I just hope this doesn't go in this wrong direction.
Geez your computer looks to be using alot of power.
We need people to register their computer to estimate your computer footprint.
Then we can regulate it.
Also, your computer's power consumption is in fact regulated on a semi-voluntary basis via a program called Energy Star. People are fine with it because Energy Star certification saves them money. By contrast, the problem with trucks is that their unsafe design is subsidized by the government, so smaller more efficient vehicles that would normally save people money end up being penalized.
While I agree that large pickup trucks and SUVs pose an increased risk to pedestrians, particularly in urban areas, and should be discouraged as single person commuter vehicles, particularly in urban areas, there are a lot of other use cases. What should someone who needs to move bulky/heavy/rough things with regularity and can only afford to have one vehicle use?
Discouraging negative externalities through taxation makes sense, but setting taxes to be so punitive that they make it difficult for people to afford the vehicles they need to do what they need to do is also harmful.
As an example, I have a pickup truck and a regular car. Driving around town I use my regular car, but when I need to move large or heavy things I use my truck. It's much more convenient to be able to use my truck when I need it rather than having to rent one every time or hire a company to move things for me.
The pickup truck is large (RAM 1500), and some would argue it's dangerously oversized, but its size is needed when I need to do truck things with it. The truck being affordable means I can afford to have a regular sized vehicle for tasks that don't involve moving big/heavy/dirty things.
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.
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)
Poor example, they already are. You require a special license. This is a tax, and a rather severe one. Never mind that those drivers are also directly responsible if their vehicle malfunctions. That's how some big rig drivers are able to get 150 years in jail because their brakes went out.