Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit.
September 9, 2015 3:06 PM   Subscribe

Driven to Kill. The "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in China where a driver who has accidentally struck a pedestrian will stop to run over them again, or multiple times, to ensure they are dead. Trigger warning for text descriptions of gruesome vehicular murder. Lots of links to photos and videos in the article that you should click at your own discretion.
posted by allkindsoftime (81 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
Normally I am pretty wary of the "China is totally crazy" meme, but Geoffry Sant seems to be the real deal (he has legal training).

The whole scenario reminds me of the themes explored in A Touch of Sin.
posted by Nevin at 3:10 PM on September 9, 2015


Unintended consequences, indeed. A law that tries to ensure merciful treatment of victims instead promotes amoral behavior. Are there similar laws in other countries, and does this behavior also occur?
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:19 PM on September 9, 2015


Japan has AFAIK similar laws - in collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists, the motorist is always 100% at fault. Typically the police will arrange for the motorist to pay some sort of restoration to the injured pedestrian (or the surviving family members). Civil suits and so on are extremely rare.

I think it's a great system. It forces drivers to be a little more cautious and less cavalier than, say, their entitled Canadian counterparts, and also acknowledges the fact that roadways are meant for everyone, not just people encased in metal and plastic shells.

Presumably because Japan is a liberal democracy, social cohesion is greater than in China, so there are fewer murders, period. If this sort of thing happened in Japan, it would be a national scandal (earlier in the summer a hit-and-run involving a family of four in a remote part of Hokkaido made the evening news for an entire week).
posted by Nevin at 3:25 PM on September 9, 2015 [18 favorites]


I recall similar events in Mexico DF, in the 1960s or 70s, but google seems to be silent on the topic. Bus drivers were instructed to try to kill people they accidentally hit because paying for a death was generally cheaper than paying for an injury. The article described drivers backing up over victims...
posted by hexatron at 3:31 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think it is a great error to reason that Japan's social cohesion is caused by it being a liberal democracy. If there is a causal link at all, it's Japan's social cohesion that allows it to be a liberal democracy. The causes of the social cohesion are much more complicated, involving factors such as repressive social homogeneity, historic lack of ethnic diversity (the Ainu and Okinawan populations don't count), etc
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:34 PM on September 9, 2015 [39 favorites]


I am confused -- is auto insurance totally non-existent in China?
posted by mostly vowels at 3:35 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure a great system makes drivers back up over toddlers after hitting them, but that may be my queasy Western stomach.
posted by swerve at 3:36 PM on September 9, 2015 [21 favorites]


In China there is a massive aversion on the government's part to admit that society is not functioning smoothly. This isn't just the fault of Chinese Communism. It actually goes back to the Mandate of Heaven, in which even a flood or a bad rice harvest could mean that God wanted you to overthrow the government and kill the Emperor.

You see this often in reports on social problems or other man-made disasters (i.e, there is no problem in China until it's unavoidable and cannot be ignored). There is probably a recognition on the part of Chinese elites that intentional vehicular homicide is a real problem, but to admit as much, publicly, would bring the social order into disrepute, and that cannot be allowed.

So this behavior, and other types of crime/corruption, will continue until it reaches a critical mass, at which point a few people will be publicly executed and then things will go back to normal, for the time being.
posted by Avenger at 3:44 PM on September 9, 2015 [30 favorites]


Wow. Of all the fucked up ways to put a dollar value on a human being. This made me feel sick.
posted by futureisunwritten at 3:45 PM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


This is horrific.
posted by sprezzy at 3:46 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


.....I don't even know how to process this.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:47 PM on September 9, 2015 [6 favorites]


Unintended consequences, indeed. A law that tries to ensure merciful treatment of victims instead promotes amoral behavior. Are there similar laws in other countries, and does this behavior also occur?


