[whitev70r]

This is why we will continue to see asshats driving like they own the road. WTF is this ... what more do you need for a conviction? Is this the Philippines or something where you can pay off the judge if you have enough $$? If anyone can offer an explanation of logic to this ... please do.

Woman says justice denied in death of her husband in Vancouver crash | Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/speeding-appeal)

“Where is justice?”

That is the question Josephine Hui has been asking since last month when the man charged in connection with her physician husband’s death in 2015 was acquitted. It is a decision she says is “absurd and ridiculous” and that she now wants to see appealed.

Alphonsus Hui died at age 68 after the driver of an Audi slammed into his Suzuki on Nov. 14, 2015 at the intersection of West 41st Ave. and Oak St. in Vancouver. Police estimated that the driver who hit him had been travelling at more than 140 km/h before the crash.

Ken Chung, then 35 and of Richmond, was tried for dangerous driving causing death. He was acquitted on May 25.

The judge concluded that “the momentariness of the accused’s conduct in excessively speeding is insufficient to meet the criminal fault component and he must be acquitted.”

[Spoon]

The judge concluded that “the momentariness of the accused’s conduct in excessively speeding is insufficient to meet the criminal fault component and he must be acquitted.”

Never stopped the police from handing out speeding tickets. But when it's time to really do something, they fail us. :seriously:

[yray]

"dangerous driving causing death"

Why didn't they charge with manslaughter. 140km/h is almost 3 times the speed limit. :mindblown:

[hwangr]

He was caught excessive speeding again after he killed someone? Lol this guy has major psychological issues and should be in an institution.

[smoothie.]

we need batman

or dexter

dexter might be better.

[vash13]

My parents were personal friends with the victim. He loved to sing in choirs and ballroom dance. It's a shame to have no justice in the end. Rip.

[TouringTeg]

The judge concluded that “the momentariness of the accused’s conduct in excessively speeding is insufficient to meet the criminal fault component and he must be acquitted.”

This is the problem and why someone can drive 140 km/hr in a 50 zone and kill your son/daughter/mother/father/wife and get next to no jail time.

I always remember a case Canada Day 2011 where a motorcyclist was killed by a driver who crossed the center line on TCH in Langford. The driver Tracy Dawn Smith was high on cocaine, drunk and in a rage.

She was given one day in jail and three years probation. Eventually she got two years in jail after Crown took the case back to the BC Court of Appeals.

For killing someone. While drunk and high and crossing the center line.

More details:

Tracy Dawn Smith Breach of Probation Court Date Monday in Surrey (http://www.bcsportbikes.com/forum/showthread.php/146240-Tracy-Dawn-Smith-Breach-of-Probation-Court-Date-Monday-in-Surrey)

[jasonturbo]

How is there no established case law with virtually identical circumstances where the defendant is found guilty of dangerous driving causing death?

So now if I go crash into someone doing 90/hr over the speed limit and kill them I will use this case to support my pursuit of an acquittal? Dafuq?

[radioman]

How is there no established case law with virtually identical circumstances where the defendant is found guilty of dangerous driving causing death?

So now if I go crash into someone doing 90/hr over the speed limit and kill them I will use this case to support my pursuit of an acquittal? Dafuq?

Thats the first thing I thought about. Going forward we now have precedence for lenience on cases like this. Perhaps some lawyers can chime in.

[freakshow]

The judge concluded that “the momentariness of the accused’s conduct in excessively speeding is insufficient to meet the criminal fault component and he must be acquitted.”

There must be more to this story that I'm not understanding.. maybe they were going with too aggressive charges? I don't think 'momentariness' of an act ever gets you off when you killed someone..

[Jmac]

Get punished for doing something potentially dangerous via tickets, points, losing licence, etc without actually hurting anyone.

Kill or seriously injure someone while doing it, barely get any additional punishment.

The guy who killed the cop in Victoria while drunk and trying to evade police got 4 years. And he’s on trial for another drinking and driving charge (crashing his vehicle while trying to evade a road block with a woman in the car) while serving that sentence.

[Euro7r]

Sounds like the victim wife is better off getting into her car and plowing the guy over. All good, she will get slap on the wrist.

Our fucked up justice system...

[Teriyaki]

The softness of our courts is absolutely incredulous.
I have a personal connection to this as Dr.Hui was actually my physician since birth. What a time the family must be going through to have someone taken away like that and zero meaningful repercussions from their actions. This incites me so much I'm beyond words.
What will it take for us to wake up and start punishing people that excessively speed? I'm all for having fun behind the wheel as a RSer but as of now it feels like the wild West out there both with our lax court systems and insurance.

[prudz]

I couldn't find an answer to my question, but did the guy who died pull out into an intersection illegally? Did he have the right of way? Because all things are pointing to he shouldn't have been in the intersection at the time he was hit. That is the only way I can see someone being acquitted. With that said the blame doesn't solely fall upon the victim but it would definitely give some insight into how a verdict like that came to be. Everyone seems to have these hardline stances on how they feel yet I don't see any actual facts on what took place that led to the accident. Without that it's tough to have an opinion.

[68style]

^ This... it’s cuz he turned left in front of the Audi if I remember correctly... the law never cares how fast the other car is going or whatever they will just say he should have seen him... we all know it’s bullshit but I think that’s the missing info

[snowball]

Even if he had a green light, he should still be "at fault" if he was going 140km/h through an intersection. People cant be expected to tell a car is coming that fast from 2-3 blocks away as they are making a turn. Stupid icbc

[hwangr]

Should appeal and use Ken Chung's getting caught excessively speeding in 2017 as evidence in having no remorse for his actions aka murder/manslaughter and negate the argument of "momentary" lack of judgement.

[Tone Loc]

^ This... it’s cuz he turned left in front of the Audi if I remember correctly... the law never cares how fast the other car is going or whatever they will just say he should have seen him... we all know it’s bullshit but I think that’s the missing info

That would make sense, and could likely explain what the judge meant by "momentary"... that is, Dr. Hui happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time by turning left at a green light.

I am not a MVA lawyer, but my assumption is that had speed NOT been a factor, let's say Chung was driving at 60 km/h through a green light, and hit and killed Dr. Hui (very possible depending on size, age, structural integrity etc. of the two vehicles involved), he would not be found guilty of "causing death". If Dr. Hui did not tragically die, he in fact would have been found at fault by ICBC for not yielding the right of way. It's possible that the judge viewed the excessive speed as secondary to the fact that Dr. Hui was turning left without yielding to oncoming traffic. Was speed a factor? Absolutely. But I am assuming the judge is agreeing that is the left-turning driver's responsibility to gauge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic.

Yes, Ken Chung is a piece of shit for excessive speeding not just once but twice and also because he killed an innocent individual... and let's face it, the leniency showed by our justice system means he will probably end up speeding again... but I think it's important to consider all of the factors involved here.

[ak1to]

There must be more to this story that I'm not understanding.. maybe they were going with too aggressive charges? I don't think 'momentariness' of an act ever gets you off when you killed someone..

As other people above have mentioned above it has to do with right of way.

There's also more details here:
https://thebreaker.news/news/audi-speeder-not-guilty/

Transcript of the court case here
https://www.scribd.com/document/381217405/R-v-Chung

From what I can tell, the judge and defense state that anyone turning (in this case Dr. Hui) must yield and ensure it is safe before turning and right of way is given to the individual going straight. They couldn't definitively prove Dr. Hui had his signal on, and that Chung also had apparently tried braking so it proved he was at least attentive and not inattentive.

I would still point out Chung was going nearly triple the speed limit which had to have have played in a factor in the accident regardless of who had right of way.

Also there's this part that pisses me off:

"... observed the Audi to be “in a hurry” causing him and another driver to apply their brakes. He later saw the Audi behind him while he was driving at 50 km-h until 42nd Avenue, when the Audi passed him at a high speed, in the curb lane between 42nd and 41st before the collision.

Crown counsel Jocelyn Coupal submitted that Chung had been overtaking vehicles while driving in the curb lane, came within a half-second of rear-ending a right-turning vehicle in the curb lane in front of him, and did not see or could not have seen Hui’s vehicle in the intersection. "

[DragonChi]

The defense lawyer must be a god.

[whitev70r]

Even with all this extra information, if I was judge, I would still ban Mr. In a hurry from driving at least a year and throw him in jail for 30 days to slow his ass down in life.

[prudz]

As other people above have mentioned above it has to do with right of way.

There's also more details here:
https://thebreaker.news/news/audi-speeder-not-guilty/

Transcript of the court case here
https://www.scribd.com/document/381217405/R-v-Chung

From what I can tell, the judge and defense state that anyone turning (in this case Dr. Hui) must yield and ensure it is safe before turning and right of way is given to the individual going straight. They couldn't definitively prove Dr. Hui had his signal on, and that Chung also had apparently tried braking so it proved he was at least attentive and not inattentive.

I would still point out Chung was going nearly triple the speed limit which had to have have played in a factor in the accident regardless of who had right of way.

Also there's this part that pisses me off:

"... observed the Audi to be “in a hurry” causing him and another driver to apply their brakes. He later saw the Audi behind him while he was driving at 50 km-h until 42nd Avenue, when the Audi passed him at a high speed, in the curb lane between 42nd and 41st before the collision.

Crown counsel Jocelyn Coupal submitted that Chung had been overtaking vehicles while driving in the curb lane, came within a half-second of rear-ending a right-turning vehicle in the curb lane in front of him, and did not see or could not have seen Hui’s vehicle in the intersection. "

What i'm getting from it is he was speeding up, slowing down, speeding up etc. It sounds like he was behind the witness speaking, and eventually tried to speed past the guy. It sounds that in this case another car was in the lane he changed into and quickly moved back into the original lane which was blocked by the witness travelling 50km/hr only to hit the victim. If this is the case, a perfect example of why people should move over from the left lane to the right lane when going slow compared to the flow of traffic.

This is really an unfortunate situation imo and sucks for everyone involved.

[Mr.HappySilp]

That's why we need self driving cars. So people can't speed like this. Or have AI in the car that prevent people form going over 10km/hr on the road speed limit they are on.

[FerrariEnzo]

Our law is bunk for these kinds of things... Speeding is one thing but when you kill someone speeding and not getting punished it ridiculous...

[hwangr]

His actions caused death. It could be reasonably assumed the death wouldn't have if he wasn't driving triple the limit. If he's unable to be punished accordingly for negligence and manslaughter, atleast ban him from driving for the remainder of his life. Trade for ending another's life.

He's out there driving, possbly right now as we speak, and probably and most likely speeding too. If he killed someone and still did excessive speed limit afterwards, who knows how his mind works.

[blee123]

Is the Ken Chung they are talking about, the guy in the below link ?

This guy happens to work at audi also.

https://audidowntownvancouver.ca/staff-directory/sales.htm

[westopher]

I'd bet there are about 10000 Ken Chungs in GVRD. I don't think its fair to post that guy up without having some idea that its him.

[emmm2]

Is the Ken Chung they are talking about, the guy in the below link ?

This guy happens to work at audi also.

https://audidowntownvancouver.ca/staff-directory/sales.htm

interesting...

[ilvtofu]

I'd bet there are about 10000 Ken Chungs in GVRD. I don't think its fair to post that guy up without having some idea that its him.

A friend of mine who worked at that dealership confirmed that is the guy

[EvoSpider]

.Side note, Chung's lawyer, Fowler is on the same cycling club as the late Brad Dean, the cyclist killed in Richmond by Fan.

[DragonChi]

Goes to show that they weren't friends. LOL. Or that the lawyer is incredibly professional by keeping his personal biases out of his work.

[dinfung]

what i understand is the same guy and the Audi he was driving is from work, is not even his car.

[whitev70r]

If true, how does he still have a job with Audi?

[prudz]

Who knowssss

[68style]

“Ken.... can you tell me a little bit about the crash safety of this Audi? Like...... is it a particularly safe vehicle when people turn left in front of you?”

[westopher]

A friend of mine who worked at that dealership confirmed that is the guy
Then fuck him. Hopefully his next crash is a single vehicle accident.

[bcrdukes]

That's fucked up. :pokerface:

[J-Chow]

Yep. Our laws are truly fucked.

Just look at the article relating to the cyclist who was killed in Richmond not too long ago.

Update: Driver who killed cyclist walks from Richmond court with one-year ban, $1,800 fine (http://www.richmond-news.com/news/update-driver-who-killed-cyclist-walks-from-richmond-court-with-one-year-ban-1-800-fine-1.23303770)

Our system is based on the law of precedent, and that is where our judicial system fails.
Unless there was as previous, similar case that changed it to a criminal case, everybody will get a slap on the wrist for killing an innocent person.

The key word is "Intent".

If there was "Intent", then automatically it'll be prosecuted as Criminal.
But no way in hell, would a defendant admit intent to kill or harm.
Defense lawyer would easily explain that the defendant was under the influence, tired, drowsy, etc ... just so it doesn't become a Criminal Case.

Perhaps, rather than trial by judge, it should be trial by jury WITHOUT the use of precedent law.

just my 2 cents on this shit system.

[Jmac]

Slightly different scenario, though. As stated in the article, there is no criminal offense for driving while fatigued (undue care and attention).

There is a criminal offense for dangerous driving causing death, which is the charge that was brought against this driver.

[TouringTeg]

Another case yesterday where a driver who was under the influence of alcohol caused an accident and killed the other driver.

They made a decision to drink and drive and should be held accountable.

