Pedestrian critical in San Juan accident. (Involving Montero Sport)

[mk]

Nakita ko din itong montero na ito. I tought its another sudden unintended acceleration nanaman . Yun pala lasing amputsa. Malas lang ng waiter. Sa sidewalk na nga lumakad inabutan pa!

[lowslowbenz]

kapag tumawid ka sa illegal ng tawiran sa singapore at makitang walang negligence sa driver side walang matatanggap ang nabundol kahit katiting.

Aba'y dapat. May naka lagay na nga na sign na "BAWAL TUMAWID DITO - NAKAKAMATAY" ... may tumatawid pa rin!

[glenn manikis]

An accident is an accident. We don't have to treat it like a life-time sentence for punishment. Doing so is like giving every tom dick and harry out there a free meal ticket. These would include pedestrians, cyclists, motorcycle riders, tricycle riders, etc. In the end, where do you draw the line?

Emotions and morals aside, given if you have the choice of supporting a handicapped person for the rest of his natural life (while being in jail, etc) versus paying for the funeral and some monetary reparations to the grieving family, many people might go with the second choice.

My opinions may not be popular with you and other people but deciding while emotionally attached to the issue is never the best.

kung accidente lang reckless imprudence resulting to slight or serious physical injuries lang.... kung nasagi lang then inatrasan pa ng driver ibang usapan na yan.... MURDER na po yan.... LIFE IMPRISONMENT na talaga dapat ang mga yan... Iba ang sinasadya iba din ang hindi sinasadya.... iba din kung pre meditated.... pag nasagasaan patayin nalang at mas mura ang mag palibing
kesa mag pagamot.... if thats the thinking pwedeng pwede na pong pumasok sa murder kung namatay...

[ecneret]

imo, dapat makulong yung driver na yan. di mapapalitan ng pera niya yung paa and mga ngipin na nawala sa kanya... e yung support pa sa pamilya nya? maiintindihan ko pa kung nagkaroon ng problema yung kotse like nawalan ng brake o hindi nya nakita yung tao dahil sa weather condition.. kaya lang lasing siya e. tapos yung binangga nya pa e nasa sidewalk... sana talaga makulong yang og*g na dirver na yan...

[niky]

Just commenting. Attitudes like this ......... and we wonder why bus companies prefer to make sure any pedestrians they have an accident with should be dead on the spot.

Which is why we should implement the death penalty for fatalities incurred during drunk driving.

-

But seriously, whether the victim dies or not, compensating them for income lost during the time period lost is only fair if the driver is completely at fault. The difference being if the victim dies, the driver has to recompense that lost income to their next-of-kin as well as going to jail for manslaughter (if it's proven they turned around and hit the victim again on purpose.

-

I think GH's point is that you have to look at the incident in its totality. If the driver didn't mean to run over the victim, then that has to be taken into account when assessing the penalty.

Of course... we're too lenient on drunk driving here. Personally, I think a mandatory jail sentence for any drunk driving accident is a good idea. A minimum of one month seems sufficient deterrent.

[CVT]

I went to a party, Mom,
I remembered what you said.
You told me not to drink, Mom,
So I drank soda instead.

I really felt proud inside, Mom,
The way you said I would.
I didn't drink and drive, Mom,
Even though the others said I should.

I know I did the right thing, Mom,
I know you are always right.
Now the party is finally ending, Mom,
As everyone is driving out of sight.

As I got into my car, Mom,
I knew I'd get home in one piece.
Because of the way you raised me,
So responsible and sweet.

I started to drive away, Mom,
But as I pulled out into the road,
The other car didn't see me, Mom,
And hit me like a load.

As I lay there on the pavement, Mom,
I hear the policeman say,
"The other guy is drunk," Mom,
And now I'm the one who will pay.

I'm lying here dying, Mom...
I wish you'd get here soon.
How could this happen to me, Mom?
My life just burst like a balloon.

There is blood all around me, Mom,
And most of it is mine.
I hear the medic say, Mom,
I'll die in a short time.

I just wanted to tell you, Mom,
I swear I didn't drink.
It was the others, Mom.
The others didn't think.

He was probably at the same party as I.
The only difference is, he drank
And I will die.

Why do people drink, Mom?
It can ruin your whole life.
I'm feeling sharp pains now.
Pains just like a knife.

The guy who hit me is walking, Mom,
And I don't think it's fair.
I'm lying here dying
And all he can do is stare.

Tell my brother not to cry, Mom.
Tell Daddy to be brave.
And when I go to heaven, Mom,
Put "Daddy's Girl" on my grave.

Someone should have told him, Mom,
Not to drink and drive.
If only they had told him, Mom,
I would still be alive.

My breath is getting shorter, Mom.
I'm becoming very scared.
Please don't cry for me, Mom.
When I needed you,
you were always there.

I have one last question, Mom.
Before I say good bye.
I didn't drink and drive,
So why am I the one to die?

If you're with the side of the victim,- what would you say?...

My dear bros,- IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT. Rather, it was a result of an irresponsible action of an adult.

16.2K:bat:

[tomboy]

Sa mga road accident usual na dinadahilan nawalan ng brake eh di ba as a car owner/driver responsibilidad nyo tingnan kung may laman pa brake fluid or may tagas ba mga hose.

[CVT]

Which is why we should implement the death penalty for fatalities incurred during drunk driving.

-

But seriously, whether the victim dies or not, compensating them for income lost during the time period lost is only fair if the driver is completely at fault. The difference being if the victim dies, the driver has to recompense that lost income to their next-of-kin as well as going to jail for manslaughter (if it's proven they turned around and hit the victim again on purpose.

-

I think GH's point is that you have to look at the incident in its totality. If the driver didn't mean to run over the victim, then that has to be taken into account when assessing the penalty.

Of course... we're too lenient on drunk driving here. Personally, I think a mandatory jail sentence for any drunk driving accident is a good idea. A minimum of one month seems sufficient deterrent.

Bro.,- no driver, drunk or otherwise, would accept that he meant to run over the victim, and so....

16.2K:bat:

[yebo]

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

[yebo]

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

[CVT]

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

I am with you on this one, bro.yebo.

No fence sitting on this issue.

We are all drivers. We should ALL be RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS.

Else, you should be RESPONSIBLE enough at least as a person to surrender your driver's license. You should not be on the road, driving a tonner of a potential killer.

16.2K:bat:

[frequenzy]

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

+1
sa tingin ko din dapat mataas ang penalty ng drunk driving minsan na take for granted natin ito

share ko lang what happened sa family friend namin. her dad was a puj driver and unfortunately nahulog yung pasahero na nakasabit sa likod and namatay. sabi nung mga pasahero hindi naman daw mabilis yun jeep at nakabitiw lang talaga yung nakasabit dahil pagod ata sa trabaho. since ayaw nung friend makulong yung dad niya nakipagkasundo sila dun sa pamilya ng biktima. they shouldered all the expenses and meron din sustento. since hindi sila mayaman na baon na rin sila sa utang ngayon. nakikita ko rin talaga yung hirap na pinagdadaan dahil sa aksidente na yun

[glenn manikis]

suggestion ko.. penalty for drunk driving mag handa ng 5 case na beer ipainom sa drunk tapos ang matitirang bote ipupukpok sa ulo ng drunk... he.he.. ganyan kasi ginawa sakin ng tatay ko dati eh...

[XTO]

If you are coming from greenhills/ortigas ave nasa right side siya, bago ka dumating ng cardinal santos..

Napaisip nga ako bakit pati gulong niya nakalas.

Familiar din ako sa kalye na yan. Maganda yari, makinis and may mga humps pa. Hmmm galing ng Ortigas and nagmamadali (sigurado) umuwi yung iresponsableng walang modong driver na yan . What if kamag-anak n'ya nagwo-walking dyan at nasuro ng sasakyan, magagalit kaya din siya sa forum???

