you think it should have happened? Or if he had been going a slower speed, perhaps he could have stopped dead on the road to let the guy cross. Is that the way you think it should have happened? Because I imagine this scenerio, and I cannot see how it would have been completely different for anything the driver did differently. Anyway I slice it, it comes down the driver having to react to the pedestrian crossing the road where and when he shouldn't, and that does not seem right. It seems dangerous and irresponsible, even more so than speeding and drinking, and I have done both those AND jaywalking, and I am finding the jaywalking to be the real problem here.
0
thundercat
I have previously stated that I thought the harsh punishments are what cause many of these hit and runs. Rest assured I take no glee what-so-ever in someone being made an example because that doesn't seem to work here as drunk driving accidents continue to happen.
And the simplest thing that you don't seem to understand is that being drunk impairs the drivers reaction time. This is a well documented fact and is precisely the reason that drinking and driving is illegal. DUI is not illegal to ruin anyones good time, it is illegal to protect people. A sober driver may very well have been able to avoid the accident, but as I stated earlier, that is something that will never be determined because the driver was infact DRUNK! Drunk at 6am on a Sunday morning... maybe you want to believe he had a wee cheeky one at breakfast before work but any reasonable person knows this clown was up all night drinking.
You seem to imply in your posts that an appropriate punishment for jay-walking is death. You are so sure that the pedestrian was breaking the rules but isn't it just as likely that he was walking down the side of the road. Or is not using a sidewalk also a mistake worthy of death? And yet, we can be damn sure the driver as breaking the law...
If the driver had been sober I would be entirely sympathetic in this case. But he wasn't, and since I can't conclude that alcohol didn't play a factor in this accident I have absolutely no sympathy at all. He committed an act which he know was illegal, he knew the consequences of his actions would lead to harsh penalties and yet he engaged in illegal behaviour anyway. You can't go around knowingly committing crimes and then argue that the punishments are too harsh afterwards. Don't want the punishment, don't do the crime. This guy made a bad choice but he knew what he was getting involved in the moment he put the keys in the ignition. Remember, this driver is 21 years old. For his entire driving experience, very harsh penalties for drinking and driving have existed. He knew better Caveman, and yet he did it anyway, admit it.
0
CavemanLawyer
You need to talk to God about that one. I would rather the punishment were an occasional severe headache or something. But sometimes it is death, and no rule is going to change that.
The article could be wrong, but this would be just as stupid when there are sidewalks on both sides. Stupidity gets you dead.
I never deal in sympathy until I get as my facts as I can and determine fault. When that is all done, then sympathy is allowed. You see, a lot of people start with sympathy for the dead guy, his dogs and his family, and then they absolve him of his stupidity and recklessness, and then they blame the drunk driver 100 percent. Emotions get in the way of fairness and rational thought.
I already have. Drunk driving and speeding are wrong, he knew it, and he should be punished for those. Not doing those things probably would mean Mr. Dogwalker would only be injured or maybe the accident could have been avoided. But none of it changes the fact that is really easy to avoid getting run over but really difficult to avoid a pedestrian that has jumped in the way of your car.
I do find fault with the driver for the accident. Hang on to that fact. But most of the fault I put on the pedestrian.
That being established, I feel sorry for the old guy even if he was stupid. I feel sorry for the driver because he has to live with having run someone over, which is not pleasant even if a person fell from the sky in front of your car, and I feel sorry because I know the system will give him total blame despite the foolishness of the pedestrian.
Back to top