Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Driver Killed a Pedestrian in Japan While Playing Pokemon Go (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the mad-world dept.

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.

175 comments

  1. You've captured Manslaughter! by tekrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Achievement level unlocked!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      It's Niantic's fault! Lets sue the carp out of them!

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    2. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the injured/dead parties won't?!

    3. Re: You've captured Manslaughter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need achiement to unlock self driving car? I hope japan has a death penalty. We need to start Exterminating fucking morons like this...

    4. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1, 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.

    5. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Japan isn't what it used to be. In the old days he would have cut his own giblets out due to the shame.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    6. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driver used Overrun!

      It's super offective!

    7. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Panoptes · · Score: 3, Funny

      'It's Niantic's fault! Lets sue the carp out of them!' Sounds fishy to me.

    8. Re:You've captured Manslaughter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Niantic's fault! Lets sue the carp out of them!

      What are they supposed to do? Make the app disable itself when it detects the player is moving at driving speeds? Hmm ...

    9. Re: You've captured Manslaughter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Niantic's other game, Ingress, has a 35mph speed limit of sorts.

  2. I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ban all computer games. Cars too.

    1. Re: I've heard enough! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I figured the first joke would have involved Asians and their driving habits.

    2. Re:I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re: I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you drive up as close as possible wacthing them through the camera and you harp on texters....sarcasm aside their are people who would see this as ok..eyes front

    4. Re: I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I stand on the sidewalk.

    5. Re:I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And were you driving, while using your phone, to video them?

    6. Re:I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are (while driving) video-recording someone driving and texting? That sound safe!

  3. They apparently need to add another pop up by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    "Don't be an idiot while playing Pokemon Go".

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stop contradicting yourself!

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      "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.

    5. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re: They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    8. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they could be smart and lock out users when they're moving so fast they're obviously not on foot.

      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · 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 going through a downtown area where there are stops to hit). When I leave the game up for the part of the commute where the bus is on the highway, the "passenger pop-up" triggers three times during that part of the trip, which is about 30 minutes long. Thus, my inference that the pop-up has a 10 minute timer on it. Also, I've noticed that pokemons tend to spawn less (or not at all) when you're traveling highway speeds. It is possible to get the stops at highway speeds, but it takes patience and fast reaction times. Basically, you have to click on the stop before you come "in range" of it, wait patiently for the display to change indicating that you can swipe the stop, and then you have to swipe it as soon as it changes. There's one PokeStop adjacent to the highway that I'm able to get once the bus is going highway speeds. All the rest at highway speeds are too far off the highway (even in the morning, when I'm on the other side of the highway) to be able to get them.

    10. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by tattood · · Score: 1

      If the intent of the game is to get people out walking, then they should make all of the poke stops places that you can only get to by walking, like in a park or a mall or anywhere else away from roads.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    11. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Atryn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree entirely. Ingress is much BETTER than Pokemon Go in this respect. In Ingress, things don't move or disappear. If you see something on your scanner, you can pull off the road, park, deal with it, etc. If you miss it you can turn around and drive back and it will still be there. Pokemon, on the other hand, appear and disappear in completely random places with no predictability. This leads to much more sudden actions by the player and pressure to respond. This makes it much MORE dangerous, IMHO.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    12. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the 'intent' is to sell as many games as possible. Does restricting usage to pedestrians fit with that intent? No.

    14. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      It's badly implemented by definition, unless it can tell you're lying when you say "yes".

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    15. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have played plenty of games where paying cash into the game gives you many benefits but it still hasn't made me start breaking the law robbing banks to do that.
      Nintendo has already given a warning about playing while driving - a warning they should be unnecessary. It is already illegal to drive while using a mobille phone.
      Luckily this happened in japan so the driver is going to actually face some real jail time instead of just a fine or driving penalty.

    16. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fucking game. You don't play a fucking game while you're driving. Put the blame where it belongs.

    17. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that intelligent people aren't lying when they say "yes". This is because intelligent people aren't playing and driving. But you'll never hear about those people because they're never going to run over a 72 year old woman and kill her, or crash into parked cars while speeding. The same is true for those people who are walking and playing the game: The smart ones know the game provides non-visual cues when Pokemons spawn and when you come into range of PokeStops, and they pay attention to those non-visual cues. Similarly, intelligent people aren't stopping while they're crossing the street in order to respond to the game because they know they'll either be able to respond after they cross the street OR they can re-cross the street to put themselves back in range of whatever it is. On top of all that, intelligent and courteous people think about how their actions affect other people and they don't stand at street corners while playing and also appearing that they'll just start crossing the street without paying attention; and, when those people decide to stop on the sidewalk, they take themselves out of the flow of foot traffic so people can easily understand that they aren't moving and can quickly go around them.

