That's overstating it. I think it would be decent under the circumstances to spend 30 seconds Googling it before slandering the victim:
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg
According to the preliminary report of the collision released by the NTSB, Herzberg had tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana in a toxicology test carried out after the collision. Residual toxicology itself does not establish if or when she was under their influence, and hence an actual factor.
Perhaps you could also argue "if she were wearing a helmet, it would have conferred +1 to CON and perhaps saved her", for what it's worth - makes sense in the crudest of simulations, but not in RL.
In this case the pedestrian and driver are both fully responsible. The pedestrian was lollygagging across the road like a complete idiot. The driver wasn't paying attention.
I think I might agree with something you're trying to say, but this point is completely incoherent.
If doesn't clear things up, I don't know how it could be incoherent.
The problem in this case was that the pedestrian was impaired by drugs, if I recall correctly.
In my opinion, this happened because of 3 simultaneous failures: failure of the pedestrian to responsibly cross street, failure of the computer system to recognize the obstacle, failure of the computer babysitter to be on the lookout for obstacles and override the computer.
Hopefully we learn something from this triple failure and take measures to reduce their likelihood in the future.