The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people because there are things you just can't do with a car, and even people who cannot comfortably/safely fit in them.
Because you are willfully ignoring the pedestrian angle by saying the default should be SUV over sedans. Here's one of many sources that is very easy to google for.
If it's all about pedestrians, then we should also ban EVs (all cars, really).
You've opened yourself up to the same absurd reduction, saying if even one farmer is disadvantaged then the standard should be towards the heavy pick-up/SUV instead of the sedan. You talk about "systems" and you say you are not ignoring the pedestrian portion of the system but you have not spoken to it. I would like to hear your position on the energy mismatch between pedestrian vs heavy vehicle as compared to energy mismatch between sedan and pedestrian. What is your perception of the pedestrian, their agency, their right of way in regards to the roads, etc... in the system you have in your head?
What is there to speak to? Society has already accepted that there will be accidents and fatalities, what the right of way is, etc. So then kts a matter of maximizing utility under the existing constraints. My position is that the underlying premise that was provided for banning large vehicles doesn't pass even a cursory cost benefit analysis in how many lives would be impacted on both sides. It doesn't explore alternatives such as city design, stricter drivers tests, etc. Frankly, the energy between an SUV and a sedan doesn't matter that much when it's against a person because either one is sufficient to cause injury or death based on a number of factors. Not to mention that EV sedans can weigh as much as a pickup, so there might not be much difference anyways.
Society has already accepted that there will be accidents and fatalities
So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you have a source?" I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine :)
But to finish it out, in 2020 farmers received $46.5 billion dollars in aid[1]. If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities?
'So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you have a source?" '
Look at the laws and fatalities. It's clear that society accepts some fatalities. If they didn't, we would still be driving carriages or walking everywhere. Even the article on morality in this chain acknowledges that some fatalities are considered acceptable if the value derived is worth it.
"I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine"
It is genuine.
"If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies"
How would subsidies help? What about people raising livestock as a hobby?
"instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities?"
How can you say it's the worst case to have larger vehicles like SUVs? One could view having only cars as having more negative externalities if it means preventing many people from doing the things they love? Especially if the pedestrian aspect can still be solved by other means, like reducing speed and safer city designs.
Yeah, because so many people are trying to fit three head of cattle into a fucking Ford Expedition.