[renewiltord]

Yep, given sufficient externalities, this is true. As an example, watch this fictional response to the fact that better cars cost more:

Let's get the poors out of safe cars. The peasant class belongs in beaters, while the rich ride safe.

Consider the choices necessary to make that statement untrue.

[lotsofpulp]

You mean how the richer you are, the bigger (and safer) the vehicle you can afford?

I drive by many parents taking their kids wherever in old corollas or kias or other small car, and I see many parents at my kids’ daycare dropping their kids off in large suburbans/F150/Sequoia/etc.

[renewiltord]

Certainly. That's one way, but also poorer people own older cars.

An argument that rests on equality should support the idea that all people deserve the same car irrespective of how much money they have.

[estebank]

Equality would be to be able to go where you need to go, in reasonable time, cost and accomodation, regardless of class, race, gender or disability. Focusing on cars is over-indexing on one potential solution.

People want to move around. Cars are only one way of doing so.

[beerandt]

If you want safer vehicles across the board, get rid of cafe and other efficiency regulations.

At this point in the current regulatory framework, safety and efficiency are in direct competition.