Driver Killed a Pedestrian in Japan While Playing Pokemon Go (fortune.com) 175
An anonymous reader writes: One woman was killed and another injured. In what police are calling Japan's first death linked to Pokemon Go, a driver playing the smartphone game hit two pedestrians on Tuesday night, officials said. The collision broke the neck of one woman, killing her, and left another woman with a broken hip, the Wall Street Journal reports. Police in Tokushima, on the western Japanese island of Shikoku, told the Wall Street Journal the women were crossing the street when the car struck them. The man driving the car did not see them because was playing Pokemon Go.
You've captured Manslaughter! (Score:5, Funny)
Achievement level unlocked!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You've captured Manslaughter! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think the injured/dead parties won't?!
They won't. It's Japan. They're not overly litigious, because they don't suffer from an infestation of libertarians and their government actually works. This guy WILL do time, and it won't be short either. Japan takes an extremely dim view of traffic fatalities and they have a functioning government that will enforce the traffic laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan isn't what it used to be. In the old days he would have cut his own giblets out due to the shame.
New Achievement Needed (Score:2)
They apparently need to add another pop up (Score:2)
"Don't be an idiot while playing Pokemon Go".
Re:They apparently need to add another pop up (Score:5, Funny)
Stop contradicting yourself!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or they could be smart and lock out users when they're moving so fast they're obviously not on foot. I feel bad for Nintendo, their stock already fell when people realized they didn't make the game, but they're going to be facing lawsuits as the distributor. Pokemon Go is not going to work out well for them at all.
They added that feature a while back. You have to tap a button saying that you're a passenger and not the driver if the app detects that you're moving faster than walking speed. There's also a bunch of warnings that the game rotates through when you start it up including, "Don't drive while playing Pokemon Go", "Don't trespass while playing Pokemon Go", "Don't go into dangerous areas while playing Pokemon Go", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They added that feature a while back. You have to tap a button saying that you're a passenger and not the driver if the app detects that you're moving faster than walking speed.
It isn't very well implemented, though. I've had it pop up right after I walked out of a building.
Re: They apparently need to add another pop up (Score:1)
I've managed to get that warning to pop up sitting still on the sofa! The position inaccuracy at marginal GPS reception is obviously larger than their threshold distance for detecting driving speeds.
Re:They apparently need to add another pop up (Score:5, Informative)
You can also get it to pop up merely by switching to something else so Pokemon Go is in the background, continue walking, and then switch back to the game so that when it updates your new position it decides you've moved from the old position instantly. The great thing is that once you've dismissed the popup once, I don't think it comes up again in the same session, so if it triggers while walking to your car (since it can easily trigger when you leave a building and the GPS accuracy is just bad so you're bouncing all over the place) it won't trigger while you're driving.
Other people say "don't blame the game, blame the driver" but I disagree. Niantic has created a game where playing it while moving quickly is an advantage. You can hit more "pokestops" faster, collect more items, and go through more potential Pokemon spawns by playing in a car. Sure, you can argue that's fine if you're a passenger, but what they should have done is make it so that moving "quickly" like that DOESN'T give you an advantage. Make it so that the best way to play is by walking, not driving.
But Ingress has the same problem, so I'm not surprised Pokemon Go does too. It's even worse in Ingress - the best way to collect what's basically "fuel" that powers every action you take is by driving, since it tends to collect along roads for some reason, and you can still hit portals to get items as long as you don't break 35 MPH.
Re: (Score:1)
I started playing last week because I realized it would be an excuse for getting up and going for a walk that I would actually not say "no" to. The "passenger pop-up" actually does display multiple times in a session. I think it's about once every 10 minutes, but i have not timed it. Also, if you have dismissed the pop-up once, then end up in stop and go traffic for a bit, then go fast again, it will trigger again.
I ride the bus for part of my commute and I bring Pokemon GO up on the way home (since I'm goi
Re:They apparently need to add another pop up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's badly implemented by definition, unless it can tell you're lying when you say "yes".
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I proposed an idea that's wrong more than half the time, the last thing I'd expect anyone to call me, is "smart." That simply isn't the right word for this idea.
Fast movement doesn't imply driving. I'll grant that if you can determine the vehicle is a bicycle or motorcycle, chances are over 50% that the driver is playing. (Motorcycle passengers are unlikely to have free hands.) But if it's basically any other type of vehicle (or if no vehicle is involved at all), you're throwing babies out more often than you're throwing out bathwater! Why would you use a word like "smart" for this?!?
