Passenger arrested for riding in car with drunk driver in hit-and-run case
NAGANO —
Police said Thursday they have arrested a passenger riding in a car with a drunk driver who allegedly hit two girls, killing one, in a hit-and-run incident in Nagano at about 12:30 a.m. on Nov 5.
According to a report on NTV, the passenger, Tsubasa Miyazawa, 20, is believed to have been drinking with his 19-year-old friend, who cannot be named because he is a minor, before asking for a ride home. Police said the car was involved in a hit-and-run accident in which two 17-year-old girls were run over. One died later in hospital.
During police questioning, Miyazawa told investigators that he did not think his friend was drunk, NTV reported.
Under Japanese law, riding in a car with a drunk driver can result in a two-year prison sentence or a fine of up to 300,000 yen.
Japan Today
Order by Time Order by Popularity
61 Comments
Login to comment
3
tokyokawasaki
Good. They both should have known better. Ignorance is no defense.
3
sillygirl
it is good to see the law ENFORCED for a change.
0
namabiru4me
The only reason this was "enforced" was because a young women had to die. I hope the other was not injured too severely, although she will probably be emotionally scared for life.
I hope no one comments that 17 year-old girls are to blame because they were out too late!
-7
DS
Wow. What a terrible law. Making someone responsible for the behavior of others...... talk about the nanny state in overdrive. Drunk driving is terrible and the driver needs to be punished severely. But drunk riding?!? Ridiculous.
-2
Disillusioned
19 year old driver? How old can you get a licence in Japan? I thought it was 20.
1
tokyokawasaki
@DS If I hold the rifle and you pull the trigger, I am also partly to blame. Likewise, if I get into a car knowing you the driver are drunk and without trying to stop you, I might as well pull the trigger myself. (i.e. I am just as guilty)...
Just because the other guy was a passenger, does not mean that all his social responsibilities are null and void. He is an adult and should have known better.
2
Disillusioned
DS - It's called, guilt by association, but in this case I think accessory to murder is more appropriate.
3
lucabrasi
@Disillusioned
Nah, it's eighteen. My boy's seventeen and looking forward to it... I'm terrified :(
1
zichi
That's the law and has been in force for quite a few years. Don't drink and drive, and don't allow your friends and family to drink and drive. Sad that all involved are so young.
4
sillygirl
friends don`t let friends drive drunk. and it is against the law here.
2
lucabrasi
Problem is, sillygirl, drunk friends are drunk and probably don't have the nous to stop their friends.
1
namabiru4me
@lucabrasi - they should stop them before they are drunk. If a friend drives to the bar, there is a good chance s/he intends to drive later.
2
Elbuda Mexicano
TokyoVsKawasaki it right on the money! Real good law and makes sense. If you get into a car, with some idiot that is drunk out of their brains, and do not even try to STOP them, that car becomes a DEADLY WEAPON, a few thousand pounds flying down a street, screeching around a curve, granny is caught off guard trying to cross the street, and what will that car do to YOU?? ME?? Granny?? Your kids?? So I do hope these drunken fools learn a good lesson BEHIND BARS!! and that poor girl who died, RIP.
3
The Munya Times
I had many cases when I refused to ride in a car with drunken drivers and opted a for long way home from the countryside by buses and trains. I didn't do that because of fear of being arrested for guilt by association, simply because I didn't want to die in a possible accident.
Otherwise, unless the passengers themselves had drunk together with the driver or lured him into drinking before driving and warned him not to drive drunk, they are not responsible for the drivers action. What does the police expect them to do, use force to stop them? That is against the law, or report to the police their wives/husbands, friends or bosses?
But whatever it is, as I wrote up there it is wiser not to get in a car driven by drunk a driver, supposing the passengers themselves are aware of that the driver is drunk, i.e. they didn't drink together just met and the driver offered a ride and is not drunk enough for the passenger, especially in the back seat, to realize the risk.
Or do we have to carry a breath analyzer and ask our friends to blow in it before accepting a ride. Passengers are not law enforcement.
The guilt by association might only stand if the passenger is actively involved in the drunk drive, otherwise the circumstances must be investigated carefully and charges should be established by great care.
-4
pointofview
Ridiculous people
-1
Arayat
"19-year-old drunk ass, who cannot be named because he is a minor"
Can someone tell me what age you can drink in Japan? And why is this minor drunk....?