    18. Re:They apparently need to add another pop up by tattood · · Score: 1
      From the Pokemon Go website:

      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.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
  4. Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blame the subclass of humanity that finds it acceptable to operate their devices while driving.

    1. Re:Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      All those signs say "texting while driving is dangerous and illegal". Where are all the signs saying "playing Candy Crush Saga while driving is dangerous and illegal" or the "playing Fallout 4 with the Vault Builder expansion pack while driving is dangerous and illegal"? This sounds like a failure on the part of a Department of Transportation Marketing Person to me.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    3. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.)

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are all the signs saying "playing Candy Crush Saga while driving is dangerous and illegal" or the "playing Fallout 4 with the Vault Builder expansion pack while driving is dangerous and illegal"?

      Candy Crush Saga and Fallout 4 don't encourage the player to be out and about, moving around (say in a vehicle), to hunt down objectives in meatspace.

    5. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I had a boss who used to watch videos on her phone, and do snapchat while driving. I sometimes would volunteer to drive, but she'd brush me away. Hopefully, she's still alive

    6. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a boss who used to watch videos on her phone, and do snapchat while driving. I sometimes would volunteer to drive, but she'd brush me away. Hopefully, she has killed anyone

      FTFY

    7. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a boss who used to watch videos on her phone, and do snapchat while driving. I sometimes would volunteer to drive, but she'd brush me away. Hopefully, she has killed anyone

      FTFY

      Argh, that should be hasn't

    8. Re:Don't blame Pokemon GO by Solandri · · Score: 1, Insightful

      TFA does not make clear whether the women were crossing legally or jaywalking.

      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 constantly watch the sides of the road for pedestrians who might suddenly jump into their path. Accidents more frequently happen because of infractions by each party involved which strip away each layer of redundant safety.

      While it's probable the driver bears most of the blame, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I have to think even an irresponsible Pokemon player would, as a matter of self-preservation, at least take his eyes off the game long enough to slow when approaching intersections. This may well be a case of two women trying to save some time by crossing in the middle of the street (yes it happens even in Japan), and being struck by a driver who assumed no pedestrian would do such a thing so decided to play the game between intersections. He might even have been unable to avoid hitting the women even if he had been watching the road. Jumping to conclusions makes you no better than the assholes who beat up the driver in the above video.

    9. Re: Don't blame Pokemon GO by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      You were paying more attention to the road than your typing, right?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    10. Re:Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · 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 hurt themselves, the other hurt someone else.

    11. Re:Don't blame Pokemon GO by Anonymous Coward · · 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 and pack animals for freight and the rich enjoyed sedan-chairs. Only the heike emperor was allowed to travel in a coach, which emphasized his divinity. Of course, this changed after foreign warships forced Japan to open up and soon railways, then paved roads for motorized vehicles were built. Yet, walking still enjoys a big tradition in Japan, in fact there are monks of a special order who wow to a total of 10k miles of jogging around the sacred Mount Fuji in a span of several years, as an asketic offer for the well-being of the imperial family. ]

      Anyhow, in most countries, even in the developed world, if the paved road has no painted divider line running down the middle or the line is of interrupted white paint, then pedestrians are free to cross it anywhere, as long as they look around, don't suddenly suprise vehicular traffic and they are crossing at reasonably 90 degrees (i.e. shortest path from kerb to kerb). In places where the white painted line is continuous, it is prohibited to cross the road on foot or for vehicles to overtake each other, due to higher risk. Double continuous divider lines are painted in some places to indicate complicated or dangerous sections, where overtaking and crossing is absolutely prohibited and punished heavily.

      In addition, japanese people and regulations subscribe to the "horde" mindset. If a sizeable number of pedestrian amass at a location, they will decide to cross the road as a pack, regardless of the e.g. traffic light's colour and vehicles, even at times of dense traffic, are expected to stop for them. Japanese people don't like to take individual responsibility and this method helps them in situations, where traffic lights and/or road signs couldn't be adjusted to satisfy both pedestrian and wheeled traffic needs at the same time. (Remember that Japan has almost a half of the total US population living in an area less than California, with only a small fraction of that total area being inhabitable flat-land.)

