Whats amused you (in the news) today ?

When you are in charge of something with the potential to kill you have to take the relevant precautions ... so he couldnt see properly, cut a corner and crossed into the central non-highway area hitting the kids. 

You understand the word accident means unintentional, not deliberate? It is possible for an accident to happen where someone is at fault. They dont intend for something to happen but by their actions they make it more likely. eg if you run through a gallery of vases you are more likely to break one than if you walk.

Yes it does and he's fully admitted it ... respect to him. Drunk/drugs would imply not being in control of actions and not being able to make a rational decision.  Hes come round a bend too fast for the conditions, has left the designated road area and entered the central area where the kids were waiting to cross. Its about adapting to circumstances

On what planet does that deserve a prison sentence? He's under the speed limited remember.

This is the sort of thing that many of us do time and time again and yet go through our lives not being as extremely unlucky as this guy.

Or are you telling me you've never contravened a single Highway Code rule in your life?

if one is in the habit of frequently driving a vehicle in a way which is unsuitable for the prevailing road conditions, then one should either get retrained or hand in your license. A car is a lethal weapon. Driving is a privilege which is earnt. It is not a right. With it comes responsibilities - legal and moral. He admitted he could not see clearly, and the case was that he had not slowed to a suitable speed. He 'cut the corner' which is the immediate cause of the collision. His prison sentence is suspended. As for "unlucky": that is one side of the coin. The other is that he is lucky that the children weren't killed. As were they.

The fact that he wasn't exceeding the speed limit is pretty much irrelevant. If there is ice/snow on the road and you skid across the road and hit somebody while doing 20 mph in a 30mph zone, what relevance is the speed limit ? None. 

There doesn't have to be 'intent' for there to be responsibility. Is he unfortunate ? He is 'unfortunate' in the sense that he was driving inappropriately and irresponsibly at a point in time and space which resulted in a bad outcome. If people had not been an accident as a consequence, he would have "got away with it". There was, he didn't. 

The speed limit is a maximum, you should always drive to the road conditions, only an idiot drives at 70 on a motorway in thick fog and heavy rain, or drives at 30 past a school at start or end times if the road is covered in ice or snow, indeed I would say at those times even with good conditions 20 is plenty.

however compare to www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65379283 33 previous convictions including 3 for driving whilst disqualified, 16 months

In the 'hatched area' ie the area which is not part of the road for driving. I assume had there been a central pavement that would have been OK? What if hed clipped someone in a designated cycle lane only separated by a white line?

You still dont understand the meaning of the word accident ie not deliberate, unintentional, it is a word with context and allows for fault. Very little is a pure accident, very little happens without a cause, a lot of stuff is considered an accident 

Again the law operates within context ... causing serious injury has more legal consequence than just criminal damage & the basic driving offence ... the two offences are part of the same offence bracket so have similar tariffs ... you would need to read the sentencing notes to compare why the sentences were given ... the actor got a lesser sentence.