Holy cow, that's some messed up shit. I've never heard of such a thing. And that they're getting slaps on the wrists if any punishment at all because cops are believing their insane stories.
This is most definitely true. It's because a lifetime of compensation is most of the time more money than a single flat payment for causing death. I know of one foreigner who upon accidentally injuring a pedestrian, non too seriously, was advised by his expat friends to get on the first available flight out on the double. Staying would have involved a victim exaggerating injuries and extorting a foreigner for life. So he went to the bank got some money and beelined it to the airport. Not even going back to his flat to pick up things, except for a friend picking up his passport.
Sad perverse incentives.
Of course he can never go there again as he's officially a fugitive.
When a pedestrian or cyclist is killed by a car in the US, so long as the driver is not drunk and does not leave the scene, the driver will almost never face criminal penalties.
What we call car accidents are considered an unavoidable part of life to be resolved by civil courts and insurance payouts.
I'd say say the US has a cultural mess regarding cars too.
This is terrible trope that keeps coming up. When something bad happens in a country, just because you claim the US has the same problem does not at all ever make it acceptable. It's a total non sequitur.
And that's without even mentioning the fact that 1) the people in the article actually fled the scene, 2) many of them got out of the car and ran over the person again, 3) in the US you will in fact face penalties if you are deemed to be negligent in some way (you were speeding, didn't have a license, etc.)
And yes, in the US, if you are negligent, you will be facing criminal and civil penalties, in a legal system where guanxi is much less likely to aid you.
These are really not comparable situations at all. If you ever lived there you'd know you're comparing two very different attitudes. If you were in an unfortunate accident where you're involved with hitting a cyclist or pedestrian, there are certain rules and expectations, right of way, deference to smaller modes of transportation, etc.
There the bigger the vehicle the bigger the deference by smaller vehicles by tradition and necessity, it's completely opposite. In addition, you would know that sidewalk and street are one and the same in most places.
And the occurrence of backing up to purposely e sure terminal injury is not uncommon in the least. It's in the news, it's quite ordinary.
Even if this is true - and I'd suggest it could use some support - it's a bit different than realizing post-accident that the victim is still alive and then intentionally murdering them.
Can you cite sources or any basis at all for this conclusion?
An acquaintance of mine was speeding and killed someone. He went to jail for a couple of years. No alcohol or drugs were involved and he didn't leave the scene. He was going something like 80 in a 55mph zone.
Quote from this article: '“We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me.'
Big ones off the top of my head:
- Amelie de Moullac: police found driver at fault, DA refused to prosecute
- Charles Vinson: driver ran a red light. Vinson also technically ran a red, but had the walk signal. Vinson was found at fault; driver not even 50% fault.
These are pretty SF-specific examples, but I don't think it's an SF-specific phenomenon.
Its crazy to me that California requires so little coverage, on the order of 30k. If you wipe out the sole bread winner of a household, they can expect to make something like 1yr or less of replaced income.
In other countries, say canada, insurance minimum can be 1M .
The fact that you don't have a lot of insurance doesn't mean you're not liable for damages. If you hit someone with $30k insurance in CA and the court awards them $1M, you still owe $970,000.
Would bankruptcy absolve you of that though? Or is it one of those long term things where they'll garnish your wages as much as they can? In Canada if you get in a bad accident w/o insurance the government fronts the money and then uses its power to garnish wages/make your life hell to collect as much as it can.
Bankruptcy doesn't erase a court judgement, though it might make it easier if you stiff your other creditors. The state doesn't front the money, and the court will garnish your wages and any assets you may acquire until your dying day. And after, come to think of it.
You're comparing completely different scenarios, trying to paint the US in an artificially bad light.
If you intentionally drive over a pedestrian multiple times to try to kill them, you're going to prison potentially for decades. One scenario is purely an accident, the other is intentionally trying to make sure you murder the pedestrian.
Yes, we all understand that stupid little non-analogy that you US haters use.
The template is as follows:
Something bad happens in some other country. The America hater immediately responds with something that the US does that is usually nothing at all to do with the point of the story.
Yes, we understand your retarded tactics. Try again.
We've asked you many times to abide by the HN guidelines when commenting here. Instead you've been breaking them worse. Since you won't follow the rules, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you can always email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Yet it is terrible. Almost as bad as driving without a license plate so you hit and kill somebody you can flee the scene and nobody would be able to identify you. But that does not happen, right?
What a cultural mess.