Hacker News Reader

Comment by njarboe | Hacker News Reader

Any article on why US manufactures of vehicles focus on trucks instead of cars and does not mention the chicken tax [1] has not really done their homework. In 1965 a 25% tax was put on imported trucks due to a trade fight with Europe on chicken imports. This 25% tax is still in effect today. SUVs were also put in the truck category for some time and it is not clear which truck like vehicles will be taxed. This is why almost all trucks and SUVs made by non-US companies are manufactured in the US.

Profit margins on US made trucks have been much larger than autos for a long time(mostly due to this tax) and I imagine that all the marketing of the US auto companies over 40 years to get people to buy them instead of sedans has had quite an effect. Once a large number of people are driving tall trucks and SUVs, driving a car is much less comfortable, as you can't see past the truck in front of you from a low sedan.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

View on HN

Most manufacturers have already figured out how to game the chicken tax. For example, Ford installs seats that are removed and destroyed after each Transit Connect reaches the US [0]. I've heard other stories about Subaru doing something similar so that their CAFE metrics weren't screwed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Transit_Connect#Tariff_ci....

The story with the Transit Connect is that it counts as a car (for this tax) while it has the seats, but would counts as a truck when configured for cargo.

But if this same tax discourages (say) Toyota from importing SUVs, then they must count as trucks always, even when configured for passengers. So this loophole doesn't help them.

I thought CAFE was a major factor, as (if I understand right) it discourages big powerful cars, but is silent on trucks including SUVs.

I think CAFEs silence on trucks is partially why small 3rd rows have become more popular on crossovers. If there's a third row it qualifies as a truck versus a car or wagon, I believe the same is true of features like 4WD or sufficient ground clearance.

I'm more interested in learning why there's a lacking feedback mechanism for "hey, that's not what we wanted, let's revisit the regulations for what we were trying to achieve".

That was last election/donation's problem.

First we need to put carseat-destroying subsidies in place so that hard-working American carseat-destroyers aren't put out of a job.

Subaru already makes the Legacy/Outback domestically. They just complained justifiably when non-trucks like the PT Cruiser were classified as such for CAFE gaming.

I think cheaper gas and long commutes has way more of an effect for Americans preferring larger vehicles than fewer foreign trucks being available.

Correct, Americans have preferred larger cars for a long time. American cars in the 50' and 60's were quite large, especially luxury brands. For families, the large station wagon with a huge engine to tow a boat on the weekend and weighing over 2 tons were not uncommon[1]. Americans preferred cars over trucks and I image would have continued to do so if a huge amount of marketing over decades was not used to convince people to buy vehicles that were protected from foreign competition with a 25% import tax.

[1]https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1965/787220/ford_coun...

Also for a very long time trucks got to skate on emissions and safety regulations.

I think trucks were also exempted from fuel economy regulations.

This all combined to kill off the station wagon.

Americans being larger physically and more likely to be overweight probably also has a pretty large effect.

Just look at Tom Selleck in Magnum PI trying to drive the Ferrari. They had to take the seat bottom out, and even then he always drove it with the roof off. His knees flanked the steering wheel.

They had a scene once where he drove a jag, and the top bezel around the windshield was right at eye level.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. 6’5” here and I was disappointed that I wasn’t replacing my 1997 Accord with a 2018.

Safety regulations make cars heavier and efficiency requirements make them more aerodynamic. End result is that I cannot physically fit in an Accord without reclining the seat.

How do taller European countries manage with their smaller cars then?

Germans, Dutch, even the Spaniards are taller on average than Americans.

The average US male weighs 195.8lb and is 5'9" tall. The average German male weighs 181.7lb and is also 5'9" tall.

So Americans are either more muscular or more fat than Germans, either of which would make them larger.

Personal anecdote, my 6'3" friends have no problem fitting in my Porsche Cayman with several inches of headroom to spare, and that's about as short as German cars go. I think the Germans just prioritize vertical space in their cabins more than the Japanese.

