Sometimes pedestrians do stupid, unsafe, or illegal things that put motorists at risk. Young child passengers also did not have a choice about the risks taken. I think there's some gray areas here.
Most of those stupid/illegal things are not that stupid in a world without cars, the environment for which we evolved. And it's true that young children don't have a choice, but their parent do it for them and assume responsability.
I'm actually not trying to argue against you, as indeed there is a gray area. My point is that on marginal situations we should not try to judge only on morality but also on creating incentives that best improve the system in the longrun.
Separately, I'm not a fan of arguments from evolutionary environments for this sort of thing. It didn't have telephone poles, but we still blame a pedestrian and not the pole or the pole installer if a pedestrian walks into it. Evolutionary arguments are almost always problematic when used in these ways.