Two years from now they will be in court and we will hear from the lawyer the sob story about the hard times that drove the female to drink and drive, how it affected them emotionally and how they are in rehabilitation.

https://www.cheknews.ca/alcohol-believed-to-be-factor-in-fatal-malahat-collision-459186/

[pinn3r]

Never stopped the police from handing out speeding tickets. But when it's time to really do something, they fail us. :seriously:

Let me get this right: you're faulting the police for not being able to make this conviction stick? You do realize the judge is the one who has the final say, right?

The police can do everything in their power to make a case against somebody; but ultimately, if judge ain't satisfied, judge acquits. I'm sure the police wanted to see him get fuked just as much as you did.

The justice system failed us, not the police.

[TouringTeg]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4265832/daughter-of-man-killed-by-excessive-speeder-launches-petition-to-appeal-acquittal/

[ssjGoku69]

[delete please]

[Teriyaki]

https://www.change.org/p/david-eby-justice-for-dr-alphonsus-hui-who-was-killed-by-a-driver-going-140-km-h-in-a-50-km-h-zone?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_campaign=triggered&j=342820&sfmc_sub=878724634&l=32_HTML&u=61270858&mid=7233052&jb=431845

Relevant. Not sure how much use these petitions are but something is better than nothing.

[whitev70r]

^ sent link to audi vancouver downtown and asked all employees there to please sign it.

[Nlkko]

It's clearly manslaughter with criminally negligence.

But "there is at least a reasonable doubt that such conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver." Bitch, motherfucker sped 139km/h on city street???????

This piece of shit judge need to be removed from post.

[tru_blue]

^ sent link to audi vancouver downtown and asked all employees there to please sign it.

would be funny if its not the same person :badpokerface:

[dvst8]

unbelievable....

[whitev70r]

would be funny if its not the same person :badpokerface:
Actually, it'd be funnier if it was the same person (don't you think) ... which another poster confirmed with relatively reliable source.

If it is not, then the email is just a spam mail regarding a current news item.

[trollface]

https://www.change.org/p/david-eby-justice-for-dr-alphonsus-hui-who-was-killed-by-a-driver-going-140-km-h-in-a-50-km-h-zone?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_campaign=triggered&j=342820&sfmc_sub=878724634&l=32_HTML&u=61270858&mid=7233052&jb=431845

Relevant. Not sure how much use these petitions are but something is better than nothing.

1000% usless.

[bcedhk]

Is the Ken Chung they are talking about, the guy in the below link ?

This guy happens to work at audi also.

https://audidowntownvancouver.ca/staff-directory/sales.htm

Looks like the removed him on their site. (but if you google his name it shows up on google images)

[whitev70r]

Looks like the removed him on their site. (but if you google his name it shows up on google images)

More proof that he was the fellow.

Maybe he got let go or the management realizes that this is not the kind of attention that the Audi brand wants.

Frankly speaking, if that was company car that he crashed in the fatal accident, his arse should have been fired that day. I imagine the dealer can be named in a civil suit.

[twitchyzero]

1000% usless.

how so?
even if it is, it's a 30 second process.

[DragonChi]

1000% usless.

You would be surprised at the power of social media. More importantly, this guy has no regard for public safety and is a menace. Your tune might change if this guy hit someone you know.

[whitev70r]

1000% usless.

how so?
even if it is, it's a 30 second process.

Petition is picking up quite a lot of traction. 17K+ signed and growing.

What I think is more effective for 30 secs of your time is to send an email inquiry (or a quick telephone call) to the GM of Audi Vancouver and politely ask him if the Ken Chung on staff is the one who was recently acquitted of the dangerous driving charge and if the high speed Audi involved was owned by your dealer. If it isn't, then I'm sure the dealer would say no because they don't want to be connected or associated with this case in any way. If it is, they probably won't reply, then you know it is. Tell the GM that you would not do business with a dealer that keeps a repeat dangerous driver like that as a salesperson.

Apparently, his picture and contact was already removed from the staff directory this morning. So something must be happening behind the scenes.

Social media justice.

[Traum]

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

I'd hardly say that justice is served if someone has killed another person due to gross negligence and a general lack of regard for public safety.

[whitev70r]

Well, it's a start. Better than what our courts handed out.

[68style]

Doesn’t do anything, guy who killed Constance Ng racing his Civic years ago found regular employment at the same company my buddy used to work at, high profile sales job... sure people talked about him behind his back but it never affected his ability to make money.

[6o4__boi]

NTS: If I ever need to kill someone, use my car, do it at high speeds, and bring blow.

[Allanya]

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

I'd hardly say that justice is served if someone has killed another person due to gross negligence and a general lack of regard for public safety.

Justice sometimes is very strange.

[swfk]

If I remember correctly, Ken Chung had a personal B7 RS4, the one in the accident looks like a B7 S4 or RS4. He also worked at different dealerships as well. So at the time of the accident I am certain it's not related to Audi Downtown.

[tru_blue]

If I remember correctly, Ken Chung had a personal B7 RS4, the one in the accident looks like a B7 S4 or RS4. He also worked at different dealerships as well. So at the time of the accident I am certain it's not related to Audi Downtown.
maybe he got let go by the previous dealership and joined audi after the crash

[twitchyzero]

if you were Ken Chung, and known to have driven recklessly even after killing someone
would you just come out now and apologize on social media and do damage control?

the petition is now at 30K after just a few days...for a small-ish city that's a lot of pitchforks out for this guy's blood

[320icar]

Why? An apology would do absolutely nothing, same as attacking the guys workplace; making his managers deal with people like whitev70r is not part of their job, and is stress they shouldn’t have to deal with

[6o4__boi]

send e-spec after him

[prelude_prince]

If I remember correctly, Ken Chung had a personal B7 RS4, the one in the accident looks like a B7 S4 or RS4. He also worked at different dealerships as well. So at the time of the accident I am certain it's not related to Audi Downtown.

Correct, it was an RS4. Social Media and Internet ftw again. It's actually pretty crazy at that speed at those hours in the morning on that street, I really would like to know the rational behind the judges reasoning...

https://scontent.fhkg10-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/35235257_10160355827415398_500521925169119232_o.jp g?_nc_cat=0&oh=b4bfc1102a6f735ce563772e96b47dad&oe=5BC46CF3

[chowster1]

Could this be the same dirty bag?

https://www.facebook.com/kenchung1216

Is the Ken Chung they are talking about, the guy in the below link ?

This guy happens to work at audi also.

https://audidowntownvancouver.ca/staff-directory/sales.htm

[whitev70r]

Could this be the same dirty bag?

https://www.facebook.com/kenchung1216

Looks like its a match ... good sleuthing!

Petition at 41K+ and still growing! - https://www.change.org/p/david-eby-justice-for-dr-alphonsus-hui-who-was-killed-by-a-driver-going-140-km-h-in-a-50-km-h-zone

[blee123]

Could this be the same dirty bag?

https://www.facebook.com/kenchung1216

just tried clicking the facebook link, looks like he deactivated his facebook also

[Tone Loc]

Former Audi Brand Specialist at Audi Downtown Vancouver


From his FB. Looks like the petition worked. Guess the Internet is useful after all.

[pastarocket]

just tried clicking the facebook link, looks like he deactivated his facebook also

Ken Chung's FB profile shows the following info:


Former Audi Brand Specialist at Audi Downtown Vancouver



We need an RS brand of justice!

Assemble the beatdown crew! :gun:

[BIC_BAWS]

just tried clicking the facebook link, looks like he deactivated his facebook also

His Facebook still works for me LOL. But I was scrolling through the profile, and on things he posted publicly, people were posting the link to the petition on his posts LOL

[anxiety]

Although this guy is a massive idiot driving 140km/h in the city, are we just gonna leave this doctor with no blame?

If you are turning left at an intersection and if you are scanning the oncoming traffic, you gotta be able to judge the speed of the oncoming car right?

I know it's not right to disrespect someone who died, but people pretty much always placed the blame on the person who killed the other party, but if the doctor was driving defensively or paying attention, I don't think the accident would had happened.

If it was a head on collision, then it's a completely different story, but this was avoidable.

[DragonChi]

It would be the doctors fault if it was at a reasonable speed. But more than double the speed limit is unreasonable. How often do you expect a vehicle to enter an intersection at highway speeds, in morning rush hour?

Would you be able to stop a puck or hit a baseball at 60 kmh? What about 140 kmh? Speed matters.

In addition, this guy was weaving in and out of traffic, leaving blind spots for a lot of people. The collision would have been unavoidable in my opinion.

[68style]

Yah if he was just coming down the road... okay I expect the left turner to realize whoa that car is going fast I better hold up... but the report said he was weaving between cars and came out into the slow lane so he may well have been completely obscured...... not the left turner's fault IMO................... but as we already know, ICBC has zero discretion when it comes to fault of left turners... so here we are.

[twitchyzero]

i'm assuming there was a left turner where Chung's Audi was coming up and thus visibility was a concern

even if Hui was slowly peeking out it would probably caused Chung's almost tripling of the speed limit to swerve and kill someone else

'07 RS4 60-0 braking distance is 36m

add another 40kph and he probably would've need like half a block's length to come to a stop, that's assuming perfect conditions (dry road, new brakes/tires, wasn't hauling heavy stuff in the trunk and ofc instantaneous reaction time)

ugh.

[anxiety]

now it kinda makes sense how the doc couldn't judge the speed of the Audi if he was weaving in and outta traffic or driving in the slow lane.

But if you already have blind pots or you can't see the traffic in all lanes, why would you turn then?

[DragonChi]

That is a good point. In a perfect world the turn would not have been made. However, the lane would appear to be clear, given the situation. As seen in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyVNXzusDb4

I found the following video helpful as well, though it doesn't show the blind spot created when the centre lane slows down and a faster outside lane enters a intersection. The truck example shows what would of ideally happened in this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdNWP6tmJHw

Pretty sure if this happened in Alberta or Ontario, this guy would be in jail right now. I did a quick google search for BC and no sites show up regarding being criminally negligent with a motor vehicle. Good news fellas! We're free to speed recklessly through city streets and not go to jail.
http://clg.ab.ca/programs-services/dial-a-law/criminal-negligence-driving-offence/
https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/careless-driving-dangerous-driving-and-criminal-negligence/

[twitchyzero]

preaching to the choir but in the above video, to prevent this kinda accident happening again

left turner: don't go unless you're 99.99% sure it's clear
if you're sitting in the outer/middle lane and keeping the intersection clear and see this accident about to happen...start honking!
guys going at or above speed limit in the curb lane...(I do this often myself)...anticipate for left turners when the outer/middle lane is backed up...even when the congested intersection looks clear I slow down to 30kph just in case

[nsx042003]

the hell was that sienna stopping for, he/she should've been given the fault as well for causing confusion?

[swfk]

the hell was that sienna stopping for, he/she should've been given the fault as well for causing confusion?

Traffic in the center lane could have been at standstill and it is illegal for the Sienna to block the intersection.

[nsx042003]

Traffic in the center lane could have been at standstill and it is illegal for the Sienna to block the intersection.

seemed very unlikely, sienna started braking at the last second at the light, and you can see there's no traffic in front as the cam vehicle move to check the collision.

[whitev70r]

Of course, Sienna pulls away and leaves the scene of accident.

There are plenty of fault to be distributed to all three drivers in that scenario. Sometimes one bad decision can cause accident but when you have the convergence of three bad decisions in one intersection ... it would be a miracle for an accident to be avoided in that textbook case of dumb, dumber, and even dumber.

[twitchyzero]

the case will be reviewed for an appeal process thanks to the 55k signatures
didn't someone say it's 1000% useless?

[whitev70r]

1000% usless.

You suck so bad!

https://globalnews.ca/news/4275430/alphonsus-hui-driving-death-ken-chung-appeal/

The appeal comes after Monique organized a Change.org petition that urged the Crown to appeal the case.

It had drawn over 50,000 signatures by Thursday afternoon.

[JSALES]

Our justice system does suck. I don’t know if any of you guys remember this story but the driver was impaired and killed a doctor and his fiancée, didn’t even have to serve his full sentence. I know because he was my high school classmate (not my friend btw)

2-death hit-run driver sentenced to 5 years | CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/2-death-hit-run-driver-sentenced-to-5-years-1.862195)

[donjalapeno]

IF the centre lane was not backed up imo that Sienna should be mostly at fault for stopping at a green light. I think it should be 50% Sienna fault and 50% left turner. IF the centre lane was back up. Which i doubt it was.

[6o4__boi]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how 140 was a momentary departure in normalcy like the judge says, like holy fuck. How fucking soft of a judge can u get.

[trollface]

You suck so bad!

https://globalnews.ca/news/4275430/alphonsus-hui-driving-death-ken-chung-appeal/

The appeal comes after Monique organized a Change.org petition that urged the Crown to appeal the case.

It had drawn over 50,000 signatures by Thursday afternoon.

And? You don't need a petition to file an appeal, they could have appealed 2 secs after they were handed a decision, and they would have anyway. The courts are not going to reverse a decision because a bunch of teens under 18 on a forum signed typed their names on a website. Go look through some of those petitions, 50 Cent and Bill Clinton signs almost every one. I'm sure the Canadian courts will take it very seriously.

If I was the family, I'd be upset too but that's not how the laws and courts work. The count saw, heard and used past cases to decide on the outcome and punishment.


Their appeal has ZERO to do with the petition. No one can file a petition besides the family and lawyer. See here: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/appeal-appel.html


That would be fucking retarded.