I'm 5'9" (average height in the US) and normal weight/healthy. I own a Honda Accord and while I love the car, I have to adjust the seat as far back as it will go because I have long legs.

I... what? I fit just fine in my recent accord at 6’5” 240lbs. The seat is far back but not even maxed, I think, and people still fit behind me. It’s a large sedan...

Many of those small cars are boxier. In a Honda example, I fit fine in a Honda Fit.

I don't believe that's the problem. Popular US market cars like the Accord have a few things in common: 1. They have a sunroof/moonroof, which makes the ceiling lower. 2. The larger sedans tend to have very slanted windshields to help with gas mileage. 3. The seats, annoyingly, tend to have a high minimum height "for a more commanding seating position".

> Once a large number of people are driving tall trucks and SUVs, driving a car is much less comfortable, as you can't see past the truck in front of you from a low sedan.

So just don't tailgate the car in front of you and then it doesn't matter. If the only way you're going to be able to stop in time is if you can see past/through the car in front of you then you're not driving safely to begin with.

If you don't sort of tailgate get ready for someone driving an SUV/truck to cut you off. I'm not saying be on their bumper, just close enough to keep others from dangerously cutting in front of you.

That's not a car/SUV thing. That's just a reflection of natural preferred following distance vs minimum acceptable merging space vs amount of available space on the roads.

I honestly don't understand the purpose of this reply in regards to the original post. It literally has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

i think you missed the point, it's not just a safety thing... its annoying as well. even with proper following distance, seeing more than the car in front of you adds to your safety.

> even with proper following distance, seeing more than the car in front of you adds to your safety.

The proper following distance is around 100 yards, and at that distance you should have no trouble seeing around an SUV.

The proper following distance is 2-3 seconds at any speed, not a flat 100 yards. 100 yards would be good at 65mph, but it would be excessive slower than that, and not enough when traveling faster.

That doesn't do a lot when people are passing you and cutting into your lane immediately after doing so. Now you have to slow and and everyone behind you starts doing the same thing. It's irritating and unsafe.

I don't think that the main problem. I drive a sedan, and I have problems:

- seeing around trucks/SUVs parked near an intersection - turning right at a red when there's a truck/SUV next to me - finding parking spots in a parking lot dominated by trucks/SUVs (Costco is the worst) - seeing at night when there's a truck/SUV behind me (headlights)

It's quite frustrating, especially since I'm in a part of the country with tons of lifted trucks and massive SUVs (Utah).

This is also why the Subaru Brat had rear seats. Because it allowed Subaru to classify the vehicle as a car instead of a truck, circumventing the Chicken Tax.

BMWs largest factory is in Spartanburg, South Carolina and they produce X series vehicles. Mercedes also makes a lot if not all the the GL line in Alabama. They both export out of the US as well.

I suppose it helps American manufacturing and creates jobs. I don’t like “trade wars” but import taxes are not all bad.

In my opinion US trucks are the best SUVs are great but too large for what folks use them for. Japan is good with both cars, suvs, and trucks but they are lackluster on the inside. German cars are my favorite but they are expensive to maintain and unreliable. American cars are terrible unless you like muscle cars.

> Profit margins on US made trucks have been much larger than autos for a long time(mostly due to this tax)

I think it may have more to do with selling fuel efficient compact cars and sedans at a loss in order to sell enough to offset the poor economy of the American Truck™ and meet CAFE requirements.

Also. You get a big truck/SUV for the same reason people prefer a big TV or a large suburban home than a 2 bedroom condo. Bigger is better, at least in the U.S.

it's also because Americans spend a lot more time in their car than their friends across the pond.

if you're in your car for 2 hours a day commuting, driving the kids around, etc, then bigger is better and more comfortable

A 2003 diesel jetta is way better on the highway than a 2015 ford explorer.