Not quite the same, but the Stand Your Ground laws do seem to have the knock-on effect that making a case for self-defence is in some ways if the alleged attacker is dead, rather than merely injured.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 3:48 PM on September 9, 2015 [50 favorites]


In 2010 in Xinyi, video captured a wealthy young man reversing his BMW X6 out of a parking spot. He hits a 3-year-old boy, knocking the child to the ground... [gruesome details of intentional, cold-blooded murder omitted]

Here too, the driver was charged only with accidentally causing a person’s death. (He claimed to have confused the boy with a cardboard box or trash bag.) Police rejected charges of murder and even of fleeing the scene of the crime, ignoring the fact that the driver [did something glaringly intentional]
Cold-blooded murder aside, this doesn't sound much different from police indifference to pedestrian murder and maiming in the US.
posted by indubitable at 3:50 PM on September 9, 2015 [14 favorites]


On a cross-country bus ride in the U.S. around the turn of the century I was sitting next to a guy who said he was a long-distance trucker. He claimed that his company's lawyers instructed the drivers to never change lanes in an attempt to avoid an accident, because killing someone after intentionally taking an action like that (which could be construed to have directly caused the death, I guess?) supposedly exposed the company to so much greater liability than a lethal, but avoidable, collision where the truck braked hard but remained in the same lane.
posted by XMLicious at 3:50 PM on September 9, 2015 [6 favorites]


So it's basically Stand Your Ground but for cars?

Florida, get on this!
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on September 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


The economic realities of western tort law mean that the same is basically true here, too -- killing someone by accident is usually very much cheaper than maiming them by accident.

If you kill someone in Canada, you'll end up owing their family for their lost future wages discounted for the likelihood that they would have gotten sick at some point in their earning life, plus some family loss damages (loss of emotional support type stuff), and maybe some minor punitive damages.

If you disable them, you're still on the hook for probably the same lost future earnings, plus pain and suffering damages for them, plus still some (probably smaller) family loss damages, so, you're already looking at basically the same costs as if you'd killed them and you haven't even gotten to the big one -- medical care. It doesn't take long for even the initial surgeries around a serious accident to add up to way more money than people will actually earn in their lifetimes -- and you're probably paying for the earnings anyway, remember. Add in any kind of life time nursing care, and there's just no way it's not cheaper if they died.

The difference between western countries isn't that we're more civilized or that we prize life more highly, it's that we have better insurance.
posted by jacquilynne at 3:54 PM on September 9, 2015 [22 favorites]


I kind of wish I hadn't read this piece. Wow.
posted by capnsue at 3:57 PM on September 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


I know a law school Torts professor who made the same claim about US law: Wrongful death damages tend to be much lower than damages for the ongoing medical care of someone who will live a long life as paraplegic or comatose or otherwise in a state of terrible injury. He also claimed that an ambulance chaser plaintiff's lawyer would far prefer to be able to show the jury a tragically injured plaintiff than an empty chair of a deceased plaintiff - more sympathy for the former leads to greater damages verdicts (also easier to prove medical expenses than the hypothetical earnings the deceased would have had in a wrongful death case). I have no information about whether this is actually borne out by any studies of the amounts of damages verdicts in each situation, but the professor used to JOKINGLY say that if you think you are about to unavoidably hit someone with your car, you should hit the gas pedal and accelerate, in hopes that they will be killed rather than injured (black humor to be sure - obviously no one took this as actual advice, it was commentary on the perverse incentives).
posted by Mallenroh at 4:00 PM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


The difference between western countries isn't that we're more civilized or that we prize life more highly, it's that we have better insurance.

Even with the finest "running over toddlers" insurance policy money can buy, I don't believe I'd modify my stance on not running over toddlers.
posted by zippy at 4:00 PM on September 9, 2015 [48 favorites]


The difference between western countries isn't that we're more civilized or that we prize life more highly, it's that we have better insurance.

Better insurance makes it cheaper for me to kill someone - just the premium / deductible. And yet I don't, or at least haven't yet.
posted by Dashy at 4:00 PM on September 9, 2015 [12 favorites]


The difference between western countries isn't that we're more civilized or that we prize life more highly, it's that we have better insurance.

And, of course, that if you decide to make sure that you don't have to pay the extended cost of your accident victim surviving by running over them four extra times, you are charged for murder in the first degree and, at best, spend 30+ years in prison.

Oh, and then your insurance company doesn't pay the claim because you intentionally killed your vicitim. So the victim's family gets all your stuff as well.

So there is a notable reduction in "hit them several more times, just to be sure" attitude in the US and Canada, and it's replaced by people not hitting them. Most stop and call for help. Some hit and run -- but they don't hit the person again and again.