Re:They apparently need to add another pop up (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it does throw up messages if you're moving too fast, but if you cut it off completely, they passengers couldn't play, which wouldn't be nice, especially if you have a car load of kids playing. It keeps them busy, you know.
But really there are ALREADY laws on the books against DISTRACTED DRIVING.....how is this any different?
Those laws are quite broad enough..and if you get caught doing so, then they should rip your license up in front of you, and point you towards the nearest tricycle shop, or bus pass station.
But for heaven's sakes, we don't need more laws, etc.
And no, Nintento should not be liable for individual stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On some of the walking trails near my house, the mile markers are Pokestops.
Interestingly, there isn't much of anything that's located on Seattle's Burke Gilman trail - you have to walk along the roads, or else walk around on the UW campus, to get close to Pokestops.
Re: (Score:2)
Get on your feet and step outside to find and catch wild Pokemon.
...
As you walk through the real world, your smartphone will vibrate to let you know you're near a Pokemon.
Re: (Score:3)
"Don't be an idiot while playing Pokemon Go".
It already does this. If you travel above a certain speed the app warns you not to play while driving.
Don't blame Pokemon GO (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame the subclass of humanity that finds it acceptable to operate their devices while driving.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly.
While I can understand how someone can be stupid enough to think answering a phone call or reading a sms quickly isn't that dangerous, I can't fathom how someone can think there's no issue playing a fricking game while driving.
Until people caught operating a phone while driving aren't fined significantly (proportionally to income is a good idea) and get their license removed, death will continue to happen.
Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse. There are places that outright ban texting but it is actually (grey area) legal to play video games or read e-mails whilst driving.
(I say "grey area" because most places have unenforced "distracted driving/ dangerous driving" rules- and playing games whilst driving is both distracted and dangerous.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You were paying more attention to the road than your typing, right?
Fine them?!?! (Score:3)
Fine them and remove their licence? Seriously? They killed someone and it looks like they did it in a way that was entirely avoidable with no mitigating factors. This should be tried as whatever form of manslaughter/murder in the local laws represents causing death through gross negligence.
At a minimum, people like this should be locked up on public safety grounds, and should be prohibited indefinitely from controlling any vehicle if and when they are released until they can show that they are now safe and
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect he means anyone doing stupid things while driving, thus getting them off the roads *before* they kill someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, perhaps that was what they meant and I read too much into it.
In that case, I would completely agree, there needs to be a real deterrent to make it clear that this behaviour isn't acceptable, and it does need to be meaningful for rich people as well. Things like losing the right to drive and ultimately, if they continue to drive anyway, their freedom for some period of time, not just fining them 10% of this year's earnings or crushing their car.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, but you should ALSO find them and remove their license. With prejudice. People sent to jail usually get out eventually.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our laws promoting safety have a lot of redundancy built into them. This redundancy allows multiple failures before producing a catastrophic result. Limiting street crossings to crosswalks concentrates pedestrians in locations where additional safety features can be installed (red lights, painted stripes on the road). It also frees up drivers to keep their eyes on the road when away from intersections, instead of having to c
Re: (Score:1)
I don't really see why the law should treat someone driving while looking at the phone differently from someone driving under influence.
Same goes for pedestrians.
Walking while not paying attention is fine as long as you don't bother anyone.
Driving while not paying attention should mean that you get your drivers license and device of distraction confiscated.
You may say that both are in the wrong. Even if that were the case there is a big difference is in what damage they caused due to their negligence.
One hu
Re: (Score:1)
> TFA does not make clear whether the women were crossing legally or jaywalking.
Huh? In the "rest of the word" (most countries outside USA) the concept of jaywalking doesn't even exists!
[ For your information, since the topic concerns an incident that happened in Japan: wheels weren't even used much there until circa 1855, due to fear of causing damage to their narrow and winding dirt roads, carved into hillsides and confined valleys within the mountaneous japanese landscape. People used their own backs
Re: (Score:2)
TFA does not make clear whether the women were crossing legally or jaywalking.
Irrelevant. This is a USA phenomenon. Most of the world if you hit a pedestrian you are liable regardless if the pedestrian was j-walking or not.
Mind you this is Japan we're talking about. You can be fined if you drive through a puddle and splash a pedestrian who isn't even on the road.
