crime

Man killed in hit-and-run in Aichi

27 Comments

A 37-year-old man was killed in a hit-and-run in Anjo, Aichi Prefecture, on Sunday morning.

According to police, the incident occurred at around 1:15 a.m. The victim was identified as Kunio Yoshizawa, a company employee.

NTV said that a woman called police to report that a man had been hit by a white sedan that kept going.

Yoshizawa was confirmed dead at the scene, police said.

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

Hide and never get caught! Else, you will never see the sun again, you pathetic coward POS.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The added penalty for hit-and-run is under five years' imprisonment or a fine of 200,000 to 500,000.

http://dspace.lib.niigata-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10191/1076/1/18_0097.pdf

How about a mandatory ten years?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

People who hit someone and take off most always get caught. I would think the punishment would be less severe if you just stop and help the person you hit or wait for the cops to show up than to take off and be found later.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Apart from the penalties involved, not rendering help to a fellow human you have injured shows you are not fit to live in a normal society. Zero humanity. RIP to the poor victim.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Horrible. I hope they find the person who did this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Got to give it to the J-cops. When they are on something they are on something and don't leave a stone unturned. 99.9% it's just a matter of time.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Hold on a second. Was a blood alcohol test done on the victim? Was he wearing dark or reflective clothing? Where was he hit, on the sidewalk or on the road? Was he at a crossing point or jaywalking?

The traffic laws in Japan made it homicide the moment you hit someone, regardless of whether they were stinking drunk and walked out in front of your car or whether the driver hit them on the sid walk. This is the reason there are so many hit and runs in Japan. There seems my is no incentive to stop. The article reflects this thinking, with not even a hint about who was responsible. The assumption is that the driver was 100% in the wrong.

A drunk staggering out into the road from behind a tree meters from your car at 1am is every driver's worst nightmare and in Japan your only hope of escaping a career ending jail sentence is to drive on and hope no one saw it

There should be some legal incentive for drivers to stop, such as contemplating the possibility that the pedestrian may have caused the accident.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

There's no escaping severe penalties for killing a pedestrian, and only very rarely--almost never--are extenuating circumstances taken into account. Drivers just have to live with it, or not drive. I've never thought that's always fair or reasonable, but what I think doesn't count.

The penalties for hit and run are much more severe, and there will be no breaks in sentencing, as there might be if the driver stayed, called police, tried to render assistance, etc. (as any decent human would do, IMO, regardless of impending charges/penalties).

One big reason that hit and runs seem to be increasing these days is that the penalties for DUI were made much more severe a while back, after some high profile cases, especially one in which a family's car was knocked off a bridge. Drivers who have been drinking decide to take a chance and run instead of staying and getting charged with DUI in addition to the likely professional negligence, causing bodily harm while driving, manslaughter (if they kill the pedestrian (or cyclist, probably...they're likely to be treated as pedestrians if hit).

It sometimes happens that the hit and run drivers turn themselves in the next day, when their DUI cannot be proved, and claim that "they're not sure, but maybe they hit someone/something last night".

4 ( +4 / -0 )

There should be some legal incentive for drivers to stop

There IS legal incentive to stop - not getting slapped with a hit-and-run charge.

Look when you are operating a motor vehicle you are the one with the power. You need to look out for the ones without the power - pedestrians, regardless of their mental/physical state. Driving is a big responsibility, you need to expect the unexpected, that some fool will wander in front of you. It's perfectly fair to me to put the responsibility on the driver 99.999% of the time.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Pandabelle - the day cars come equipped with the ability to reach a complete stop in under a meter you'll have a point. Ive had a pedestrian run out in front of my car and I nearly killed myself trying to avoid him (I spun my car and nearly hit a pole). If I died the pedestrian wouldn't have been punished. If the pedestrian died I would have been punished, despite the pedestrian illegally entering the road at night in an area not for crossing.

No. Everyone needs to be equal before the law or the law is wrong.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Frungy, if you are in an area with lots of pedestrians then the speed limit is likely 40, which is very easy to stop quickly from. If you cannot, you are probably exceeding this speed. You shouldn't be able to spin your car braking from 40!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

PandabelleOct. 20, 2014 - 05:34PM JST Frungy, if you are in an area with lots of pedestrians then the speed limit is likely 40, which is very easy to stop quickly from. If you cannot, you are probably exceeding this speed. You shouldn't be able to spin your car braking from 40!