It's not just the carrot. The stick is a big part of the equation.
posted by eriko at 4:01 PM on September 9, 2015 [74 favorites]


Related: The big push for mandatory helmet laws was driven by the insurance companies, and the reason that push went away is claims started coming in, and people who were dying in motorcycle wrecks were now surviving and making vastly more expensive claims. So, the insurance companies stopped supporting mandatory helmet laws.

The best reason to wear a helmet? Your insurance company doesn't want you to, because it's cheaper for them if you don't. Dead is dead cheap to the them.
posted by eriko at 4:05 PM on September 9, 2015 [77 favorites]


Mandatory third party liability auto coverage is set at 100,000RMB (less than US$16,000 at current exchange rates) so it exists but it's too low.
---
The difference between western countries isn't that we're more civilized or that we prize life more highly, it's that we have better insurance.


As we found out this year when mrs. allkindsoftime was struck by a vehicle that was flaunting both the speed limit and California state law that requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, mandatory third party liability auto coverage in CA is set at $15,000. So, the same or less than China.

By way of comparison, her ambulance ride was $13.5K and her emergency room reception was another $15K.

Fortunately the driver in this case was carrying $25K in 3rd party, which his company paid out 2 weeks after we hired our lawyer. Our lawyer explained to me that if our costs become grossly above his coverage, our only recourse would be our own UnderInsured Motorist (UIM) coverage with our own insurance (which we have, thank God), or the lengthy and expensive process of suing the guy for what little assets he might have (if he's only carrying $25K of insurance to protect them), or a % of his future wages.

I immediately upped our UIM coverage upon learning this.
posted by allkindsoftime at 4:06 PM on September 9, 2015 [25 favorites]


This is the sort of article that makes me think that humanity going extinct might not be such a bad idea.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:11 PM on September 9, 2015 [10 favorites]


In April a BMW racing through a fruit market in Foshan in China’s Guangdong province knocked down a 2-year-old girl and rolled over her head. As the girl’s grandmother shouted, “Stop! You’ve hit a child!” the BMW’s driver paused, then switched into reverse and backed up over the girl. The woman at the wheel drove forward once more, crushing the girl for a third time. When she finally got out from the BMW, the unlicensed driver immediately offered the horrified family a deal: “Don’t say that I was driving the car,” she said. “Say it was my husband. We can give you money.”

All I can say is, were this my child, someone would be on trial for manslaughter or murder. And it would probably be me, even if all I had were my bare hands and teeth.
posted by Existential Dread at 4:14 PM on September 9, 2015 [40 favorites]


gruesome vehicular murder

It's just murder. No need for extra adjectives to mitigate that fact.

</angry-cyclist>
posted by schmod at 4:14 PM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


I thought this only happened in Alphaville
posted by Mr. Yuck at 4:19 PM on September 9, 2015


gruesome vehicular murder
schmod: “It's just murder. No need for extra adjectives to mitigate that fact.

For what it's worth, I don't read it as mitigating... as an expression, it seems similar to “axe murder” which doesn't exactly imbue the act with sympathy and benefit-of-the-doubt.
posted by Riki tiki at 4:37 PM on September 9, 2015 [13 favorites]


He claimed that his company's lawyers instructed the drivers to never change lanes in an attempt to avoid an accident

This might be a good attitude regardless of the lawyering. It's easier to maintain safe following distance than it is to reason split-second about what is to your side. I would also imagine that side collisions with a sufficiently large truck are more likely lethal than rear-end collisions.

People on the highway don't leave anywhere near safe following distance—it drives me nuts, especially when I am doing my best, and people cut right in front of me, so I can either get repeatedly cut off and fall back, or follow closer than I judge safe.

It seems like the kind of thing a range finder and dashboard computer might be able to help with. Like, something that nags you when you're following too close, or I dunno, calls the cops.
posted by andrewpcone at 4:41 PM on September 9, 2015 [13 favorites]


Even with the finest "running over toddlers" insurance policy money can buy, I don't believe I'd modify my stance on not running over toddlers.

Neither would I. But if we had less insurance (or weaker criminal laws, as eriko noted), you can be sure some people would.

I'm pretty sure if I accidentally ran over a toddler, I wouldn't have the presence of mind to think about liability or moral decisions. I'd just be sitting in my car screaming hysterically.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:50 PM on September 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


BMW: The Ultimate Driving Killing Machine.
posted by dr_dank at 4:55 PM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


If we were each individually liable, without insurance, for these kinds of possible costs, then it would not make economic sense for anyone to drive except the very rich. Otherwise you face likely complete financial and life ruin. One accident -- and bad accidents aren't that uncommon -- and you lose your house and any chance of college for your children.

