If there isn't a meteor on the hood, but instead the driver ran into something, then the number of times your assumption is wrong will be sufficiently small that the parents observation is valid.

Certainly it will be a far more useful way to guide policy than "You don't know for a fact that all those accidents weren't caused by external events outside the drivers control." however technically true.

There aren't evil driving-fairies nudging people's elbows, and we have manufacturing and inspection regulations to keep the percentage of mechanically unfit vehicles low. That just leaves the drivers themselves holding the primary responsibility in the majority of cases.

These are all things you already knew, which makes the question disingenuous and of questionable ultimate purpose.