溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 唉又一單醉駕累人！ [打印本頁]

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-26 21:24 標題: 唉又一單醉駕累人！

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100926/3/kf4k.html
(星島日報報道)超速醉駕又害一命！葵涌昨晨在三句鐘內發生兩宗疑涉超速嚴重車禍，其中一名滿身酒氣紋身漢，清晨駕名貴房車，載同三名女子沿和宜合道高速上斜，至彎位失控越線擦撞貨車，再與的士迎面猛撼，的士司機慘死，另五男女受傷，房車司機一度負傷逃離，其後被截獲拘捕。另一輛跑車在石排街高速入彎失控，撞斷的鐵欄插入車廂，司機險死（詳刊見 A8版）。

　　記者：余天來朱震平

　　一名太極高手的士司機，昨清晨載客途中遇車禍慘死，越線肇禍的房車司機滿身酒氣，事後涉危險駕駛導致他人死亡被捕。死者親友路祭時情緒激動，炮轟現時醉駕刑罰過低，難起阻嚇作用，法例形同虛設。

　　親友轟刑罰低難阻嚇

　　慘死的士司機劉旭麟（四十四歲），同車姓劉（四十五歲）男乘客亦重傷；其餘四名傷者包括房車司機何X輝（三十二歲），情況一度危殆，後轉嚴重，車上三名女乘客僅輕傷。由於現場未發現煞車胎痕，肇事司機似全無煞車意識，警方不排除有人醉駕及超速肇禍，正展開深入調查。

　　現場為和宜合道近北葵涌公眾游泳池對開，上址雙線雙程行車，限速五十公里。昨清晨六時，姓何紋身漢駕駛平治房車，載同二十五歲姓鄧和兩名分別姓李及姓陳女子（均二十四歲），沿和宜合道快線上斜高速行駛。

　　的士乘客撼椅背重傷

　　至上址彎位時突然失控越線，先與迎面落斜駛至的運魚貨車擦撞，房車繼續衝前至三十米外，再與一輛的士迎面猛撼，兩車嚴重毀爛。姓劉的士司機胸部撞向軚盤，重創昏迷，後座男乘客疑未扣好安全帶，頭撼椅背重傷。

　　姓何房車司機及三名女乘客亦受傷，何負傷攙扶三女伴落車後逃離現場；消防員趕至將的士上兩人救出，與三女傷者分別送院搶救，其中的士司機抵院後不治，男乘客情況嚴重，三名女子情況穩定。

　　警員其後追尋房車司機，未幾在附近圳邊街將何截獲，發現他滿身酒氣，神情呆滯，且語無倫次及拒絕酒精測試，警員將他送院救治。何其後涉嫌危險駕駛導致他人死亡，以及拒絕提供呼氣樣本測試被捕，暫准以一萬元保釋外出，本月底須返署報到。

　　貨車司機：房車甚高速

　　與房車擦撞的貨車損毀輕微，二十九歲印度裔司機並無受傷，他向警方表示當時房車車速甚高。由於現場並無煞車胎痕，警方不排除有人醉駕及超速肇禍，已交由新界南總區交通特別調查隊跟進。

　　下午一時許，死者的二十名親友及同業到場路祭，並帶同死者生前一件寫有太極字樣的T恤招魂，親友高呼：「阿麟你返嚟啦！」場面淒厲。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
想死唔好累人.........

作者: KittyLeung74 時間: 2010-9-26 22:48

So Sad! R.I.P.

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-27 06:57

呢D人唔拉去打靶都唔得！

所以話唔你你飲左幾多，飲左酒根本唔應該渣車，理能得你有冇超標！

作者: tiffiant 時間: 2010-9-27 07:43

why hk drivers don't follow the rules?

作者: mukmuk2 時間: 2010-9-27 08:27

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-27 09:39

呢D人唔拉去打靶都唔得！

所以話唔你你飲左幾多，飲左酒根本唔應該渣車，理能得你有冇超標！ ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-27 06:57

借題發揮? He obviously drank way over any limit, legal, personal tolerance, 3rd party perception, etc. He simply didn't care about others at all, which is obvious. Grouping responsible diners together with wreckless drink and drivers seems to be very far fetched. Even the article criticised the penalty being too lax for going over the limit, afterall the article is not about an accident attributed purely to alcohol for someone who drank under the limit.

Besides, no matter the penalty, doesn't seem like this dude would've gave a sh_t anyways. On top of that, he probably drives recklessly regardless of the alcohol or not. Shouldn't be driving at all one way or another.

