I suspect that you were not considered a "victim" because the report was not a crime report. At least, I suspect the original report was a collision report and not a crime report. No crime, no victim. You are free to argue the point, or, pay and obtain a copy of the report and contact higher-ups on the matter later.
It is not "dereliction of duty" to not obtain a chemical test when the law does not permit it.
But, the OP is free to complain about whatever they choose to complain about.
There are many reasons why a driver might run off the road. or rear end someone. Or speed. Or lose traction. The act, by itself, does not give rise to the probable cause necessary for an arrest (which is what must happen before you can compel a chemical test). Keep in mind that a chemical test occurs when there is an arrest, not when a person is suspected of the offense.An officer must have probable cause by the failing of a field sobriety test before he can demand a breath, blood or urine test. But isn't running into a house enough evidence that the driver is not of sound mind? And again, claiming he was asleep is an unsubstantiated excuse from the driver.
This is why these matters often go to a traffic unit or investigator for review to determine if there might be sufficient cause to seek a search warrant for hospital records, or, to file a criminal case and subpoena those records.
More appropriate if the act was intentional. If not intentional, then it was more like "an accident."Since terrorists often use cars to carry out their crimes, this is very much "like" a terrorist act...which is what the OP clearly originally said.