Avoiding risks like this is the whole reason we have civilization.
posted by amtho at 5:00 PM on September 9, 2015 [7 favorites]


It's just a very different way of thinking.

For another example -- if your child was undergoing an operation to save its life, would you bribe the doctor or not?

Many Chinese would say "Of course! Only an idiot who didn't love his child WOULDN'T try to bribe the doctor. Don't you want to ensure the best outcome for your child?"

And if you point out that the doctor shouldn't be taking bribes, you get "What?! But doesn't the doctor owe it to his family and his co-workers to get the most money/best deal possible? If he can get enough from bribes to send his children to college, he's depriving them of the best education possible -- what kind of father would do that!?"

And if you don't see how clear this is, you are being very naive and self-deluding, in the eyes of these same people. It's very logical.

Corrupt officials are simply doing the best they can for their own families and bosses, and it's the way the world works. Self-sacrifice and noblesse oblige are for suckers.

It's the poor man's duty to rip off the rich guys, and it's the rich man's duty not to mind it.
posted by jfwlucy at 5:01 PM on September 9, 2015 [23 favorites]


Ahhh this... Yup. And only automobile accidents, this is.

Surely China isn't the only place where this systematically happens?

Waiting for "utilitarian" polemic arguments and justifications..., e.g. what would Peter Singer et al pull out of their asses?

Also:
"With so many hit-to-kill drivers escaping serious punishment, the Chinese public has sometimes taken matters into its own hands. In 2013 a crowd in Zhengzhou in Henan province beat a wealthy driver who killed a 6-year-old after allegedly running him over twice. (A television report claims the crowd had acted on “false rumors.” However, at least five witnesses assert on camera that the man had run over the child a second time.)"

Thoughts on murder witnesses (spectators?!) and isolated instances of public/social vigilantes, folks?
posted by pos at 5:05 PM on September 9, 2015


Of course, we don't have to 'bribe' doctors because they set their own fee schedules. We just call it 'payment for service.' So from the US perspective, I have no idea what you're bribing a doctor do to. Kill your kid for the insurance money?
posted by pwnguin at 5:09 PM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


Given the number of fender benders and small accidents I've seen on business trips in Shanghai, I would have to think that if this was really that widespread then the streets would run red with blood. There are a lot of new/inexperienced drivers in China.
posted by frumiousb at 5:19 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


eriko has it right. The problem isn't that Chinese laws incentivise murder. (Every country's law codes have situations where it would be easier or cheaper to kill someone.) The problem is that it's apparently quite possible to get away with vehicular homicide there. Maybe especially so when there's a monetary and/or class disparity between the poor pedestrian and the wealthy driver.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:23 PM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


Is anyone else bothered about how this article plays into the old racist trope of, "human life is cheap in the Orient"? This story doesn't seem to boil down to much more than a couple of anecdotes.
posted by indubitable at 5:23 PM on September 9, 2015 [25 favorites]


Self-driving cars can't arrive fast enough.
posted by OHenryPacey at 5:24 PM on September 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


It's like hell for traffic court lawyers.
posted by clavdivs at 5:27 PM on September 9, 2015


Seven cases mentioned in the article, plus a comparison brought up in the comments here with another Asian country that has similar laws but different results - so no, I'd say you're wrong, indubitable. It's as valid a subject for discussion as anything else.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:30 PM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


I can bring up seven incidents in the US equally as vicious; do you think that would work as a trend piece?
posted by indubitable at 5:34 PM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


Is anyone else bothered about how this article plays into the old racist trope of, "human life is cheap in the Orient"?

There are more complicated points that must be raised, but looking at some of the garden-variety reactions from people everywhere so far...
posted by pos at 5:43 PM on September 9, 2015


This is horrifying. Full stop
posted by newdaddy at 5:56 PM on September 9, 2015


"I can bring up seven incidents in the US equally as vicious; do you think that would work as a trend piece?"