Thats it? (Score:2, Interesting)
With a user base in the millions (hundreds of millions?), there has probably been many billions of human activity hours spent on pokemon go. The fact that it requires movement and so far there is only one known death attributed to it means overall its probably responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities!
Re: (Score:3)
[This incident] means overall [Pokemon Go is] probably responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities!
You would need to have a control activity that also requires movement and shows a substantially larger among of "attributed death"* to make that claim.
* - again just to clarify the tldr doens't say the death is attributed to PoGo just linked to it. The driver said that but he's hardly a valuable source.
Re: (Score:2)
"In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the United States. This averages to one crash-related pedestrian death every 2 hours." [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
We have such a control group: Random pedestrians.
In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the United States. This averages to one crash-related pedestrian death every 2 hours [cdc.gov]
considering how long we've had pedestrians and how many pedestrians there are if you want to compare PoGo to random pedestrians you're gonna need a much bigger PoGo dataset.
Re: (Score:2)
You would need to .... to make that claim.
I would also have to expand my research beyond a story's headline. I think this forum would be a better place if we stopped confusing /. posts (even those with links in them) with "claims".
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, no.
Pokemon Go didn't kill the pedestrian, the moron driving the car and not paying attention did.
Why is there such a problem with personal responsibility in this world? Oh wait, too many lawyers need work....
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that to be true (and apparently the game warns people not to play whilst driving). I don't think anyone would suggest the software developers be held responsible.
However, if there were a game that actively encouraged people to play the game whilst behind the wheel, you better believe they would be facing a lawsuit if someone operating the game caused a death.
Re: (Score:2)
With a user base in the millions (hundreds of millions?), there has probably been many billions of human activity hours spent on pokemon go. The fact that it requires movement and so far there is only one known death attributed to it means overall its probably responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities!
I don't think that's how death attribution works.
I think Pokemon Go is a good thing, and do the extend to motivates people to move around and engage it's a very good thing, but that doesn't mean the distraction aspect isn't a problem. Drivers using Pokemon Go is a huge concern for me.
Re:Thats it? No. (Score:2)
There have been other stories attributing death or injury (possibly there weren't any deaths) to Pokemon Go...the difference is this time the player was the one who did the killing. The other times people playing it just wandered into dangerous areas and either injured themselves or were assaulted.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Pong require movement the way Pokemon Go does?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't very good at history. Population has roughly doubled since the early 1970s, so it can't have been that high in WW2.
What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline should really be "Unsafe driver kills pedestrian". If it wasn't Pokemon Go, it would have been texting or some other action that caused this muppet to kill someone.
Re: (Score:3)
What a lame alternate universe you picked (Score:3)
If we're going into alternate universes, then I like this one the best: someone else struck the pedestrian, and he was playing an ambulance game where you drive to injured people and give them medical attention. In that universe, playing the game while driving caused him to save a life!
Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Talking on the phone, Texting on the Phone, Playing a Game on the Phone, Eating your breakfast, Fiddling trying to read a map, punching in an address in a GPS, yelling at your kids..... All of this falls under distracted driving.
There is only so much we can do to stop stupid. As stupid people are often ingenious in finding new ways to be stupid.
The solution for distracted driving is getting rid of drivers. Self Driving Cars, Accessible Public Transit systems. Heck I would love it if there was a flatbed train along the interstate where you can park your car on it. And take the train the next 50 miles.
Preach it! (Score:1)
You nailed it on every point.
My favorite solution is the self driving cars. Artificial Intelligence will save us from ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
For a lot of people, losing $500 can ruin a family; there was just an article posted here about how $1000 can keep a family from becoming homeless for 2 years. For a family living close to the edge, what will losing $500 do to them. I live in a rather affluent area, and it seems like everyone is always texting away while driving. For them a $500 fine is a minor fee for being allowed to u
Re: (Score:2)
What has Pokemon Go has got to do with this? The driver in question was playing Pokemon Go. He wasn't texting or doing some other action. He was Playing Pokemon Go. That makes Pokemon Go directly relevant to this incident.
It's cute to pretend that the details leading up to the accident aren't important and that the only important fact is that the driver is a fuckup, but doing so makes you a fool. We must recognize that the irresponsible behavior he was engaging in has a certain allure, that others are
Re: (Score:2)
Except that games are designed to hold attention more firmly than is, e.g., text message reading. Since they are more immersive, it actually *is* a different phenomenon, if only by degree. I'll agree that this isn't unique to Pokemon Go, but it's more like playing pachinko while driving than texting while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Immersive doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's hands free.
