Speeder going 140 km/h on Oak who killed someone acquitted

[MarkyMark]

Am I pissed because our courts are such pussies, or happy because I know if I ever become a total piece of shit I'll get off with a slap on the wrist?

Unreal what it takes to get an actual punishment in this country.

[jasonturbo]

There is an update from the daughter on the Change.org petition page - The court of appeals will hear the case.

If I was the offender I would have strongly considered a guilty plea deal, now he will probably ensure another 1-2 years of uncertainty before potentially being sent to prison for up to five years.

Never mind how the publicity of this case may negatively affect his day to day life.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Am I pissed because our courts are such pussies, or happy because I know if I ever become a total piece of shit I'll get off with a slap on the wrist?

Unreal what it takes to get an actual punishment in this country.

Yeah, except history has shown that once enough of these extreme cases pass without any real punishment, they eventually go way overboard in the other direction to the point of equal illogic.

See: Drinking and driving convictions for sleeping in the back seat of your car with your keys in your pocket, drinking and driving convictions for sitting near your car on the sidewalk with your keys in your pocket, distracted driving convictions for holding a phone that is powered off, etc.

[pastarocket]

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/1258452547669/

-dash cam video footage of the accident.

[anxiety]

^ahh you beat me to it.

like I said before, and the dashcam footage confirms it, Looks like the doc misjudged the speed of the Audi.

Yes the Audi shouldn't had been speeding like that in the city, but the doc wasn't paying attention either. Really don't have any sympathy, could've been prevented. Just bad timing if there are 2 idiots clashing against each other.

[westopher]

No sympathy? Congrats, you are a sociopath.
You actually think you have the reaction time to process someone coming at you at triple the speed limit there Lewis Hamilton?

[DragonChi]

Originally Posted by anxiety

^ahh you beat me to it.

like I said before, and the dashcam footage confirms it, Looks like the doc misjudged the speed of the Audi.

Yes the Audi shouldn't had been speeding like that in the city, but the doc wasn't paying attention either. Really don't have any sympathy, could've been prevented. Just bad timing if there are 2 idiots clashing against each other.

I'm curious, what judgment do you think the Audi driver deserves?

Trying not to be biased here. If the Dr. Hui was alive, I'd ask your thoughts on the same punishment. But it's not like you can punish dead people.

[twitchyzero]

again, if the Suzuki stopped half way and did not completely his turn...there was no way the Audi had enough distance to stop...he would've likely swerved into the southbound traffic, the gas station etc, probably killing someone else if not taking out more than one victim

if the Suzuki tried to clear the intersection by flooring it, yeah I don't think a sub-150hp vehicle wouldn't have made it out in time

if the Suzuki never try making the turn, well are you sure you can judge 140kph oncoming at 8am? remember the dash cam perspective is that from Oak St. so of course it's a lot more obvious

tl;dr the Audi was being completely senseless to be doing 90kph over, let alone over 90kph

[anxiety]

I don't know what drugs you guys are on.

Yes the Audi shouldn't had been speeding to begin with, therefore he should be spending jail time for his action, not excusing that.

But are you guys saying you as a driver when making a left turn, you don't scan the oncoming traffic? You can't judge if someone is driving faster than normal traffic? There was only one other car in the same direction, so his vision did not get blocked.

As a matter of fact, 8am morning driving, raining, blocked vision are not excuses you can make in this case

Yes the Audi is breaking the law, but it's the doc against an idiot, it was up to him with his defensive driving against a stupid driver.

Same analogy can be made with a pedestrian getting hit by a car at a crosswalk, if the pedestrian dies, yes the driver is at fault and should be jailed for time. But did the pedestrian scan the intersection before crossing?
Just because one party is at fault from breaking the law, doesn't mean the other party can't prevent accidents from happening.

Not all situations are preventable, but this was. Unfortunately it takes two parties when tragedy happens, one's an idiot breaking the law, the other is not paying attention. You can say all you want about the other party breaking the law either by speeding or not stopping at the crosswalk, but the doc ultimately cost his own life by assuming the Audi is following the law.

[DragonChi]

The pedestrian in the middle of a crossing has the right of way.

One illegal action is greater than the other. They are both not equal.

You never answered my original question.

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by anxiety

But are you guys saying you as a driver when making a left turn, you don't scan the oncoming traffic? You can't judge if someone is driving faster than normal traffic? There was only one other car in the same direction, so his vision did not get blocked.