[TouringTeg]

Actually there is good reason to appeal. In this case below Tracey Dawn Smith was high, drunk and enraged when she crossed the center line and killed a motorcyclist.

She got one day in jail.

After appeal she got two years in jail.

https://www.vicnews.com/news/one-day-sentence-extended-to-two-years-for-tracy-dawn-smith/

[jasonturbo]

It's quite clear that the accident caused death, the question then becomes "was the driving dangerous?"

Criminal Code of Canada (Dangerous Driving)

249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place.


The Offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death



[59] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Beatty, supra, restated the test in R. v. Hundal, supra, for dangerous driving at page 247:


A) The Actus Reus



The trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was, in the words of the section, driving in a manner that was "dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle was being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place".

B) The Mens Rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused)



The trier of fact must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's objectively dangerous conduct was accompanied by the required mens rea. In making the objective assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence about the accused's actual state of mind, if any, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused's circumstances. Moreover, if an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused.



[60] Chief Justice McLachlin concurring in the result, concluded the correct statement of the law as follows:


1) The actus reus requires a marked departure from the normal manner of driving.

2) The mens rea is generally inferred from the marked departure in the nature of driving. Based on the finding of a marked departure, it is inferred that the accused lacked the requisite mental state of care of a reasonable person.

3) While generally the mens rea is inferred from the act constituting a marked departure committed by the accused, the evidence in a particular case may negate or cast a reasonable doubt on this inference.



[61] Justice Fish, also concurring in the result, stated the test as follows:



The fault element, however, is not the marked departure from the norm of a reasonably prudent driver but the fact that a reasonably prudent driver in the accused’s circumstances would have been aware of the risk of that conduct, and if able to do so, would have acted to avert it. This requisite mental element may only be inferred where the impugned conduct represents a marked departure from the norm; it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he or she operated the motor vehicle in a dangerous manner.

I think the appeal is valid based on the argument that travelling 140km/h in a 50km/h zone represents a marked departure from the normal manner of driving.

I'm willing to bet that the accused will be back in court shortly.


Somewhat related, dangerous driving causing death vs. manslaughter (It's a bit of a read)


History of Manslaughter, Criminal Negligence And Dangerous Driving



[88] In order to resolve this issue, it is necessary to review the history of those offences. The offence of “motor manslaughter” has never existed. It is a euphemism for manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle. Manslaughter and culpable homicide for these purposes has changed little since the 1892 Criminal Code and has remained in its present form since the 1953-54 Code.


[89] Since 1892 the Code has included an offence of negligence causing grievous bodily harm. It was not until 1910 when an offence referred to a motor vehicle. That offence was driving in a wanton or furious manner or racing and causing bodily harm. In 1938 a further offence was created of reckless or dangerous driving.



[90] In 1955 the Code was completely revised and the offence of operating a motor vehicle in a criminally negligent manner was created. The offences of driving in a wanton or furious manner as well as reckless or dangerous driving were repealed. Dangerous driving was re-introduced in 1961 in basically the same language as section 249(1) today. In 1985 dangerous driving was broken down into subsections distinguishing between dangerous driving simpliciter, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing death with maximum penalties increasing on a scale of seriousness.


[91] Criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle was repealed in 1985 and replaced with the wording in effect today which does not refer to the operation of a motor vehicle. There are separate penalties for criminal negligence causing death and causing bodily harm. Therefore, since 1985 there has not been a specific offence of causing death by operating a motor vehicle constituting criminal negligence or manslaughter.


[92] However, there are two sections in the Code that make it clear the operation of a motor vehicle is intended to apply to both criminal negligence and manslaughter. In 1930 a subsection was introduced to Section 951 which dealt with included offences generally. The new subsection, 951(3), declared that in a charge of manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, the accused could be found not guilty of that offence but guilty of criminal negligence. In 1938, the subsection was changed to make the included offence reckless or dangerous driving. In 1955 the subsection was repealed and not replaced until 1961 when it was added back into the Code as section 569(4). In 1985 the subsection was again repealed and re-enacted as subsection 662(5) as it is today. This was done at the same time as the amendments were made to section 249, splitting dangerous driving into dangerous driving simpliciter, dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death. Subsection 662(5) makes dangerous driving an included offence to criminal negligence causing bodily harm and death, and manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle.


[93] The other section that speaks of manslaughter and criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle is section 259 which addresses driving prohibitions. The offence of manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle is expressly contemplated in authorizing driving prohibitions. Section 259 was most recently amended in July of 2008 and section 259(2) grants the court discretion to impose a driving prohibition if the offender is convicted of criminal negligence, manslaughter, or dangerous driving, among others, if the offence was committed by means of a motor vehicle.


[94] In my view, it is clear that Parliament intended the offence of manslaughter to be available where death arises out of the operation of a motor vehicle and always has since at least 1930 when section 951(3) was introduced. Commentators have speculated that the amendments were designed to address the reluctance of judges and juries to convict of manslaughter where death arose out of the operation of a motor vehicle. T. D. MacDonald, Q.C. in the article Careless, Negligent, Reckless, Operation of Motor Vehicles at (1963), 6 Canadian Bar Journal 122 stated at page 123:


The awesomeness of the word “manslaughter”, and even the fearsomeness of the words “criminal negligence”, have apparently prevented jurors, most of whom themselves operate motor vehicles, from bringing in verdicts of guilty where the facts warranted and even demanded such a verdict.



[95] This view was also expressed in Harris’s Criminal Law 22nd ed. (1993, Sweet and Maxwell, London) page 445, and in Mewett and Manning Criminal Law, (1978, Butterworths, Toronto), page 466, as well as in R. v. Williams (1982) 63 C.C.C. (2d) 141 (Man. C.A.) at page 148.


Case Authorities



[96] R. v. Williams, supra, is the only case that appears to have dealt with this issue, although in unique circumstances. In that case the offender had been drinking and was driving on the wrong side of the road, causing a head-on collision with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, killing two persons and injuring two others. He was charged with two counts of manslaughter by an unlawful act, two counts of criminal negligence causing death, two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and one count of impaired driving. The trial judge found his conduct fell within the definition of criminal negligence and convicted him of unlawful act manslaughter. The Crown stayed all other charges.


[97] The Court of Appeal found there was no difference between the offence of causing death by criminal negligence, and committing manslaughter by criminal negligence. However, he was not charged with criminal negligence manslaughter. They invited the Crown to re-open the stay of the criminal negligence charges stating they would convict of criminal negligence causing death. The Crown refused, insisting the offender be convicted on the basis of dangerous driving or impaired driving as the predicate offences of unlawful act manslaughter notwithstanding that criminal negligence had been proven.


[98] The Court stated at pages 150 - 151:


Mr. Williams has been found guilty of performing unlawful acts but in association with circumstances of criminal negligence. ...what should be a clear case of causing death by criminal negligence or committing manslaughter by criminal negligence has been obfuscated by the form of the charge... In my respectful view, it would not be right to convict the accused of manslaughter by means of an unlawful act where the evidence leads to a verdict of guilty on one or other of two other charges.


...The result, technical though it may be, must be the setting aside of the verdict of guilty of manslaughter by means of an unlawful act. But it is open to us to enter a conviction for dangerous driving under s. 589(5) [now 662(5)] of the Code where the evidence supports that verdict. I have no doubt that the evidence here proves that offence.



[99] In my view, the Court of Appeal was prepared to confirm a verdict of manslaughter by criminal negligence if it had been open to them by the wording of the charge. This is made clear by the court at page 149:


Obviously, it is contemplated that a manslaughter charge may be laid in motor vehicle cases; no distinction in this regard is made between manslaughter by means of an unlawful act or manslaughter by criminal negligence. ...While prosecutions in motor vehicle cases under s. 205(5)(a) [culpable homicide by means of an unlawful act] are rare, we are obliged to consider manslaughter committed by means of an unlawful act as an offence which has been continued and still exists under the Code.



[100] However, the court did not explain why they were not prepared to confirm the conviction for unlawful act manslaughter when they were prepared to convict of the predicate offence of dangerous driving even though they were convinced the conduct amounted to criminal negligence.


Elements of Manslaughter



[101] In R. v. Creighton, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the elements of unlawful act manslaughter. The essential requirements for the offence are:


a) an unlawful act in the sense of being a criminal offence that

b) is dangerous in the sense of carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to another that

c) results in death, if

d) it is objectively foreseeable that there is a risk of bodily harm that is more than merely trivial or transitory.



[102] At paragraph 12, McLachlin, J. stated:



So the test for the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter in Canada, as in the United Kingdom, is (in addition to the mens rea of the underlying offence) objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm which is neither trivial nor transitory, in the context of a dangerous act. Forseeability of the risk of death is not required.



[103] It therefore can be seen that dangerous driving causing death does not on its own amount to unlawful act manslaughter. The essential requirement to convict of dangerous driving is driving in a manner that is dangerous to the public. Danger to the public does not necessarily involve a risk of bodily harm. It could involve a risk of property damage arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The mens rea of dangerous driving is the objective foreseeability of the risk and danger involved in the conduct that amounts to the danger to the public. For that conduct to amount to unlawful act manslaughter, it must meet the additional test of objective forseeability of the risk of bodily harm, which is neither trivial nor transitory in the conduct of the dangerous act. The meeting of this additional test would allow a conviction for the more serious offence of unlawful act manslaughter when the unlawful act is dangerous driving causing death and to increase the maximum from 14 years to life imprisonment.


[104] However, no additional requirement is necessary for criminal negligence causing death to also constitute manslaughter by criminal negligence. Criminal negligence requires conduct that amounts to a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others based on an objective test of awareness of that risk. Therefore, the objective forseeability of the risk of bodily harm
test has already been met to convict of criminal negligence and nothing further must be proven to convict of manslaughter. The maximum for both offences is life imprisonment. If manslaughter is charged and criminal negligence causing death is proven, it follows a conviction for manslaughter can be entered. The wording of the manslaughter charges in this Information are left open to be proven by any manner of culpable homicide unlike the wording in the Williams Indictment. It is therefore open to the trial court to convict of manslaughter by criminal negligence if criminal negligence causing death is proven, or to convict of unlawful act manslaughter if dangerous driving causing death is proven, and the additional element of objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm is proven. As I have found criminal negligence causing death has been proven, so has the offence of manslaughter by criminal negligence, since they are identical. That is the same conclusion the Manitoba Court of Appeal came to in Williams, supra, at page 148:



It is difficult to discern any difference between the offence of causing death by criminal negligence under s. 203 [now s. 220] and the offence of committing manslaughter by criminal negligence under s. 205(5)(b) [now s. 225(5)(b)]. In my view, it cannot be said generally that causing death by criminal negligence is "entirely different" from the offence of manslaughter.


[105] The Supreme Court of Canada also came to this conclusion when dealing with a charge of criminal negligence causing death in a different context not involving the operation of a motor vehicle in R. v. Morrisey (2001), 2000 SCC 39 (CanLII), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at pages 28 and 29:


First, the analysis cannot be confined to the specific offence contained in s. 220(a) of the Code. There is a great deal of overlap between some of the culpable homicides which are not classified as murder, such as unlawful act manslaughter and manslaughter by criminal negligence. Moreover, there is no difference between the offence charged here and manslaughter by criminal negligence. Section 222(5)(b) of the Criminal Code, read in conjunction with s. 234, makes clear that the offence of criminal negligence causing death is a type of manslaughter; see also R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at pg. 41-42 per McLachlin, J. (as she then was)...



The circumstances of this case palpably demonstrate the overlap: the accused was initially charged with manslaughter and there is nothing in the record that explains why he was committed for trial on the charge of criminal negligence causing death rather than on the original charge of manslaughter. Nothing turns on this since the two are totally interchangeable.



[106] I therefore conclude, based on these authorities, that manslaughter by criminal negligence and criminal negligence causing death, are identical offences and interchangeable so that proof
of criminal negligence causing death in the operation of a motor vehicle is also proof of manslaughter.

[Digitalis]

This is why I HATE it when cars stop for me to "cross" as a pedestrian. I'd much rather they continue and not disturb the flow of traffic. Yet by courtesy I am supposed to thank them for stopping for me.

[nelo]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4280677/dash-cam-video-fatal-crash-dr-alphonsus-hui-ken-chung/

[yray]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4280677/dash-cam-video-fatal-crash-dr-alphonsus-hui-ken-chung/

dash cam released

[westopher]

Fucking Christ. Hard to watch, and such blatant disregard for anything.

[whitev70r]

^ The judge didn't consider that criminal negligence? Somebody give that judge a good shake in the head!

[twitchyzero]

And? You don't need a petition to file an appeal, they could have appealed 2 secs after they were handed a decision, and they would have anyway. The courts are not going to reverse a decision because a bunch of teens under 18 on a forum signed typed their names on a website. Go look through some of those petitions, 50 Cent and Bill Clinton signs almost every one. I'm sure the Canadian courts will take it very seriously.

If I was the family, I'd be upset too but that's not how the laws and courts work. The count saw, heard and used past cases to decide on the outcome and punishment.

That would be fucking retarded.

you don't need good grades to apply for any school
you don't need good credit to buy a car

but you don't believe 70k names for a local case and the subsequent news coverage and social media spotlight after only a week has any weight?

are you friends/related to the judge, defense lawyer or Ken Chung?

[68style]

Geez it almost looked like the Audi got air going into the intersection, absolutely insane

[ak1to]

Fucking Christ. Hard to watch, and such blatant disregard for anything.

