Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't read the full coverage, but it does appear it occurred at a pedestrian crossing, and there doesn't appear to be any dispute that it was properly signposted. Most countries require greater care at pedestrian crossings.
I don’t know man. I’m sorry I don’t know the language, looks like Russian? Or something closely related? But based on the parent comment translation, and the translation on the issue page, I’m not sure we should be quick to condemn this person. The court report says he was going 60kph. That’s barley over 35mph, a normal speed limit for city streets. So it appears he was not speeding. If it really was a drunk guy, lit…
In Russia, pedestrians have right of way on such a crossing, and drivers are required to be able to stop so that if a pedestrian starts crossing, they can yield (is that the proper term in English road rules?) to that pedestrian - i.e. even if you can't see any people, the marked crossing is considered as a warning to drivers that there might be pedestrians crossing and they must be able to stop and yield there.
So in cases of poor road conditions (e.g. ice) and poor visibility, they would be legally required to choose a speed so that they can do so suddenly if needed. This necessity to drive slower given the street signs and conditions is also explicitly mentioned in the court ruling as part of justification of why the defendant is considered guilty.
So it's not really an analogy of a person lying on the road, because that's not a "normal" stretch of road - if someone decides to drunkenly crawl across such a pedestrian crossing, then that would be stupid and reckless and dangerous, but legally they still would have right of way and cars would required to stop and yield as if they had a red light.