There are certainly lots of regulations that make cars more expensive than they need to be but I don't think MPG standards are one of the first order cases.
Even so, the actual gas mileage owners get is lower than advertised, but still higher than a decade ago.
The increased fuel efficiency standards have actually lead to higher costs of vehicle development to lighten the car and make the engine do more with less.
Your lamenting the surge in trucks and SUV ownership is ironic since the increase is actually a direct result of the newer mileage standards: if trucks are now rated similar to where cars were rated 15 years ago, then why not go for the more utilitarian vehicle?
If you follow the logic "go for the more utilitarian vehicle", then why not then commute with a semi trailer truck, after all these have a higher point of view, can haul more stuff. Or why not commute with a mining dump truck, it's got a practical bed and loads of space.
You are asking people to purchase two vehicles for themselves: one high efficiency commuter and one utility vehicle.
Why do people in Texas commute with a pickup? Because they don't want to buy a sedan in addition, and I don't blame them. If you look at liberal California, you'll see tons of Subaru AWD light SUV/crossovers. Why don't Californians just bike everywhere to save on gas? Are you going to spite them because they want a vehicle that does everything they need?
Think of it as a three axis space with people capacity, indoor cargo space and outdoor cargo space on all three axis (I'm approximating here, there's more things than that people consider in a vehicle purchase but those are the big ones that determine which models you're considering).
Crew cab and extended cab trucks have a lot of all three of those things (even more if you toss on a cap) making them capable of checking all the "must have" boxes of many potential buyers. The people that don't need the outdoor space get crossovers. The people that need more indoor space or seating get three row SUVs and minivans. The people that need the same blend of indoor/outdoor/seating but less of it get midsize trucks.
The husband wants a driver's car with a manual and the wife wants a convertible with AWD and two rows of seating so they get a 4dr Jeep Wrangler (facepalm implied).
Of course most vehicles are at least partially a luxury purchase so people higher on the economic spectrum will purchase more capacity than they "need" (three row SUV for two kids, 3/4-ton truck to tow a pop up camper).
How hard you work your vehicles is inversely correlated with income (generally speaking, exceptions are in abundance when you speak in generalizations like this).
If you hang out with the HN type crowd then you'll rarely if ever see someone fill every seat in a car or use a pickup to its full capacity. We're generally rich enough to afford more vehicle than we "need" in every regard (pickup trucks to haul light loads, three rows of seating for families with <4 kids, high performance German driving machines for a commute that's mostly sitting in traffic, etc, etc). At the other end of the economic spectrum people shoehorn whatever vehicle is available to them into every role it needs to fill.
Every time I'm strapping material to the roof of one of my beater cars at home depot I'm immediately self aware that I am not acting the way people of my income level are expected to by other people of the same income level. Depending your income level pressing a less than ideal vehicle into service to fit all your needs is just not an option you let yourself seriously consider.
So yeah, the people driving newish vehicles are mostly rich enough to not "need" all the capability they have and it's generally not socially acceptable for these people to go all out using their vehicles.
Edit:
You can see this playing out in the comments.
Someone says they "need" a pickup to do something and gets responses like
"No you don't, people in India haul lumber on motorcycles"
or
"But people in France can tow their their boat with a subcompact car"
While that might be true the social norms of the US do not permit middle class and upper middle class people to use the piss out of their vehicles.
here in CA, i get the impression it's perfectly okay to load your car up quite fully. We put 5 people in an SUV without 3rd row seating on a regular basis without any kind of shame.
One size does not fit all, especially with expensive and utilitarian items like cars and trucks.
- I volunteer at a community garden and move mulch/plants/soil
- I cycle, kayak, and go camping and it's easier to transport my gear
- I am a homeowner, and do the repairs and maintenance myself. It's hard to haul things like lumber and miter saw in the trunk of a civic.
- Taking tree trimmings and other wood mulch to a dump site
- When buying new furniture, I can move it myself instead of renting/borrowing a truck
Unless you’re hauling thousand of pounds behind that truck every day (above smaller vehicle tow limits, which is a legitimate use case if you're someone who is a shipper/transporter or contractor with a heavy trailer of some sort), it’s a waste, but to each their own.