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-27 16:50

借題發揮? He obviously drank way over any limit, legal, personal tolerance, 3rd party perception, etc. He simply didn't care about others at all, which is obvious. Grouping responsible diners together with wreckless drink and drivers seems to be very far fetched. Even the article criticised the penalty being too lax for going over the limit, afterall the article is not about an accident attributed purely to alcohol for someone who drank under the limit.

Besides, no matter the penalty, doesn't seem like this dude would've gave a sh_t anyways. On top of that, he probably drives recklessly regardless of the alcohol or not. Shouldn't be driving at all one way or another.
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-27 09:39

我係不嬲都好憎睇到呢D事發生架喎，我o係之前個post都有提過。果個的士司機因為咁而冇命，仲有更加多其他個案係因為呢D 飲左酒渣車既司機而癱左/失明/毀容/變植物人，果D又點﹖你多多都補償唔番俾人.......

我相信出面好多人唔到出事都唔知有幾大獲，包括呢位仁兄在內，如果唔係佢都唔會走左去啦﹖就係出面愈來愈多呢D 唔理後果既司機，我先覺得加重懲罰有時會令有D人諗一諗過先做D呢D野，少得一單得一單。

我真係好希望BENZ車上面果班乘客同HK警察合作.......

作者: 布小熊 時間: 2010-9-27 17:04

well, sad to see things like that.
And this is news regarding a local drunk driver going on court today:
http://www.news1130.com/news/loc ... -teen-in-chilliwack

The thing is... some times... you don't know IF you are over the limit. Some people THINKS they are still good and can control the car. But part of being drunk is being in denial.
And I've seen friends leaving dinner after wine pairing (plus more) and leaving in their own car. They think they are NOT that drunk but you never know. May be they would be OK if nothing sudden happen on the road. But most drunk driver would be slower to react to sudden change on road condition. -> accident.
It's simple now. If you drink (no matter what), don't drive. And if you like to fine dine and drink wine with it, arrange transportation. Budget that as part of the fine dining experience. Rent a hotel room in DT to stay for events like Xmas party or special celebrations.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-28 18:14

well, sad to see things like that.
And this is news regarding a local drunk driver going on court t ...
布小熊發表於 2010-9-27 17:04

If that's the case, then there's a lot more riskier items than moderate drinking and driving. Do you ban all of them? How about limiting minimum number of hours of sleep every 24 hours before allowed to operate a vehicle? How about increasing the limit? How about increasing the penalty on that? Afterall I'm sure fatalities due to fatique is not any less than DUI.

It's always a trade of freedom and risk. You can never eliminate death on the road. How many more deaths will be caused by 0.05 vs 0.08? How many more deaths between 30km/hr 50km/hr 80km/hr? How many more deaths if you regulate 4/6/8 hours of sleep every 24 hours before operating a motor vehicle. How about removing the radio from all cars? Passengers are distractions, how about no passengers? How far do you go? It's not clear cut.

If driving 30km/hr nationwide for 10 million vehicles, will reduce road fatalities by 100 people a year, is that worth it? If enforcing 8 hours of sleep every 24 hours will reduce road fatalities by 30 people a year, is that worth it? If removing private vehicles ownership will reduce road fatalities by 200 a year nationwide, is that worth it? If removing the radio/CD will reduce fatalities by 20 a year, is that worth it? How many deaths are we talking about between 0, 0.05 and 0.08? What if going 0 tolerance for 10 million drivers nationwide (or more) will only save 3 lifes a year? 10 MILLION drivers not being able to drink. Worth it? What if imposing 0 tolerance reduces casual drinking but INCREASES reckless drinkings instead? Look-up Prohibition in Wikipedia as a lesson from history on this.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-28 18:18

為呢D 飲左酒渣車既司機而癱左/失明/毀容/變植物人
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-27 16:50

Are they moderate casual drinkers after a glass of wine? Or are they binge/excessive drinkers?

If 99% of the fatalities are caused by people 0.08 and over, then what's the point of going 0 tolerance? Again, would going 0 tolerance actually help or would some people deem things ridiculous, ignore the law and binge drink all together, causing more fatalities?

We need some hard statistics before we can judge whether 0 tolerance is worth the cause. Curbing freedom for no apparent gain in safety is just crappy policies that government use to make sure they have a hand in everything.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-9-28 19:47

唔好又類比。
你唔一定會隊草，
但係你一定會飲酒。
醉駕太容易發生。

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)