
SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured. - gmen
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dead-23-injured-car-plows-crowd-sxsw-texas-article-1.1720095
======
techpeace
Long-time Austinite here. This is indeed a sad day, and our thoughts are of
course with those who were affected. At the very least, I hope that this
situation will cause us to make real strides toward improving the currently
deplorable state of public transportation in this city, as it's now proving to
be a real danger to human life.

I've lived here 12 years, and the only improvements to public transportation
infrastructure in that time have been the addition of a single train line and
a few of those long buses that bend in the middle. As the fastest growing city
in the country, a city that relies so heavily on the tax revenues generated by
the ~2 weeks of debauchery that is SXSW, we'll need to seriously improve the
ability to move folks around without automobiles or the maddening traffic and
inability to safely be on the roads (or, indeed, standing near the roads)
between 1:30AM-3:30AM will continue to plague us.

~~~
the_watcher
As someone who has lived in Los Angeles (which has actually horrible public
transit in that it doesn't exist really and is expensive), and now Austin -
while our public transit here is sub-optimal, it's far from the worst in the
country, and you actually can get most places with it (I lived here for 18
months with no car, so I am intimately familiar with it).

~~~
techpeace
True, but "far from worst in the country" and "capable of dealing with the
city's growth" are two different things. I'm originally from Arlington, Texas,
which actually held the distinction until very recently of being the largest
city in North America with absolutely no form of public transport whatsoever.
I've seen both ends of the spectrum, and Austin still falls far short of where
we need to be.

There's also the problem of finding a ride home after the bars close, which is
far less doable given our current system. We also need to rapidly expand the
light rail system, but efforts to do so seem to be floundering at City Hall.

~~~
the_watcher
>>There's also the problem of finding a ride home after the bars close

Completely agree here, but this has a really easy solution: let in Uber, Lyft,
Sidecar, etc.

------
trippy_biscuits
When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the
lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution
for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve
the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may
help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on
investment. Why can't we do something to prevent self-inflicted suffering?
Those people did not need to die. While I don't consume alcohol I don't see
why a person that has consumed alcohol should be transformed into a homicidal
idiot after getting into the driver's seat. Since we can't seem to limit DUI,
perhaps we can we make a car that won't operate when the driver is
incapacitated? Although, I would oppose any legislation that forces such
technology on everyone. To be sure, this remains a tough problem to solve (1).
Rather than working around the problem (removing drivers or reducing the need
to drive, limiting/controlling alcohol, etc) how should we address the issue?
If we could stop alcohol-impaired driving the United States could save USD$51
billion per year and prevent over 10,000 deaths annually.

1\.
[http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-
drv_factsheet.html)

~~~
jakobe
Preventing DUI is a difficult problem. A much easier problem would be to
prevent speeding. Put a GPS in every car that prevents the car from driving
faster than the speed limit. All the technology exists, and this would
doubtlessly save lives, but somehow I doubt anybody would pass the required
laws.

~~~
freehunter
I always wonder why we make cars that can go so fast. Even my car with a 1.4L
engine making 100 HP can easily do 100mph, even though there's almost no place
in the US where that's legal, and no place in my state where it's legal. The
fastest speed limit in my state is 70mph. Why not speed-limit cars to 70mph by
default, with an option to disable this limiter in a controlled fashion if the
person wants to go out on a racetrack where these speeds are legal?

There are obviously arguments in favor of personal liberty that would make
some people uncomfortable with this, but they shouldn't be. No one should be.
If the speed limit on the road is 70mph, there is no reason for your car to be
doing more than 70mph on the road, period. I don't care that you want to pass
a vehicle that is only doing 69mph, you'll either lower your speed or pass
them at 1mph (which, at least in my state, is also illegal. To pass someone,
they must be doing at least 5mph under the speed limit, and you can't break
the speed limit in order to pass someone).

Now, it wouldn't help in this situation, but it's something that's always
bothered me. As we make better and better performing entry-level cars, we
can't change the laws of physics. 90mph isn't unheard of as a common cruising
speed on a road where the minimum speed limit is 45mph. That's just stupid and
dangerous.

~~~
jcromartie
Speeding is not involved in the majority of fatal accidents.

~~~
jakobe
That is a pretty bold statement. Pretty much all fatal accidents I've heard
about involved speeding in some way. Now, anecdotes aren't reliable, so do you
have some numbers to back up your claim?