He drove like an idiot causing someone to die. And then wracked up yet another excessive speeding ticket in 2017 so clearly he doesn't GAF.

Head to https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/criminal/partySearch.do, punch in 'Ken Chung'.

Document 243920-1 was for his charge for CCC - 249(4) Dangerous driving causing death.

Then AH99217632-1 was for his excessive speeding ticket in 2017.

[Jmac]

That's fucking garbage. How do you see a video like that and still acquit the guy?

It would be one thing if the guy sped up to pass and did like ... 70 or 80 ... but 140 ... fuck ... That's auto-impound territory on the fucking highway, let alone city streets.

[MarkyMark]

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

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

[jasonturbo]

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

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

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

[Jmac]

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

Unreal what it takes to get an actual punishment in this country.
Yeah, except history has shown that once enough of these extreme cases pass without any real punishment, they eventually go way overboard in the other direction to the point of equal illogic.

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

[pastarocket]

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

-dash cam video footage of the accident. :heckno:

[anxiety]

^ahh you beat me to it.

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

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

[westopher]

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

[DragonChi]

^ahh you beat me to it.

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

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

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

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

[twitchyzero]

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

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

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

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

[anxiety]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DragonChi]

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

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

You never answered my original question.

[AzNightmare]

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


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

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

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

[GG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


thank you! Finally somebody had the balls to say it

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

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

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


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


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

[whitev70r]

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

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

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

[GG]

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

perhaps

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

[!Aznboi128]

perhaps

However like i stated before, even if a F150/SUV t bones him on the side doing 70-80km can still kill him in that tiny suzuki
I think he'll be injured at that point yes with more mass there's more force I get that but the SX4 is a pretty safe vehicle all around.

2013 Suzuki SX4 (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/suzuki/sx4-4-door-sedan)

[minoru_tanaka]

perhaps

However like i stated before, even if a F150/SUV t bones him on the side doing 70-80km can still kill him in that tiny suzuki
You have to make sure it's clear before you turn, yes. But if I'm doing the math right then at 140 km/h that's about 2 blocks every 5 secs.

https://i.imgur.com/F35IYB1.png

[freakshow]

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

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

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

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

just thinking out loud..

[jasonturbo]

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer: Excessive use of "thumb suck" mathematics above

[Jmac]

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

https://i.imgur.com/F35IYB1.png
Yup

144 km/h = 40 m/s

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

[68style]

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


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

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

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

[MarkyMark]

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

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

[Jmac]

However....left turns are always at fault, the law states you should ONLY TURN when its completely cleared.
If you’re going to proceed with a ridiculous hot take, the least you can do is make correct statements.

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

[Great68]

Yup

144 km/h = 40 m/s

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

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

https://imgur.com/a/ioFBLd1

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

[underscore]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[prudz]

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

https://i.imgur.com/F35IYB1.png

Yup

144 km/h = 40 m/s

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

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

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

[MarkyMark]

It is unfortunate that people will see this as speed being the biggest contributing factor and ignore that poor driving choices and unsafe turns have an equal part to play in these scenarios.

If there's any certainty in this case, it's that speed was the sole reason the accident happened.

Go stand in a batting cage where the average pitch is 60mph and then randomly one comes at you at 100mph and tell me how that worked out for you.

[Jmac]

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

After seeing the video I would put fault on both parties. I think he got off lightly and probably should be getting a harsher sentence. However I still think the doc made an unsafe left turn, which as it has been mentioned above, happens far to often in Vancouver and surrounding cities. The driving here is ridiculous for the most part. It is unfortunate that people will see this as speed being the biggest contributing factor and ignore that poor driving choices and unsafe turns have an equal part to play in these scenarios.
First of all, the only thing I assumed was that the poster stated that 140 km/h = 2 city blocks every 5 seconds, which I verified is correct. Don't project your incorrect inferences onto me.

Since you went there, your "momentary" acceleration would've taken place over approximately 7.4 seconds given specs on the 2007 Audi RS4 that was being driven, assuming 50 km/h to 143 km/h and vehicle is stock and in peak or near-peak mechanical condition. That would've covered about 212 metres.

Even if you assume 65 km/h as the starting speed when the acceleration began, it's still 6.6 seconds and that covers 200 metres, which would mean he started accelerating just before W 43rd Ave (2.x blocks away).

He would've been traveling approximately 100 km/h at this point and accelerated to 143 km/h prior to impact at W 43rd and would've covered that distance in just over 4 seconds.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/49.2324513,-123.1281252/49.2337925,-123.1279817/@49.2328443,-123.1287049,282m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

The last car that passes through the intersection while Hui is waiting to turn occurs 3.5 seconds prior to Chung's Audi entering the intersection. Chung's Audi would've been about 124 metres (406 ft) from the intersection at that point.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/49.2326607,-123.1280239/49.2337925,-123.1279817/@49.2327532,-123.1287075,407m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

Rideout relied on five witnesses and dashboard camera footage of the incident, as well as two Vancouver Police officers and an engineer. One of the police officers, Const. Uwe Rieger, testified that Chung was speeding at 143 km-h between 42nd and 41st avenues.

Rideout found Shedrack Katarama to be the most helpful witness. Katarama testified that the Audi merged onto the Oak Street Bridge from Bridgeport Road in Richmond and he observed the Audi to be “in a hurry” causing him and another driver to apply their brakes. He later saw the Audi behind him while he was driving at 50 km-h until 42nd Avenue, when the Audi passed him at a high speed, in the curb lane between 42nd and 41st before the collision.

[prudz]

First of all, the only thing I assumed was that the poster stated that 140 km/h = 2 city blocks every 5 seconds, which I verified is correct. Don't project your incorrect inferences onto me.

Since you went there, your "momentary" acceleration would've taken place over approximately 7.4 seconds given specs on the 2007 Audi RS4 that was being driven, assuming 50 km/h to 143 km/h and vehicle is stock and in peak or near-peak mechanical condition. That would've covered about 212 metres.

Even if you assume 65 km/h as the starting speed when the acceleration began, it's still 6.6 seconds and that covers 200 metres, which would mean he started accelerating just before W 43rd Ave (2.x blocks away).

He would've been traveling approximately 100 km/h at this point and accelerated to 143 km/h prior to impact at W 43rd and would've covered that distance in just over 4 seconds.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/49.2324513,-123.1281252/49.2337925,-123.1279817/@49.2328443,-123.1287049,282m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

The last car that passes through the intersection while Hui is waiting to turn occurs 3.5 seconds prior to Chung's Audi entering the intersection. Chung's Audi would've been about 124 metres (406 ft) from the intersection at that point.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/49.2326607,-123.1280239/49.2337925,-123.1279817/@49.2327532,-123.1287075,407m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

A moment is recognized as 90 seconds

If there's any certainty in this case, it's that speed was the sole reason the accident happened.

Go stand in a batting cage where the average pitch is 60mph and then randomly one comes at you at 100mph and tell me how that worked out for you.

Not the same thing at all.

[MarkyMark]

A moment is recognized as 90 seconds



Not the same thing at all.

How so, you're reacting on what you assume the object is travelling towards you at. There's been lots of times where I start to turn left and then realize I need to stomp on the gas because the person is going well above the speed limit. Now if that person was going an extra 50k on top of that I'd probably be fucked.

I've driven a long time and have never caused an accident, but all it would take is some dipshit going 140km/h on a city street to change that.

Keep thinking you're judgement never fails you.

[Jmac]

A moment is recognized as 90 seconds
So was he accelerating for 90 seconds? If he was, he was probably going pretty close to his peak 143 km/h for 2 city blocks.

If you're going to use obscure, long out-of-date definitions, you might want to make sure they match your argument.

But, of course, you're trolling, so you're just going to play coy and clever and it doesn't matter if it doesn't make any fucking sense.

[AzNightmare]

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

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


Just STFU. You obviously have never experienced making a left turn with an incoming vehicle travelling at 140km/h (nor should anyone ever experience that).

This is how far the Audi was from the intersection when Dr. Hui was making the left. You're full of shit if you would have scanned the "i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶", I mean 3 whole blocks away for a vehicle that would have made it unsafe to turn in that moment.

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

https://i.imgur.com/Jf0OdKv.jpg

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

[westopher]

Not the same thing at all.
Your right. Stand in the 50km/h batting cages and see how you react when one comes at you at 140.

[kr4l]

Serious question for the people putting fault at the left turner, do you even have a license and drive a car?

[Nlkko]

Pretty clear cut & dry case to me. What's to debate?

He sped and killed a person, then get caught speeding again later. 0 remorse. This isn't a moment of stupidity. This is a history of disrespect for the traffic law and disregard for other drivers' safety.

My sentences would be:
For Kenny boy: Jail with no chance of parole for the entire duration. Restart with graduated licensing program with strict probation for a number of years.
For Team Idiots (anxiety, GG and prudz): restart the graduated licensing program.
For the judge: removal from post. If you can't try this case properly then what hope do you have?

[anxiety]

^calm down tough guy, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no one is calling you names. Just because you believe in something and disagree with someone else, doesn't mean they are idiots.

In this case, it's not all of you disagreeing with just 1 guy who's delusional, so clearly you don't have the upper hand and you are not winning the argument cuz no one ever wins in an argument, we can give each other prospective.

lol @ people questioning whether I have a driver license or not, thanks for your concern, since I got my learners, I have never got into 1 accident, already at full discount. hopefully I don't jinx it.

Maybe you and the rest of people should re-take your driving exam, just because the majority of population only scan the oncoming traffic based on distance, not speed, doesn't mean it's the right way. Maybe you should wait a little bit longer before you turn left next time. The driving manual clearly says turn left when "safe to do so" not when a a car is xx distance away.

You guys must be the "turn happy" bunch then, I wouldn't have spewed out bs if I didn't practice what I said, I scan the traffic based on speed, if the car seems faster than normal traffic, even if the car is farther away, I won't turn just to be safe because I don't know if I can make the turn in time safely.

If I can see a car is travelling at lower than normal speed, I can gun it if I want to because I know I can make it.

I will give credit for a few posts here, it made me realize that it was hard to judge based on how far the Audi was away, still I feel like the doctor could had been more aware of the situation which could had saved his own life.

[twitchyzero]

most of you guys are assessing it wrong, as was I earlier

both Suzuki and Audi were traveling on Oak, not 41st, with Suzuki turning onto 41st shortly before impact

we can safely assume the Audi was already in excess of 100kph by 42nd ave when he passed by the main witness in the curb lane...and was seen earlier weaving in & out of traffic in another municipality...his vehicle was pushed to the limits for far longer than the Suzuki's "poor" judgment of a few seconds max. You can blame Suzuki for not paying attention but not the other way around? The Audi also had pretty clear visibility yet braked quite late (since impact is 120kph)

after killing someone he gets recorded for excess speed again

then last month gets acquitted

the man in Suzuki was dealt a death...and years of pain for his family

the guy in Audi? a written-off vehicle and some PTSD? a loss of job and growing discontent from the local populace? but nothing from the judicial efforts

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


you mean a DTES transient getting seriously injured/dying at the hands of a pretty common city travel speed won't get the same attention as a physician getting killed by a repeated offender flying down Oak at almost 90mph? *gasps*

your heavier vehicle at more modest speeds example doesn't hold up because the effects are not linear. I already brought up the Audi's minimal braking distance few pages back, it's drastically longer than at 70kph...not to mention the impact will be amplified

also ask yourself this, if another motorists parked in the handicapped spot with no business being there, does that make it legal to go slash his tire? 2 wrongs don't make a right

and if you're so much better than the average shitty Vancouver driver, you can say with confidence you won't turn left when you're not expecting 140 on the streets? that you scan at the very minimum a few intersections away, 100% of the time, when visbility is decent?

sincerely, late yellow if no lefties crew checking in

[twitchyzero]

anxiety, your post doesn't make any sense

you realize speed is just a rate of distance? unless you have a radar mounted on your dashboard that gives you a green or red light we don't know about...guess what, you're also using distance as an estimation

I don't think a guy doing 140 gives a fuck about red or green in that heat of moment...you can wait for a super late yellow/or red and that might diminish your chances of dying on a regular basis but if you happened to be at the wrong spot wrong time...you're still done

[AzNightmare]

Maybe you and the rest of people should re-take your driving exam, just because the majority of population only scan the oncoming traffic based on distance, not speed, doesn't mean it's the right way. Maybe you should wait a little bit longer before you turn left next time. The driving manual clearly says turn left when "safe to do so" not when a a car is xx distance away.

You guys must be the "turn happy" bunch then, I wouldn't have spewed out bs if I didn't practice what I said, I scan the traffic based on speed, if the car seems faster than normal traffic, even if the car is farther away, I won't turn just to be safe because I don't know if I can make the turn in time safely.

If I can see a car is travelling at lower than normal speed, I can gun it if I want to because I know I can make it.


Like I said in another post, you (and those on your side) are clearly underestimating the amount of distance a vehicle covers in 140km/h. Do you actually know how fast that is in the city? This isn't your highway route where all you see is long stretches of open fields and distant haystacks that gives the illusion of "safe controllable speed". In the city, houses and everything will be flashing by very rapidly.

With your many years of driving experience, just how many times have you encountered an oncoming vehicle of 140km/h while trying to make a left turn? You make it sound like it's as easy as seeing something travelling 30km/h. Even a typical city speeder at 70-80km/h is reasonable for a typical driver to gauge. And most likely, they're punching it last second to beat the light. But we're talking 140 here. Constant excessive speed leading up to the intersection.