Seven incidents in the U.S. that are equally as vicious and where the authorities ignored video evidence to exculpate the perpetrators? Outside of cops murdering black people, I can't think of any pattern that fits your claim — if you've got 'em, show 'em.
posted by klangklangston at 6:00 PM on September 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


7 cases in a country of 1.3 billion plus people.
posted by wobumingbai at 6:20 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]




Pwguin -- that's nonsense and you know it.
posted by jfwlucy at 6:35 PM on September 9, 2015


Seven incidents in the U.S. that are equally as vicious and where the authorities ignored video evidence to exculpate the perpetrators?

Yeah, this is the thing that makes the story notable. They had these people dead to rights on video committing obvious murders.
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:39 PM on September 9, 2015


And, I repeat, witnesses.

"With so many hit-to-kill drivers escaping serious punishment, the Chinese public has sometimes taken matters into its own hands. In 2013 a crowd in Zhengzhou in Henan province beat a wealthy driver who killed a 6-year-old after allegedly running him over twice. (A television report claims the crowd had acted on “false rumors.” However, at least five witnesses assert on camera that the man had run over the child a second time.)"
posted by pos at 6:59 PM on September 9, 2015


Shanghai drafts Good Samaritan Law protecting those who come to the aid of strangers

"The bill defines 'Good Samaritans' as those with medical skills and possess a professional medical certificate."

So that is only going to be a tiny fraction of the population.
posted by gen at 7:00 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I dunno, people kill people by using cars in the United States all the time, on camera, or with witnesses, and the drivers are not charged with crimes. Different in degree, rather than kind. If you want to walk around, or bike, it's often your fault for being there, and dying.

and the dead tell no tales, as the stand your ground law has made clear.

Someone said it above, this is part of the price to pay for operating large machinery on a mass basis, just to transport ourselves. Can we stop doing it?
posted by eustatic at 7:07 PM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]



Fortunately the driver in this case was carrying $25K in 3rd party, which his company paid out 2 weeks after we hired our lawyer. Our lawyer explained to me that if our costs become grossly above his coverage, our only recourse would be our own UnderInsured Motorist (UIM) coverage with our own insurance (which we have, thank God), or the lengthy and expensive process of suing the guy for what little assets he might have (if he's only carrying $25K of insurance to protect them), or a % of his future wages.


If you truly want to kill suburban sprawl in America, just change the insurance requirements and require drivers to have UNCAPPED liability insurance for medical claims.

The insurance lobby would overhaul the nation's roads in a month.
posted by ocschwar at 7:13 PM on September 9, 2015 [12 favorites]


Not quite the same, but the Stand Your Ground laws do seem to have the knock-on effect that making a case for self-defence is in some ways if the alleged attacker is dead, rather than merely injured.

I have heard people claim this all my life -- that it is better to kill than to injure in a self defense situation, because a dead person can't sue you, etc. I doubt that this is really the case, but it is something that a lot of people believe, and probably plays a factor in how some confrontations play out.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:15 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I dunno, people kill people by using cars in the United States all the time, on camera, or with witnesses

Actually stopping, reversing, and running a person over multiple times? I haven't seen such a case get ignored, but if you have links I'm curious.

While both are tragic, there is a difference between an "ordinary" death due to car accident and intentional murder.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:16 PM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]



I have heard people claim this all my life -- that it is better to kill than to injure in a self defense situation, because a dead person can't sue you, etc.


The issue is more that a dead person can't kill you. It's easy to ascertain someone is dead. Not so easy to ascertain that someone is too incapacitated to kill you.
posted by ocschwar at 7:19 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Is anyone else bothered about how this article plays into the old racist trope of, "human life is cheap in the Orient"? This story doesn't seem to boil down to much more than a couple of anecdotes.

No.

I would be if the article insinuated that Chinese culture was at fault for this phenomenon. But it doesn't. I might also be bothered if there was any reason to believe that the writer or publisher harbored anti-Chinese bias. But the author serves on the board of an Asian-American cultural center, has written several times before about the legal system in China, in which no anti-Chinese bias is evident to me.

Yes, it boils down to a couple of anecdotes, because probably good data is hard to get. A lot of journalism is like this: it suggests, often without evidence, that a phenomenon is common, and then tells a few stories about it happening. Naturally that can leave misleading impressions.

I'm more bothered by the urge to delegitimize an article that appears to be written in good faith and dismiss it because someone who was already open to racism against Chinese people might interpret the article through that lens. Should we be similarly bothered by articles that report widespread torture in China, or vicious wealth inequality? Surely those play into the same tropes, right?

