Passenger in car ordered to pay Y53 mil in fatal drunk driving case

Wednesday 15th October, 03:22 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 42 Total Comments Show All

getsy at 06:17 AM JST - 16th October

its a stupid law... its just passing the buck.... depends on who is drunker the driver or the passenger... crazy...... now if the driver is very drunk and the passenger is not I understand but hey.... how can they gauge this.... silly... should be the person behind the wheel....100%
japanyesterday at 08:19 AM JST - 16th October

three years in prison for a hit and run???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
CavemanLawyer at 01:47 PM JST - 16th October

At that stage they should wash their hands of the driver.

I think you mean "should" as in a way to prevent legal responsibility? I personally would never set up a situation where people think they should wash their hands of such a situation. That is one reason I oppose this law. Responsible people should not be punished for helping a drunk driver or continuing to try to dissuade them even if they become a passenger.

Goal number one should be to prevent accidents and deaths. Convincing people to wash their hands of drunk drivers accomplishes the opposite.

If a would be passenger warns the driver, and the driver still insists on driving, the passenger has done all he or she can do.

Precisely. So what difference does it make if they ride or not if they did this?

By getting in that car with a drunk person, they are giving their consent to the driver.

Say what? The only person giving any consent is the driver and the owner of the car. If the passenger is not the owner they are not giving consent for anything. That is like me saying to someone "Hey, you can shoot that guy if you want to." Did I just give consent to shoot someone? Am I liable if they actually do it?

Now if someone actually asks a drunk for a ride home, nail them to the wall for all I care.

there are ways to fight laws

what would be the point of wearing red shoes when I know it could get me arrested?

Ever heard of civil disobedience? If the population ignores a law or fights it where ever it is dispensed, things can change. For example, marijuana is so common in America the police gave up trying to arrest everyone. The laws have hardly changed, but police response has changed greatly, and understanding of marijuana is replacing the "reefer madness" silly ideas people have had of it.

Right now we really do have some hysteria concerning drunk driving. People are really irrational and going overboard with rules and strictness that will either accomplish nothing or actually make it worse. --Cirroc
YangYong at 08:42 PM JST - 16th October

For the Person who signs off with a Name: Doesn't matter what you think because the law is coming down on these who need to be taught: Drinking alcohol is a PREVENTABLE component of a person's ability to operate machinery; it impairs driving ability. Don't try and justify that which isn't justifiable. You can't stop someone from drink driving, what are you a squeak or a roar? Thought so. My friend you've thrown that many irrelevancies around that you can't open the door for them. Get with the program, saving lives.
BurakuminDes at 08:51 PM JST - 16th October

Why not also sue the bartenders, other patrons of the drinking establishment, car parking attendant and the extended families of the driver and passenger too? Blame, blame, blame..... sadly this cash will not bring back the dead person.
YangYong at 08:57 PM JST - 16th October

To see all these DUIs squirming and sweating is fantastic. It's reeeeeal easy. Do not. DO NOT drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills people, deaths that are totally preventable. The more draconian the measures, the safer the roads the happier many billions of us are. Keep the idiots locked down.
BlackFlag at 09:59 PM JST - 16th October

i'm with yangyong
Sarge at 10:28 PM JST - 16th October

"DO NOT drnk and drive"

Sign at a pub: "Be safe: Don't drink and drive. But please still drink"
kringis at 01:26 AM JST - 17th October

CavemanLawyer:

You still miss the point. The law in Japan dictates that any passenger who gets in a car with a drunk person is aiding that person in their crime. They are responsible, and they are giving consent to the driver. We could discuss all day whether that law is stupid or not, but that's not the point.

The point is: that's the law. A smart person doesn't break a law that is avoidable. A drunk person who wants to drive will drive. So why bother getting yourself in trouble as well when you can just walk away? Pragmatism.
CavemanLawyer at 11:11 AM JST - 17th October

The law in Japan dictates that any passenger who gets in a car with a drunk person is aiding that person in their crime.

Just because the law says it does not make it truth nor the best policy.

A smart person doesn't break a law that is avoidable.

But an idiot obeys every law to the letter. Turn yourself in next time you cross the center line while swerving to miss a pedestrian. Or go 1 km over the speed limit while people honk and tail-gate you for going so slow.

So why bother getting yourself in trouble as well when you can just walk away? Pragmatism.

Because you could save someone's life, including the life of the drunk driver. Compassion. --Cirroc
CavemanLawyer at 11:16 AM JST - 17th October

You can't stop someone from drink driving, what are you a squeak or a roar?

I had two beers and am walking to my car. Whatchagonna do? Roar? --Cirroc
CavemanLawyer at 11:18 AM JST - 17th October

The more draconian the measures, the safer the roads the happier many billions of us are.

Agreed. Ban cars now, under pain of death. That could not be any more Draconian, and think of how safe we will all be! --Cirroc
YangYong at 07:12 PM JST - 17th October

You're just silly with an unwarranted degree of emotive input, never good in argument. Doesn't matter anyway, the law says what the walk is, you better do it. Don't drink and drive. Only idiots do. Would I roar, after I'd bitten, yes.
kringis at 10:44 PM JST - 17th October

CavemanLawyer:

A "stupid" law is one that fines you 50 dollars or 20 pounds or 10000 yen for doing something. Any law that can result in a 53 million yen fine, is not a stupid law in the eye of the pragmatist. It makes no sense to break a law that can result in such a harsh treatment.

You also seemingly ignored one of my points: "A drunk person who wants to drive will drive." If you try to stop the person driving, then you've done all you can do. It's compassionate, and it's pragmatic, and it's the right thing to do. If you're still enough of an idiot to get inside a weapon as dangerous as a car with a drunk person, in a country where the law states you can receive massive punishment, you're getting what you deserve.

Also, I never go above the speed limit.
kringis at 10:51 PM JST - 17th October

"Ban cars now, under pain of death."

Knives and guns are banned in many countries. Cars are more dangerous than both. In many ways, your sarcasm isn't far off-key. Banning cars would stop thousands of deaths a year. Surely in this modern society with advanced technology that we live in, we can come up with a better form of transport than cars, aka, "Death Machines." How about rocket shoes?

In all seriousness. Cars were designed in a time when very few people had them, and the "roads" were very quiet. Nowadays they're outdated. Sitting in traffic for an hour for a 3 mile journey every day is stupid when you could walk that distance in less time. Unfortunately, until we come up with a decent alternative, then we'll have to keep using cars. But we should try to make it nice and safe while we still have to.