[chrstphrknwtn]

On your first point, that sounds like violence to me, sure. It's almost guaranteed to cause harm, and the club swinger probably knows that.

On your second point, the likelihood that speeding will cause actual harm to another person is vastly lower, and certainly not an outcome expected or intended by drivers generally speaking. Seems silly to call that "violence" when we can just call it irresponsible, negligent, etc.

[giraffe_lady]

The risk of pedestrian death in a collision goes from about 10% at 25mph to over 50% at 40mph, and this level of speeding is absolutely normal in the american city I live in.

A pedestrian dying because of a driver's decision to speed in this way is predictable, absolutely expected. Shit I doubt my odds with a golf club at a party are anywhere near 50%. So why is one violence and the other not? I think only because we have decided it is not. But again that decision is exactly what I'm challenging. Calling it silly is not a convincing argument to me.

[chrstphrknwtn]

Those things aren't really equivalent though. The percentage of pedestrian deaths in a collision at given speeds is starting from a 100% rate of incidence. So whilst it's predictable, it's not necessarily probable. How many pedestrians is a driver actually likely to hit driving at 40mph? Generally speaking, zero. How many people is a lunatic swinging golf club likely to hit in a crowded club, quite a lot more than zero.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your point. I was thinking only of speeding on highways. Speeding is an issue and shouldn't be minimised.