Your example of a slow vehicle is a flawed example, as that is just simply a vehicle that is within your range of reasonable sight the entire way leading to the intersection.

A vehicle 3 blocks away, especially a silver one, looks like a tiny dot that blends in with the road, most likely not even very visible... then it suddenly appears "out of nowhere." It is very reasonable to think a 3 block car gap is safe to make a left turn. :derp:

Could have, should have, would have, hindsight is 20/20. If the doctor skipped work that day, he would still be alive. There's a reason why excessive speed is a big issue. It's not just whether the driver can handle his own speed, but whether it gives other motorists on the road a chance to see him and properly gauge his distance/speed.

[MarkyMark]

I've driven nearly 20 years and I have yet to encounter someone going 140km/h as I'm turning left on a city street. I've seen cars going really fast, but in reality it was probably in the neighborhood of 100km/h. Unless you have dashcam evidence to prove it I'm betting the majority of drivers haven't witnessed this scenario first hand.

Would you be singing the same tune if it was your mom, dad, sibling, or child who got smoked by someone going that fast? Would you call them an idiot too? I bet you'd be outraged when they let the dude walk.

[GG]

18 years , zero accidents 43% discount. I seen car/bike going 90-100+ gunning thru the intersection just to make thru that yellow light.


my dog was killed while jwalking and got hit by a taxi, should i blame the car? or myself? or the dog? The moment i open the fence he vtec out the door before i can put a leash on him.Guess who i blamed? myself, NOT the taxi


The doc was turning at a speed that even a snail moves faster than that, half way thru the turn he braked. If he turned faster, he may avoid the accident.


People has to realize the danger of making a left turn. There are so many ifs and buts, one poor judgement can get you t boned if not killed.

[GG]

Serious question for the people putting fault at the left turner, do you even have a license and drive a car?

u must be one of the locals who cant drive worth shit. turn at will, turn whenever u want, turn when there is only one car length, turn regardless the speed of the vehicle thats coming right at u

[MarkyMark]

18 years , zero accidents 43% discount. I seen car/bike going 90-100+ gunning thru the intersection just to make thru that yellow light.


my dog was killed while jwalking and got hit by a taxi, should i blame the car? or myself? or the dog? The moment i open the fence he vtec out the door before i can put a leash on him.Guess who i blamed? myself, NOT the taxi


The doc was turning at a speed that even a snail moves faster than that, half way thru the turn he braked. If he turned faster, he may avoid the accident.


People has to realize the danger of making a left turn. There are so many ifs and buts, one poor judgement can get you t boned if not killed.

There's an acceptable amount of accountability on someone making a left turn, but I'd say it goes out the window when someone is going that fast. You just said yourself that you have only seen 90-100km/h in that situation.

It's easy to prepare for someone to blow through a yellow light because you know anyone in the vicinity of the light could decide to gun it, so you wait to see them slow down first. It's a little harder to gauge someone so far up the road that normally they wouldn't be a thought, yet you start to make the turn and they are suddenly 3 times closer than the car that was next to it.

[GG]

140 km in the city is absurd, dont get me wrong. I said 90-100km plus, maybe 120 max.


I do see your point tho


I just dont like how the media keeps portraying its a doc, its a doctor..its a god damn doctor.
its just another human being, guess the doctor is worth 10 times the life of a regular person.

IMO, 50/50 both parties at fault.
Should ken still drive like a moron and show no remorse? Absolutely not, how do i know? well he still got caught doing 100km in the city after the incident

I do agree that his license should be taken away or suspended for a period of time.

[Hakkaboy]

140 km in the city is absurd, dont get me wrong. I said 90-100km plus, maybe 120 max.


I do see your point tho


I just dont like how the media keeps portraying its a doc, its a doctor..its a god damn doctor.
its just another human being, guess the doctor is worth 10 times the life of a regular person.

IMO, 50/50 both parties at fault.
Should ken still drive like a moron and show no remorse? Absolutely not, how do i know? well he still got caught doing 100km in the city after the incident

I do agree that his license should be taken away or suspended for a period of time.

I was originally critical of the Suzuki making a really slow left turn, let's face it, we've all seen some really slow drivers out there. BUT looking at the video more closely, there was another car that was turning right onto 41st in the opposite direction to the Suzuki. That's probably the reason why the Doctor made such a slow left turn and he was probably watching THAT car and trying to avoid turning into them instead of seeing the RS4 coming down at the outrageous speed

[westopher]

18 years , zero accidents 43% discount. I seen car/bike going 90-100+ gunning thru the intersection just to make thru that yellow light.


my dog was killed while jwalking and got hit by a taxi, should i blame the car? or myself? or the dog? The moment i open the fence he vtec out the door before i can put a leash on him.Guess who i blamed? myself, NOT the taxi


The doc was turning at a speed that even a snail moves faster than that, half way thru the turn he braked. If he turned faster, he may avoid the accident.


People has to realize the danger of making a left turn. There are so many ifs and buts, one poor judgement can get you t boned if not killed.

Would you put some blame on the taxi if it was going 140km/h through your neighbourhood?

[AzNightmare]

lol, it's funny how people putting blame (or partial blame) on Dr. Hui is completely disregarding the specific scenario and the data presented, and continue to treat this like your typical generic left turner who gets smoked by a car going through the light at reasonable speeds, or even reasonable speeding speeds.

No actual counterpoints to the specifics, but just countering with irrelevant scenarios like a loose dog that gets hit by a car, or thinking because you can gauge a slow moving car, it also means you can equally gauge an excessively speeding car that's probably too far away to even be noticed in the first place.... to how it's disliked that the media is referring Dr. Hui as a doctor too much (What does that have to do with the incident??)


.

Your sig applies very well in this thread.

[kr4l]

u must be one of the locals who cant drive worth shit. turn at will, turn whenever u want, turn when there is only one car length, turn regardless the speed of the vehicle thats coming right at u

Jokes on you, I don’t even drive

[twitchyzero]

assuming that you even saw the Audi

probably takes a savant who can count the grains of sand in a sand castle or accurately guess a building's height off in the distance to be able to judge those kind of speeds within city limits

i'd bet even peace officer in traffic enforcement who are trained to gauge vehicle speeds may not expect 140kph when executing a left turn

you can't expect the average motorist to have that kind of training/insight/6th sense...there's probably a good reason why there's a no U-turn sign on highways where the median/shoulder has a break/emergency vehicle driveway

[Hakkaboy]

As I mentioned above, I doubt the Doctor ever saw the Audi as he was probably focused on the car turning right opposite him.

There's no way he can reasonably see/expect that another car would flying in when he decided to make that fatal left turn

[prudz]

So was he accelerating for 90 seconds? If he was, he was probably going pretty close to his peak 143 km/h for 2 city blocks.

If you're going to use obscure, long out-of-date definitions, you might want to make sure they match your argument.

But, of course, you're trolling, so you're just going to play coy and clever and it doesn't matter if it doesn't make any fucking sense.


I'm not using an out of date definition, i'm using what the court used. The momentary lapse in judgement. A moment is 90 seconds. So anywhere in that time period is fair game to be called a moment.

The hypocrisy on car forums is always what cracks me up and depresses me. As if everyone on these boards are angels and have never broken any laws in any kind of vehicle. Most of you act as if you have never sped. Most of us were 18 at some point driving like an asshat. Even more hypocritical most still do speed in their adult lives too. You all act like this is a scenario you could never find yourself in on either. The reality is you can spend years never speeding and decide one day you are going to open your car up for just a moment and next thing you know you end up in a situation like this. I'm also willing to bet on almost a daily basis many of you make unsafe left hand turns. Aka Vancouvers signature 3 car rule.

Reading the comments of this thread lead me to believe that licenses need to be revoked for some of you guys. I have in fact experienced fast cars flying by me in the opposite direction many, many times in my life. Have you ever turned left on a highway with a posted limit of 120km/hr? Most people are doing 140-160km/hr. Have I experienced people flying by at those same speeds in 50 or 60 zones? Ya, and trust me when I say you can tell the difference if you are paying any kind of attention. The fact you all seem to think that it is near impossible or extremely difficult to gauge this kind of speed is disturbing to me. The fact you are even on the road and can't spot cars going various different speeds is scary. It implies you are all giving at best a glance at traffic while doing a left hand turn.

Trolling, not in the slightest. The courts made a decision and thank god they made it and not the people of this thread. Pray you never find yourself in a situation where you are being tried by your peers because they apparently have very little mercy.

[prudz]

Your right. Stand in the 50km/h batting cages and see how you react when one comes at you at 140.

Are you trying to tell me that when you are making left hand turns you aren't paying attention or expecting cars to be passing you at different rates of speed? You should be assuming people are driving unsafe and most importantly watching what is coming towards you before you make that turn.

[!Aznboi128]

Are you trying to tell me that when you are making left hand turns you aren't paying attention or expecting cars to be passing you at different rates of speed? You should be assuming people are driving unsafe and most importantly watching what is coming towards you before you make that turn.
I think what he's trying to get at is judging a vehicle going 140km/h is much harder than we may think. from the time he entered the intersection to the impact he was traveling 39m/s, considering it would be about 5-6 seconds or so it's really hard to judge a vehicle 200m+ away.

[GG]

u damn right we all saints, all those speeding videos on youtube are fake, completely fake.

No one speeds in this city, hell we dont even need baby sitting from the popos on marine drive and boundary on a sunny day. overrated i tell ya
:badpokerface:

[underscore]

The hypocrisy on car forums is always what cracks me up and depresses me. As if everyone on these boards are angels and have never broken any laws in any kind of vehicle. Most of you act as if you have never sped. Most of us were 18 at some point driving like an asshat.

You do realize there's a huge gap between the kind of illegal driving most people have done and doing nearly 3x the limit, in town, in traffic, in the middle of the day, and in the wet. I'd wager a lot of people have done some douchey driving in a lot of those ways (aside from the 3x the limit) but very few people are stupid enough to combine all of them.

Even more hypocritical most still do speed in their adult lives too. You all act like this is a scenario you could never find yourself in on either. The reality is you can spend years never speeding and decide one day you are going to open your car up for just a moment and next thing you know you end up in a situation like this.

Again I'd wager plenty of people do, but they choose a much better time and place than this idiot did. The other big difference between this guy and most other people is that when normal people have a near miss they change their behavior. He had an actual accident yet still acts like a massive asshole.

To me the excessive speeding ticket he got after this accident takes away any potential "it was a momentary mistake" and rolls this guy straight into the massive sack of shit category. Most people have the decency to show some amount of remorse after their actions either caused or contributed to the death of someone, but he clearly does not.

[MarkyMark]

Oh we're acting like cruising 20km/h over the limit keeping up with traffic, or opening up the car on an open highway is the same as weaving in and out of traffic at 140km/h on a busy city street. Ok then great argument.

I guess you don't know the difference between a slap on the ass and rape either.

[westopher]

Are you trying to tell me that when you are making left hand turns you aren't paying attention or expecting cars to be passing you at different rates of speed? You should be assuming people are driving unsafe and most importantly watching what is coming towards you before you make that turn.
I’m trying to tell you, that neither fucking you, or I, would be very good at processing the information that a car 1 city block away was going to be at us in under 3 seconds.

[nsx042003]

excessive speeding is quite vague, everyone will get excessive speeding for example, on marine, going 80 @ a 50zone. Not saying Ken Chung is any right in the 140km/h thru an intersection, but i think a lot of us are drawing too much on speculation and assumption that probably doesn't mean anything.

But Ken Chung is definitely a shithead though, bet you he never braked

[kr4l]

Reading the comments of this thread lead me to believe that licenses need to be revoked for some of you guys. I have in fact experienced fast cars flying by me in the opposite direction many, many times in my life. Have you ever turned left on a highway with a posted limit of 120km/hr? Most people are doing 140-160km/hr. Have I experienced people flying by at those same speeds in 50 or 60 zones? Ya, and trust me when I say you can tell the difference if you are paying any kind of attention. The fact you all seem to think that it is near impossible or extremely difficult to gauge this kind of speed is disturbing to me. The fact you are even on the road and can't spot cars going various different speeds is scary.

It’s a little different when you’re in a 120km/h zone and people are going 140-160 and a 50km/h zone and someone doing 140.

A more apples to apples example would be if you were in a 120km/h zone with lots of traffic, cars, people and distractions waiting to turn left and someone is going 400km/h

Someone said it before that it was probably dr. Hui seeing the first car coming at about speed limit so he judged his turn on that and didn’t see the Audi. No one in their right mind would of expected someone to be going 3x speed limit

And no one will ever know if your experiences are exact or not. The other car could of been going only 100/h for all we know. You make it sound like these speeds happen all the time

[MarkyMark]

Well there's always that guy who's seen it all and came out of it without a scratch if it supports his argument.

[kross9]

The fact you are even on the road and can't spot cars going various different speeds is scary. It implies you are all giving at best a glance at traffic while doing a left hand turn.

Trolling, not in the slightest. The courts made a decision and thank god they made it and not the people of this thread. Pray you never find yourself in a situation where you are being tried by your peers because they apparently have very little mercy.


Just to the last part, so you are saying you are waiting to turn left. Double intersection car in front of you is waiting to make a LH turn from his side, vision is obscured partially. you can see normally a fair amount of distance to make a safe judgement call if you can make it.

