Unpopular opinion -- you can victim blame to a reasonable level. If a pedestrian is walking backwards, blindfolded with music blaring in their ears into a crowd

Unpopular opinion -- you can victim blame to a reasonable level. If a pedestrian is walking backwards, blindfolded with music blaring in their ears into a crowded highway, then they do bear some responsibility for what happens. Same with your (morally reprehensible) examples, its possible to construct a case where the "victim" all but guarantees the outcome by their own actions (e.g. suicide by cop). The point of discussion is "what level of responsibility if any do pedestrians bear in these accidents". Your point tries to make a false moral-equivalency with rape and makes the claim "0 responsibility". I argue there is nuance and just like rape, its possible to make it more / less probable with reasonable measures, but beyond that point, it is wrong to blame the victim. So if you disagree, then address the point: should we consider the effect that pedestrians looking at phones, J-walking or ignoring signals, and listening to music has on safety or _only_ a single factor (drivers)? If you want to actually save lives then I'd argue for examining all reasons pedestrians are being hit by cars (and not resort to moral reasons to avoid even asking the question).