      Only in America do people and lawmakers assume, after a century of brain-washing by the car industry, that people moving on foot should be ashamed of themselves and just die.

    12. Re:Don't blame Pokemon GO by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Don't blame Pokemon GO by Vitani · · Score: 1

      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.

      Same in the UK

  5. empty lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    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?

    1. Re:empty lives? by thewolfkin · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Just another second banana
    2. Re:empty lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I think the same argument applies to everybody that can't get their damn nose out of their phone screens or pry the damn thing away from their ears while driving.

    3. Re:empty lives? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:empty lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about empty lives, it's about addictive games.

      You know, when someone drinks and drives the problem isn't the alcohol, it's the person driving.
      Plenty of people are capable of playing Pokemon Go without causing the death of others.

    5. Re:empty lives? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another second banana
  6. I hope it was at least a Dragonair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Dratinis, while rare, aren't worth killing for. Their evolved forms, however... I guess we have to hope it was a Dragonair or a Dragonite.

  7. Thats it? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1, 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!

    1. Re:Thats it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how many deaths can be attributed to Pong?

    2. Re:Thats it? by thewolfkin · · Score: 2

      [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.

      --
      Just another second banana
    3. Re:Thats it? by pla · · Score: 1

      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."

    4. Re:Thats it? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Does Pong require movement the way Pokemon Go does?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:Thats it? by MitchDev · · Score: 0

      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....

    6. Re:Thats it? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Thats it? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:Thats it? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      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

      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.

      --
      Just another second banana
    9. Re:Thats it? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      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".

    10. Re:Thats it? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    11. Re:Thats it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world population was 2 billion in 1940.

  8. What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by OzPeter · · 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.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Maritz · · Score: 2

      Yeah. If he drives playing Pokemon Go he drives doing all sorts of shit on that phone.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you guys be so sure? Maybe he isn't into texting and other shit, and in an alternate universe without Pokemon Go he would be paying attention to the road while driving?

    4. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      You fucking millennial flower.

      No, the solution is not to fuck up life for everyone because there's a few anti-social assholes who want to ruin what works for everyone else.

      If people can't stop using their phones while driving, you stop them at the side of the road, tow their car and take away their license. Same as drunk drivers.

      By your braindead logic, the solution to drunk driving should be stop everyone from driving.

    5. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      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 doing it, and that it is potentially harmful or fatal for both the participant and those around him.

      Just because the driver is ultimately responsible for his actions doesn't mean we should ignore the circumstances that led him to make those poor choices. That would be short-sighted, irresponsible, and frankly dangerous.

    6. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Add to that podcasting or vlogging while driving. Sometimes with even your own kids in the back...

    7. Re: What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovely. Except this is -more or less- what's already being done. And it doesn't completely fix the problem. There's still a huge problem with drunk and distracted driving, simply because it's impossible for cops to be everywhere at once.

    8. Re: What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      Here in Ontario the way it's done is a $500 fine. Which is a blatant cash grab and useless for helping the problem.

      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 use their phones while driving.

      Taking away licenses is a good way to affect everyone about the same.

    9. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >distracted driving
      NO, it is not 'distracted driving'. That buzzword perpetuates a REAL disservice to reality. Driving while doing such influential things is 'Voluntarily Not Paying Attention'. Key word there is voluntarily. They're driving a car, not sitting still on the sofa.
      ex:
      - Trying to reach your hat in the back seat? Get it later or pull over.
      - Dropped your wallet in the car? Pick it up later or pull over.
      - Want to read the news, chase Pokimons, text your friends? Do it later or pull over.

      Drive. That's all there is to it. It's not about driving skills, it's about paying attention. Our little universe gets unraveled quick when we must consider others, and this is not a bad thing. No reason for self-driving cars that will promote more time in our quiet little customized spaces. It separates us from each other even more, it really does. Paying attention to things and others is a real part of being human. Keep the driving to us, mainly so we don't go further down the self-absorbed hole of customized universes.