This is an absolutely crazy response. In no world is a 15 year old economy sedan more comfortable for a highway commute than a newer SUV. The only argument you could make is fuel economy.

The diesel Jetta emits way more particulate pollution than a modern gasoline-burning SUV, too. Like over an order of magnitude more.

I imagine the GP was talking about easiness to drive. Low cars are more stable and lighter cars accelerate better (not only on speed-ups, but while breaking too).

Overall, driving a truck is much more stressing than a car.

But we're specifically talking about highway commutes where driving dynamics don't really come into play. IMO, the higher position alone makes driving an SUV superior on the highway but the 2003 Jetta reference is what really makes the comment absurd.

Historically (50's thru early 70's) Americans considered v8 full size cars and wagons the only way to travel the multi thousand mile trips common on the continent. Japanese cars changed all that and their smaller form factor became the norm. Mid sized pickups (Chevy LUV) were unseated by Toyota and other brands and replaced station wagons. SUV and minivans became the norm for families. The high end luxury touring/prestige market remains pretty strong - european brands (even if actually owned by Indians) continue to attract demand. Sedans have increasingly been two door performance vehicles (Challenger, Mustang, Camaro) effectively being full sized sports cars. Only vehicles like the Accord, Camry etc are sold as family vehicles. The exception is hybrids, which IMO are the way forward, replacing the hum drum commuter and family multi use saloons with much greater fuel efficiency. There's a tiny niche market for heavily government subsidized and mostly luxury and status signaling EV's, and this market will almost certainly expand with intense political pressure and Chinese dominance. The challenge is that for decades US unions have protected the jobs around the vast transportation economic ecosphere - parts, infrastructure, design, build. This is all arguably being ceded to Asia with the oligarch pied piper Elon Musk selling the Western dream of cheap ultimately autonomous 'green' transportation. What's missing from the Bloomberg article is that Ford Fusion and Focus are on global platforms and remain very strong in europe and elsewhere.

Hybrids are no longer a category on their own. You can buy a Camry or even SUVs in hybrid, and all the brands are expanding their offer to most of their vehicles.

Your comment that "Ford Fusion and Focus are on global platforms" may explain why the Ford cars were so tiny when I looked at them last year. I felt like buying a Ford, but none of the cars had enough room for my head. I'm sure it helps fuel economy and knocks 1% off the price, and few people will care in South America or Asia, but it was a deal killer for me.

Almost all manufacturers are now using global platforms. But generally sedan designers have killed off a large portion of their own market share by making their cars increasingly impractical and uncomfortable in a misguided pursuit of styling and efficiency.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180423/OEM01/180429992/for...

Are you over 6’6”? I ask because my brother-in-law is, and has driven the Focus wagon we just sold - and owns a 1997 Passat. The key seems to be being able to drop the height of the seat.

Germans are slightly taller on average than Americans, and the Dutch are pretty well-known for it. Both are countries where the VW Golf is the median vehicle, and the Focus is one of its main competitors.

$6-7/gallon gas probably does cause people to put up with stuff that they wouldn’t if fuel were commonly $2.50, though.

I'm just 6'2" but I like to sit up straight. I need to see upward to read signs and watch traffic lights. I don't want to injure my head when it moves to the side, for example by impacting a grab handle or the edge of a roof window.

Worse though, are my tall kids. One is expected to be 6'10" soon. Does he just have to buy a bus? Getting a car would be preferred.

Very tall guys here seem to go for VWs, or Audis if they’re feeling spendy. Another rather tall colleague of mine drives an Auris (Toyota Europe's Corolla equivalent). My 6’1” husband chose a Fiesta, and he’s rather long torsoed, to boot.

Cars that are compact/economy cars on the US market are midsize/midmarket here, and that might be why little things like very height-adjustable seats are in them. The Golf/Focus (plus Auris, Astra) segment is extremely competitive in the EU.

Huh. Just realized that most cars here don’t have prominent grab handles.

