[phil21]

> It doesn't matter if I were to run someone over when it's dark. I would still be accountable.

As long as you weren't drinking or otherwise found to be obviously negligent this is typically not the case.

The interesting part of this to me is that the police are treating this as if it were a human driver and holding the car to that level of responsibility. A human driver would not be charged with anything for a typical accident like this one (hitting a pedestrian in low light conditions outside of a crosswalk on a high speed road).

The court case will happen since this is so high profile, but if an average Joe driving the exact same route home from work had hit her, it likely would not even go that far.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>A human driver would not be charged with anything for a typical accident like this one (hitting a pedestrian in low light conditions outside of a crosswalk on a high speed road).

It wasn't low light conditions and it isn't a high speed road. It most definitely could be pushed to court in the case of a human driver.

[jessaustin]

It would go to court if the victim were a young white woman, or an older white woman with money, and the perpetrator were not one of those. A white male victim might have a chance at "justice" if the driver were a minority. A drunk driver would be more likely, but by no means certain, to be charged with anything more than drunk driving. The victim in this case was 49, has been described as homeless (I automatically discount this detail in reporting on pedestrian fatalities), and she had a bicycle. Not the sort of person who inspires prosecutors to inconvenience upstanding taxpayers.