      >The solution for distracted driving is getting rid of drivers. ?
      No again. Well, it may lower accidents only but here is a price to pay. Self-driving cars throw away yet another interaction of people with each other, and this is not good. It promotes even more self absorbtion, and the inability to develop courtesy skills or acknowledgement by us to others.
      ex:
      - Why should I turn around and look behind me when backing out, there's already a camera there. Thump! Oh you silly pedestrian, you shouldn't be in my blind spot.
      - Why should I look at people when talking to them, they should hear my words and that is enough. Oh you silly conversationalists, needing face & eye cues like real humans.
      - Why should I be courteous or empathetic to any one else at all, I mean the world is customized for me and should leave me alone until I want something. Oh you silly other people, always in my way or being unable to read my mind- it annoys me to accommodate you or interact with others. I can't wait to ride home and loose myself in the Matrix again.

    11. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enabling you to read, work, sleep, watch a movie or play Pokémon Go while commuting would not "fuck up your life". Yet, here in reality, you could be injured or killed by some idiot drinking or playing Pokémon. Don't worry, I'm sure they would get a citation and have their license removed.

    12. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what we really need is a hands-free plug-in to Pokémon Go, just like we can use with texting.

    13. Re:What has Pokemon Go really go to do with this? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Immersive doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's hands free.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. Lock him up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lock him up in a Poke Ball! He's apparently a rampaging Scyther!

  10. What only two people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet world wide it's more than two, I see people driving and searching for pokemon all the time.

    1. Re:What only two people by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another second banana
    2. Re:What only two people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      People also drive drunk all the time. Just because something is dangerous and unwise doesn't mean it'll be harmful every time you do it.

  11. Brace yourselves for New Laws, Japan by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 0

    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!

  12. Idiots like that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are the reason I have to press "I'm a Passenger", every time my metro transit BUS pulls away from the stop. I don't drive, but I have to keep reminding the game of that fact because enough drivers can't stop playing with their toys while driving.

    1. Re:Idiots like that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You poor little special snowflake.

    2. Re:Idiots like that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. The world should revolve around me 24/7 ;)
      I do find it interesting that people have to be told not to play video games while driving.

  13. Calm down guys, no one is blaming PoGo by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    It says it's the first death linked to PoGo not caused by it. I think we can all breath just a little bit and put down our pitchforks. Save our "righteous" rage for some incident that actually needs it. This is just a funny (not haha) story about death and PoGo.

    --
    Just another second banana
    1. Re:Calm down guys, no one is blaming PoGo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandmother would be shocked to hear that someone died while playing Pogo. She spends hours a day playing card games on that site. Oh wait... wrong Pogo...

      In a related joke, with the number of elderly that play on that site I wonder how many have died while playing, just out of coincidence.

  14. What about other apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone keep metrics of which app drivers were using when they caused an accident?

    1. Re:What about other apps? by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Does anyone keep metrics of which app drivers were using when they caused an accident?



      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 in those where it can be, accidents causing injury and accidents causing death are higher than those caused by impaired driving (alcohol, drugs) and have been for approximately five years.
  15. cowsay by castus · · Score: 1

    The headline wouldn't have attracted so much attention if he was playing with cowsay

  16. Play stupid games... by wbr1 · · Score: 0

    win stupid prizes...

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  17. Preach it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You nailed it on every point.

    My favorite solution is the self driving cars. Artificial Intelligence will save us from ourselves.

    1. Re: Preach it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the zoos the AI put us in are nice.

    2. Re: Preach it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure there are no red pills...

  18. Simple solution.. check GPS speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a liability issue for Nintendo. They have full access to the GPS data and can easily tell if the person is moving faster than walking speed.

    If the GPS speed is more than 3-5km/h then the app should turn off.

    Japan's liability laws are back-asswords... but in the US this would be a slam dunk for suing the game maker.

    1. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      Except that (as pointed out elsewhere) this means that car passengers, public transit riders, etc., are all unfairly locked out.

      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 time to allow a full 8 hours of sleep (as driving under sleep deprivation can be just as dangerous as driving drunk)?

    3. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Nintendo doesn't make Pokemon GO.

      And besides, why should passengers in cars , or buses, or trains be restricted?

    4. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5km/h as an upper limit? That's walking speed for me, and I'm hardly in the best of shape. You should absolutely be able to play as a passenger whether it's in a car, a bus, or a train.

    5. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Play in a car? But what if the car has to turn in a direction different from where the game wants you to turn? Why not just turn it off when you're not walking?

