Obviously they’re different in many ways but as a society we can’t really call things an accident when they’re eminently predictable from the systems we’ve built. So while they may be accidental from the point of the individual perpetrator, both of these things are equally intentional from a public policy standpoint.

The law has significant nuance whenever someone is killed. Each state uses different terms, but it generally runs along the lines of:

• First degree murder: intentful and planned.
• Second degree murder: intentful but unplanned.
• Third degree murder: not by intent but also not accidental. Fit of rage type of thing.
• Manslaughter: no intent, no rage, often negligence, and similar regrettable deaths.

Each one carries a progressively lighter punishment. You can be found guilty of manslaughter and get off with a fine, probation, or even time-served. The courts will adjust punishment according to each crime's circumstances.

What ticks this community off is a special type of murder: Vehicular Manslaughter. It has all the hallmarks of regular manslaughter, except it's much harder to prosecute and often with zero consequences. It's, quite literally, a whole different section of law to reduce the consequences of driving. The exception-to-the-exception is intent! If someone intentionally kills with a gun or a vehicle, then they get charged first or second degree murder. But the consequences are different if someone with a gun negligibly kills (it does happen) and a driver negligibly kills. It's not justice when a boss who didn't maintain a ladder which killed his painter faces more consequences than the driver who didn't maintain their brakes and ran over a child.

The problem with cars is more that because of the SUVification, pedestrians are significantly more likely to die from getting hit. The cars are (mostly) safe for the person driving it, but the higher ride height and massively high hoods are a recipe for disaster if you collide into a smaller car or a pedestrian.