I would much rather be low to the ground on the highway than up high. It all comes down to personal preference.

> the higher position alone makes driving an SUV superior on the highway

I've heard this position from a number of people and never really understood it. It's usually related to the ability to see over other vehicles, but in times of higher traffic density where that would be most useful, there are almost always numerous larger vehicles on the road that still significantly limit vision.

I've made cross-country trips in everything from a sports car to a 1-ton van, and definitely didn't find the van's height to be an asset in terms of comfort.

Comfort is subjective. I had a Jetta and found it very comfortable, though most people would have thought it too firm or even harsh.

It's probably because it's smaller and lighther and it tends to bounce more longitudinally in turns. Being used to small cars I also find it confortable. A Passat wagon is more confortable though but the misdesigned a/c and the seats ruin it somewhat.

Anecdotally, I hate riding in trucks and SUVs for long distances. Particularly SUVs. Can't stand those things. Particularly as a passenger in the back seat. The view height out the windshield is wonky and made me motion sick last time I spent much time in one.

I drove a rental Ford Fusion Hybrid and then a Ford Expedition on my trip to Texas this summer.

The Fusion was a joy to drive; the Expedition was a chore. Squishy driver's seat, soggy handling, and of course, three times the fuel consumption of the Fusion hybrid.

If I recall properly, the North American Fusion is a slightly reworked Mondeo, which is considered a nice-ish car over here, and would also explain why I thought it was nice: we have a Fiesta and just sold my diesel Focus wagon.

Sorry to see that just when Ford seemed to have figured out that their European division designs decent small cars, they’ve given up on bringing them into the North American market.

It could also be that Americans are bigger.

(I'm not referring to height)

except, we aren't. people are fat everywhere. we aren't even the fattest country.

What is more relevant here is fatness of population among car manufacturing nations. Not sure that the US wins that either though.

which country is the fattest? I assumed it was here in the US.

In obesity rankings, Pacific island nations tend to top the list. I think Mexico is fatter than the US, as well as the the petrostates in the Middle East.

Not the fatest, but really close. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_ma...

36.2% obesity, 12th place. Beaten mostly by small island nations. It's still the 1st most obese western country.

BMI might not be the best indicator since it also factors in height. If we go by weight only, USA is #3 behind two small island nations.

Americans are big. They also have more fat people than other western nations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9345086/The...

Your suggestion of weight only is even worse than BMI. That's like saying a 15 lb turkey is fatter than 12 lbs of lard.

BMI doesn't account for muscle mass. If you have decent muscle you're overweight according to BMI.

weight only < BMI < caliper measurements

Any article that equates fatness with weight is not accurate.

I guess I'm trying to argue that Americans are more voluminous, and trying to approximate volume through mass since body volume by population isn't a commonly available stat. I'd argue that mass is closer correlated to volume than BMI.

Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have normal BMIs. BMI is very sensitive and not very specific, meaning that it has few false positives and lots of false negatives, the opposite of what you suggest.

In this article[1] "Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin" you can see this dramatically illustrated in Figure 1 [2]. The upper left quadrant (different colors for men and women) is the most populous. It contains the people who are obese by body fat percentage but not BMI. The lower right is the least populated. It contains the people who are not obese by body fat percentage but who are flagged as obese by BMI.

The small fraction of the population that have devoted such attention to the cultivation of muscle over other goals, such as athletic performance, are surely well aware of their body fat levels and are unlikely to be impacted by this edge case in BMI measurement. (Their excess muscle may also not be healthy for their cardiovascular system.) Dismissing the utility of a easily applied and highly sensitive screen like BMI is a mistake, both for individuals and for public health.

[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=...

