In a similar vein to the comments that you can’t say what you wouldn’t do unless you’ve been in a situation, it’s easy to say what is or isn’t a valid reason to do it.
Imagine a scenario where, for whatever reason, your family was targeted for persecution. You knew that if you tried to leave the country via a regular route (plane or ferry) as soon as your passport was read you’d be taken to a room, separated from your kids, likely tortured and imprisoned (them too). Could you honestly say then that you wouldn’t take the risk to keep your kids safe from certain torture, rape, mutilation, imprisonment?
Likewise, imagine you get to the first ‘safe’ country. You only have the money you could take out with you at that point, no links to the country, and can’t speak the language. You’ve met Maslov’s first hierarchy of needs in that you’re officially safe, so now you think, “how can I start a new life for my family?”. How would you fill in paperwork, apply for asylum, apply for…anything, try to get a job, if you can’t speak the language? Then think, for the sake of one more journey, you can get to a country where you at least can understand the road signs, fill in a form or make conversation with someone, or perhaps you have a family member who ‘knows a guy’ who can get you a job, the first step to setting down roots and starting a new life. Would it still not be a viable reason?