1
BurakuminDes
Legally 20 - but everyone here knows Japanese teens love getting on the sauce - as they sure do in Australia, the UK and the States. Go to any chain izakaya on a Saturday night and you will find teenagers in there off their faces. Some of the HS girls on the drink look way older when they are dolled up...but that's another story! Difference is in Australia, for example, the rules are strictly enforced unlike in Japan.
-1
Arayat
BurakuminDes..... Thanks,
Is it true that you can`t buy cigarettes from a vending machine in Japan without having an identification cards or someyhing like that but you could buy alcohol without having a this identification card? So anyone can buy alcohol at any age? but not cigarettes?
2
Tom DeMicke
Two things that will NEVER happen: 1: You will never see a driver using a cell phone. 2: There will never be drunk drivers.
0
Yubaru
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is not over in regards to who else may be charged. According to the law here the person and or establishment that served them can also be held liable as well. There are plenty of bars and snacks and izakaya's that I have been to that ask drivers who drink to voluntarily turn over their car keys before drinking. It's a smart law as I see it.
It's a smart law if you stop and think about it. No one should be driving or riding with a drunk it;'s just plain stupidity and like another poster mentioned it's guilty by association.
1
The Munya Times
That's weird. Are they authorized to collect keys and take the financial and criminal responsibility if the owner of the car accuses them with stealing something from their cars?
As I wrote, passengers and bartenders are neither law enforcement nor authorities. If someone ask for a drink and they suspect the customer arrived by car and want to drive, all they can be requested is, to call and report it to the police. Not even the police has the right to collect the key and they wouldn't do it unless they want face the customer's lawyer as drinking is not the breach of the law. All they can do is to wait until the crime is committed and intervene when the drunk man gets in his car , starts the engine and drives away.
Now, may I ask how many phone calls the police could receive in one evening not just from pubs and bars but from law abiding passengers by giving them the cars number plates and possible route when he drives home?
Do you think they would willing to work and go after each and every cases lawfully, or simpler for them to freeze their @ss in the koban as usual and find someone to prosecute when the accidents have happened?
-3
BurakuminDes
Imagine this scenario : a bus driver has a big night, and next morning he is still slightly over the alcohol limit. There is an accident and the driver is arrested. Technically, all the passengers can be arrested and imprisoned for the offence of riding with a drunk driver. Just throwing it out there...
2
The Munya Times
p.s
Also if the police is so concerned they might as well anchor themselves in front of the millions of bars and pubs in Japan and wait for the people to come out and get in their cars and there they are. In one month they could clear up the mess and could take out at least the most notorious drunk drivers out of circulation. The police could do so many other things if they decided once to move their bloody @ss instead of making this ridiculous one week safety drive campaign twice a year and shifting the responsibility to fellow citizens.
-2
Yubaru
Where are you living and posting from? If you were here this is not a concern and it's voluntary. It's to get people to think before driving after drinking, and I personally like it because it's smart. Making people think before driving after drinking is one way to stop unnecessary accidents.
Next;
Again what country? The cops can and have charged people IN JAPAN for serving someone who caused an accident.
-1
Laguna
Burakumin,
The police have wide discretion in this area. The young man certainly had to know his friend was drunk. A scenario in which a person got into a car with a driver s/he quite plausibly did not know was drunk would not be charged.
-2
Yubaru
No wouldn't work, and know why? The guy riding in the car in the case in the article KNEW the driver had been drinking, wouldnt work on a bus unless all the passengers had prior knowledge. Also from what I hear bus companies test their drivers, breathalyzer, before they hit the road for their shifts as well.
This law is not usually enforced unless there is a serious accident, LIKE THE ONE IN THE ARTICLE. Same goes for businesses being potentially held responsible as well.
Anyone who defends a person who was driving drunk or riding in a car with a person that they KNEW had been drinking should be held responsible in my opinion. I have ZERO tolerance for people who drink and drive. It's the same a premeditated murder in my books and should be charged as such as well.
NO ONE forces you to drink and when you or anyone drives after drinking you are committing a crime and should be punished accordingly. And if you kill someone? I am a strong believer in tossing someone in jail for the rest of their life with ZERO chance of parole making small rocks out of bigger one's in dead silence.
Anyone complaining about this law as I see it is trying to defend drinking and driving.
3
CrazyJoe
I hope the driver is charged with murder since the girl that was killed was dragged for 700 meters. This 20 year old should be charged as an accomplice.