But American cars were bigger in the 50s and 60s too. A very brief search shows that Americans were taller than Europeans then, but the same search shows that they are now too. Not the best source. https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

Yes, a big drop in the ranking apparently:

> Men and women in the United States also experienced a growth spurt, but to a lesser degree. In 1914, U.S. men were the third tallest in the world, and U.S. women were the fourth tallest. But despite increases in height of 2.2 inches and 2 inches (6 cm and 5 cm), respectively, U.S. men are now ranked 37th and women are ranked 42nd, the study found.

https://www.livescience.com/55580-tallest-shortest-people-in...

I have a feeling mexico is a huge factor in that, but have never seen height in US broken down to by race/ethnicity.

Asian living in US and somehow we have come to prefer SUVs too and no it is not because we are fat(I used to drive Hyundai i10 in India), it is because at the end of day SUVs indeed are more comfortable. Taking out baby car seats and putting it back is easier in a SUV. Going on 100mile+ drive is easier in SUV. Mother-in-law visiting? - picking her up(with entire family) from Airport is easier in SUV. So on and so forth.

Obviously - one gets used to these things. In India - typically for example whole family does not go to pick one up from Airport. Babies don't have to be ferreted around in cars that much. Furniture delivery is almost always free in India whereas in US either you have to pay extra or pick up.

A minivan serves a similar purpose.

You should try a Volvo V70 or V90, VW Passat Variant or Audi A6 Avant if you still think SUVs are confortable. No more bouncing around at >120 kmh. Toyota probably also has a comparable Auris Touring or those Verso models. And then there's the Mercedes V Class if you have an extended family.

But trucks aren't that much 'bigger' on the inside than sedans. Go sit in a Toyota Avalon and a Tahoe and tell me where you have more room.

The Avalon probably has 80% as much noise on the freeway and if you set the cruise control to 80, the sedan is going to get 2x-3x better MPG and the Avalon costs half as much as the Tahoe.

What's the adage about a fool and their money?

Often for the price of an SUV you could drive a luxury/sport sedan and have better driving dynamics, fit, and finish as well as comfort.

or you have 3 kids and baby and need the space to drive them music lessons and pick up their friends

If it were only about hauling people then isn't a minivan as good or better? But U.S. manufacturers are abandoning minivans even more quickly than sedans-- only Chrysler still makes one, Ford and GM don't.

The chicken tax and the "cool" factor / branding must play a role over and above the raw utility of hauling lots of people, surely?

The minivan-shaped hole in the market is being filled by crossovers.

But really it's a longer story than that. Minivans had previously replaced station wagons, and the crossovers of today tend to look like a cross between a minivan and a wagon.

Crossovers seem to me to be the worst of all worlds. They have poor gas mileage and terrible highway aerodynamics like large SUVs and have limited trunk space while lacking "utility" features such as trailer hitch mounts or 4WD as standard.

Yes, but many, many people have no use for factory hitches, 4x4, or 6500lb towing capacities. What they want is interior room for passengers, high roofline, visibility, and elevated vantage point. As minivans became unhip (& expensive), consumers found these things in SUV's, but didn't like the price, gas mileage, handling, or safety. So SUV's evolved towards hatches & wagons with better aero, car-like handling, and monocoque frames, and the crossover was born.

They get better gas milage than any truck or truck based SUV.

Their aero isn't as good as a car but it's better than a truck based SUV.

Fold the seats and you've got a trunk only slightly smaller than a minivan without the 3rd row.

AWD SUVs are readily available and generally the standard. FWD is generally reserved for people who want to go out of their way to be economical about it.

Trailer hitch is solved with $300 and a trip to Uhaul (or for the mechanically inclined: $120, Amazon and a 30% chance of needing a drill). With modern horsepower and brakes you can comfortably tow some stupidly large stuff with crossovers so long as you've got a weight distribution hitch to take some of the weight off the rear axle.

Crossovers do nothing great but they do everything passably well, just like the station wagons of the 1950s-80s they replaced.

They make different tradeoffs than trucks and truck-like SUVs. You don't prefer those tradeoffs, but plenty of people do.