Now this dipshit in the audi he definitely wasn't in the line of sight the Dr had, and went 150+ into the intersection. How far can you get in 5 seconds going that fast? Surely if the speeder was going 50 we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[yourself]

It’s both of their faults. There are risks when getting behind the wheel, and this is one of them. Ken took a risk speeding. The Dr took a risk turning, and it costed him his life. Both of them risked something, and it only worked out for one of them. Both could have been killed. If the doctor did not turn left blindly, there would be no crash. If Ken was going slower, there would be no crash. I believe there is equal fault here.

[Mikoyan]

To give you an idea how far the Audi was;

Reports have him going 119 kph into the intersection, slowing from 140 a block before. That's 33 m/s from 38 m/s.

At 5 seconds? That's at least 160m, Looking at Google Maps, that puts you just at W43rd. Audi was slowing down, so at 5 seconds he likely had't crossed 43rd yet.

50 to 70 kph is 13 to 20 m/s for reference.

[Jmac]

I'm not using an out of date definition, i'm using what the court used. The momentary lapse in judgement. A moment is 90 seconds. So anywhere in that time period is fair game to be called a moment.
mo·ment
ˈmōmənt/Submit
noun
noun: moment; plural noun: moments
1.
a very brief period of time.
"she was silent for a moment before replying"
synonyms: little while, short time, bit, minute, instant, second, split second; informalsec
"he thought for a moment"
an exact point in time.
"she would always remember the moment they met"
synonyms: point (in time), time, hour
"the moment they met"
an appropriate time for doing something; an opportunity.
"I was waiting for the right moment"
a particular stage in something's development or in a course of events.
"one of the great moments in aviation history"
2.
formal
importance.
"the issues were of little moment to the electorate"
synonyms: importance, import, significance, consequence, note, weight, concern, interest
"issues of little moment"
3.
PHYSICS
a turning effect produced by a force acting at a distance on an object.
the magnitude of a turning effect produced by a force acting at a distance, expressed as the product of the force and the distance from its line of action to a given point.
4.
STATISTICS
a quantity that expresses the average or expected value of the first, second, third, or fourth power of the deviation of each component of a frequency distribution from some given value, typically mean or zero. The first moment is the mean, the second moment the variance, the third moment the skew, and the fourth moment the kurtosis.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moment
Definition of moment
1 a : a minute portion or point of time : instant
a moment of dreadful suspense —Graham Greene
b : a comparatively brief period of time moments of solitude
2 a : present time
at the moment she is at work on her fourth novel —Holiday
b : a time of excellence or conspicuousness
there's … some deliciously funny moments, but most of it is numbingly subtle —Jess Cagle
3 : importance in influence or effect
decisions of moment must be made by our government —L. H. Evans
4 obsolete : a cause or motive of action
5 : a stage in historical or logical development
a document of one moment in the history of thought and sensibility in the nineteenth century —T. S. Eliot
6 a : tendency or measure of tendency to produce motion especially about a point or axis
b : the product of quantity (such as a force) and the distance to a particular axis or point
7 a : the mean (see 4mean 1b) of the nth powers of the deviations (see deviation b) of the observed values in a set of statistical data from a fixed value
b : the expected value of a power of the deviation (see deviation b) of a random variable from a fixed value
Moment | Define Moment at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moment)
noun
an indefinitely short period of time; instant:
I'll be with you in a moment.
the present time or any other particular time (usually preceded by the):
He is busy at the moment.
a definite period or stage, as in a course of events; juncture:
at this moment in history.
importance or consequence:
a decision of great moment.
a particular time or period of success, excellence, fame, etc.:
His big moment came in the final game.
Statistics. the mean or expected value of the product formed by multiplying together a set of one or more variates or variables each to a specified power.
Philosophy.
an aspect of a thing.
Obsolete.an essential or constituent factor.
Mechanics.
a tendency to produce motion, especially about an axis.
the product of a physical quantity and its directed distance from an axis:
moment of area; moment of mass.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/moment
A very brief period of time.

‘she was silent for a moment before replying’
‘a few moments later he returned to the office’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 An exact point in time.
‘she would always remember the moment they met’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 An appropriate time for doing something; an opportunity.
‘I was waiting for the right moment to tell him’
More example sentences
1.3 A particular stage in the development of something or in a course of events.
‘one of the great moments in aviation history’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2formal mass noun Importance.

‘the issues were of little moment to the electorate’
More example sentencesSynonyms
3Physics
A turning effect produced by a force acting at a distance on an object.

Example sentences
3.1 The magnitude of a turning effect produced by a force acting at a distance, expressed as the product of the force and the distance from its line of action to a given point.
Example sentences
4Statistics
A quantity that expresses the average or expected value of the first, second, third, or fourth power of the deviation of each component of a frequency distribution from a given value, typically mean or zero. The first moment is the mean, the second moment the variance, the third moment the skew, and the fourth moment the kurtosis.

Example sentences
Yeah, totally not out of date. I guess the judge totally meant the definition that hasn't been used since the middle ages. Fuck off


The hypocrisy on car forums is always what cracks me up and depresses me.
Like this kind of hypocrisy?
another incident with White Benz in Richmond.... right outside the RCMP community office too.

https://youtu.be/kDwe7SqrpZg
I wouldn't call that bad driving. He has a bunch of trees blocking his view and as the person was moving forward saw you and stopped. I'd say you are more of the idiot as you had a clear lane beside you, time to slow down, check if it's open beside you then move over. Instead you insisted on driving all the way up to his front bumper in what looks like an attempt to express your outrage.
So, in this particular case, the guy going straight is at fault (while going at or near the speed limit), but the left turner isn't a bad driver? But if the video poster were going 143 km/h and smoked the Benz, killing the Benz driver in the process, it would've been the Benz driver's fault? K

Obvious troll is obvious.

As if everyone on these boards are angels and have never broken any laws in any kind of vehicle. Most of you act as if you have never sped. Most of us were 18 at some point driving like an asshat. You still do, judging from your comments about having your vehicle impounded if you were driving in AB like you do here.

You are, after all, speed.
Even more hypocritical most still do speed in their adult lives too. You all act like this is a scenario you could never find yourself in on either. Yeah, man, everyone here totally goes 143 km/h in a 50 zone all the fucking time, especially in the rain on weekday mornings.
The reality is you can spend years never speeding and decide one day you are going to open your car up for just a moment and next thing you know you end up in a situation like this. Maybe you do. I've never decided to gun it to 143 km/h in the rain in the city in the middle of the day through intersections.
I'm also willing to bet on almost a daily basis many of you make unsafe left hand turns. Aka Vancouvers signature 3 car rule. Quality argument given you've likely never seen anyone else on here drive, let alone "many" of us.

Reading the comments of this thread lead me to believe that licenses need to be revoked for some of you guys. :lawl:
I have in fact experienced fast cars flying by me in the opposite direction many, many times in my life. Have you ever turned left on a highway with a posted limit of 120km/hr? Most people are doing 140-160km/hr. So going 16-33% > posted limit is the same as doing 186% > posted speed limit? Makes sense.
Have I experienced people flying by at those same speeds in 50 or 60 zones? Ya, and trust me when I say you can tell the difference if you are paying any kind of attention.So you've experienced people flying by at 160 km/h in the city while it's raining at 8 AM? Was this in the few years you've been in Vancouver or back in Edmonton?

The fact you all seem to think that it is near impossible or extremely difficult to gauge this kind of speed is disturbing to me. The fact you are even on the road and can't spot cars going various different speeds is scary. No one pays attention except you. Congratulations, you're the world's greatest driver.

A reasonable person wouldn't expect a vehicle to be traveling 2.86 times the speed limit or double the "normal" speed of traffic, especially in the rain at 8 AM.

A reasonable person wouldn't accelerate to 143 km/h in the rain on a city street in the middle of the day.

A reasonable person would say it's extremely unsafe to operate a motor vehicle at those speeds in those conditions and the potential for devastating consequences is extremely high.

It implies you are all giving at best a glance at traffic while doing a left hand turn. You're inferring that. We're implying nothing of the sort, moron.

Trolling, not in the slightest. The courts made a decision and thank god they made it and not the people of this thread. Pray you never find yourself in a situation where you are being tried by your peers because they apparently have very little mercy. The case is being appealed and many cases in the past have been overturned (e.g. nurse who blew through a red light and killed two people). You'd think an attentive person like yourself would've been aware of that.

Lots of people in this thread have mercy. Maybe they don't for people who do stupid shit and kill people.

Thank god you're not making the decisions, given you'd pull the licenses of anyone who disagrees with you without ever seeing them drive.

[Jmac]

excessive speeding is quite vague, everyone will get excessive speeding for example, on marine, going 80 @ a 50zone. Not saying Ken Chung is any right in the 140km/h thru an intersection, but i think a lot of us are drawing too much on speculation and assumption that probably doesn't mean anything.

But Ken Chung is definitely a shithead though, bet you he never braked
In BC, excessive speeding is defined as traveling more than 40 km/h over the speed limit.

[twitchyzero]

gonna lump anyone who's driven over 51kph in the city with what should've been man slaughter?

give us a google map example of where you can make a left turn on a highway that has 120kph limit in BC

and prudz you're still a hindsight warrior because if you're turning a left on a highway, you're expecting highway speeds...not so much on Oak street...70-80 maybe...100 tops...140 during rush hour is batshit asinine

[dared3vil0]

The fucking retard was going 140kmh in rush hour traffic in a 50kmh zone, how the hell is this debate even happening?

[trollface]

you don't need good grades to apply for any school
you don't need good credit to buy a car

but you don't believe 70k names for a local case and the subsequent news coverage and social media spotlight after only a week has any weight?

are you friends/related to the judge, defense lawyer or Ken Chung?

70k random names, all of which are completely un-verifiable if they are actually people. If you can actually read, I didn't say I agree with the outcome, I just say online petitions are 1000% useless, especially when it actually goes to court and a decision was made. No court is going to overturn a decision because XXX69playa1999 signed an online petition.

You think our courts give a fuck about social media and Instagram feeds to determine outcomes in the judicial system? Do you know why judges are entrenched? Give you a hint, it's so they can make unbias, sometimes unfavourable decisions based on the law, past cases and evidence presented without having to worry about 1000 of teens (that have not seen a shred of evidence and making emotional judgements) complaining and him losing his job.

And if you didn't catch it the first time, I did not say I agree with the outcome in this case.

[GG]

In BC, excessive speeding is defined as traveling more than 40 km/h over the speed limit.

except certain area you know the speed limit is completely bullshit

Hwy 1....90km.... LOL :badpokerface:

NO ONE does 90, and if u do, prepare to get rear end or tailgated. Everyone is going 110-130km


Marine drive.....LOL

not a single soul gonna be driving at that unreasonable speed

[whitev70r]

70k random names, all of which are completely un-verifiable if they are actually people. If you can actually read, I didn't say I agree with the outcome, I just say online petitions are 1000% useless, especially when it actually goes to court and a decision was made. No court is going to overturn a decision because XXX69playa1999 signed an online petition.

You think our courts give a fuck about social media and Instagram feeds to determine outcomes in the judicial system? Do you know why judges are entrenched? Give you a hint, it's so they can make unbias, sometimes unfavourable decisions based on the law, past cases and evidence presented without having to worry about 1000 of teens (that have not seen a shred of evidence and making emotional judgements) complaining and him losing his job.

And if you didn't catch it the first time, I did not say I agree with the outcome in this case.

You can calm the hell down ... nobody said that the petition would sway the judge's decision for a minute. The overwhelming response to the petition showed the Crown and ICBC the kind of societal outrage for the acquittal. The petition was a factor in getting the crown to appeal which is what the family wanted. Now hopefully, another common sense judge will do the right thing.

So at least we have one thing in common, we both do not agree with the outcome of this case so far.

[!Aznboi128]

except certain area you know the speed limit is completely bullshit

Hwy 1....90km.... LOL :badpokerface:

NO ONE does 90, and if u do, prepare to get rear end or tailgated. Everyone is going 110-130km


Marine drive.....LOL

not a single soul gonna be driving at that unreasonable speed
I do agree, marine drive is 50 and commercial around 1st ave is also 50. That doesn't make sense.

BUT

140 on oak mid-day is NOT ok

[twitchyzero]

cassiar to port mann southbound averages 90 in the slow lane during rush hour

if someone's impatient with me doing 100 outside the passing lane i'll drive even slower so there's less chance of a rear-ender as suggested in the driver's manual

marine drive many are often doing 70+ but there's frequent speed traps near the burnaby stretch

[yray]

Some new west fire chief cut into me on the HOV lane at grandview exit at 90km/h when I was doing the average traffic speed of 110km/h and then proceeded to do 90km/h through on the fast lane till the tunnel.

Dude is a fucking genius.

[!Aznboi128]

Some new west fire chief cut into me on the HOV lane at grandview exit at 90km/h when I was doing the average traffic speed of 110km/h and then proceeded to do 90km/h through on the fast lane till the tunnel.

Dude is a fucking genius.
Guy should see this

https://twitter.com/ISPVersailles/status/1008056619622690817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fajax%2Finset% 2Fiframe%3Fid%3Dtwitter-1008056619622690817%26autosize%3D1

[Nlkko]

Jmac rekt them.


LUL

[trollguy]

the opinions expressed by trollface are of those trollface. they do not reflect the opinions or views of the troll community or its members

[imp>dom]

It’s both of their faults. There are risks when getting behind the wheel, and this is one of them. Ken took a risk speeding. The Dr took a risk turning, and it costed him his life. Both of them risked something, and it only worked out for one of them. Both could have been killed. If the doctor did not turn left blindly, there would be no crash. If Ken was going slower, there would be no crash. I believe there is equal fault here.