You underestimate what you can see and expect when an object is approaching at 140km/h, especially if you're not ready for it. It's no different when you are changing lane and you check your side mirrors and shoulder check. You see nothing, and within a split second, something suddenly IS there because of how fast of a rate it's travelling.

When you're making a left turn, you're scanning the immediate area around the intersection, and maybe 6-7 car lengths around the incoming traffic, possibly making note of any incoming cars within a block away, with the assumption most cars are travelling 60km/h or so, give or take.. If a car is coming at you at 140km/h, you'll probably need to be scanning 3-4 blocks away from the intersection which is not expected, as it's not expected to have a car coming at you at those kind of speeds.

The Audi simply was way too far to be factored in for the left turn (if Dr. Hui had even noticed it), and next thing you know, the car reached the intersection due to it's excessive speed.
The Audi being silver (instead of like a red or yellow colour) obviously didn't help. But tbh, I doubt Dr. Hui even saw it.

[GG]

Originally Posted by anxiety

I don't know what drugs you guys are on.

Yes the Audi shouldn't had been speeding to begin with, therefore he should be spending jail time for his action, not excusing that.

But are you guys saying you as a driver when making a left turn, you don't scan the oncoming traffic? You can't judge if someone is driving faster than normal traffic? There was only one other car in the same direction, so his vision did not get blocked.

As a matter of fact, 8am morning driving, raining, blocked vision are not excuses you can make in this case

Yes the Audi is breaking the law, but it's the doc against an idiot, it was up to him with his defensive driving against a stupid driver.

Same analogy can be made with a pedestrian getting hit by a car at a crosswalk, if the pedestrian dies, yes the driver is at fault and should be jailed for time. But did the pedestrian scan the intersection before crossing?
Just because one party is at fault from breaking the law, doesn't mean the other party can't prevent accidents from happening.

Not all situations are preventable, but this was. Unfortunately it takes two parties when tragedy happens, one's an idiot breaking the law, the other is not paying attention. You can say all you want about the other party breaking the law either by speeding or not stopping at the crosswalk, but the doc ultimately cost his own life by assuming the Audi is following the law.

thank you! Finally somebody had the balls to say it

my thoughts exactly...dont know why everyone is tripping cuz someone died..and it just so happen to be a doc? So what? So if it was a scum bag or a janitor...that life is worthless?
If anyone of u look at the video clearly, the doc enter the intersection very slowly, and half way the turn he BRAKED... the second car beside the audi was about 3-4 car length from the intersection as well.

Should the audi be doing 140km? no he shouldnt have, it was way too fast in the city.
However....left turns are always at fault, the law states you should ONLY TURN when its completely cleared.
We all know Oak and Marine drive *anywhere with a three lane paths no one does the speed limit. Lets not kid our self or lie to each other in the face, the average speed limit is 60-80km. Now even if ken wasnt doing 140km, even 80km direct hit (no brake) can kill the doc that decides to turn left whenever he wants. Especially in a old economic box that lacks all the safety feature a modern car has today? Hell ya, just look at the crash test and we come back and discuss. 70-80km direct "SIDE" impact can kill a senior/or anyone with a poor health condition, you never know. im sure if he got ram over by a larger SUV doing 70-80km on the side, he probably wouldnt survive either

Let me rephrase this, so if i was driving at night on marine drive/ e hastings, and some genius/hobo decides to jump out of nowhere/jwalk and i just happen to run him over going 70km, should i go to jail for killing a moron? Like come on man. Straight of way has the RIGHT of the road


Just becuz someone died, doesnt mean he a saint and not at fault to begin with.


I see accidents like this all the time on a daily basis, left turners not looking, everyone in vancouver runs yellow/red light. Its a trend, people dont know how to drive worth shit in this city. They should really make our driver license more difficult to obtain.
Vancouver has one of the worst roads, all the roads i driven down in the states has DEDICATED left turn lane with dedicated left turn lights. So no one turns left when they are not suppose to. And they have all the reflectors in the world, while vancouver is known for its rain, i dont know how many times i couldnt see jack shit when its pissing rain

[whitev70r]

Originally Posted by GG

Let me rephrase this, so if i was driving at night on marine drive/ e hastings, and some genius/hobo decides to jump out of nowhere/jwalk and i just happen to run him over going 70km, should i go to jail for killing a moron? Like come on man. Straight of way has the RIGHT of the road

Just becuz someone died, doesnt mean he a saint and not at fault to begin with.

