I’m curious why, after blaming the victim for “trying to cross a busy, wet road in twilight,” why the prosecution didn’t seize upon the opportunity to ask Langford why if conditions weren’t so treacherous, that he did not feel the need to further reduce his speed, especially considering that his vehicle (which is rear wheel drive) is more susceptable towards traction loss in the same said conditions?

Even in Europe, the onus is on the motorist, not the pedestrian…

I think the rules on that are too strict (I sat on a jury where the question of guilt turned on if we believed he didn’t know enough about the situation… after we found him guilty, we learned that he had just been released on parole for the same crime, so the claim that he might have ben naive about it was complete BS), but I can see how loosening the rules even a little without opening the floodgates would be difficult.

Evidence of prior offenses is admissible in only a select number of circumstances, such as to show a unique modus operandi.

I’ve never seen it admissible in a drunk-driving case unless it’s part of the offense (i.e., charging it as a felony rather than a misdemeanor because of prior offenses). In that case, having been convicted of prior offenses is an element of the crime and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt just like any other element.

At least that was the case during my brief stint as a prosecutor in Florida. Your jurisdiction’s rules may vary.