W..T..F.. LOL this a troll?

[jACEDesignsLtd]

Dr. Alphonsus Hui was my family doctor and my friend's father.

Dr. Hui was the GP for most of my life as well as my family's (father, wife, son, grandfather).

I was completely devastated in 2015 when I heard the news from my friend on fb. I was in utter disbelief that someone, who helped me physically and mentally through my care needs, died sooner than I did.

It was a horrific way to die too. I don't believe that he died instantly. I wish he did though, so that he could not feel any pain. Someone who helped so many, exited this world by suffering a tragic painful death... on his way to work... to serve others. That is so unfair. I visited the crash site a number of times to personally grieve. I printed off a news article and posted it so that pedestrians who passed by would learn that Dr. Hui wasn't just anyone, but what I would deem a "contributor" to society, especially for the Chinese Elder community. He added to this world, he didn't subtract from it. Much like John Norwich aka Gwilo on revscene. (edit: I'm glad to see that there is a website memorial made for him now Dr. Alphonsus Hui: In Memorium (http://www.alphonsus.ca))

anyhow thanks for listening.

[hwangr]

Are you trying to tell me that when you are making left hand turns you aren't paying attention or expecting cars to be passing you at different rates of speed? You should be assuming people are driving unsafe and most importantly watching what is coming towards you before you make that turn.

Do you know what a red herring or a strawman argument is?

You just stated one should assume. Assumption is that you assume the cars approaching are speeding. Assumption isn't, "I assume that car is going 70 and that car is going 140."

It seems like you either don't drive, or one of those who follow all laws of the road making it dangerous for people around you so let me help you out.

Imagine going normal speeds on the highway but all of the cars around you are stationary. Then add in all the bumps, and buildings moving super fast in your peripheral vision.

Then imagine yourself being the turning car in this. There's a camouflaged car in the middle of the block ahead of you, you glance left, crash. A glance was all it took. This isn't even factoring in how the Audi was weaving through traffic. Good luck gauging that one with your road omniscience, keyboard warrior.

Yes, in theory he should have noticed how fast he was going. Yes, in theory he should have seen the Audi. Yes, in theory he should have should have should have.

But this is real life, a moment isn't fucking 90 seconds, you have other things to check for before making a quick turn, and you get used to driving around town with people going average of excess 20, not 90. If you constantly assume that anyone could be doing 140 anywhere at any given time while you're driving, you have issues. There's something called a norm. Look it up.

The accident happened because of an anomaly. It could have been prevented in theory. The conditions were just unfortunate enough that the anomaly was fatal.

[imp>dom]

Do you know what a red herring or a strawman argument is?

You just stated one should assume. Assumption is that you assume the cars approaching are speeding. Assumption isn't, "I assume that car is going 70 and that car is going 140."

It seems like you either don't drive, or one of those who follow all laws of the road making it dangerous for people around you so let me help you out.

Imagine going normal speeds on the highway but all of the cars around you are stationary. Then add in all the bumps, and buildings moving super fast in your peripheral vision.

Then imagine yourself being the turning car in this. There's a camouflaged car in the middle of the block ahead of you, you glance left, crash. A glance was all it took. This isn't even factoring in how the Audi was weaving through traffic. Good luck gauging that one with your road omniscience, keyboard warrior.

Yes, in theory he should have noticed how fast he was going. Yes, in theory he should have seen the Audi. Yes, in theory he should have should have should have.

But this is real life, a moment isn't fucking 90 seconds, you have other things to check for before making a quick turn, and you get used to driving around town with people going average of excess 20, not 90. If you constantly assume that anyone could be doing 140 anywhere at any given time while you're driving, you have issues. There's something called a norm. Look it up.

The accident happened because of an anomaly. It could have been prevented in theory. The conditions were just unfortunate enough that the anomaly was fatal.


love it. thanks.

[whitev70r]

I wonder if Traffic Division of the VPD has sophisticated enough computers to create a visual simulation. The dash cam video gave a pretty good idea of the speed of Audi (from a side view) but it would be interesting to see it from Dr. Hui's perspective, what that moment might have looked like and what a vehicle coming straight up at 140 km/hr looks like. It may settle some of this 'debate'.

[whitev70r]

There is hope .. similar but not exactly the same. But if an undercover police officer can be found guilty of speeding while on duty ... surely, the bozo (driving the Audi) will face the consequences of his actions.

Quebec police officer found guilty of speeding, causing death of 5-year-old
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-officer-guilty-boys-death-1.4751032

In a ruling issued Thursday in Longueuil, Quebec court Judge Éric Simard said there was nothing to justify the speed at which Ouellet was driving and that there were "inherent" risks in such behaviour.

"His failure to take steps to avoid such risks constitutes a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person in the same situation would follow," Simard wrote in his decision.

During the trial, Ouellet testified that the crash was unavoidable. However, the Crown argued the officer's driving behaviour that day was "objectively dangerous."

[DragonChi]

I thought Quebec law is based on the French civil system. It is different from the rest of Canada.

[Jmac]

134 km/h in a 50 zone in the snow and ice ...

[twitchyzero]

Quebecois typically drives 90 in the city
same speed regardless of road conditions and speed limit lol

[whitev70r]

Judge overturns not guilty verdict ... there is justice! Throw the bum in jail.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/legal-error-judges-declare-driver-guilty-after-appeal-of-fatal-high-speed-vancouver-crash-1.4446754

The three judges hearing the appeal of a driver's dangerous driving acquittal have overturned the lower court's acquittal, declaring him guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

The Crown had been seeking to have the BC Court of Appeal to substitute the acquittal with a conviction, rather than ordering a new trial in the high-speed 2015 crash that killed a Vancouver doctor on Oak Street, which is what the court did.

"In the end, then, the sole issue for the trial judge was whether the rapid acceleration and excessive speed Mr. Chung exhibited in the moments before the incident constituted a marked departure from the norm," said Justice Harvey Groberman as he read an oral judgement on behalf of the panel.

[twitchyzero]

1000% usless.

2 soon Jr.

[StylinRed]

"I cannot understand how I could possibly describe the driver at almost three times the speed limit into a major intersection as anything but a marked departure from the norm" said Groberman. "The speed was so wildly beyond a reasonable standard it is appropriately branded as criminal."


I still cant believe how that idiot, or how anyone, could find it a good idea to travel that fast anywhere in the city

[canali]

Toss the book at this reckless fucker...
esp when you read of how he continued to speed even after causing this needless tragedy....like wtf?!

Excerpt from the petition, link at bottom (which i encourage you to read)
"To add insult to injury, we found out that Ken Chung had a history of speeding before he killed my dad.
Furthermore... AFTER he killed my dad, he was caught street racing at 104 km/h in a residential zone in Vancouver on June 3, 2017.
He plead guilty to this Excessive Speeding offence on May 11, 2018. It's clear to us that he's still unrepentant for what he has done. "
https://www.change.org/p/david-eby-justice-for-dr-alphonsus-hui-who-was-killed-by-a-driver-going-140-km-h-in-a-50-km-h-zone

[underscore]

This guy sounds like a piece of shit to the highest degree

[mb_]

Toss the book at this reckless fucker...
esp when you read of how he continued to speed after causing this needless accident.

Excerpt from the petition:
"To add insult to injury, we found out that Ken Chung had a history of speeding before he killed my dad.
Furthermore... AFTER he killed my dad, he was caught street racing at 104 km/h in a residential zone in Vancouver on June 3, 2017.
He plead guilty to this Excessive Speeding offence on May 11, 2018. It's clear to us that he's still unrepentant for what he has done. "
https://www.change.org/p/david-eby-justice-for-dr-alphonsus-hui-who-was-killed-by-a-driver-going-140-km-h-in-a-50-km-h-zone

What the fuck. Get this guy off the fucking road.

[mr00jimbo]

What the fuck. Get this guy off the fucking road.

Off the road, into a jail cell.

[Presto]

Appeals court isn't the top level, though. Can/will this be taken to the supreme court?

[canali]

Appeals court isn't the top level, though. Can/will this be taken to the supreme court?

Presto: to your query, a reporter covering this case (see below the video in link) asked chung's lawyer this question
and he felt it too early to consider such next step.
''The judges have remitted Chung's case to provincial court for sentencing, which has not been scheduled yet.
When CTV News contacted Chung’s lawyer, Richard Fowler, to see if Chung would appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada he said it was "too early to say."....

and the reporter added (end of news video) that very few applications are accepted
for review by the supreme court anyway.

see news video..starts with the horrible video capturing Chung t-boning Hui's car.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/they-got-it-right-unexpected-guilty-verdict-in-fatal-high-speed-vancouver-crash-1.4446754

[twitchyzero]

i recall looking up cheap winter beaters with awd not long ago and the suzuki swift almost always gets recommended

yet I can't shake the image of this mangled example...then again which passenger car built even in 2019 can sustain side impact at 140kph? RIP

[underscore]

From an older article, but NHTSA does the side tests at with a 3,015-pound car traveling at 38.5 mph (62km/h). IIHS uses 3,300 pounds higher up (like a truck) but no mention of speed. According to wikipedia NCAP does it at 50km/h.

source: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2011/08/crash-test-101/index.htm

I would think the only hope of minor injuries when tboned at that speed is to have a vehicle much taller or much heavier than whatever is hitting you. Even then I'd think you'd need to be in a bus or something.

[canali]

i just stumbled across ken chung's instagram page.
https://www.instagram.com/ken_chung_audi/
so he loves dogs, is about to get engaged (or is now married), is an uncle, son etc....and yet he screwed up so badly...and repeatedly, too.
i know if i killed someone due to reckless driving that i'd plead guilty ....and would be too traumatized and overcome with
guilt, shame, fear etc to ever want to get behind the wheel again...but that he did screw up again (was caught speeding post crash)
just boggles my mind.

[TurboTalon]

How is this for a simplistic label?, he is still a skid piece of shit for doing what he did!

[Whatheshrek]

Canada is too soft on criminals charges

[spoon.ek9]

It's one thing to screw up. It's another to keep repeating your shit behaviour and show no remorse whatsoever. That's what makes him a piece of shit. You can't hide behind the "everyone makes mistake" excuse when you're found guilty of street racing AFTER you've already killed a man before.

Honestly, it boggles the mind how the first court acquitted him in the first place. Wtf??

[canali]

It's one thing to screw up. It's another to keep repeating your shit behaviour and show no remorse whatsoever. That's what makes him a piece of shit. You can't hide behind the "everyone makes mistake" excuse when you're found guilty of street racing AFTER you've already killed a man before.

Honestly, it boggles the mind how the first court acquitted him in the first place. Wtf??

Hugely agree...after seeing those pics and letting it sit in I started to get angry. I understand he still wants to continue on with his life etc.(but why post?).. but on the other hand if I was the one who killed somebody due to reckless driving I'd be so overcome with guilt, shame, self hate and fear for my safety from the public ptsd etc that I would not want to get behind the freakin wheel at all again, let alone still engage in reckless driving afterwords.
Further insults the survivors and shows what a POS he is.

This dude really should go to jail for a few yrs serving the FULL term (good luck with that in Canada)
and also have his driving privileges taken away for good.

[AzNightmare]

i just stumbled across ken chung's instagram page.
https://www.instagram.com/ken_chung_audi/
..it gives him a human perspective unlike the simplistic ''monster '' label we can so easily attach to one for had actions
he has a love of dogs, is an uncle, son etc....and yet he screwed up so badly...and repeatedly, too.
i know if i killed someone due to reckless driving that i'd plead guilty ....and would be too traumatized and overcome with
guilt, shame, fear etc to ever want to get behind the wheel again...but that he did screw up again (was caught speeding post crash)
just boggles my mind.

I don't give a fuck if he loves a dog.
The dog deserves a better owner.

He's not a monster. He's just simply an idiot and a piece of shit that's a danger to everyone else on the road.

[E-SPEC]

140 KM in a 50 zone is fucking insane!

[E-SPEC]

Maybe some vigilante will find him and kill him. I mean the courts aren’t giving any justice. An eye for an eye.

[320icar]

140 KM in a 50 zone is fucking insane!

Saturday at Iona beach in the 30kmh zone an STI filled with teens (with a dealer plate hanging off the back) passed me at a conservative 140kmh. At like 5pm when families and cyclists are abundant.

Speeding is fun. Cars are fun. Pick a time and a place for fucks sake

[Badhobz]

go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks you piece of rat shit. I hope you rot in jail.

[jasonturbo]

Called this 16-Jun-2018, it made zero sense that the accused was acquitted.

Shame the accused missed his chance to show remorse and negotiate a decent guilty plea that might have kept him out of prison.. I would say he’s looking at 2-4 years.



It's quite clear that the accident caused death, the question then becomes "was the driving dangerous?"

Criminal Code of Canada (Dangerous Driving)

249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place.


The Offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death



[59] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Beatty, supra, restated the test in R. v. Hundal, supra, for dangerous driving at page 247:


A) The Actus Reus



The trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was, in the words of the section, driving in a manner that was "dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle was being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place".

B) The Mens Rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused)



The trier of fact must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's objectively dangerous conduct was accompanied by the required mens rea. In making the objective assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence about the accused's actual state of mind, if any, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused's circumstances. Moreover, if an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused.



[60] Chief Justice McLachlin concurring in the result, concluded the correct statement of the law as follows:


1) The actus reus requires a marked departure from the normal manner of driving.

