right-of-way or no right-of-way, the claim will be of a faulty and/or excessively dangerous design. just because someone doesn’t have the right-of-way doesn’t automatically mean they’re supposed to get a death sentence.
an ordinary driver exercising ordinary diligence will do their best to brake and or avoid killing ANY pedestrian under any circumstance. How many times did you undertake to kill a pedestrian because they violated the right-of-way? Or did you do your best to avoid killing a fellow human being who wasn’t exercising good judgement?
You’re very fond of assuming the car did not brake. There’s nothing to indicate that in the story, you just want to make sure we all think a human driver would have avoided the accident, while studiously ignoring the fact that there WAS a human in the car, and they didn’t. Some accidents can’t be avoided, at least from one side. And when it’s ped vs car failing to comprehend the right of way is very often a death sentence, that’s why peds need to remember they don’t have any armor.
We don't know that the software or driver didn't exercise good judgement or attempt to stop. We just know the car hit a bike at 10 PM (it's full dark at 10 PM), and the speed limit in that area is 45 MPH.
I'll almost guarantee there's video from the car of this (for the very reasons everyone expects - litigation primarily, and tweaking the software/hardware secondarily). We should probably wait until that is reviewed before deeming the vehicle/driver at fault.