-1
Yubaru
Joe thank you I sincerely agree!
0
jonobugs
The laws certainly have changed quite a lot since I was a child and enforced even more. I think it's a smart law, but only if the police are willing to enforce it.
In my country, bars and restaurants can also be held liable for a drunk driver if they knowingly serve them and let them drive home. I'm guessing that it's part of their responsibility to know that the people they're serving are going to be reasonably okay after they leave. Is it the same in Japan?
1
jonobugs
I have a question about this law. Does it include minors, or can only adults be charged? The reason I ask is because what about parents who drive home under the influence with their children, or worse someone else's children? Who would be liable then? Just the drunk driver, or would the parent's of the children who got a ride from the drunk adult also be liable (assuming they knew).
1
DS
The law is ridiculous because you can avoid responsibility simply by not getting in the car. Maybe your friend is drunk and is going to drive, but as long as you stay out of the car yourself, you stay out of trouble.
I agree that this is a social responsibility- we should all guard against driving while intoxicated. However, social responsibility does NOT equal legal culpability. Sorry, but the general public isnt trained in matters of law, such as determining level of intoxication. This is lazy policing.
1
bonword
I found the Munya Times comments to be quite good in this thread. I don't like the fact that minors are drinking nor that people are driving drunk, but as Munya Times pointed out, we (as society) can not expect bartenders to police this behavior...
Maybe the simple answer is to install a breathalyzer in each car? They have the technology for repeat DUI offenders...if this was mass produced for all cars then the cost would come down. After all, as some of the JP people have pointed out, cars are basically deadly weapons, so wouldn't we all feel better if aside from the basic license, you also had to prove you were sober each time you wanted to operate this "DEADLY WEAPON" as Elbuda Mexicano has called the car....
1
Photoman333
bonword: Maybe the simple answer is to install a breathalyzer in each car?
In many locations in the US that's exactly what they do to repeat offenders. As far as I can tell it works quite well.
0
Vernie Jefferies
I can tell the law is working well here in Tokyo. If you ride the trains in the evening, you can see plenty of drunk salarymen on the way home and not driving. Well I am not sure how some make it home because they never wake up at train stops.
2
BurakuminDes
The problem here is - and why this tech hasn't become widespread - that offenders where this has been trialled have been known to simply get anyone else to blow into the breathalyzer in order to pass.
Call me crazy, but it just seems like in such situations, people seem to want to share the blame around. Blaming friends of the drunk driving moron, the bartender, passengers in the car, co-workers insisting on pouring more drinks, etc. In my mind it just comes down to personal responsibility - one reckless, selfish person decides to drive and thus become a lethal weapon on the road. Let's not try and water down the fact that this awful drunk driver is solely to blame for the death of this poor child. May she Rest in Peace, and the other girl recover fully.
1
MeanRingo
Pretty interesting that the passenger is the only one that will really get into any trouble here. What I want to know is how they were caught for the hit-and-run? Did the police track them down? Did the driver fess up? Or was it the passenger? That WOULD be interesting if the passenger let the cops know and then gets a heavier punishment (or the only punishment as the driver was merely a boy at 19 years of age) in this case.
-3
Yubaru
As I see it the people that find the law to be ridiculous have to be believing that drinking and driving are ok.
That is something that scares the heck out of me.
1
PussInBoots
The paranoia continues. I hardly favor drunk driving, but its not an automatic accident. And there are degrees of drunkenness, some of which make no difference at all.
So what is next? Arrest for letting someone drive on icy roads? For letting them drive over the speed limit? For letting them use a cell phone?
Authoritarian rules concerning drunk driving reached is practical limits long ago. You want to save lives? Get the old people off the roads.
Further, its bullox to give people responsibility, but no authority or power to do anything about it. If you attack someone to try and stop them drinking and driving, you are breaking the law. If you call the cops, they won't arrive in time to stop it. I would say that 9 times out of 10, its better for a drunk driver to have a passenger, someone to warn them of danger. For all we know, without the passenger, both women might be dead. The passenger might have issued a warning that saved a life even if it was not fast enough to save the other.
But I expect to get a lot of negative responses to this post, because so many of you have it in your heads that drunk driving is at least a 90 percent guarantee of an accident and a 50 percent guarantee that some will die. In short, most of you have a screw loose on this topic.
0
Nicky Washida
I dont think this is because of the law, so much as people dont drive into the city (exhorbitant parking if you can even find it), there are thousands upon thousands of taxis and the trains are so convenient. Theyd be even more convenient if they actually ran through the night.
