Man held over fatal hit-and-run in Chiba

Sunday 02nd November, 04:02 PM JST

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.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 29 Total Comments Show All

Disillusioned at 09:07 AM JST - 3rd November

driving while looking at cellphones, dudes shaving,

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!
Statistician at 10:36 AM JST - 3rd November

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.
noirgaijin at 10:49 AM JST - 3rd November

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.
BlackFlag at 11:49 AM JST - 3rd November

neanderthal thinking in some posts whose basic argument comes down to "the guy wouldnt have died if he had stayed at home"
thundercat at 11:50 AM JST - 3rd November

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!
CavemanLawyer at 11:56 AM JST - 3rd November

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.

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.
CavemanLawyer at 12:13 PM JST - 3rd November

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.

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.

Considering there are no sidewalk

Another person who could not be bothered to examine the evidence. Why do you people even argue with me?

You want to pretend that alcohol in no way contributed to this accident

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.

I think nothing the old man did contributed to this accident.

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).
smartacus at 12:25 PM JST - 3rd November

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.
CavemanLawyer at 01:22 PM JST - 3rd November

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.
CavemanLawyer at 01:56 PM JST - 3rd November

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?
thundercat at 02:26 PM JST - 3rd November

Caveman, you are clutching at straws.

What I am saying is that we do not really know if it(alcohol) did.

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.
BBLeo at 02:38 PM JST - 3rd November

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.
CavemanLawyer at 03:38 PM JST - 3rd November

Whether this is fair or not is beside the point.

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.
thundercat at 10:22 PM JST - 3rd November

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.

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.

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.

Well, I think the best example here is the fool who wasn't paying attention crossing the road.

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.
CavemanLawyer at 11:07 AM JST - 4th November

You seem to imply in your posts that an appropriate punishment for jay-walking is death.

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.

but isn't it just as likely that he was walking down the side of the road.

The article could be wrong, but this would be just as stupid when there are sidewalks on both sides. Stupidity gets you dead.

I have absolutely no sympathy at all.

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.

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.

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.