~~~
overdrivetg
"Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding? A. No, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all
fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means
that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the
accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that
speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of
Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by
speeding is very low, 2.2 percent."

from [http://www.motorists.org/speed-
limits/faq](http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq)

Q: Is the National Motorists Association a reliable source for this data?

A: I did the 30 seconds of work to go and Google this, go find your own stats
if you don't like mine.

~~~
jakobe
> 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related"

Almost all accidents are "speed related". Very few accidents happen with cars
standing still.

------
smackfu
Here's a good map of the incident:
[http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2014/03/13/5f/...](http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2014/03/13/5f/e0/sxsw-
mohawk-auto-fatal.JPG)

Seems like the drunk made a run for it but mistakenly went down a street that
was closed for pedestrians, which is why there were so many injuries.

------
aspensmonster
>At a mid-morning press conference Thursday, officials said eight people were
still in the hospital. Five were in critical condition, and three were listed
as serious.

I just... I just... WTF. Just WTF. We've had injuries and incidents at SXSW
before, but nothing like this. Normally it's just busy nights for paramedics
filled with minor injuries. A diabetic might get too drunk to remember to take
insulin, or someone might just dehydrate and pass out. The worst I remember is
bicyclists hitting pedestrians. I'd like to think the driver was just
completely and totally blacked out, but his behaviour certainly seems to
indicate at least a modicum of awareness of what he was doing, what with
stopping at the gas station as though he were complying with the stop before
deciding to tear down the Red River district.

>He was facing two counts of capital murder and 23 counts of aggravated
assault with a vehicle, Acevedo said.

We'll be hearing about this case for the next year at least.

~~~
untog
I don't want to take away from how awful this was, but in 2010 there were
10,228 people killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes[1] - that's 28 each
day.

So no, I don't think we'll be hearing about this case for the next year - it's
actually depressingly typical. It just happens to have occurred at a large
event that Hacker News has a strong connection to.

[1]
[http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-
drv_factsheet.html)

~~~
aspensmonster
The incidents definitely are depressingly typical on a long enough time scale
and with a large enough area. Maybe self-driving cars _will_ eventually solve
this problem, assuming they don't come with their own problems too. Granted,
we felt the same way about airplanes, but it certainly seems that far more
airplane crashes are a matter of human error than something the pilot couldn't
have controlled. I would _love_ to be able to just nap while my car
chauffeured me between San Marcos and Austin every day though...

Seeing as I live in Austin though, I suspect we'll all hear about this on the
news occasionally, if only for summaries of the proceedings as they unfold
over time.

------
jmz92
I was two blocks away at Stubb's when this was going on, and I walked through
that area many times already during SXSW. I very rarely realize how fragile my
life is, but events like this make it real.

------
csbrooks
My wife was at the Mohawk, an hour and a half before this happened. :( Pretty
scary.

------
dpritchett
Terrible. I hope this wasn't exarcerbated by a high-speed pursuit.

~~~
smackfu
Nope. From another article:

"The suspect was asked to pull over at a sobriety check point and instead sped
away from a police car. He smashed through a police barricade and then plowed
down people, some of them lined up outside a nightclub, over a span of two
blocks."

~~~
jcromartie
This should still raise the question: do sobriety checkpoints save lives? Even
though this was the fault of the driver, and obviously an extremely rare
event, would those people still be alive if the driver had just gone home?

I'm not anti-checkpoint or anything.

~~~
rosser
These specific people would, yes. But how many more people would risk driving
drunk if they knew there were no sobriety checkpoints?

~~~
jcromartie
It's clear that sobriety checkpoints aren't killing people left and right
(that's preposterous). But it's not clear (edit: to me) if they actually save
any lives for the effort.

~~~
tercer_ojo
yes, it's clear that they do save lives. maybe you should say "i'm not
certain" instead of "it's not clear". and also maybe grow up some common
sense.

~~~
Crito
What makes you say that it is clear? Could you link the study that you have in
mind?

~~~
doktrin
> _Could you link the study that you have in mind?_

Why do you feel a study is needed in order to form an opinion on this? What
logical arguments would you make against sobriety checkpoints?

In any case, turns out that at least one study has been performed. This was
just the first google search hit. There's probably more out there.

