No. That would only be potentially true if people were proposing a law to limit the form factor of trucks that are driven in cities (and even if so, it would not be obvious; you'd have to look at the numbers). Since that isn't feasible, and all the proposed laws are about limiting the form factor of all consumer trucks, the average statics are the relevant ones.

You can always find a subpopulation where some effect is large; that can't be good reason to make rules that constrain the entire population.

Observation: bigger and heavier vehicles are safer for their occupants in any impact.

Regulation: cars should be safer

Impact: All vehicles continuously increase in size and weight year on year, decreasing the safety of older vehicles and non-vehicular road users

You have not responded to my rebuttal to what you said, you're just bringing up a different argument.

Sure, I don't actually know what your argument is to rebut? I know many people who would like to buy a ford ranger sized truck, but manufacturers discontinued them a decade ago because fuel efficiency regulations disincentivized them.

Not if saving 5k pedestrians kills 10k highway drivers. (Numbers made up, I’m just saying you have to consider them.)

Why would design changes that improve visiblity to avoid killing pedestrians end up killing more highway drivers?

From other threads, one might conclude that animal accidents in rural areas inspire some apprehension about wedge-profiled designs. In USA, 1m out of the 6m auto accidents each year involve one car and one animal, with a human death rate of 200 per year.