It's understood that there are places that are inherently dangerous because of the purpose they serve. For example with railway crossings if a child was playing near a railroad track the train not only couldn't see the child, but at the same time couldn't stop if they wanted. Yet you don't hear these people clamoring to reduce the size and weight of trains. They'll do anything, but teach their kids common sense. Because why teach your kids to be cautious when crossing the road when you can do everything, but parent.
The most dangerous part of this line of thinking is that theoretically any danger could be eliminated if you just take away enough people's liberties.
That's always been my response.
WHAT were your unsupervised kids doing that let them suddenly pop up in the known blind spot of a fast-moving vehicle on a dedicated roadway so that a nominally alert and cautious driver couldn't avoid them?
Accidents don't happen in a vacuum, but asking what role the non-car caused in a car-to-noncar collision is apparently the same as asking a rape victim "what were you wearing"?
If a kid darts into the road from between two parked cars at 3 feet in front of a GMC Sierra doing 25? They're fucked, there's nothing the vehicle or driver can do at that point.
This is not a fault of the vehicle, it's the fault of a pedestrian who failed to exercise basic caution.
Also, for as "big" as those trucks are? Thanks to extensive use of plastics, aluminum, and metal pressed as thin as they can get away with? They weigh comparable, if not less, than my old 78" Dodge pickup I got as my first car. Aside from the vinyl door panels, dash, and plastic tail lights? EVERYTHING on that truck was steel or glass. Even if today's trucks do ride 3'' higher, they're probably SAFER to operate and would stop from 45 in less space than mine. They also have better brakes, they've got ABS and discs, my old truck had no ABS and drum brakes that were less efficient and, again, took more braking space than a modern Dodge truck.