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).

That said, I will agree vehicles and traffic laws are probably the most important contributors in this case -- I'm only arguing we shouldn't ignore information or use racism / rape as moral equivalents to simply asking "are there any pedestrian behaviors that contribute to this phenomenon?"

But you have to admit that some behaviors are inherently more risky. If the pedestrian is actively engaging in high risk behaviors...why is it wrong to point out those behaviors are higher risk and therefore potentially more likely to be victims of an accident. If someone sprints across an intersection at a green light with no warning to the drivers, isn't that more irresponsible than waiting for the light?

A pedestrian could easily be the cause of a traffic accident for the reasons OP mentioned. They could cause an accident by jaywalking, not obeying pedestrian signals, etc., whereby a driver avoids hitting them and swerves into another vehicle(s).

Who's "the victim" here that should not be blamed?

Or, negligence from the driver, as the OP mentioned.

Or, both.

This comparison does not seem tenable.

It doesn't matter who you blame and who's the victim, the people are dead, often times because they failed to take their own basic safety into account. Always assume that cars don't see you, won't stop for you, might run lights, might make illegal turns, and will kill you.

That's rather fatalist outlook on life. We should strive for infrastructure that does not result in death when someone makes a mistake. Especially since to err is human.

We're talking about literal fatalities for people that aren't behaving that way. I'm all for improving the infrastructure and reducing death, but until we do, put your dang phone down!