In Netherland, max speed is usually 30 kph (about 20mph) when there's any chance of interacting with other traffic (bikes or pedestrians). The idea of walking along a busy road where cars go 45 mph is ridiculous. Separate the traffic streams and give them crosswalk with traffic lights, or slow down the cars.

You don't drive a car without willingness to kill

It has been a while since I've come across a statement that leaves me wondering how anyone came to such a disconnect with reality. Watching these mental gymnastics is making me sea sick.

I drive a car with a willingness to get from where I am to where I'm going, quickly. A comparison to a gun is just retarded: guns are killing machines because that is their sole purpose. The purpose of cars is fast transport of people and cargo.

Now, "murder" needs to show intent, and it sounds like you're concluding anyone who is killed by a car is murdered because drivers must intend on killing someone simply because they got behind the wheel. I'm going to go ahead and assume you either a) don't have any friends or family who drive, or, more likely, b) don't have any friends and don't talk to your family.

You dont drive a car without willingness to kill.

eeeeh might be time for a break

I think your high ping has caused you to be disconnected with reality, try rebooting your modem.

I think you mean "involuntary manslaughter children" not "murder".

Involuntary manslaughter just requires negligence, and cars and roads seem like tailor made environments for drivers to be negligent.

I know people here like to throw the 'murder' accusation around but it is a totally different level of intent and culpability - and it'd be hard to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

In my country though there is special laws for drivers , death by dangerous driving, and death by careless driving - so as long as you use a car, the normal rules for manslaughter don't directly apply.

I think , here, if you've killed someone it is hard to defend against a death by careless driving charge, as our highway code is very clear on duty of care towards vulnerable road users. But ultimately it'd be jury's decision on "reasonableness". I can't see how no charges would be brought though - as the jury has to determine it, and any death must be taken seriously.

Prosecution should just need to show that there was a hazard (pedestrians, children, in this case the corpse should do the trick) and that a reasonable driver could have done more, say slow down to less than 20mph.
"no evidence of speeding" might be enough for some jurors, but that should be their call.

Our problem over here is more on the punishment side. The punishment for death by careless driving seems lower than other forms of negligent killing. Many will get away with a small fine/community order and a 12 month ban from driving. So i think a lot of people probably plead guilty to avoid the fine and get away with a 1 year ban.

Weak punishment, but there's at least an acknowledgement that they did something wrong.

Back to this case it seems crazy (to me) that there is not even a question for the court to determine whether the driver was negligent. Maybe the driver was reasonably attentive and had taken all reasonable measures to keep other road users safe, but surely they should be made to demonstrate that to the court.

If a 76 year old passes a drivers test, there is something seriously wrong with the test. I have never met anyone above 70 with good reaction times.

@Alaik @Aragaren It's quite possible the driver was following all the rules and using the road exactly as intended and wasn't able to stop in time because the road design and speed limit encouraged drivers of any age to travel at speeds incompatible with child pedestrian traffic despite being in a populated area surrounded by homes and stores. It's also possible they wanted to retire from driving but were thwarted by the same demonic traffic engineers and land use planners.