[1]
[http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/check...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/checkpoint.html)

[2]
[http://www.wrap.org/pdfs/2010TIPElderCDCPaper.pdf](http://www.wrap.org/pdfs/2010TIPElderCDCPaper.pdf)

~~~
jcromartie
At least in CA, an increased checkpoint effort saw a stall followed by an
increase in drunk driving fatalities. But this data obviously doesn't account
for a lot of variables.

[http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/06/41411/california-
drunk-d...](http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/06/41411/california-drunk-
driving-fatalities-inch-up-after/)

------
IpxqwidxG
So sad :(

These incidences always force me to think something is wrong -- _seriously
wrong_ \-- with this world. But keeping the faith.

~~~
Codhisattva
Well, "impaired meta-consciousness" is the problem. It's a fact of human life
that when drinking, a person reaches a point where they are no longer able to
make rational judgments. Not only about their actions but also about the level
of impairment they are experiencing.

This is why drunks are dangerous - after X drinks they look at their car and
think "I've got this" when in fact they are so drunk they don't know what they
have anymore.

~~~
Crito
I've been drunk enough to loose consciousness my fair share of times, but I
have never been drunk enough to do something like get behind the wheel of a
car. If that point of drunkenness exists for me, it exists beyond the "alcohol
poisoning, facedown on the floor" point.

Alcohol is often used as an excuse for poor behavior, but in practice with
most people it does not have the power to induce most of the behavior that has
ever been attributed to it. For example, I might run my mouth and be
inconsiderate of other peoples feelings when too drunk, but when _I_ am drunk,
I don't start fist fights. The difference? Being inconsiderate of the feelings
of others is something that I sometimes want to do but hold back on while
sober; starting fistfights is never something that crosses my mind while
sober.

For _most_ people, alcohol does not turn them into a different person. It
distorts aspects of who they are, blowing some out of proportion, but it
doesn't completely replace their set of priorities and desires with ones alien
to them.

This is almost certainly not this persons first time driving while drunk.
Almost certainly, this person has driven drunk before, sobered up afterwards
and realized what the did, and then did little to nothing to prevent it from
happening again. A person who drives while drunk is a person with a carefree
attitude towards drunk driving even when they sober.

~~~
dllthomas
My experience has been similar to yours, but I am not confident that there
isn't enough variation in human cognition and physiology that wouldn't still
wind up with a lot of drunk drivers if every instance of driving drunk was as
described above. This is not inconsistent with the notion that the
predominance of effects of drinking on personality/behavior have more of a
social basis than a chemical one (as studies have suggested, IIRC).

~~~
Crito
Oh, I definitely think that there are people for who might tend to drive drunk
after drinking. I'm just saying that _" but I made the decision to drive drunk
while drunk"_ doesn't get any sympathy from me.

Even if that sort of behavior while drunk caught them _completely_ off guard
the first time it happened (which I think is very unlikely, though not
impossible), they later made the decision _while sober_ to drink again. The
made that decision while sober and with the knowledge that when drunk, they do
things like drive drunk.

Edit:

Brief responses, since my commenting appears to be limited at the moment:

justin66: I am _not_ like the person that did this. I do not steal cars. I
don't drive while drunk. I don't flee the police when pulled over. I would
never flee on foot after crashing into other cars and people. People who drive
while drunk typically do it frequently. I never have.

Codhisattva: _" meta-consciousness impairment occurs well before losing
consciousness from alcohol poisoning."_ I am not saying that I have never been
impaired. I am saying that despite being impaired many times, I have never
been impaired in such a way that I had any desire to drive while drunk, or any
delusions about my ability to do so.

unclebucknasty: _" Yet, you are questioning the judgment of someone who,
instead of repeatedly drinking himself into a potential coma, stops somewhere
short of that and decides he can operate a vehicle."_ You bet your ass I am. I
may have endangered my life while having a little to much fun in college, but
I never drove while drunk, and I never killed anybody.

 _" Well, that's the thing: the grandparent is judging people who drive drunk
repeatedly, while he himself repeatedly drinks to the point of losing
consciousness. I just don't see the difference."_

I'm going to go with the most obvious difference being body-count. That is
obvious right?

Furthermore, don't worry for my health. As I have mentioned on HN in the
recent past, my current drinking is down to 4-6 nights a month. I am drawing
on my experience drinking, not currently struggling with drinking.

I take exception to your implication that drunk driving is some sort of
inevitable phenomenon that people who drink to the point of drunkenness are
powerless to avoid through anything but luck. Drunk driving only happens _if
you allow it to happen_. If you drive drunk, it isn't because of alcohol, it
is because of _you_. There is nobody and no _thing_ to blame but yourself.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I don't know, but there seems to be an awful lot of rationalization taking
place in this and your previous comment.

As a person who drinks socially and is well-aware of my limits, I've rarely
moved past a slight buzz. So, when I see a person state that they've
repeatedly been drunk to the point of losing consciousness, I think, "now, why
would a person do that?" I would have to think that there is at least some
impairment when an already extremely inebriated person decides to continue
drinking to the point where the only thing that stops him is that he
physically cannot continue because he is unconscious.

Yet, you are questioning the judgment of someone who, instead of repeatedly
drinking himself into a potential coma, stops somewhere short of that and
decides he can operate a vehicle.

I just don't see the difference except that, of course, you can claim moral
superiority in that you are _presumably_ only endangering yourself vs. others.
But, therein lies the rationalization. And, of course, if you repeatedly drink
to the point wherein you literally lose control of your body, then perhaps
it's only a matter of time before you endanger someone else somewhere along
the continuum of inebriation.