Outside Tokyo though - different matter. This was Nagano.
I agree with Yubaru - zero tolerance, zero excuse and anyone who defends drink driving scares the hell out of me too.
-3
Yubaru
You assume to know what people think and since you are wrong I'll point it out to you. You obviously believe that driving impaired is fine and that's where I believe you are wrong and the law backs me up on that as well.
Zero tolerance, zero BAC. I've been drinking for nearly half a century and never once drove after even one drink. I have seen too many slaughters of innocent lives to even want to think about it.
FYI both are against the law. BUT neither are a mind altering substance that alcohol is. Your attempts at justifying drinking and driving fall way short.
1
PussInBoots
We can know if a person has been drinking. We cannot know if a person is drunk. When did they start and stop drinking? How much was drunk? Those help us have a clue. But we cannot account for individual tolerance. Not even a blood test, the most accurate test there is, unavailable in Japan BTW, can do that.
Which is like saying that anyone who does support the death penalty is trying to defend murderers. Is you level of thinking that low, or are you just trying to taint the opposition?
1
PussInBoots
Thank you for putting it so clearly that you have no experience in the matter whatsoever.
As someone who has experience drinking and driving, I support having a tolerance. Anyone saying zero tolerance is an extremist and way too focused on one facet of the issue at the expense of everything else.
Confirmation bias. Most accidents and road deaths are not caused by alcohol.
ad populum fallacy.
Strawman. 3 fatal flaws to your argumentation that are no doubt caused by your extremism.
-1
Christina O'Neill
No excuses, hands up and take whats coming to you.
-2
Yubaru
Wrong the accidents I referred to were due to alcohol and could have been prevented.
Oh so you are openly admitting that you have or do break the law by drinking and driving? Please let me know when and where and I will gladly have the police in the neighborhood to arrest you for it.
2
JapanGal
What do you think about a diabetic driving with a low sugar level. They appear drunk but are not. ?
0
PussInBoots
Fair enough. But you know they were due to alcohol how exactly? Because someone had been drinking? That does not prove the accident was due to alcohol. Accidents happen all the time, but if alcohol was involved, everyone blames the alcohol. Its not quite on the same level of blaming the Hand of God, but its close.
This accident is a case in point. Everyone is blaming the alcohol. Even I let it slide. No longer. I think its safe to assume the car did not climb the sidewalk to hit these women. That suggests they were on the road. Do you imagine one needs to be drunk to hit pedestrians on the road? No. It happens all the time and is usually done by sober drivers. No special reason to blame the alcohol here except for...wait for it...CONFIRMATION BIAS.
I'm sorry. I had assumed you were not born yesterday. Just a few years ago, Japan had limits for driving with alcohol in your system. I have driven after drinking since the new laws took force. As far as I know, considering the fact that I have driven the next day, I have not driven illegally. But you know, you can't really tell even when its yourself. And its just another reason to be down on blaming the passenger.
1
PussInBoots
Sorry: I have not driven after drinking since the laws took force. And mighty bored I have been too.
-2
Yubaru
Just because someone doesn't stop you from doing something does not mean you haven't broken the law. And since you claim to have children you are setting a poor moral example to them by your knowingly breaking the law when driving either drunk or under the influence. AND that includes the next day as well. If you read the papers or watch tv you will know what I am talking about.
Japan still has limits but they are next to nothing and rightfully so. It's simple don't drink, don't drive.
-1
Yubaru
Edited...If you drink dont drive that simple!
0
Nicky Washida
Ill agree with you there. I am way too focused on keeping me and my loved ones safe and well at the expense of a taxi fare home for someone drunk. And I mae no apologies whatsoever for that.
0
PussInBoots
Its not simple at all. No one knows when the alcohol has left their system. You don't really know if you are legal to drive next day in the morning, at noon, or in the evening. We are all different. A couple years ago I heard of six teachers in this pref. who lost their jobs for DUI, and four had driven the next day. And this prefecture is rural.
Face it, you don't know when you are legal and nobody else does either. Zero tolerance is simply the position of an extremist selling everything down the river for a crumb. This country has real problems, and people driving the day after drinking really isn't and never was one of them. You have to be in a hypnotic trance over drinking and driving to think otherwise.
1
Al Stewart
Do they have the 19 year old? since he is a minor will he get off with a slap?