    6. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats funny, I dont install stupid apps on my kids devices. No problems for me there.

    7. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public transport is for poor people. If you get you're phone out, it'll be stolen.
      --
      cayenne8

    8. Re:Simple solution.. check GPS speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either not a parent or the hugest anomaly in parenting I've ever seen.

      Kids have an almost constant need for entertainment, and almost everything they like is pretty stupid by adult standards.

      So if I have to choose between you being weird or a liar, I'm betting on liar.

  19. Deathrace 2000 IX! Pokemon Edition! by michael5024 · · Score: 1

    Deathrace 2000 IX! Pokemon Edition! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

  20. There are two warnings in the app about this. by subanark · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by jmv · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
    2. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by Wargames · · Score: 2

      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 think the app cannot make the judgement of whether it is safe for me to use. I do not think it should be a function of an application to keep you from doing stupid stuff, nor should the app go out of it's way to make you do stupid stuff (posit a malicious map or game app that purposely puts you in dangerous positions, eg, if pokeman put a Meow Two in the middle of a cloverleaf). An app should be neutral and the app should focus on providing entertainment or information, or whatever it is designed to do. For example, reading The Bible might be good for your soul but there doesn't need to be a disclaimer on the cover 'Please do not read books while operating a motor vehicle'. I think "thou shalt not kill" is universally applicable, perhaps just not taken to heart enough until sad events like this take place.

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    3. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by Atryn · · Score: 1

      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 he/she was engaged in?

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    4. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the startup notifications are annoying and condescending..."

      Probably not that condescending to kids. You know, the demographic who you would expect to be chasing imaginary pokemons. So yeah, you're kind of right. If you're legally driving, this should never be an issue in your life.

    5. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by subanark · · Score: 1

      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?"

    7. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:There are two warnings in the app about this. by inking · · Score: 1

      It really isn't about exploring at all in its current implementation and blocking it while driving would do nothing to help. The most effective way to play is find a spot where three PokeStops overlap and use lure on each one of them. Where I live, these spots are usually filled with players, who just sit there for hours and keep catching Pokemon, while getting Pokeballs from the same three PokeStops. Unlike Ingress, there is absolutely no incentive to find new PokeStops, making any kind of exploration not only redundant, but inefficient.

  21. Pokemon - First Blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know your game is good when it has a real Fatality Rate. Next version of Pokemon: (Pokemon - First Blood) .sarcasm.

    1. Re:Pokemon - First Blood by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      That's how you know Dungeons and Dragons is a good game.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  22. Put the phone away when driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no need to be glued to your cell phone while driving your car. That includes yapping on a call through the entire drive. Cell phones have turned people into idiots that feel they need to be on them every second of the day. That call, text, or whatever can wait until you get where you need to go. At worst, get a hands free device, and take those earbuds out of your your ears when driving.

  23. Easy solution by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    -SR
    1. Re:Easy solution by lgw · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Easy solution by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -SR
    3. Re:Easy solution by lgw · · Score: 1

      Are we there yet?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Easy solution by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      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.

      Like I said before:

      After the first death, comes the second one and so on.

      --
      -SR
  24. Cell phone usage? by HaaPoo · · Score: 1

    How many people have been killed because they have been using cell phone while driving?

  25. Legal services as in-app purchase by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Press here to buy two hours of legal consultation after killing someone playing this game.

  26. Re:Darwinism by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Informative

    How is it Darwinism? It was innocent pedestrians that were killed/injured.

    Darwinism would be if the driver died.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  27. WTF? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or they could be smart and lock out users when they're moving so fast they're obviously not on foot.

    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?!?

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  28. Re:Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People should know that in this post-Pokemon-Go world you can't rely on pedestrian priority.

  29. Re:Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The person didn't get out of the way of the vehicle.

  30. sugestão pra jogos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vai dar teu cú na república que a tua raiva passa.

  31. What a lame alternate universe you picked by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    Maybe he isn't into texting and other shit, and in an alternate universe without Pokemon Go he would be paying attention to the road while driving?

    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!

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:What a lame alternate universe you picked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we weigh each alternate universe by its likelihood, we might get

      50% chance of 1 dead (OzPeter and Maritz prediction)
      50% chance of 0 dead (AC prediction)
      0.0000001% chance of -1 dead (your prediction)

      Estimate: 0.499999999 dead.