If you ran him over at 140 kms/hr ... yes, your ass should be in jail. You the moron in that case.

[GG]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

If you ran him over at 140 kms/hr ... yes, your ass should be in jail. You the moron in that case.

perhaps

However like i stated before, even if a F150/SUV t bones him on the side doing 70-80km can still kill him in that tiny suzuki

[!Aznboi128]

Originally Posted by GG

perhaps

However like i stated before, even if a F150/SUV t bones him on the side doing 70-80km can still kill him in that tiny suzuki

I think he'll be injured at that point yes with more mass there's more force I get that but the SX4 is a pretty safe vehicle all around.

2013 Suzuki SX4

[minoru_tanaka]

Originally Posted by GG

perhaps

However like i stated before, even if a F150/SUV t bones him on the side doing 70-80km can still kill him in that tiny suzuki

You have to make sure it's clear before you turn, yes. But if I'm doing the math right then at 140 km/h that's about 2 blocks every 5 secs.

[freakshow]

At the risk of being called a sociopath, which I've often wondered about myself anyways.. I'm not totally sure after seeing the video.

We could all agree that generally, left turners need to make sure the way is clear before turning, and part of driving is gauging the speed of an oncoming car.

If the driver was going 20 over (70km/h), we'd all probably say it's the left turner's fault.
If the driver was going 200 over (250km/h), we'd all probably say it's the speeders fault.

So I guess we're all just arguing about what the reasonable limit should be for pushing liability onto the speeder as opposed to the left turner.. Is it 70? 120? 180? Does the time of day matter? Assuming the same visibility, is there more of an onus on the left turner if its 9pm vs 9am?

just thinking out loud..

[jasonturbo]

I would suggest that a reasonable person cannot gauge the speed of an oncoming vehicle nearly as accurately as they can gauge the distance of the oncoming vehicle. For this reason, we likely develop driving habits primarily based on estimating distances not speeds, consider how many times you've gone to turn and at the last minute stopped because you realize the approaching "speeding" vehicle is travelling much faster than the other vehicles on the road at that time or during historical instances performing the same maneuver at the same location/time.

With respect to this specific accident, consider that there was two vehicles approaching the intersection from the direction opposite of Dr. Hui, the Audi and what appears to be a Chevrolet Aveo. Consider that the Audi was travelling at approximately 3x the speed of the Chevrolet Aveo, if you look at the dash cam video you will see that at 12 seconds both cars are clearly in the right of the screen with the Audi approximately one car length ahead of the Aveo - the impact then occurs at 13 seconds, one second later.

If Dr. Hui gauged the speed and distance of the Aveo (The vehicle nearest to the intersection at that time) at the 10 seconds mark of the video and initiated his turn, he may have, under normal circumstances, cleared the intersection before the approaching vehicles arrived. The Aveo arrived at the intersection at 14 seconds, suggesting the maximum time period Dr. Hui had to initiate his turn and clear the intersection was 3-4 seconds... which seems to be enough.

Perhaps this doesn't get the point across, but I would suggest that we can assume Dr. Hui's car and the Aveo were being driven by reasonable people and we can use that as a means of determining whether or not the accident would have occurred if not for the excessive speeding of Mr. Chung.

Disclaimer: Excessive use of "thumb suck" mathematics above

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by minoru_tanaka

You have to make sure it's clear before you turn, yes. But if I'm doing the math right then at 140 km/h that's about 2 blocks every 5 secs.

Yup

144 km/h = 40 m/s

City block is normally 80-120 m, so 2-3 seconds per block.

[68style]

Originally Posted by GG

Now even if ken wasnt doing 140km, even 80km direct hit (no brake) can kill the doc that decides to turn left whenever he wants. Especially in a old economic box that lacks all the safety feature a modern car has today? Hell ya, just look at the crash test and we come back and discuss. 70-80km direct "SIDE" impact can kill a senior/or anyone with a poor health condition, you never know. im sure if he got ram over by a larger SUV doing 70-80km on the side, he probably wouldnt survive either

Hey moron, you realize he got hit in the PASSENGER side right? He unquestionably would have survived this accident if he was hit at 80km/h... but he got killed despite the complete opposite side of his vehicle from him getting hit... that tells you something about the responsibility of the person that hit him and the speed they were going. How do I know that? I was primary witness on a Nissan 350Z hitting a 1978 Honda Civic in the passenger side after the Civic went through a red light and the 350Z was travelling at 70km/h without even hitting his brakes... the driver of that Civic not only survived, he got out of his shitty old econobox and was walking around. Also, the Audi is like 5 years older than the Suzuki... I guess with your logic and that old-ass Audi's shitty technology (haha) Ken should have died twice. Too bad he didn't.

