Right, this is sadly the unfortunate answer in many cases and the raw reality of our world. Too many people have been watching CSI and think the police could just go back and start 'zooming in' to see what happened.

Yeah this happened to me, my house got shot up and a bullet whizzed over my desk (where I would have been if I was at my computer) and into the wall over my sleeping head.

The police response was basically "well, sometimes people do this, but they usually don't hit anybody LOL". I didn't expect a full-on CSI investigation but really, my girlfriend or I could have died, I wanted something. There were never any charges, and I'm pretty sure there was no investigation beyond writing the report. It was really disappointing and disillusioning.

Agreed. Even murder clearance rates are as bad as 60% in some areas of the US. If you're not a complete idiot, you can get away with most crimes.

I guess. I'm just baffled picturing the scene. This young woman just killed a little boy and the cop is basically saying "ok, well, he's dead, just be careful next time. Ok, have a safe trip home, bye".

You're right, without witnesses what can you do? But I would imagine a procedure a little more involved when somebody kills a child.

The procedure later, away from the accident scene, probably was more involved, but at the scene, unless there was evidence of negligence or bed intent I wouldn't expect an arrest. She didn't flee. Apparently didn't appear impaired. What would they possibly arrest her for?

If you're driving fast enough on a local street that you can hit and kill someone, you're incredibly negligent (see: all NYC taxi drivers).

I live out this way. These aren't local streets like in a city or suburb. It's very rural with houses spaced far apart. Speed limits are 45-55 MPH (70-90 KPH) depending on the road. See for yourself on Street View:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5080693,-84.689404,3a,75y,28...

Did you read the article? It was a rural road with a high speed limit.. very common in many parts of the world.

Engineers assumed people wouldn't run into the middle of the street without looking.

So 90% of drivers are incredibly negligent now.

If you slow down to non-lethal speeds for every parallel parked vehicle or obstacle in anticipation of some kid sprinting out from behind it, you might as well walk (not ride a bike, because that problem still exists).

Whilst you're correct that the higher the speed the more likely a fatality, it's also possible to cause death at very low speeds.

Cops are predominantly drivers and don't want to enforce anything against other drivers, because "it could be them".

Too true: my uncle's stepson was killed by a police car that T-boned his car as it (the cop car) jumped a red light in response to an emergency call (that later turned out to be bogus, as if the story wasn't grim enough). I imagine that the possibility of this happening to them preys very heavily on the minds of police drivers everywhere.

But what procedure are you imagining, exactly? Grilling her until she confesses to something? There was no indication of any crime, just a tragic accident.

But unless she intentionally hit the child it was an accident on her part. I'm referring to a specific incident, not crashes in general. I thought that would be abundantly clear from the context. I certainly doubt she foresaw or planned on hitting a child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

> 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance

A crash isn't intentional either. Meriam Webster has the following definition for crash:

"to fall, land, or hit with destructive force"

To me that is more accurate.

Accident doesn't imply it wasn't avoidable.