You obviously don't drive or you'd know that what you've just written is completely untrue.

On a rainy day and slamming your foot down as hard as possible on the brakes as you turn your car to avoid the person who has just stepped out just a couple of meters in front of your car it is MOST DEFINITELY possible to spin your car. I was actually doing a bit under 40, and I ended up with a dent in the door of my car from where I bounded off the pole and the window next to me was cracked (but didn't shatter).

I was badly shaken up and bruised and the idiot pedestrian stood there for about a minute before running off. I ended up paying the full cost for the accident, including my own medical bills. Fortunately I had insurance, but I'm still paying for the cost of claiming. The police acknowledged that I reacted in the best way possible and was not at fault I still had points taken off my license for being in an accident.

And I see similar idiocy from pedestrians on a weekly basis. Running across the road when there's a pedestrian crossing just a couple of dozen meters away (honestly, is it too much to ask that they just walk down there and cross legally?), cyclists coming full-tilt out of the dark to zip across the road without so much as pausing at the intersection to look for oncoming traffic, and a hundred other idiotic moves.

But it is obvious from your response Pandabelle that you're a career pedestrian, and just like the law because it means you're never held responsible for anything.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The assumption is that the driver was 100% in the wrong.

The assumption in this case is 100% because the driver left the scene of an accident resulting in the injury of a pedestrian. Leaving the scene of an accident is 100% wrong and illegal.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichiOct. 20, 2014 - 09:48PM JST yes, blame the victim!

So, because he's dead he's automatically guiltless? ... that is the least logical thing I've ever seen. I've just figured out how to commit the perfect crime in Japan. All the criminal needs to do is get hit by a car and whatever they're doing automatically becomes 100% legal and they're absolved of all guilt. Apparently most JT readers would support this idea.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The police acknowledged that I reacted in the best way possible and was not at fault I still had points taken off my license for being in an accident.

If the only thing that was damaged was your own car, you would not be considered to have been legally in a traffic accident. As such, under the Japanese traffic laws, you would not have had any points taken off of your license. Unless you damaged the pole, which you do not mention, there is no reason for you to have had any points taken off of your license. You could have had your insurance increased if you used it, but that has nothing to do with the license points system. That would be your insurance company's decision.

「無事故無違反」の無事故とは人身事故がゼロという意味であり、通常の物損事故では点数は加算されません。

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichiOct. 20, 2014 - 10:56PM JST Yes that right, whenever a driver of a vehicle hits and kills someone, they are always guilty and in Japan if found will be sent to prison for at least five years.

I've been in a situation where I could have hit someone and it was only through sheer luck (good and bad) that my car spun and I ended up describing a neat circle around the pedestrian. It could very easily have been otherwise. Was I guilty? Guilt would require some sort of negligence or criminal intent on my behalf.

I couldn't see the guy until he stepped out into the road, there was a tree blocking my view. He stepped out about 2 meters in front of my car, and there's no way a car going at about 30~35km/hr (UNDER the legal speed limit) can stop in 2 meters. The braking distance (excluding any reaction time) is about 6 meters.

How would I have been "guilty" if I hit that guy? As it was I just lucked out. I slammed on brakes and counter steered, missing the guy by centimeters. My aquaplaning was the best thing that could have happened in the situation, because without that it would have been impossible to miss the guy.

If anyone was "guilty" in that situation it was the pedestrian who knowingly walked up to the street, failed to look, decided to jaywalk and caused a situation that wrecked my car and cost me a ton in repair and medical bills. But the legal system in Japan places absolutely zero responsibility on the pedestrian.

The reasons for hit and runs are usually because the driver had been drinking alcohol and over the limit.

Bull. A bigger reason for hit and runs in Japan is that the driver is automatically assumed to be guilty and is facing a 10 year sentence, regardless of who actually caused the accident and whether it was even physically possible to avoid the accident.

When your life is already ruined then why not run? This is the problem I'm trying to point out with the current system, but you seem intent on ignoring it. If the legal system was prepared to contemplate the fact that the pedestrian could be at fault then you'd see more drivers sticking around in the hope that they could prove that the pedestrian created a set of circumstances where the accident was inevitable.

