What is the test for a jury to determine whether drunk driving alone does not constitute gross negligence?

" 'Again, while the instructions indicated there was a difference between the two levels of negligence, nowhere in the instructions was the jury actually told that drunk driving alone did not constitute gross negligence. It was indicated the two kinds of negligence differed, and gross negligence was defined generally; however, no instruction clarified that something in addition to appellant's being under the influence of alcohol was necessary to [203 Cal.App.3d 581] establish gross negligence. There was no request for this additional instruction. It was necessary in all fairness that the jury be instructed that the element of gross negligence could not be supported solely by facts which satisfied other essential elements of section 192, subdivision (c)(3), namely (1) drunk driving and (2) a traffic offense.' ( People v. McNiece, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 1057 [226 Cal.Rptr. 733.])" ( People v. Pike, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 740, 243 Cal.Rptr. 54.)

Thus, we have previously rejected the first part of defendant's contention herein.