Depressing similarities with what often happens in UK.
Isn't it strange tho'. As the story says, if he had killed them he could have been charged with negligent homicide, but you can't be charged with negligent actual bodily harm, so there's nowt' between killing and, perhaps, just knocking them off their bikes with no injuries.
We now have an ofence of causing death by careless driving, our equivalent to the above, simply because there were too many cases of drivers not suffering the consequences of their actions, because they were only "careless" and the consequences of that carelessness were, therefore, not intended. Without intention there could be no mens rea, or guilty mind, so there was no crime committed beyond the careless driving.
We now have the same position in both countries, where the logic of the "careless" charge has been ignored because of the obvious injustice caused by the perfectly foreseeable consequences of the nature of the legal definition.
Our situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service tends to go for the 50%+ odds of getting a conviction on careless driving as opposed to the more serious ones of dangerous or even reckless driving. What they don't seem to realise is that, by doing so, they continually raise the bar against the greater charge, simply because each borderline case which goes for the easier option, establishes further precedent as to what constitutes "careless" as against "dangerous" driving.
We then get further up a singularly unpleasant creek without means of locomotion.