No one in this thread is saying anyone has the right to turn left in front of anybody, everyone is saying that you don't have the right to drive 140km/h (that's nearly 3 times the speed limit to help you out here) in the city with complete impunity when you take someone's life because of it.

How you can't see that is beyond human explanation.

[MarkyMark]

He should have noticed the Audi the same way a pro boxer should have noticed the uppercut that knocked his ass out. Seriously, fuck off saying it's anywhere in the realm of what's required to drive on these roads to anticipate someone coming at you at almost 3 times the speed on a city street.

I've watched the video over and over and it's insane how fast that fucking car is moving.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by GG

However....left turns are always at fault, the law states you should ONLY TURN when its completely cleared.

If you’re going to proceed with a ridiculous hot take, the least you can do is make correct statements.

Left turns are NOT always at fault. You’re not at fault if the other driver runs a red light, for example. Generally speaking, illegal trumps right of way when it comes to assigning fault.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Jmac

Yup

144 km/h = 40 m/s

City block is normally 80-120 m, so 2-3 seconds per block.

From another perspective, this is about how far away the Audi driver was from the intersection when Dr Hui started making his left turn:

https://imgur.com/a/ioFBLd1

That's fucking crazy.
I doubt the Audi was even in the Dr's field of vision when he started the turn.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Traum

Is losing his job all the retribution this sucker would get?

At the same time the vigilant/mob justice mentality costing someone their job and harassing them after they've been acquitted is pretty fucked. I say that because of the cases where someone who are totally innocent gets their life ruined because of idiots who do not have all the facts (as they weren't in the courtroom) and refuse to believe in their innocence.

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I would suggest that a reasonable person cannot gauge the speed of an oncoming vehicle nearly as accurately as they can gauge the distance of the oncoming vehicle.

Agreed, and especially not in the amount of time you can spend during a scan of an intersection. To gauge the speed you'd likely have to be looking one way so long that what you observed the other way is no longer valid. You either have to be relying mostly on distance or you'd never end up going anywhere.

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

If Dr. Hui gauged the speed and distance of the Aveo (The vehicle nearest to the intersection at that time) at the 10 seconds mark of the video and initiated his turn, he may have, under normal circumstances, cleared the intersection before the approaching vehicles arrived. The Aveo arrived at the intersection at 14 seconds, suggesting the maximum time period Dr. Hui had to initiate his turn and clear the intersection was 3-4 seconds... which seems to be enough.

Perhaps this doesn't get the point across, but I would suggest that we can assume Dr. Hui's car and the Aveo were being driven by reasonable people and we can use that as a means of determining whether or not the accident would have occurred if not for the excessive speeding of Mr. Chung.

I would also think that the presence of the Aveo traveling at a normal speed decreased the odds of him even noticing the Audi, let alone the speed it was going. Again it comes down to time, when you scan an intersection you're going to notice the closest vehicles and make a judgment based on that, you can't look at every vehicle within the next 3 blocks. Especially if they may have been blocked from sight and only covered the "clear" area the other driver may have seen so quickly because of their speed.

edit: I just watched the video, I had thought it happened at night with hardly anyone around. Driving like that in the middle of the day is just insanity.

[prudz]

Originally Posted by minoru_tanaka

You have to make sure it's clear before you turn, yes. But if I'm doing the math right then at 140 km/h that's about 2 blocks every 5 secs.

Originally Posted by Jmac

Yup

144 km/h = 40 m/s

City block is normally 80-120 m, so 2-3 seconds per block.

Except you are assuming that the guy is doing 140km/hr steady. Which it was discussed in court that it was a momentary acceleration, not a reckless pedal to the metal swerving through traffic. He would have been accelerating to 140km/hr into the intersection, not flying for several city blocks at that speed.

After seeing the video I would put fault on both parties. I think he got off lightly and probably should be getting a harsher sentence. However I still think the doc made an unsafe left turn, which as it has been mentioned above, happens far to often in Vancouver and surrounding cities. The driving here is ridiculous for the most part. It is unfortunate that people will see this as speed being the biggest contributing factor and ignore that poor driving choices and unsafe turns have an equal part to play in these scenarios.