That's the point. Cars have an unmatched level of potential damage compared to almost anything short of actual weapons. Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable.
I see what you're getting at, but I don't think this is a great way to show your point. a chef's knife is primarily a kitchen tool, but it makes for a much more effective weapon than a car. the thing that makes cars somewhat unique is their potential for unintentional damage.
> Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable.
sure, but this is a vague statement that has no real teeth. everyone agrees that drivers ought to try not to hit pedestrians. what gets fiercely debated is how civil (and possibly criminal) liability ought to be apportioned.
knives would be the obvious answer, though they probably don't cause as much accidental carnage as cars.