Brace yourselves for New Laws, Japan (Score:1)
This means there needs to be more laws to limit human agency. Governments were instituted among men to solve all problems, it says so in the constitution. There isn't a problem that a judicious law can't solve. Let's do this!
Calm down guys, no one is blaming PoGo (Score:2)
cowsay (Score:1)
Play stupid games... (Score:1)
Re:Eat stupid food... (Score:2)
Deathrace 2000 IX! Pokemon Edition! (Score:1)
There are two warnings in the app about this. (Score:3)
One of the random notifications when the app starts up is "Don't drive while playing Pokemon Go" (of which there are around 5 total possible notifications).
The other, is if you are moving fast the game tells you not to drive while playing, and prompts you to confirm you are a passenger.
Personally, I think the app should be fully disabled while moving fast passenger or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think the app should be fully disabled while moving fast passenger or not.
Totally agree. And I would personally define "fast" as something like 10 km/h since you really shouldn't be playing this game while running or riding a bike either.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think that a passenger should not be allowed to play a game?
While the startup notifications are annoying and condescending, the alerts that popup when you are moving faster than say 15 mph (which is easy to achieve on a bycicle) are condescending, annoying, and require a response which is distracting. I think it would be horribly and terribly ironic if the idiot who was driving while playing was pressing the "i am a passenger" button at the time of impact.
Other apps, eg. Waze do this too. I thin
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think the app should be fully disabled while moving fast passenger or not.
Would you kindly submit a list of which apps should be disabled and which apps should be allowed to function while moving at a certain speed? Do you believe that behavior should be forced by the app or the OS? Who makes these decisions? Should it vary by jurisdiction? What about in a taxi cab, on a train or a bus? Should we have a different standard or even law for all these scenarios? Or we could, you know, have a trial and determine if the driver was criminally negligent regardless of what activity
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think the app should be fully disabled while moving fast passenger or not.
No kids yet eyh?
Are we there yet will take on a new form of annoying if that were the case.
Re: (Score:2)
The game is really meant to be part of exploring. If you are some kid stuck in a car, you really aren't exploring. Or would you prefer the "Can we stop at that Gym?" over "Are we there yet?"
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so, but the reality is that you can catch a shitload of pokemon on a commute. Just ask my girlfriend.
Actually when you go fast enough it turns it into a new game of trying to catch a pokemon as quickly as possible before it disappears because you moved too far.
Easy solution (Score:2)
They already implemented a "speed limit" which, if exceeded, prompts you to confirm you are *not* driving. The solution to this obviously fast-growing problem is to simply not allow playing the game if the phone moves past that 15kph. It would likely be a lot more enjoyable for the drivers too who don't have to put up with spaced-out passengers...
Re: (Score:3)
solution to this obviously fast-growing problem
Deaths have growth from 0 to 1! That's infinity %! We're all dead tomorrow!
t would likely be a lot more enjoyable for the drivers too who don't have to put up with spaced-out passengers...
Never been on a long trip with kids in the car, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths have growth from 0 to 1! That's infinity %! We're all dead tomorrow!
People driving while playing on their phone is the fast-growing problem, not people dying because of it. Although that has no evidently happened, too. After the first death, comes the second one and so on.
Never been on a long trip with kids in the car, I see.
I enjoy chatting with my kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we there yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths have growth from 0 to 1! That's infinity %! We're all dead tomorrow!
Now they have risen from 1 to 2. A 100% rise in Pokémon GO related fatalities [slashdot.org].
Like I said before:
After the first death, comes the second one and so on.
Cell phone usage? (Score:1)
Legal services as in-app purchase (Score:5, Funny)
because was playing (Score:1)
No time put subjects beginning sentance!
Just another distraction (Score:1)
And in the meantime how many people were killed by drivers doing other things on their phones? It's not like this is some new problem created by Pokémon Go. There have been distracted drivers since well before the time of cell phones, and a LOT of distracted drivers since the ubiquity of cell phones.
I dare say that, if there has only been one incident in Japan, statistically Pokémon Go is less of a hazard than texting, potentially even less of a hazard than just talking on the phone.
Wrong release channel (Score:2)
Murder by car (Score:1)
Let's be crystal here, that's what this is.
Don't drive and cell.
Ever.