The current system gives them no reason to do stick around.

Additional prison time will be given for leaving the crime scene and not reporting it to the police. Guess you don't live or drive here then otherwise you would be aware of the laws? The fleeing driver has committed many serious offenses.

I'm aware of the laws. I'm pointing out that they're stupid laws that encourage fleeing the scene. These laws have doubtless killed many people as prompt medical attention COULD have save lives, but instead the driver knows that their only hope at avoiding prison time is to flee the scene. If the law allowed for the possibility that the pedestrian was at fault (such a small change that just seems like common sense) then you'd see more drivers sticking around and less lives lost.

I sincerely hope you're never in the situation of hitting someone with a car, because maybe then you'll see that the current legal system is idiotic. I still relive that situation in nightmares, the moment of recognition, my foot slamming on the brake as I desperately spun the car and the crash into the pole... and the dumb look on that pedestrian's face and then his cowardly decision to run off rather than check if I was injured.

No. Pedestrians need to take responsibility too or the law is a joke.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just re the driver-always-assumed-guilty, not this particular case: Should be mandatory stop-and-look-all-ways for pedestrians at crosswalks and crossings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frungy,

It was a regular city street. There were no trees from which to leap behind. The driver has been arrested. The driver admits he hit something, but did not think it was a person. You mentioned you were driving in the rain. Driving on a raining day, on a road with a speed limit of 40, does not mean you can drive up to 40 kph. You are always supposed to be driving at a speed that is reasonable for the conditions. Rain means going slower and being more cautious. Trees along the side means you should go slower and be more cautious.

However, the point is completely moot as turbostat points out. This was a city street and the pedestrians can be seen along the road very easily on such a road.

http://news.tv-asahi.co.jp/news_society/articles/000037033.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Frungy

But it is obvious from your response Pandabelle that you're a career pedestrian, and just like the law because it means you're never held responsible for anything.

Hah, I drive more than most, usually 12-15k km a year, a large portion of that in urban areas. I know how pedestrians act as well as bicyclists. They are unpredictable, and a driver must always be aware and prepared when driving.

But hey, I take responsibility for my actions, I am not complaining that the laws are unfair and biased against me! I choose to drive, it's a privilege, and I am perfectly willing to do what it takes to be a safe driver on the road so that others can be safe. Apparently not everyone feels the same way.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Frungy

You have had a traumatic accident which was not your fault, it was the fault of the pedestrian who fled from the scene. I hereby validate your feelings about that accident. I know you would never hit and run, even if it was the pedestrians fault.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I never buy into this "I thought Id hit something but didnt know it was a person" BS. If you feel enough of a bump that you know youe hit something, you stop. Always. You didnt know it was a person? But it could have been so you need to confirm. This was a drunk driver. Obviously.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

PandabelleOct. 21, 2014 - 09:37AM JST Hah, I drive more than most, usually 12-15k km a year, a large portion of that in urban areas.

12 to 15km a YEAR? That's averaging about 3 to 4 meters a day. Yeah, at those distances you could afford to drive at 2km/hr and still get where you're going... or you could just walk, it would be faster.

I know how pedestrians act as well as bicyclists. They are unpredictable, and a driver must always be aware and prepared when driving.

Then please, all knowing pedestrian, how would you prepare for someone jumping out in front of your car? There's no physical way to avoid the accident even if you drive half the speed limit.

But hey, I take responsibility for my actions, I am not complaining that the laws are unfair and biased against me! I choose to drive, it's a privilege, and I am perfectly willing to do what it takes to be a safe driver on the road so that others can be safe. Apparently not everyone feels the same way.

And I take responsibility for my actions. I do not take responsibility for the suicidal actions of others. There's a difference that you cannot seem to appreciate.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Frungy

Then please, all knowing pedestrian, how would you prepare for someone jumping out in front of your car?

Be aware of your surroundings, on and off the road. And don't drive so fast you put your car into a spin when you brake.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Be aware of your surroundings, on and off the road. And don't drive so fast you put your car into a spin when you brake.

Absolutely, Pandabelle. This is especially true in inclement weather such as rain or snow.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites