I suspect many view intentional harm as being far more traumatic than accidental harm. This is less the case if the person actually dies, although it may still be the case for their families.

▲

mrguyorama 6 days ago | parent [-]

Someone crashing into you because they can't be assed to pay attention to the road, or get drunk and drive because they don't have public transport IS "intentional" harm.

Traffic deaths are rarely "accidents".

	▲	mothballed 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I suppose even if you sub in "goal to cause death/injury" vs "recklessness that could reasonably be expected to produce injury despite not being the goal" and it would still hold true. Personally I think it's contentious whether drunk driving etc injuries can be considered "intentional" even if they are expected and reckless. When I think of intentional injuries, I'm thinking of ones where the perpetrator has that as their preferred outcome, something I don't think applies to most drunk driving injuries.