Boy, avoiding an answer by providing another question....pretty weak IMHO. Anyway, in my example, I didn't alter one single mitigating factor of events, just the reasoning. All physical realities are identical and consistent, hence my focus on the same outcome. In your "experiment" you offer hypothetical thoughts that we may as well drag to the moon and back for all the relevance they have. For the umpteenth time, as vehicle operators, we have a common sense obligation to be ready for foreseeable hazards on the road, and operate accordingly. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.
The thought process that this pathetic court decision undermines is a basic premise utilized when considering many traffic laws. People will always brain fart, but you have a considerably better chance of survival if you do not stray really far from a given law. In this case, speed, lack of visibility, load capacity of the vehicle were all well beyond what the scenario could absorb. Take it all down a notch, and he could have had more time to identify a hazard, decelerate, maneuver, and ultimately possibly survive the impact at a lower velocity. The court decision does nothing to speak to that, and that is the part I disagree with.
Contrary to what has been insinuated by you earlier, I am not saying the riders need further punishment; they are dead. Even if they lived, my expectation would simply be the same as I would expect of the car operator in this case; HTA charges, appropriate fines, bump to the insurance, etc. There is no criminal component here.
