Ask the high court judge la.
High court haven't released any documentation yet.

Regardless, her driving resulted in death.
If that's not dangerous, i hope I'll continue to never get to interact with shitty drivers like you and her.
And hopefully putting dangerous drivers off the road for a long time like this one becomes a norm.

It just shows the court was so fixated to the speed of travel and the visibility (or non visibility) of/from the lady's car.
Forgetting the fact that 8 kids died from the supposed "low speed" impact.

And the high court got it right.

Jesteru itu, adalah penting untuk difahami bahawa Seksyen 41 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan
1987 ini tidak sama sekali mensyaratkan jumlah ramai nyawa yang terkorban tetapi ia adalah
berkenaan cara pemanduan OKT yang melulu atau merbahaya walaupun terdapat
puluhan nyawa yang terkorban dalam sesuatu kes. Pertimbangan mahkamah dalam kes yang
dituduh di bawah Seksyen 41 ini sebenarnya bukanlah kepada cara pemanduan sempurna
tertuduh tetapi kepada samada intipati Sekyen 41 tersebut telah dibuktikan tanpa sebarang
keraguan munsabah. Saya mengambil panduan penghakiman yang dibuat dalam kes
GUNASEGARAN SINGARAVELU V. PP [2009] 1 LNS 5 di mana Hakim Zawawi Salleh
(sekarang Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan) memutuskan bahawa:
The essence of the charge against the appellant was dangerous or reckless driving. Driving is
not necessarily reckless or dangerous because it leads to fatal consequences but guilt could
only ensure if it is proven that the driving was reckless and dangerous. The charge is not
one of causing death, but of driving dangerously or recklessly. The learned magistrate had
obviously failed to direct his mind to the law in this case and had been unduly influenced
by the fact that there had been a death. This was a non-direction which amounted to a
misdirection. It is the duty of the appellate court to intervene in a case where the trial court
had fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may safely say that no reasonable court which
had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same
conclusion

8 person die is not prooof of negligence and reckless driving

The essence of the charge against the appellant was dangerous or reckless driving. Driving is
not necessarily reckless or dangerous because it leads to fatal consequences but guilt could
only ensure if it is proven that the driving was reckless and dangerous. The charge is not
one of causing death, but of driving dangerously or recklessly. The learned magistrate had
obviously failed to direct his mind to the law in this case and had been unduly influenced
by the fact that there had been a death. This was a non-direction which amounted to a
misdirection. It is the duty of the appellate court to intervene in a case where the trial court
had fundamentally misdirected itself, that one may safely say that no reasonable court which
had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same
conclusion

I don't think you understand the law or at least you didn't make it clear enough. For the offence SKT is being charged with, namely s.41 of the Road Traffic Act 1987 causing death by reckless or dangerous driving, causing death AND reckless or dangerous driving are two separate requirements to be proven by the prosecution. The way you are saying is that because SKT caused death, therefore she was reckless. That is simply incorrect because this would presume guilt just because of death. Why have to go through all witnesses' testimony and expert investigations etc. if by virtue of death one is said to be reckless?