Not to excuse the driver, but... (Score:2)
Not to excuse the driver; but this is why they taught us to make eye-contact with drivers when crossing the street. If you can't establish your right with facial expressions, just wait.
It's Happening! (Score:1)
there should be a law which fixes this... (Score:1)
"it is illegal to place, or allow automatic placement, of virtual items/effects/prizes/bonus' in any private property(except places pointed out in the next law). It is also illegal to place virtual items/effects/prizes/bonus' in areas which are inherently dangerous such as, but not limited to: roads, bike lanes, railways, airports, military bases."
Here's a draft for another good law:
"to help weed out the people 'who are too stupid to be of use to society', the placement of of
Re:empty lives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are people's lives so bloody empty that they need to play with a phone all the time? What the hell is wrong with them?
It's not about empty lives, it's about addictive games. Games even ones as insipidly simple as PoGo can tap into your Skinner box tendancies. It's less about the rest of your life being fulfilling than about an individual having self control.
Re: (Score:2)
I've played plenty of games over the years that I have enjoyed greatly and wanted to play more. You know what I never found, though? I never found that I couldn't resist the urge to play them at the same time as I was in control of a heavy, fast-moving metal object in a crowded area full of vulnerable people.
Anyone who truly can't control that urge demonstrably has serious mental health issues that make them a danger to themselves and others, and they need to be taken into care and properly looked after for
Re: (Score:2)
I've played plenty of games over the years that I have enjoyed greatly and wanted to play more. You know what I never found, though? I never found that I couldn't resist the urge to play them at the same time as I was in control of a heavy, fast-moving metal object in a crowded area full of vulnerable people.
Anyone who truly can't control that urge demonstrably has serious mental health issues that make them a danger to themselves and others, and they need to be taken into care and properly looked after for everyone's safety and preferably to help them recover.
But let's be honest, how many people really couldn't resist that urge and have genuine mental health problems, and how many could have controlled themselves just fine but simply didn't care and knowingly did something extremely dangerous without regard for the potentially tragic consequences?
I'm not trying to say it isn't their fault or that they are a victim of the game. They SHOULD have more self control and be less self-indulgent than to play the game while driving.
"addictive games" ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you played Pokemon Go?
i have and do play PokemonGo. I see it as a vastly flawed and honestly boring game compared to Ingress. But other people play it like I played Cookie Clicker. What's addictive to me isn't addictive to you and so forth.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet world wide it's more than two, I see people driving and searching for pokemon all the time.
People drive and operate their phones all the time. It doesn't cause nearly as much death as you think it would. That said it does cause a lot of death and most of that use is texting which is more involved in terms of phone usage than PoGo. Having to type out words and phrases vs just tossing pokeballs up is orders more difficult to do while maintaining proper road concentration.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't tell whether the person is a passenger or the driver. A lot of parents will be very unhappy if their kids can't use their electronic devices on long road trips.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of an abundance of caution, yes, that could work -- I guess the question is, should Nintendo be responsible for everything, or should the user? If the former, then is it also the company's responsibility to, say, mandate breaks every X minutes (for ergonomic and/or eyesight reasons)? It presumably also knows (or can know) when your alarms are set, so should it shut off in ti
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo doesn't make Pokemon GO.
And besides, why should passengers in cars , or buses, or trains be restricted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Darwinism (Score:5, Informative)
How is it Darwinism? It was innocent pedestrians that were killed/injured.
Darwinism would be if the driver died.
Re: (Score:1)
The person didn't get out of the way of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
The person didn't get out of the way of the vehicle.
Didn't need to. It's Japan. You're not allowed to run over a pedestrian for any reason.
You're also not allowed to get that pedestrian wet if driving along side them. Only in the USA do you breed a culture of bigger = better so fuck everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
It is darwinism if this selection leads to crash-resistant pedestrians.
Re: (Score:2)
In my jurisdiction, they do keep metrics on whether the operator was actively using the wireless connection involving user action on a phone at the time of an accident. (Phone calls, texting, playing games connected to the internet or an online server, etc).
In some cases it cannot be confirmed, so those are not counted as involving distracted driving via a wireless device, but
Re: (Score:1)
I still see people using their phones while driving even though it's illegal. I have taken to recording people who do it, making sure to get as clear of an image of their face and license plate as possible, and then posting those videos online.
Driving while texting/playing games/reading/etc should carry criminal penalties as harsh as a DUI.