I'd rather we get bothered by are the torture, or the inequality, or broken legal framework around driving. Or just take the article at face value—get bothered if you must—and learn something about the world, without first filtering for presumed cultural pragmatics.
posted by andrewpcone at 8:20 PM on September 9, 2015 [39 favorites]


I dunno, people kill people by using cars in the United States all the time, on camera, or with witnesses, and the drivers are not charged with crimes. Different in degree, rather than kind.

What a fatuous statement. The difference in degree—first degree murder as opposed to vehicular homicide—and the court system's complicity in the crime are what makes this a difference in kind. If you're going to compare it to anything, it's more like the situation in the South during the U.S. civil rights struggle, where murderers of Blacks would get off with a wink and a nod (assuming they were even brought to trial). Yeah, our traffic laws favor motorists over pedestrians and cyclists, but they don't condone obvious murder.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:28 PM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


I can bring up seven incidents in the US equally as vicious; do you think that would work as a trend piece?

Sant addresses a reader's question about how common this is:

"I think that in the large majority of traffic accidents, the driver does not choose to back up and hit the victim again. So in that sense, yes, they are outliers.

"If by 'outlier' you are asking whether or not these are just a few freak incidents, then no, I don't think they are. China's media and government have commented on the problem of 'It is better to hit to kill than to hit and injure,' including editorials in People's Daily. Taiwan's leading newspaper (Lianhe Bao) previously editorialized on the problem of hit-to-kill drivers as well. So this is an actual, serious phenomenon, and not merely a handful of freak incidents.

"The incidents caught on video inspired a lot of anger and fury from the public, and the governments on both Taiwan and the PRC have tried to change their laws to eliminate this phenomenon."

posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:41 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


Sant's previous piece for Slate is also interesting reading: Double Jeopardy: In China, the rich and powerful can hire body doubles to do their prison time for them.

The T.T. Meadows book he mentions in that article contains this quote:

"The gentry, who had instigated the murder of the district magistrate, awed by the force brought against them, bought about twenty substitutes, and bribed the son of the murdered man with, it is said, one hundred thousand dollars, to allow these men to call themselves the instigators, principals, accomplices, &c. The judge, on the other hand, obliged by the Code of the Board of the Civil Office to execute somebody, or see himself involved in punishment, and knowing that if he attempted to bring the real offenders to justice, they would employ all their means of resistance, which might easily end in the defeat of his force, and his own death, gave way to these considerations, supported by a bribe, and put the twenty innocent substitutes to death."
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:51 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


"I dunno, people kill people by using cars in the United States all the time, on camera, or with witnesses, and the drivers are not charged with crimes. Different in degree, rather than kind. If you want to walk around, or bike, it's often your fault for being there, and dying. "

Right, so how many of those drivers go back and run over the people they've hit? That's the viciousness that distinguishes this. I don't really think that it's implausible that this could happen, not because of something inherent to the Chinese but rather because of a fairly specific set of incentives and institutional relationships.
posted by klangklangston at 8:54 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


"I have heard people claim this all my life -- that it is better to kill than to injure in a self defense situation, because a dead person can't sue you, etc."

"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" sounds like a bumper sticker with international appeal.
posted by klangklangston at 8:56 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I need to know who I can accuse of being an Orientalist. Thus far, it seems like I'm supposed to be blaming more or less everyone, including Chinese citizens.
posted by aramaic at 9:05 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


Pwguin -- that's nonsense and you know it.

Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't, and you'll have to try explaining yourself more clearly, because I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at with bribing doctors.
posted by pwnguin at 10:39 PM on September 9, 2015


Here in backwards 3rd world South Africa we have the Road Accident Fund which is financed by a tax on petrol. I know that it is has paid out as much as R20m about 20 years ago (about $1.5m at todays rates but considerably more back then) to a man left paralysed after an accident.

Granted it's currently facing a R8bn shortfall but the idea is there at least.
posted by PenDevil at 12:20 AM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


If you kill someone in Canada, you'll end up owing their family for their lost future wages discounted for the likelihood that they would have gotten sick at some point in their earning life, plus some family loss damages (loss of emotional support type stuff), and maybe some minor punitive damages.