[XTO]

+1
sa tingin ko din dapat mataas ang penalty ng drunk driving minsan na take for granted natin ito

sana nga trabahuhin nila ito. naitataas nga nila sin taxes, no helmet, open pipe etc eh why not on this tagal and dami na natodas ng dahil sa sobrang toma? if ever ma involve sa accident automatic i-test ang driver/s involved then pag napatunayan "loaded" with too much alcohol or substance kasuhan na.


ano kaya punto ng ibang mga tsinoy dito???? take note tsinoy ha? and not intsik or **** *****

[ghosthunter]

He should have not been driving under influence. The car should not have been there at that place and time if he wasn't drinking and driving.

It's not a free ticket. Are you willing to give up your two feet, face and teeth for a lifetime financial support? I think not.

Like I said, attitudes like that gives reason for many to choose to "make sure" the accident victim is dead on the spot.

True, it is wrong for the driver of the montero to be drunk and still be driving. BUT requiring a person to a lifetime of financial support is akin to financial "slavery". Where is the justice in that? Like I said, an accident is an accident.

[cast_no_shadow]

Like I said, attitudes like that gives reason for many to choose to "make sure" the accident victim is dead on the spot.

True, it is wrong for the driver of the montero to be drunk and still be driving. BUT requiring a person to a lifetime of financial support is akin to financial "slavery". Where is the justice in that? Like I said, an accident is an accident.

So whats your stand, lets say a drunk driver disabled for life an able, bread winner being?
How can you put limits to the financial support that you are mandated to give? knowing that he is disabled for life?

[nelany]

sana nga trabahuhin nila ito. naitataas nga nila sin taxes, no helmet, open pipe etc eh why not on this tagal and dami na natodas ng dahil sa sobrang toma? if ever ma involve sa accident automatic i-test ang driver/s involved then pag napatunayan "loaded" with too much alcohol or substance kasuhan na.


ano kaya punto ng ibang mga tsinoy dito???? take note tsinoy ha? and not intsik or **** *****

Tsinoy? Eh di dadaanin sa bayad para ma areglo. That driver should be dealt with accordingly. Kung sa ibang lugar yan nangyari ba bye ba rin yung driver.

[ghosthunter]

you call this an ACCIDENT? the driver was DRUNK! this drunken driver ran over a pedestrian who was rightly walking on the pedestrian lane. this poor pedestrian will lose his legs. he will no longer be able to work. he will never be able to attain his full potential. he will never be able to play basketball with the baby that his wife will deliver in a few months. what is the difference between a drunk driver and a low life with a gun who shoots an innocent pedestrian on the street? the only difference is that one uses a gun and the other uses a 2 ton suv. they are the same, they both deserve to be called criminals. they both deserve to pay and suffer.

btw, i am not being emotional about this (can you see my face, am i hysterical?) i am being perfectly rational. i still do walk on sidewalks as i, too, am a pedestrian when i am not in my car. as my whole family when they are not in the car. i am perfectly rational to ask that the penalties for a DRUNK DRIVER injuring and killing people with their cars be raised to the level of that of common low life criminals. what is wrong with that?

common GH, you are a fair man. if ever there is a time we should take sides it is this time. and i think we should take the side of the victim not the criminal.

If you want to be fair, then ban all alcoholic drinks as nothing comes good from them. Drunk people kill each other for the most pointless reasons. Alcohol has known to be the cause of many illnesses.

And along the way, just throw the drunk driver in jail for a while and cancel his driver's license. Just let the guy pay for reparations to the victim. Calling for a "lifetime" of financial support will not help the victim to get back into living his life. All you are doing is making a human leech.

It is obvious many people here are acting too much from their emotions about the issue.

[ghosthunter]

So whats your stand, lets say a drunk driver disabled for life an able, bread winner being?
How can you put limits to the financial support that you are mandated to give? knowing that he is disabled for life?

So, are you saying a disabled person is less of a human? Cannot he get over his disability and get on with his life?

People's attitude is like if someone lost a limb, it is like he is less of a human being.