In pedestrian fatalities I relate more to the pedestrian, because I walk far more than I drive, so for me the opening question in your latest comment is absurd. But the answer to it under current law is that driving without a license (training, certification: these things matter) is reckless at all times and especially when it results in death. Fleeing the scene of a crash is reckless and illegal. (And that’s assuming, as the DA has done without explanation, that the driver was not speeding.) You don’t have the option of driving away, weighing your options, and coming back to undo that crime. If we don’t prosecute these existing laws, we have no hope of people taking them seriously, and we have no hope of improving the law to better protect the vulnerable. That’s why this matters. No one disputes that the prosecution shortfall is the DA office’s fault; the point is that this is unacceptable.

If you want to look at true negligence, look to the traffic engineers in Morristown. They approved the siting of a parking facility across the street from a hospital. The street is a 4-lane arterial that has ramps to & from an interstate next to the hospital. The street has a 35 mph (nearly 80kph) speed limit in an area where pedestrians are expected to cross.

Wouldn’t a responsible design include a pedestrian bridge, or at least a real traffic light in place of a flashing pedestrian crossing sign? When a traffic light is out, drivers approach with caution; a broken flasher sign looks the same as one indicating “no pedestrians.”

The even bigger question, considering the inadequate design, how long were the crossing sign and streetlight out of order?

192. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle or street car is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle or street car on a highway. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 2.

193. (1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3

Presumption of fault on the part of a vehicle striking a pedestrian is not this base reflex that you allege; it is a product of refection on human frailty. It is the law in some countries of northern Europe, correlated with low pedestrian death rates we could only dream of. The laws here reflect a lower standard of care expected from drivers, and evidently a lower value on the life of pedestrians. We only bother prosecuting gross deviations from our repulsive ‘norm’, and I share the surprise of others that this hit-and-run was not considered such. In some sense these outlying cases don’t matter—the real problem is that famous norm—but by drawing attention both to egregious vehicular fatalities like this as well as run of the mill vehicular fatalities, Streetsblog is promoting a wider cultural awareness of the human cost of automobiles. When pizza delivery guys don’t even need to get a license to drive around constantly, don’t stop when they hit and kill someone, and walk away with a minor punishment, you glimpse the depth of our society’s failure to take the operation of motor vehicles seriously.

39:4-129. (a) The driver of any vehicle, knowingly involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene until he has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (c) of this section. Every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. Any person who shall violate this subsection shall be fined not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000, or be imprisoned for a period of 180 days, or both. The term of imprisonment required by this subsection shall be imposed only if the accident resulted in death or injury to a person other than the driver convicted of violating this section.

Quick google and got this for NJ hit and run

If the vehicle in this accident were a bicycle, and the cyclist struck a pedestrian who died due to head trauma from hitting the pavement, would we be reflexively calling the operator reckless?

I have to say (and I should do so more publicly in the local papers) that I really have to question who this prosecutor is working for, the prosecution or the defense!

MAGIUNO WAS NOT QUALIFIED UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW TO OPERATE A CLASS B MOTORVEHICLE!!!!

I would think this fact alone would make anything else he did a felony! This should not be viewed as a unfortunate accident but as crime that occurred because Mr Magiuno was not qualified to set foot behind the steering wheel but did so anyway.

To me this is just like licensed driver getting behind the wheel while drunk or otherwise intoxicated. In each case a person is not legally qualified to drive.

I’d wish our legal system would start seeing things this way.

But if I were driving a bus, or an airplane, or a helicopter without the proper license, and someone were injured or killed as a result, I would certainly expect that this lack would lead to a heavy punishment. How is driving a car any different?

the risk taken by the driver must be substantial enough that the driver’s failure to recognize the degree of risk is a gross deviation from what a “reasonable person” would recognize.

From the Maureen McCormick post, back in March.

The guy was driving at night, he had a green light, the streetlight was out, he wasn’t intoxicated, and he was driving under the speed limit. What particular risk was he taking, and how does that deviate from what the reasonable person would recognize?

In my opinion the prosecution agreed to the plea bargain because the defendant would have gone free if he had gone to trial.

There is part of the problem. In New York City, the speed limit is 30 mph. In California cities, the speed limit is 25 mph.

A lower speed limit means fewer accidents and less chance of death when accidents do occur.

Furthermore, police do little to curb the most basic of driving regulations, such as proper signaling, stopping at stop signs and red lights, obeying turn orders, and so further.

And additionally, pedestrians frequently do not abide by pedestrian controls either, freely jaywalking, crossing during greens, and other behaviors that put them (and other drivers) at risk. Basically, New Jersey is a traffic free-for-all of Mad Max proportions.

On the other hand, how would I feel if I were Maguino, from all appearances a conscientious drivers by the standards set for him by the police and other New Jersey drivers? Why should he be singled out and punished (basically have his life ruined)? It isn’t as if any amount of punishment to other drivers would have changed this outcome – it isn’t as if he decided to “risk it” this one time.

To sum everything up, New Jersey police need to enforce the laws they already have in relationship to traffic and pedestrian controls. Drivers need to obey the laws and be conscientious of pedestrians, and pedestrians need to be obeying the laws themselves. Plenty of places in this country “get it right” – at least, not as wrong as New Jersey. It doesn’t take magic.