I agree with everything you said except the last statement, which is an assertion, not logic.

Since you agree that one cannot avoid creating risk, what is the logical value of introducing the idea that risk is "harm"? You can just as well talk of unacceptable risks, rather than "unacceptable harms". Further, you apparently agree that all "accidents" result from parties taking a risk, whether small acceptable risks (more rarely, no doubt) or by larger unacceptable risks. So what point are you left making about the existence of "accidents"?

The last statement was countering your train of logic, it wasn’t support for the idea on it’s own.

I am not introducing the idea that risk is harm, I am acknowledging that society has agreed that risk is harm most clearly in the case of Endangerment laws. Therefore that must extend to all levels of risk not simply the most extreme cases. Therefore someone deciding to put others at risk must as generally agreed by society be seen as willingly doing harm to others.

As to “accidents” the outcome may have been undesirable by the person at fault by speeding, failing to maintain proper distance, failing to maintain your car, driving in unsafe conditions, driving when you’re incapable of maintaining control etc are hardly accidental. Their the result of deliberate risk taking with others lives. When you anti up the health and safety of pedestrians you can’t then say their death was anything but your fault.

That said, sure their might be a few hundred actual accidental deaths in the US from manufacturing defects, or undiagnosed medical conditions. But, calling a drunk driver hitting someone by going down the highway in the wrong direction an accident is a completely meaningless, at that point just call it a bad thing and move on.

You can't counter my train of logic by using the same points I used to support it, at least not without providing something more. Both "high risk" and "low risk" behaviors are qualitatively the same; they create a risk. They only differ quantitatively in the amount. And while you have been running for several posts with the idea that a high risk behavior is a sure cause of an accident, most are also generally very unlikely to cause an accident in absolute terms (that's usually why people take such risks, after all), making them very low risk compared to actual intentional violence (the point of the poster you responded to). Drawing a line for legal/illegal risks just allows us to punish people for taking risks we don't want them to take. It is still meaningful to call it an accident to identify these qualitative similarities.

That’s why I specifically said low levels of harm are acceptable.

Your argument boils down to saying it’s ok to play Russian Roulette with unwilling people if their is X chambers in the gun, but not ok if their is X-1 chambers in the gun. I am saying it’s never ok to do so but there is a polite agreement where people ignore low levels of harm based on a host of factors.

This is consistent with events that have already happened and events that have yet to happen. You can reasonably argue the risk was low for events that didn’t happen, as in the building was strong enough see it’s still standing. In that case speeding cameras should be legally different than a cop pulling someone over. The cop is stopping you from speeding, but the camera doesn’t.

On the other hand if risk is inherently a harm then past or future harm is irrelevant. Which is how things treated, you can’t argue the outcome when you have put others at risk.