No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.

The vehicle struck the child

vs

The driver struck the child

is analgous to

The bullet struck the child

vs

The cop shot the child

EDIT:

With the active phrasing… you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.

The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].

The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].

These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.

It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise… you’re bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.

The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.

Yes, ‘everybody knows’ that a car doesn’t drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.