There's a broad range that meet lots of different needs. I have a '17 Kia Soul Exclaim. 1.6L turbo 5-door crossover. I can haul 4 adults comfortably and the trunk has more space than I usually use for groceries/gear. It does lack the trailer hitch and 4WD of the Wrangler I traded for it, but $100 fixes the hitch and I don't haul enough or go off-roading to need 4WD. I get 30mpg highway and that little turbo engine can really zip around. It's very fun to drive.

4WD w/o a central differential is useless for most people who use their cars on paved roads. AWD on the other hand, especially viscous coupling auto AWD is quite useful. The trailer mount is only useful for a bike carrier or a light semi trailer.

Three-row crossovers are just minivans with different styling. The 2018 chevy traverse only has 23mm more ground clearance than the toyota sienna. If you put sliding doors on it instead of standard rear doors, it would be a minivan.

The current state of minivans is probably as much a fashion thing as anyone else. People not wanting to see themselves as soccer moms.

A lot of whitewater paddling friends actually favor minivans because they find them more convenient for lots of gear and shuttling people than SUV configurations.

We have a crossover and a wagon. I want to get a minivan or a suburban.

Everyone I've ever known with a minivan has had any number of issues with the vehicle in terms of reliability. From the side door track/motors to the undersized/cramped engine with any number of design compromises.

I would NEVER recommend a minivan to anyone, ever.

What else do you pick if you have >=3 kids? Or if you're a travel guide with up to four passengers?

I have two kids, and we're thinking about a third, so we're looking around at options to replace our sedan. Here's what I've decided:

- SUVs with a third row suck for anyone in the third row, and they get horrible gas mileage - few sedans and SUVs are big enough for two car seats and a booster - minivans are expensive and frequently have annoying mechanical issues

I think I've settled on the Mazda 5 because:

- three kids + cargo (fold down one back seat) is doable - reasonable gas mileage - comfortable for six adults (going out with friends with a babysitter at home)

Unfortunately, they aren't making them anymore. I really have driving SUVs and trucks, but sedans are too small for my family now. Minivans, while completely "uncool", are the best option for people who need to haul people and stuff at the same time.

Isn't that just the craziest thing? How can something so useful be so unpopular?

Just in case your family grows like mine, get this: https://www.chevrolet.com/commercial/express-passenger-van

Store extra rows of seats in your garage until you need them.

I don't have a problem with SUVs... frankly, my only opposition to mini vans is the fact that I've never seen one without significant issues in 5 years of ownership or less.

My family got a Toyota minivan in 2003, and I love it. Today, we use it mostly for hauling musicians and their instruments, or for going on longer trips. A couple years ago we rented a giant Ford Expedition SUV, and it seemed like it had remarkably little interior space compared to our van.

I like being elevated from the ground, especially in bumper-to-bumper traffic. It's comfortable to sit up. But it's big and consumes gas, and we also have a subcompact. So the van mainly lives in the garage and we use our bicycles for getting around when we can.

People have told me that they got a "crossover" or SUV because the minivan carries the soccer-mom stigma. But damn, talk about utility.

Soccer moms drive SUVs nowadays.

Indeed, my friend told me she got a Pacifica because she didn't want to look like a soccer mom. She was in fact a soccer mom. And I said to her: "I've got news for you..."

You wouldn‘t have to drive your kids around if your country weren‘t designed primarily for cars.

And this helps the discussion how, exactly?

Sure, but that's so far outside the norm as to be almost irrelevant.

The average family size in the US is a hair over 3 (two parents, one child, roughly). In 2017, light truck sales were roughly double the sales of cars.

"Average" is a particularity bad way to measure this data point. Especially if you have a split distribution with a lot of childless families and lot with a number of children.

You measure average and no one is average.

Sure, but the numbers still fall in my favor. Of families with children in the household (where the mother is near the end of child-bearing age), about ~60% have 1 or 2, ~25% have 3, and the remaining ~15% have 4 or more.[1] Add in households with no children, and the "large family, need a 7-passenger vehicle" demographic gets quite small.

