I'm not actually advocating this. 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.
Probably because most modern societies agree that cars serve an extremely useful function that is worth some amount of added public risk.
But if SUV purchases are mostly driven by vanity and comfort, it's much harder to morally justify them.
Also, banning cars completely simply isn't a realistic policy goal, whereas limiting or eliminating SUVs could plausibly get some political traction. Why let perfect be the enemy of good?
It's also possible to change city designs to be more safety friendly, or to limit speed (under 20mph has the same outcomes whether it's a car or SUV). These changes would be beneficial across the board and not just for a single vehicle type. These would also be more achievable than trying to eliminate SUVs (the ones on the road currently could last decades).
No, but clearly society has accepted the risks with cars, right? They could change city design be safer, or change the drivers test to be less of a joke. After all people do still die when hit with smaller vehicles.
And looking at the study, you cloud just limit speed. Pedestrian outcomes are the same for cars and SUVs under 20 mph.
That's kind of like saying that instead of denuclearization, let's just make having nuclear warheads the default and everyone else can get warheads too.
