I mean, your chances of dying in a fire are much higher than mine, because of conscious choices you are making.  In fact, more firefighters die annually than protestors do by getting hit by cars. If firefighting is inherently more dangerous than protesting on roads, why should it be viewed any differently? Suppose the protestors set up cones and wear reflective vests? Has their attempt to make their action as safe as possible and mitigate the risks diminish your argument?  Furthermore, when a firefighter dies, they die due to the non-sentient fire overwhelming them. Protestors killed by cars are often done so with intent by the driver – in fact OP makes that argument in his reasoning.  Where you are missing the forest for the trees is failing to understand that people engage in, and sometimes die, doing inherently risky things all the time. Its never considered suicide unless the intent to die was a factor. And when another party is involved, especially with intent to kill, its homicide, or possibly manslaughter. This entire argument seeks to absolve murderers of their crime.