1 - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-...

By your own numbers, 40% of families consist of 5 or more people. That's a pretty hefty chunk.

And sure, technically you can fit five people in a sedan, but it ain't comfortable in the slightest, especially when you have carseats. An SUV or minivan is much more practical for this 40% chunk of US families.

And as mentioned elsewhere, it's not always just the mom/dad and kids. You might have the family dog, band instruments, friends, non-core-family relatives, a month's worth of groceries, etc.

Plus, even as one person, I've gotten a lot of good use out of my Highlander because I can fold down the seats and haul relatively-large things (like furniture) and keep the seats up and drive people around without having to own two separate vehicles to do it. As a bonus, AWD and all-terrain tires means that I can do these things during snowstorms and/or on unpaved mountain roads with relative safety and ease compared to your run-of-the-mill FWD (or - worse - RWD) sedan (the latter activity is niche, for sure, but the former is typically routine for vast majority of car-owning Americans living north of the Mason-Dixon Line).

40% of families with children. There are plenty of households with no children, single people, etc.

But even those people - as I just described - can still find immense benefit in owning something bigger than a sedan.

So what you are saying is about 40% of families need 5 seats minimum?

And if you want to be able to transport anyone else (kids have a friend coming over, give someone a ride, etc, etc) you need a 7 passenger vehicle?

How is that "quite small"?

In my demographic, it is considered important to have a vehicle that will also accommodate a child's friend or two. Thus, 2 child households with 3rd row vehicles are quite common.

Not disagreeing but in Japan a lot of families handle this with Kei format cars like Daihatsu Tanto. The biggest family car I see in Japan is Toyota Alphard/Vellfire.

Do you know how Japanese norms/laws around child car seats differ?

I feel this is part of what's changed in the US: the 70s station wagon worked for 3-4 kids in a row, but to fit 4 enormous small-person seats you need a minivan.

The Japanese equivalent is four grandparents in wheelchairs. (Kidding!) I don’t have kids, so I’m not sure about child seats. I was doing the mental math on how one couple could produce four kids who need child seats until I remembered twins, triplets, etc.

Kids are required to be in car seats until age 8 in most states.

Yup. If you have a child ever other year (pretty reasonable) and have four kids, the oldest will still be in a booster when the fourth is born.

We have two kids (oldest is four and still in a booster) and we're considering a third, which is also making us seriously consider a larger car. We'll either need a larger car or a smaller car seat because we cannot currently fit three seats in our sedan (or at least, I don't think we can).

I looked it up. It’s the same in Japan. As someone who grew up crawling around in the footwell of a VW Bug at highway speeds, that sounds both exceedingly prudent and a bit unrealistic. You can definitely fit four car seats in an Alphard because it’s a full sized minivan. The kei cars are legally limited to driver plus three passengers anyway, I think.

In Japan it is common to see children walking around inside a car while it is being driven. Seat belts and child seats are seen as optional by some.

Kei cars only seat 4 people, but people do squeeze 5 in on occasion, especially when it comes to kids.

Or buy a 4 child seat.

https://multimac.co.uk/p/multimac_1320_4_seater

Kei cars are also surprisingly roomy inside. I'm 194cm tall, and I fit better in a Suzuki Alto then in the old Volvo 740 (there was a dark spot in the cloth ceiling of our family Volvo where my dad and my heads would rub against it).

Of course the sacrifice is the complete removal of crumple zones...

But if everyone drives lightweight cars, the need for crumple zones is probably greatly diminished, right?

Zoning encourages that large suburban home, by making walkable cities more expensive than they are elsewhere.

So, there are regulations pushing people in the direction of large homes and large vehicles.

Interestingly enough Donald Trump tweeted about this the other day:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10677911017828311...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/10677926101804564...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com