[wyager]

This is obvious nonsense. Larger vehicles are so much safer to their occupants that it overwhelms the very minor marginal risk increase to non-occupants from larger vehicles.

People who complain constantly about large vehicles almost never have a logical case, or even understand why they have proliferated so much in the last decade (Obama admin emissions regs).

Given the chance in an environment not distorted by emissions regs, most people will use cheaper, less safe cars, but there is no net safety upside.

[quantified]

Larger vehicles are so much safer to their 1-6 occupants that the greater risk to their thousands of non-occupants doesn't matter...

[rocqua]

Being in a bigger car than everyone else makes you safer, but that gets largely nullified if everyone is in a bigger car.

That leads to an arms race with no benefit to anyone and massive costs. A prime example of when government should step in.

[wyager]

> but that gets largely nullified if everyone is in a bigger car.

This is not true - the collision between two large vehicles is safer than the collision between two small vehicles.

If you are colliding at a given speed, you want as much crumple zone between you and the other mass as possible.

> That leads to an arms race with no benefit to anyone and massive costs.

It has safety benefits to everyone. As for other net costs, consumers seem to think that (after factoring in emissions regs-induced distortions), large vehicles are net better.