-1
It"S ME
I reckon the 19yr old will get charged as well as the driver(multiple ones). Now if the 19yr old also had a licence he is in for big trouble.
Similar laws exist overseas, like for not wearing seat-belts in those cases anyone in the car with a licence gets hit as they know the law and are NOT making sure that everyone is safe.
Not preventing a crime from happening is a bad as partaking in one.
1
dolphingirl
Agreed. Blaming a bartender or a passenger is ridiculous. It's is the bartenders job to serve drinks not to know what each customer is going to do when he/she leaves the bar. And a passenger may very well think that his friend is okay to drive. And if he doesn't think his friend is sober then what exactly is he supposed to do? Can he just say--You shouldn't drive--and walk away. Should he try to pull the keys out of his hand? Would be alright to punch the guy and knock him out to stop him from driving? Where does it stop? Do we start blaming the convenience stores too?
0
Yubaru
Good, they were still drunk or impaired. Times have changed and it is very easy to do a self check as well, bought my own breathalyzer and it works wonders.
I have no pity for people, particularly teachers who have been getting hammered with information about this very subject for the past couple of years and yet still refuse to get it through their heads and think they are better than everyone else, who make the conscious decision to drink and drive either impaired or drunk.
There is no way you nor anyone can convince me that anyone who's been drinking until 12, 1, or 2, in the AM actually thinks that the alcohol has left their system when they get into their car to drive at 6 in the AM. Aint no way. And teachers are supposed to be smarter than everyone else as well, they KNOW better. It doesnt take all that much to educate one's self to what is allowable or not, and IGNORANCE of the law is no excuse.
Anyone who does it is not only putting their lives at stake, which is nothing in comparison to the FACT that they are putting our children's lives and everyone else's lives at stake as well. If they want to kill themselves do it on their own and don't threaten me or mine, you do and YOU will pay the price.
0
ADK99
It's something of a nonsense to hold passengers (or bartenders) responsible for drink drivers for all sorts of reasons. Firstly, it divides the responsibility for the crime. We're effectively saying that it was the drivers fault, but it was also the fault of some other people. I don't buy this - it's the driver's responsibility to ensure that he's able to drive, and to pay the price of he's not and causes an accident. Secondly, it's logically flawed. What the law is effectively saying is that you can't be considered able to drive a car responsibly because alcohol (a legally available product) impairs your judgment. That being the case (and I have no problem with that) how can we also judge that a passenger is able to judge whether the driver is too drunk to drive? Moreover, how can we say that the passenger - who did not drive to the pub, either by planning or good fortune - is able to make a sensible decision about whether to accept a ride or not? He has already taken the precaution of not driving to the pub, and has not attempted to drive, has consumed a legally available drug that the law deems (correctly) to impair judgement. His crime is to wrongfully accept a ride. Hardly seems like a prison matter to me.
In this specific case - and I'm amazed that this has largely passed without comment - the most heinous crime committed by both these two fools is fleeing the scene of the accident. I'm happy to see them both get a stiff sentence for that.
0
Yubaru
Here is something to consider to the folks that don't understand the seriousness of riding with a drunk driver it's called contributory negligence and for those from the US the supreme court as well has upheld it's use in courts* the passenger will be held to have contributed by virtue of their own negligence where they knew or should reasonably have known that the driver had consumed alcohol.*
Some states have the law other don't but the point in fact is that this law is not just on the books here but other countries as well and people need to get it into their heads that everyone needs to keep an eye out and be responsible.
1
Jack Stern
I have heard that the proprietor of a drinking establishment may also be found guilty of allowing the patron to drive home drunk. How strong this rule is, I don't know. I always carry my Pasamo card with me when I go out drinking and park the wheels till the next day. And the good old "bonenkai" thing is next month. So watch out.
1
ebonyninja
Before you get excited about the law! Follow the case and see what punishment these guys get for killing two innocent young girls. Nothing like the time the families will spend mourning their loss.
1
yourock
I at times, used to drink and ride (a motorbike), but after the seriousness of the Fukuoka incident and the apparent change in people's attitudes, I haven't since. I have too much to lose, and taking a taxi or making other arrangements isn't such a hassle if it becomes the norm. BTW, I've never been stopped and given a breath test. Speeding on the other hand is different...
0
Elbuda Mexicano
Yourock good on you!! Not worth the risk! Just ask Beat Takeshi!!
Back to top