~~~
dllthomas
It's quite a bit easier to drink to that point with some drinks (higher proof)
and in some contexts than others (shots vs sipping, peer pressure,
distractions). I've never passed out drinking, but I've certainly wound up
drunker than I expected on occasion. For someone substantially lighter than I,
it could probably sneak up even easier. That said, if someone does so
_regularly_ there is probably something else going on.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _It 's quite a bit easier to drink to that point..._

Well, that's the thing: the grandparent is judging people who drive drunk
repeatedly, while he himself repeatedly drinks to the point of losing
consciousness. I just don't see the difference. Why is one "sneaking up on
you" any better than the other? Why does one demonstrate better judgment when
inebriated than the other?

> _That said, if someone does so regularly there is probably something else
> going on._

Well, that would be my take. Or at least that perhaps that person isn't in the
position they think to cast judgment on others who make poor choices when
inebriated.

I don't know if there's anyone alive who drinks even occasionally and hasn't
gone further than they expected. But, it's generally a good distance between
"drunker than I thought" and "I almost went into a coma". And, if it happens
once or twice, then OK, but repeatedly? Seems like you'd be aware of the
dangers you mentioned at some point, which ironically was the grandparent's
judgment about repeat drunk drivers.

And that's the irony that was just a bit too much. It's weird, because there
doesn't seem to be contrition or anything. Just, "yeah, I'm known to
repeatedly drink myself unconscious, but look at the choices _those guys_ make
when drunk".

~~~
dllthomas
Mostly fair.

 _" Why does one demonstrate better judgment when inebriated than the other?"_

Well, I do think putting yourself at risk should be judged less harshly than
putting others at risk.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Well, I do think putting yourself at risk should be judged less harshly
> than putting others at risk._

Perhaps when judged externally by others. But, when the person is judging
himself less harshly in a way that justifies his own questionable behavior,
then it comes off as rationalization.

And, again, to say he is only harming himself is part of the fallacy that he
is somehow exercising better judgment. That is, I believe that someone who
exercises the poor judgement to repeatedly drink himself into unconsciousness
is very much susceptible to exercising equally poor judgment, while in that
inebriated state, that could result in harm to others. It just hasn't happened
yet.

~~~
dllthomas
Possibly, but I don't think this is clear at all.

------
paddy_m
Good thing APD is protecting the public by keeping Uber out. The driver was
definitely at fault, but we need to seriously look at how we design cities and
laws. If the only way to get around in a city is to drive, people are going to
drive drunk. Make it easier for people to get around without driving, and
there will be less drunk driving.

People will seek out jurisdictions where driving is less necessary because
they are safer there.

~~~
jessedhillon
I am just going to venture a guess that the kind of person who steals a car
and flees cops -- first in a car and then on foot -- is not in Uber's target
demographic.

~~~
dllthomas
Uber getaway drivers is an amusing thought.

------
angersock
To be fare, he didn't have anyone in his car at the time, so Uber isn't
liable.

EDIT:

So, was this a stupid local, a dumb kid from UT, or one of the startup brats
from the coast?

EDIT2:

"Acevedo said officers initially tried to pull Owens over at a gas station on
the Interstate 35 service road around 12:30 a.m. Thursday. _Fort Hood
officials tell KVUE that the Toyota he was driving was reported stolen in
Killeen._ "

Huh, interesting.

~~~
Jtsummers
1) Fair, not fare.

2) Uber's not involved, unless that was intended as sarcasm of some sort.

3) Per the article, the identity of the driver hasn't been revealed. EDIT:
Seems the article was edited?

~~~
aspensmonster
Yes. Driver identified as "Rashad Charjuan Owens, 21."