      Thank you for your insignificant contribution to the estimate.

  32. because was playing by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Because was playing !!

    No time put subjects beginning sentance!

  33. I think everybody saw this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, except the pedestrian. He didn't see it coming.

    Too soon?

  34. Re:Eat stupid food... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    ....get stupid fat

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  35. Fine them?!?! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    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 responsible.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Fine them?!?! by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Fine them and remove their licence? Seriously? They killed someone

      I suspect he means anyone doing stupid things while driving, thus getting them off the roads *before* they kill someone.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    2. Re:Fine them?!?! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Fine them?!?! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, but you should ALSO find them and remove their license. With prejudice. People sent to jail usually get out eventually.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  36. Just another distraction by RavenousRhesus · · 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.

  37. "addictive games" ? by friesofdoom · · Score: 1

    Have you played Pokemon Go?

    1. Re:"addictive games" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to play it to judge... the oblivious antics of Pokemon Go players are apparent to anyone who lives in a moderately populated area. Many players are in the grip of a world-obscuring mind-numbing obsession that can only be characterized as addiction.

    2. Re:"addictive games" ? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Just another second banana
  38. hang the bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arseholes like this should be hung and all assets should be seized and given to the victims families. End of discussion.

  39. Re:Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they were distracted playing pokemon go.

  40. Wrong release channel by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    They should have released Pokemon Go as a board game and called it a day.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  41. New Achievement Needed by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    The achievement we clearly need to unlock is a self driving car.

  42. A streetcar named Deoxys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About two weeks ago a tram driver lady was photographed in the Czech Republic, operating her streetcar while playing Pokemon Go. Considering the stopping distance of steel wheels running on steel rails, such distraction can be very lethal to any car or pedestrian crossing the tracks. Passengers reported her to police and she got fined for 2500 krone and put on desk duty for some time.

    Here you can see a photo of the incident. Apparently the teddy bear on the dashboard wasn't a problem, but the handheld smartphone:
    http://iho.hu/img/pokemongo01.jpg

  43. Murder by car by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Let's be crystal here, that's what this is.

    Don't drive and cell.

    Ever.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  44. Re:Darwinism by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    It is darwinism if this selection leads to crash-resistant pedestrians.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  45. Re:Thats it? No. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    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.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  46. Not to excuse the driver, but... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  47. Re:Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real pedestrians will use ESP to jump out of the way 2 hours in advance.

  48. It's Happening! by grimfate · · Score: 1

    Nintendo's true plan is finally unfolding.

  49. Re:Darwinism by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    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.

  50. Self driving cars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One day, I'll be able to play while my self-driving car follows a path to all the local poke-stops.

    Until that day comes, put the FUCKING phone down, and pay attention to the road.

  51. Flaw in the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a driver playing the smartphone game ...

    One of the problems with punishment, besides it arriving too late, is it doesn't stop people being stupid or lazy. Knowing you'll be punished for being lazy or disobedient, is a big incentive to obey the law but the real problem is many people are so stupid, they forget that. Further disobedience comes from the mentally ill (eg. addiction) or openly selfish. It is an intractable problem that cannot be fixed with more laws.

  52. there should be a law which fixes this... by squash_me_quickly · · Score: 1

    Here's a draft for good law:
    "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 virtual items/effects/prizes/bonus' is encouraged in and around properties which are known hangouts for violent criminals, such as drug and weapon vendors, also close to properties owned by 'biker gangs', and other groups of people who protect their property using violence"

  53. Re:Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True as that is, you still need to look both ways before crossing the road. Stepping in front of a moving vehicle and just assuming the driver has seen you and anticipated your movement is asking for a Darwin award. The driver might be charged for an offense but you are still dead.

  54. Re:Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't need to.

    Correct. That's the "Darwinism" - survival of people driving cars and death to pedestrians who are improperly armored against moving vehicles. It's basic survival of the fittest.

  55. Trolley Problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This being japan, I would have expected a train driver, but then that brings up the trolley problem, but then that brings up multi-track drifting...

  56. WOW! Murder for hire! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    So if someone pays to place a Pokemon object to catch in a dangerous place, like, say, down on a subway track, and activates that object at the right time, then there is a chance that some poor Pokemon Go player may go after that object and get hit by a train?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.