I was an insurance analysis for one extremely boring year and everyday I sent out the compilation report on large accident claims from the previous day to the business development team - basically to remind them not to develop business that gets in accidents I suppose. Anyway at the time of claim processing the company puts aside a reserve meant to cover the potential cost of the claim. In Ontario's no fault regime at the time the death benefit reserve was $100,000. For paraplegia it was $1,000,000 and for quadriplegia it was either $2,000,000 or $5,000,000 (I can't recall - it was a long time ago - like 15 years).

There is a reason that insurance companies have almost completely backed off on their earlier push for automobile safety.
posted by srboisvert at 6:12 AM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


Obviously you don't hear too often about drivers in the US driving back and forth over someone to make sure they are dead. But it's true that there are a lot of deaths caused by drivers and very few of them lead to criminal charges. Heck, a lot of times there aren't even traffic citations. Apparently all you have to do is say "oops, I didn't mean for that to happen" and as long as you were behind the wheel of a car, you are likely to not face penalties. For example, from 2008-2012 the NYPD charged 0.7 percent of drivers who injure and kill with careless driving. And we're not talking about murder or manslaughter charges here. We're talking about the charge of "failing to exercise due care" for which the penalties are (merely) mandatory drivers’ ed, and possibly sentences of fines of up to $750, jail time of up to 15 days, and a license suspension of up to six months.

(My uncle was killed by someone who was texting while driving, and in that case the driver was charged with manslaughter, so I know it does happen; but I also know from that experience that it is pretty rare.)

And again, it's not driving back and forth over a person, but there are a lot of hit-and-run fatalities in the US - and who knows if any of those deaths could have been prevented if the driver had stopped to render aid. In Chicago in 2015 alone, there have been 26 pedestrian deaths caused by collisions with cars and 10 of them were hit-and-runs, and 2 cyclist deaths which were BOTH hit-and-runs. (Source: Streetsblog Chicago, which runs a "fatality tracker" and posts updated numbers at the end of any article about a pedestrian or cyclist death.)

Murder Machines: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year
posted by misskaz at 7:32 AM on September 10, 2015 [12 favorites]


Great article, misskaz; thanks. See also.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:07 AM on September 10, 2015


I can't process the horror on the first page.
posted by Theta States at 8:10 AM on September 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


We have developed a horrible blindspot when it comes to the daily slaughter on our streets. 30-40k dead Americans a year is just how it is, part of the plan, business as usual. (Keep in mind this death toll doesn't even reflect death from environmental degradation, physical inactivity and obesity, etc.) Meanwhile, we lost our collective shit, shredded the Constitutuion, invaded several countries, and spent untold billions after just 2,996 people died on 9/11.

Over 3.5 million Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents since 1899. More than the total American dead and wounded in every war we have fought in, combined! Read that sentence again. Not just those killed, but those killed and wounded, combined.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:11 AM on September 10, 2015 [10 favorites]


We have developed a horrible blindspot when it comes to the daily slaughter on our streets. 30-40k dead Americans a year is just how it is, part of the plan, business as usual.

I think of it as the Wicker Man style sacrifice to the god of economic mobility.
posted by srboisvert at 8:40 AM on September 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


I have heard people claim this all my life -- that it is better to kill than to injure in a self defense situation, because a dead person can't sue you, etc.

The association I have normally seen with this thought is that the trial is a little easier with fewer witnesses, like George Zimmerman.
posted by ericales at 9:02 AM on September 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


Obviously you don't hear too often about drivers in the US driving back and forth over someone to make sure they are dead. But it's true that there are a lot of deaths caused by drivers and very few of them lead to criminal charges. Heck, a lot of times there aren't even traffic citations. Apparently all you have to do is say "oops, I didn't mean for that to happen" and as long as you were behind the wheel of a car, you are likely to not face penalties.

Yep. My grandfather was killed by a couple of frat boys swerving on and off the wrong side of the road in one of their brand new BMWs. Like weaving around medians that had interrupted spots for turn lanes going double the speed limit. Textbook reckless driving. He died less than a day after the collision, and the driver never saw the inside of a jail cell. I don't even remember what that guy and his friends version of the story was, but they lawyered up instantly and just walked.

Similarly, my mom was run over at an intersection by someone who didn't own the car they were driving(which, iirc, the owner would later declare "stolen" and say they didn't give permission). They fled the scene and not only never faced any real action by trying to pull the "prove it was really me in the car" routine, but caused an insurance nightmare where no ones insurance wanted to pay out without fighting all the others over it first that destroyed my moms credit. She's permanently injured in several ways from that collision, too.

