On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"The police and prosecutors
do not want to ruin someone's life just for killing a cyclist, so they accept "I didn't
see" him or her as a valid defense (instead of the admission of negligence that it really
is. "

Most of us drive too. It is damned easy not to see a cyclist.

If you really believe that applies to a cyclist in ordinary daylight, or a
legally lit cyclist at night, you should turn in your driver's license.

It's your job as a driver to see cyclists, plus pedestrians (including kids
who my react unpredictably), plus motorcycles, plus other cars, plus trash
cans that blow into the road, plus trees by the side of the road, plus any
number of other things that may be near you or in front of you.

Other than a persecution complex, there is no reason to conclude "just a cyclist" as some kind of motive, when the easier explanation is that mere negligence is a just a civil case and there is simply insufficient evidence to prove a crime.

Negligence is not just a civil case. There are laws against it.

- Frank Krygowski