There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets. Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?
No. He's doing a very stupid thing, and assuming his trajectories cross the potential paths of the children, a very risky thing no matter his level of skill, but not committing a crime. Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.
Of course, this is where your comparison breaks down: the level of risk does not correlate to the skill and practice of the shooter. He could easily hit a kid because the kid moved into the path of the bullet. The level of risk assumed by the speeder
is affected by the skill and practice of the driver.
I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone
before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you
might kill someone.