Certainly they should take her license, but they may also want to look at making that intersection safer. They don't say whether she's had other accidents besides these two, that would be more telling to me about her driving abilities.

Why on earth would a coroner be competent to make those statements?

Do coroners proctor driving exams?

Clearly, she hasn't learned to be more careful, or the intersection in question has a blind spot. How many other accidents happen at the same spot?

Regardless of any defect in the design of the intersection, she obviously didn't learn anything from the first wreck. If I had killed someone at an intersection, the memory would be so indelible that (provided I didn't avoid the intersection entirely) I would double-check, triple-check, etc. before pulling out into that same intersection.

He is able to assess such judgement while he is scraping the 2nd corpse this woman has left. As a living human he is capable of drawing conclusions from the variety of sensory input.

This follows closely the argument of why is a plumber able to insightfully critique a politician but a movie celebrity is not, or vice versa.

more mathematically:
She crashes her car + The crashes kill people / 2 times in 12 years = She is a bad driver.

I'm a computer programmer, does that give me the authority to say you're a poor typist?

Fallacious logic.

I'm not saying the woman didn't make the mistake, or that she's a great driver.

Right. I bet that he just happened to say this within earshot of the reporter. Obviously he has no "official" capacity from which this opinion would make much difference.

As far as my typing... blame my guide dog. :P

Apparently manslaughter is ok these days. She killed two people because she didn't look left...two people dead because it's too much trouble to shift her head a few degrees to the left...absurd much?