2) The mens rea is generally inferred from the marked departure in the nature of driving. Based on the finding of a marked departure, it is inferred that the accused lacked the requisite mental state of care of a reasonable person.

3) While generally the mens rea is inferred from the act constituting a marked departure committed by the accused, the evidence in a particular case may negate or cast a reasonable doubt on this inference.



[61] Justice Fish, also concurring in the result, stated the test as follows:



The fault element, however, is not the marked departure from the norm of a reasonably prudent driver but the fact that a reasonably prudent driver in the accused’s circumstances would have been aware of the risk of that conduct, and if able to do so, would have acted to avert it. This requisite mental element may only be inferred where the impugned conduct represents a marked departure from the norm; it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he or she operated the motor vehicle in a dangerous manner.

I think the appeal is valid based on the argument that travelling 140km/h in a 50km/h zone represents a marked departure from the normal manner of driving.

I'm willing to bet that the accused will be back in court shortly.


Somewhat related, dangerous driving causing death vs. manslaughter (It's a bit of a read)


History of Manslaughter, Criminal Negligence And Dangerous Driving



[88] In order to resolve this issue, it is necessary to review the history of those offences. The offence of “motor manslaughter” has never existed. It is a euphemism for manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle. Manslaughter and culpable homicide for these purposes has changed little since the 1892 Criminal Code and has remained in its present form since the 1953-54 Code.


[89] Since 1892 the Code has included an offence of negligence causing grievous bodily harm. It was not until 1910 when an offence referred to a motor vehicle. That offence was driving in a wanton or furious manner or racing and causing bodily harm. In 1938 a further offence was created of reckless or dangerous driving.



[90] In 1955 the Code was completely revised and the offence of operating a motor vehicle in a criminally negligent manner was created. The offences of driving in a wanton or furious manner as well as reckless or dangerous driving were repealed. Dangerous driving was re-introduced in 1961 in basically the same language as section 249(1) today. In 1985 dangerous driving was broken down into subsections distinguishing between dangerous driving simpliciter, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing death with maximum penalties increasing on a scale of seriousness.


[91] Criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle was repealed in 1985 and replaced with the wording in effect today which does not refer to the operation of a motor vehicle. There are separate penalties for criminal negligence causing death and causing bodily harm. Therefore, since 1985 there has not been a specific offence of causing death by operating a motor vehicle constituting criminal negligence or manslaughter.


[92] However, there are two sections in the Code that make it clear the operation of a motor vehicle is intended to apply to both criminal negligence and manslaughter. In 1930 a subsection was introduced to Section 951 which dealt with included offences generally. The new subsection, 951(3), declared that in a charge of manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, the accused could be found not guilty of that offence but guilty of criminal negligence. In 1938, the subsection was changed to make the included offence reckless or dangerous driving. In 1955 the subsection was repealed and not replaced until 1961 when it was added back into the Code as section 569(4). In 1985 the subsection was again repealed and re-enacted as subsection 662(5) as it is today. This was done at the same time as the amendments were made to section 249, splitting dangerous driving into dangerous driving simpliciter, dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death. Subsection 662(5) makes dangerous driving an included offence to criminal negligence causing bodily harm and death, and manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle.


[93] The other section that speaks of manslaughter and criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle is section 259 which addresses driving prohibitions. The offence of manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle is expressly contemplated in authorizing driving prohibitions. Section 259 was most recently amended in July of 2008 and section 259(2) grants the court discretion to impose a driving prohibition if the offender is convicted of criminal negligence, manslaughter, or dangerous driving, among others, if the offence was committed by means of a motor vehicle.


[94] In my view, it is clear that Parliament intended the offence of manslaughter to be available where death arises out of the operation of a motor vehicle and always has since at least 1930 when section 951(3) was introduced. Commentators have speculated that the amendments were designed to address the reluctance of judges and juries to convict of manslaughter where death arose out of the operation of a motor vehicle. T. D. MacDonald, Q.C. in the article Careless, Negligent, Reckless, Operation of Motor Vehicles at (1963), 6 Canadian Bar Journal 122 stated at page 123:


The awesomeness of the word “manslaughter”, and even the fearsomeness of the words “criminal negligence”, have apparently prevented jurors, most of whom themselves operate motor vehicles, from bringing in verdicts of guilty where the facts warranted and even demanded such a verdict.



[95] This view was also expressed in Harris’s Criminal Law 22nd ed. (1993, Sweet and Maxwell, London) page 445, and in Mewett and Manning Criminal Law, (1978, Butterworths, Toronto), page 466, as well as in R. v. Williams (1982) 63 C.C.C. (2d) 141 (Man. C.A.) at page 148.


Case Authorities



[96] R. v. Williams, supra, is the only case that appears to have dealt with this issue, although in unique circumstances. In that case the offender had been drinking and was driving on the wrong side of the road, causing a head-on collision with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, killing two persons and injuring two others. He was charged with two counts of manslaughter by an unlawful act, two counts of criminal negligence causing death, two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and one count of impaired driving. The trial judge found his conduct fell within the definition of criminal negligence and convicted him of unlawful act manslaughter. The Crown stayed all other charges.


[97] The Court of Appeal found there was no difference between the offence of causing death by criminal negligence, and committing manslaughter by criminal negligence. However, he was not charged with criminal negligence manslaughter. They invited the Crown to re-open the stay of the criminal negligence charges stating they would convict of criminal negligence causing death. The Crown refused, insisting the offender be convicted on the basis of dangerous driving or impaired driving as the predicate offences of unlawful act manslaughter notwithstanding that criminal negligence had been proven.


[98] The Court stated at pages 150 - 151:


Mr. Williams has been found guilty of performing unlawful acts but in association with circumstances of criminal negligence. ...what should be a clear case of causing death by criminal negligence or committing manslaughter by criminal negligence has been obfuscated by the form of the charge... In my respectful view, it would not be right to convict the accused of manslaughter by means of an unlawful act where the evidence leads to a verdict of guilty on one or other of two other charges.


...The result, technical though it may be, must be the setting aside of the verdict of guilty of manslaughter by means of an unlawful act. But it is open to us to enter a conviction for dangerous driving under s. 589(5) [now 662(5)] of the Code where the evidence supports that verdict. I have no doubt that the evidence here proves that offence.



[99] In my view, the Court of Appeal was prepared to confirm a verdict of manslaughter by criminal negligence if it had been open to them by the wording of the charge. This is made clear by the court at page 149:


Obviously, it is contemplated that a manslaughter charge may be laid in motor vehicle cases; no distinction in this regard is made between manslaughter by means of an unlawful act or manslaughter by criminal negligence. ...While prosecutions in motor vehicle cases under s. 205(5)(a) [culpable homicide by means of an unlawful act] are rare, we are obliged to consider manslaughter committed by means of an unlawful act as an offence which has been continued and still exists under the Code.



[100] However, the court did not explain why they were not prepared to confirm the conviction for unlawful act manslaughter when they were prepared to convict of the predicate offence of dangerous driving even though they were convinced the conduct amounted to criminal negligence.


Elements of Manslaughter



[101] In R. v. Creighton, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the elements of unlawful act manslaughter. The essential requirements for the offence are:


a) an unlawful act in the sense of being a criminal offence that

b) is dangerous in the sense of carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to another that

c) results in death, if

d) it is objectively foreseeable that there is a risk of bodily harm that is more than merely trivial or transitory.



[102] At paragraph 12, McLachlin, J. stated:



So the test for the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter in Canada, as in the United Kingdom, is (in addition to the mens rea of the underlying offence) objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm which is neither trivial nor transitory, in the context of a dangerous act. Forseeability of the risk of death is not required.



[103] It therefore can be seen that dangerous driving causing death does not on its own amount to unlawful act manslaughter. The essential requirement to convict of dangerous driving is driving in a manner that is dangerous to the public. Danger to the public does not necessarily involve a risk of bodily harm. It could involve a risk of property damage arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The mens rea of dangerous driving is the objective foreseeability of the risk and danger involved in the conduct that amounts to the danger to the public. For that conduct to amount to unlawful act manslaughter, it must meet the additional test of objective forseeability of the risk of bodily harm, which is neither trivial nor transitory in the conduct of the dangerous act. The meeting of this additional test would allow a conviction for the more serious offence of unlawful act manslaughter when the unlawful act is dangerous driving causing death and to increase the maximum from 14 years to life imprisonment.


[104] However, no additional requirement is necessary for criminal negligence causing death to also constitute manslaughter by criminal negligence. Criminal negligence requires conduct that amounts to a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others based on an objective test of awareness of that risk. Therefore, the objective forseeability of the risk of bodily harm
test has already been met to convict of criminal negligence and nothing further must be proven to convict of manslaughter. The maximum for both offences is life imprisonment. If manslaughter is charged and criminal negligence causing death is proven, it follows a conviction for manslaughter can be entered. The wording of the manslaughter charges in this Information are left open to be proven by any manner of culpable homicide unlike the wording in the Williams Indictment. It is therefore open to the trial court to convict of manslaughter by criminal negligence if criminal negligence causing death is proven, or to convict of unlawful act manslaughter if dangerous driving causing death is proven, and the additional element of objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm is proven. As I have found criminal negligence causing death has been proven, so has the offence of manslaughter by criminal negligence, since they are identical. That is the same conclusion the Manitoba Court of Appeal came to in Williams, supra, at page 148:



It is difficult to discern any difference between the offence of causing death by criminal negligence under s. 203 [now s. 220] and the offence of committing manslaughter by criminal negligence under s. 205(5)(b) [now s. 225(5)(b)]. In my view, it cannot be said generally that causing death by criminal negligence is "entirely different" from the offence of manslaughter.


[105] The Supreme Court of Canada also came to this conclusion when dealing with a charge of criminal negligence causing death in a different context not involving the operation of a motor vehicle in R. v. Morrisey (2001), 2000 SCC 39 (CanLII), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at pages 28 and 29:


First, the analysis cannot be confined to the specific offence contained in s. 220(a) of the Code. There is a great deal of overlap between some of the culpable homicides which are not classified as murder, such as unlawful act manslaughter and manslaughter by criminal negligence. Moreover, there is no difference between the offence charged here and manslaughter by criminal negligence. Section 222(5)(b) of the Criminal Code, read in conjunction with s. 234, makes clear that the offence of criminal negligence causing death is a type of manslaughter; see also R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at pg. 41-42 per McLachlin, J. (as she then was)...



The circumstances of this case palpably demonstrate the overlap: the accused was initially charged with manslaughter and there is nothing in the record that explains why he was committed for trial on the charge of criminal negligence causing death rather than on the original charge of manslaughter. Nothing turns on this since the two are totally interchangeable.



[106] I therefore conclude, based on these authorities, that manslaughter by criminal negligence and criminal negligence causing death, are identical offences and interchangeable so that proof
of criminal negligence causing death in the operation of a motor vehicle is also proof of manslaughter.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Is it because Oak Street is a continuation of Hwy 99 that people drive so stupidly fast, not adjusting from highway driving to city driving?

What really bothers me about all the speeding is the Children's Hospital being there. All the out of town families driving up and down Oak Street taking in or leaving with their sick kid, buying groceries, grabbing take out, using local businesses to get change for parking, etc. Coming in from the FV before the tolls were removed, we often took the 99/Oak St. route. If there is anything that could make those situations worse, its senseless tragedy like this.

[spoon.ek9]

There is absolutely no excuse for doing 140km/hr in a 50 zone. Any way you cut it, it's reckless.

[canali]

Problem is...let's say he gets 2-3yrs...will most likely be out in 1/3 of that term on good behaviour...total bullshit.
At least the victim's family can go after suing his ass....
more lawyers fees for him.

[spoon.ek9]

Honestly, I think the absolute bare minimum he should get is a lifetime ban from driving. Any sort of jail time would be a bonus.

[twitchyzero]

no jail time but cut off the lead foot :derp:

[spoon.ek9]

reason being, jail time in this country is a joke. unfortunately.

[DragonChi]

If you murder someone with a gun, pretty sure you get a lifetime ban on guns. It should make sense if that applied to vehicles.

[Jmac]

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/supreme-court-rules-against-speeder-in-dangerous-driving-case

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal.

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says a reasonable person should foresee the risk of driving almost three times the speed limit towards a major city intersection.

The decision today comes in the case of Ken Chung, who hit and killed a driver in Vancouver in November 2015.

Chung, who was driving at 140-kilometres-an-hour in a 50-kilometre-an-hour zone, was acquitted at trial of dangerous driving causing death.

The judge found Chung’s speeding was only momentary and therefore amounted to a lapse of judgment rather than a significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver.

An appeal court overturned the decision and entered a conviction, prompting Chung to take his case to the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the high court says the trial judge’s fixation on the momentariness of the speeding was an error of law.

[whitev70r]

Good that reason and intelligence prevailed. Fire that moronic judge who came down with original acquittal.

Does this move toward sentencing now?

[Teriyaki]

Some good news in all this mess.

[whitev70r]

Today's sentencing ... 18 months in jail for Mr. Ken Chung. We all know that the time doesn't equate to the damage or consequences but somewhat satisfied that he got some time in the slammer for his crime. Damn thing took like 4.5 years ... !!! They have got to fix that.

B.C. man convicted of dangerous driving in horrific high-speed crash gets 18 months in jail

https://globalnews.ca/news/7370030/ken-chung-high-speed-crash-alphonsus-hui/

[twitchyzero]

wow change.org came through for once

[Great68]

Well, all the comments earlier in this thread pinning the blame solely on the Dr.'s left turn really aged well. :lol