Pedestrian jaywalking identified as primary cause, motorcyclist found not guilty due to insufficient reaction time

Last July, a man surnamed Zhang was riding his motorcycle on Wuxun Street when he collided with a woman surnamed Peng who suddenly crossed the road. Ms. Peng sustained severe head injuries and passed away after being taken to the hospital. Prosecutors indicted Mr. Zhang for negligent homicide, but the Keelung District Court acquitted him. The verdict can still be appealed. The judge reviewed surveillance footage and found that it took only about 2 seconds from the moment Ms. Peng stepped out to the collision. After examining the surveillance footage in court, it was confirmed that Mr. Zhang's speed was approximately 42 kilometers per hour, which is not speeding. The verdict stated that it takes at least 3 seconds or more for a driver to stop completely after noticing a situation, and in this case, there was insufficient reaction time and distance to avoid the accident. The court reasoned that although drivers have a duty to pay attention to the road ahead, Mr. Zhang was driving normally in his lane and could not have foreseen Ms. Peng suddenly crossing. He did not have enough time to evade before the collision, so negligence could not be determined solely based on the fatal outcome. The review committee determined that Ms. Peng's sudden crossing without checking for oncoming traffic was the primary cause of the accident, and Mr. Zhang had no causal factors. The judge acknowledged that Ms. Peng's death is regrettable, but criminal responsibility must be determined based on evidence. The prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove Mr. Zhang's negligence, and he was acquitted based on the principle that doubt benefits the defendant. The court also emphasized that drivers trust other road users to obey traffic rules, and they should not be blamed if there is insufficient reaction time. The judge stressed that the key in this case was the lack of reaction time, not the driver's inattention. The prosecution stated that they will review whether to appeal the case. I'm siding with the judge on this one. If the motorcyclist wasn't running a red light, then I don't think the rider should be punished. The pedestrian's issue is much bigger! This judge has common sense! Why is the headline saying 'not guilty' with a '?!' after it? I have questions about your headline logic🙄🙄🙄