My not-entirely-sarcastic smartass comment was always that if you want to kill someone, figure out where they walk on certain days when just plan on being at that intersection during that time to run them over. Even if you do face charges and jailtime, it's likely the least legally painful way that exists to kill or horribly maim someone, feign innocence, and walk away. These aren't the only stories that i have like this, and as much as i generally hate hip-shoot calling something racist or tired orientalism or whatever... I'm definitely getting that human life is cheaper in the orient vibe here.

Not that either of these incidents were on video, but they both have multiple eye witnesses who thought it was so heinous they stopped and waited for the cops, and angles of impact/reconstructions of the scene that made the drivers story implausible or impossible... and they still got away with it.

"Video on youtube!" is a nice stinger for an outrage bait article, but there's other forms of incontrovertible proof that were already being ignored.

What i'm saying, is i think some of this really is "omg zany china!" and it's not as unique as presented. People get slaps on the wrist for straight up killing people with cars all the time, and if you knew a few bike messengers or delivery people you'd have already heard a bunch of collision and even death stories to that effect.(which almost always include fleeing the scene)
posted by emptythought at 11:18 AM on September 10, 2015 [9 favorites]


I used to join in events and protests when I was at university the first go 'round. I remember being part of a march where one of the points being made was that the penalties for rape were too low compared to other crimes our society found punishable by law. Why were we letting people convicted of this terrifying crime walk after serving less time than many larceny convictions or nearly all drug charges?

It wasn't until my second older-and-wiser go 'round at university that I found myself quoting the old statistics about this to make some point or other during class. The professor stopped me and pointed out that the reason these penalties are so low is that in countries where they were dramatically higher, rapists had an incentive to kill their victims. So if second-degree murder is (say) 10 years and rape is (say) 8 years, people have been shown to risk the extra 2 years to silence the victim.

That point shut me up right quick, and I've been considering it quietly in my head for the past decade and a half. Man, how do you even reason about those sorts of Cold Equations?
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:01 PM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think of it as the Wicker Man style sacrifice to the god of economic mobility.

I am surprised no one has quoted the classic tweet from mefi's own Greg Nog...
Apr 15, 2015 -
"so what did you do before self-driving cars?"
"we just drove 'em ourselves!"
"wow, no one died that way?"
"oh no, millions of people died".
posted by Theta States at 7:04 AM on September 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


Snopes calls shenanigans on the original article, stating that it is, at best, "unproven".
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 9:33 PM on September 11, 2015 [8 favorites]


I almost feel like that should get an edit in the FPP, since it sure plays in to that "those zany Chinese!" thing.
posted by emptythought at 9:44 PM on September 11, 2015


When this first popped up on Facebook, I thought it couldn't possibly be true, and I dismissed it. When it came up here, I was horrified to think it might be true, and I started to pay attention. Relieved to see it was so easily torn apart by Snopes, and my instinctual skepticism was correct.
posted by buriednexttoyou at 4:03 PM on September 12, 2015


The Snopes article says, The article’s links almost exclusively led to Chinese-language video sites, making their content difficult to independently check or examine in any sort of useful context.

Is Sant not claiming to be able to read Chinese, or just the Snopes writer? That would seem like quite a pivotal point here.
posted by XMLicious at 5:50 PM on September 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


The Snopes writer is saying that one has to take Sant's word for it.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 6:49 PM on September 12, 2015


Or one has to take the outrageous step of having someone who can read Chinese take a look at it.

Maybe I have insanely high standards but if you're going to write a piece pronouncing on the veracity of Sant's piece a week after Slate held a question-and-answer session about it, it seems like a dereliction of duty if you can't even be bothered to confirm whether, as he claims, newspapers in the PRC and Taiwan have published on the same subject. As has the CBC's As It Happens now in response to Sant.

Perhaps Sant really did just throw a bunch of shit he'd superficially evaluated together into a piece pretending to make pronouncements on the veracity of its subject matter—I certainly have the same kind of instinctual response others are having that it sounds fishy—but Snopes didn't hold him to a higher standard here, they're doing exactly the same thing they're implying Sant did.
posted by XMLicious at 8:06 PM on September 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


« Older Women with a Movie Camera   |   "And that's why you always hit your dot!" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments