[ak217]

It's not subjective. RAM 1500 and trucks like it kill more pedestrians and cyclists in collisions because they have a larger frontal cross-section that limits the driver's view in front of the cab and is more likely to cause fatalities when a collision does occur.

I agree that trucks like the RAM 1500 are useful in many applications. They should be taxed appropriately (in a way that offsets or negates what currently amounts to subsidies in the US market), and manufacturers should be required to enable the driver to see a certain minimum distance in front of the vehicle and obstruct a certain maximum angle around A pillars. Trucks and SUVs over a certain size should also have speed limiter governors that activate on city streets. It is not acceptable to have drivers of these vehicles - which were originally developed for specialized industry applications - speed in areas where it directly endangers pedestrians and cyclists.

[wizee]

What's subjective is the threshold of what is considered "dangerous". I do agree improving visibility would be a good thing, and incentivizing safer designs through taxation could be good. Insurance prices already do that to an extent. I do agree that SUVs and pickup trucks have become taller than necessary in recent years; pickups from the 1990s were appreciably lower and had better visibility without being any less useful for moving things around.

The CAFE exemptions for SUVs and trucks compared to cars don't make sense to me and encourage maximizing vehicle footprint, so changing those rules would make sense. What else do you consider "subsidies" for this size of pickup trucks? Not being subject to the "chicken tax"? (not directly relevant to me as I'm in Canada)

[hnav]

In the US it's CAFE gaming, 6000LB GVW tax incentives and arguably fuel, registration and tolls aren't (sufficiently) scaled with vehicle size. The chicken tax thing definitely contributes even to Canada's market since it's relatively rare for automakers to consider it separately from the US one.