So are you and, above all, they. Here's the fallacy:
These vehicles can withstand much more damage than passenger cars and the occupants are less likely to be injured in the event of collision.These vehicles can also cause much more damage than passenger cars, and the occupants of the other vehicle (not to mention pedestrians) are much more likely to be injured in the event of collision with such a behemoth, than with a regular car.
Many people are making a reasoned, thought out choice to protect their loved ones with the most massive (and therefore the most protective of passengers) vehicle they can afford.So, is their choice to, in the event of a collision, kill and maim others much more efectively than they could with an ordinary car also "a reasoned, thought out" decision (which would make it the moral equivalent of murder in the first degree), or
just sheer devil-may-care thoughtlessness (murder in the second degree, or if you're lucky, manslaughter)?
Either way, it's awfully egocentric, isn't it?
For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution;How apropos... Albeit perhaps not in the way you thought.
and it is always wrong
H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw