if i drive on a road, i would anticipate may be there are lubang or may be there are branches from roadside tree or even breakdown cars etc, but budak nyamuk is not something that i am supposed to anticipate.

like the highway construction material drop and kill the driver case, will you say hey itu driver sepatutnya anticipate benda nak jatuh, so driver tu salah dan patut dipenjara kalau dia tak mati?

and for the umpteenth times, the MIROS has already determined that she was not speeding.

Here i try to understand the basis of reasoning from the judge on why the judge decided that unfortunate driver is guilty
Several key point i want to highlighted from the report i read

"... makhamah bicara terkhilaf apabila menerima pembelaan Responden yang tidak mengetahui adanya aktiviti basikal lajak pada malam kejadian sebagai alasan untuk memandu keretanya secara merbahaya sehingga mengorbankan mangsa yang dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan. Responden seharusnya  memandu kereta dengan lebih berhati - hati dan bukannya memandu dengan laju sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut."

"...Responden yang memandu keretanya secara merbahaya mengambil kira keadaan jalan yang berselekohj dan berbukit sedikit"

In my personal opinon, i think what the judge trying to highlight, as a good driver, we must anticipate any possible danger . So whenever we encounter a location that has potential danger like reduce our visibility, down the hill, crowded place, and so we must able to take necessary step to reduce the risk.
For example if we goes into school area, we must reduce our car speed, in anticipating possible danger that kid will run across the road from no where. We cant just say, eh aku tak nampak ada budak lari" 

A dangerous driving will be like, even u know u are in school area, u continue to speed and somehow hit a kid. This is what considered a dangerous driving. Because u fail to anticipate n do what necessary. Same thinglah if  u drive during raining too

In this case, obviously the driver not only she was approaching a dangerous location. She goes down hill and approaching the corner and its dark. A good driver usually able to anticipate the risk of danger n reduce the speed,. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no preventive measure taken during this risk location. For this the judge said " Responden seharusnya  memandu kereta dengan lebih berhati - hati dan bukannya memandu dengan laju sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut. " (esp in the hilly area, at the corner and dark location)
The presence of the boys on the road is also wrong. But does it change anything if we replace the boys with ordinarly motorcycle, ordinary pedestrian, or romobongan orang? or TNB replace bulp There is no law saying that these people cant be presence on the road or the corner of highway. So a responsible driver must always able to anticipate dangerous location n do what is necessary , whatever preventive measure to prevent accident. This is in my personal opinion, the basis of the judge reasoning on the case (or course tambah dengan statement inconsistentcies like tiba2 ada new version of another car hit the kid)

She's not speeding... True. But she should reduce her speed because she is approaching risky or dangerous area

Tak kisah.... The issue here is anticipation. Even u are below speed limit, if it was raining heavily n u have poor vision, even driving fast n even bow speed limit considered dangerous driving

Here i try to understand the basis of reasoning from the judge on why the judge decided that unfortunate driver is guilty
Several key point i want to highlighted from the report i read

"... makhamah bicara terkhilaf apabila menerima pembelaan Responden yang tidak mengetahui adanya aktiviti basikal lajak pada malam kejadian sebagai alasan untuk memandu keretanya secara merbahaya sehingga mengorbankan mangsa yang dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan. Responden seharusnya  memandu kereta dengan lebih berhati - hati dan bukannya memandu dengan laju sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut."

"...Responden yang memandu keretanya secara merbahaya mengambil kira keadaan jalan yang berselekohj dan berbukit sedikit"

In my personal opinon, i think what the judge trying to highlight, as a good driver, we must anticipate any possible danger . So whenever we encounter a location that has potential danger like reduce our visibility, down the hill, crowded place, and so we must able to take necessary step to reduce the risk.
For example if we goes into school area, we must reduce our car speed, in anticipating possible danger that kid will run across the road from no where. We cant just say, eh aku tak nampak ada budak lari" 

A dangerous driving will be like, even u know u are in school area, u continue to speed and somehow hit a kid. This is what considered a dangerous driving. Because u fail to anticipate n do what necessary. Same thinglah if  u drive during raining too

In this case, obviously the driver not only she was approaching a dangerous location. She goes down hill and approaching the corner and its dark. A good driver usually able to anticipate the risk of danger n reduce the speed,. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no preventive measure taken during this risk location. For this the judge said " Responden seharusnya  memandu kereta dengan lebih berhati - hati dan bukannya memandu dengan laju sehingga menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut. " (esp in the hilly area, at the corner and dark location)
The presence of the boys on the road is also wrong. But does it change anything if we replace the boys with ordinarly motorcycle, ordinary pedestrian, or romobongan orang? or TNB replace bulp There is no law saying that these people cant be presence on the road or the corner of highway. So a responsible driver must always able to anticipate dangerous location n do what is necessary , whatever preventive measure to prevent accident. This is in my personal opinion, the basis of the judge reasoning on the case (or course tambah dengan statement inconsistentcies like tiba2 ada new version of another car hit the kid)

So next time I drive car horr, if my road traffic light is green which means I can go then suddenly got bike or basikal lajak kids from opposite road langgar their traffic light and I bang into them, they die. That means I'm at fault too. Coz hakim say, I have to anticipate kids with bikes will coming and must brake in time. But because I cannot brake in time, I'm considered driving recklessly although I'm right.

ladies and gentleman, basikal lajak is the new king of the road. They can be anywhere anytime in whatever situation it's their road thus you must always anticipate and respect their presence.

I'd say your parents aborting you 20 years after you are born is a pretty good precedent at this point.

how she know it is risky and dangerous place?

she is not yuri

She's not speeding... True. But she should reduce her speed because she is approaching risky or dangerous area

When u approaching, corner, dark n hilly area, that considered risk area lah

any of these will drive against traffic? 

it is up to you to be more careful

About that. So whoever that crash into vehicle driving against traffic is actually salah coz not anticipating got car driving against ttaffic lah?