I supposed it is as unnecessary as anything in life, no more or less so than a Tesla, Civic, motorcycle, or scooter
Edit: I will concede that a mining dump truck would be unnecessary, in response to the parent comment
We see things differently. To me, it is the ultimate tool: efficient, reliable, the safest vehicle I can put my family in, and saves me time in the lack of fueling and maintenance required. I have no problem paying for nice tools. It's a sexy car, no doubt! But to me, that is far down the requirements list.
I agree. I paid more than I would for a car so others in the future can pay less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_Jumpy
If you want a car that looks slightly better and costs a bit more, you could go with a VW T6:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Transporter_(T6)
Here in Europe, most people with your usage pattern would actually just buy a station wagon and hitch a trailer to it when needed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Insignia#/media/File:Opel...
There are even rooftop containers for kayaks and specific cycle holders for the rear of the car so that you can go camping with a typical European station wagon without having to use a trailer.
I'm not trying to complain about the choices you made, but rather trying to emphasize the point of the article. Pickup trucks are more of a cultural phenomenon than a practical necessity. If the emission standards are raised, other solutions will appear without much/any loss in convenience.
I 100% agree that pickups are a American cultural icon (just look at the ads, they drip nationalism) but it is hard to argue that they are not practical.
I'd say that the vehicles I listed and pickup trucks manage fairly equally in the above transport categories (tools, furniture, kayak, bike). The way to go about it is just different.
But: Pickup trucks outclass all the vehicles I listed as soon as you leave the tarmac. Here in Germany, many people in rural areas who would own a pickup truck in the US also own a "family tractor" for working in the woods or in other off-road locations.
Then again: The vehicles I listed will always be faster on the Autobahn than a pickup truck. I regularly see people in station wagons go 160km/h and above for prolonged distances on the A3 at night.
In the end, I find it extremely fascinating how a different regulatory environment has bred different 'species' of utility vehicles on both sides of the Atlantic.
Wouldn't legislation that requires cleaner and more efficient vehicles level the playing field? If all companies had to do it then it wouldn't be a competitive liability.
How else am I going to build a retaining wall, lawn maintenance, be the volunteer dance dad in the parade, pick up some building supplies for weekend projects, all while fitting three oversized safety-regulated car seats?
Come on, this statement is close-minded.
The only category we don't have is what Americans call light trucks.
I inherited my first pickup (a Nissan Hardbody), a couple decades ago from my father, who'd used it for years for beekeeping work, and the F-150 still doesn't match it for fuel economy.
A big car fits more people and cargo. They're safer in a crash (if you ignore single vehicle accidents and especially rollovers). Finally it's a status symbol: bigger generally means more impressive and expensive. Americans don't share their salaries and directly bragging is faux pas, but we tend to signal social-economic status through property.
Modern engines have a lot of power, when you are at full regime. Getting to full regime is what emission control directives have made more and more painful during last decades.
I bet they would sell really well.
You know the bigger the better, right?
Also those SUV’s often look huge, but a Honda Accord weighs 2/3 as much as a Chevy Suburban before adding passengers. Weight reduces acceleration and fuel economy so they use body styles that look huge while being mostly hollow.
So ... buy a Subaru Forester, I guess. Or another CUV. Taller bumper so you don't get run over by a pickup, but still a smallish vehicle.
Vehicle and cargo (you) damage is more strongly related to force than kinetic energy. You can be going 150mph and stop just fine by using the brakes to convert that kinetic energy into thermal energy. Using a concrete barrier and the vehicle to dissipate that force throughout the structure of the vehicle would work as well as far as getting rid of the kinetic energy but will probably have a less desirable outcome for the contents of the vehicle. Same energy in both cases, way different forces involved. It's like how a sledgehammer hits with more force the more rigid the thing you're hitting is.
Also it's not the acceleration that kills you[1], it's the bouncing off things in the cabin that kills you.
[1]http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm (8th to last paragraph)