Hacker News Reader

Comment by wongarsu | Hacker News Reader

Trucks in urban settings are an exclusively American thing. Because of the chicken tax [1], a 20% import duty on trucks, foreign trucks are unprofitable in the US. This lack of competition incentivizes American auto makers to create as much domestic demand for trucks as possible.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

View on HN

Urban pickup trucks in particular are very American, but the ever increasing number of SUVs in places like central London is just as absurd, not to mention problematic[0]. I'm guessing one reason Europe favours SUVs over trucks is because the roads are generally much narrower here.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...

SUVs are the minivans of rich suburban soccer mums.

I really hate that trend as most of time people driving it have no idea what they are doing + have no need for that capacity.

but now we're putting people in the position where if you're not driving SUV and you're in a collision with an SUV you come off worse. so your option to remain safe is to buy an SUV so that if you hit/get hit another SUV or you hit/gethit another vehicle you end up in a better position

I don’t think that’s true and it’s possible to design small cars to fare well. I had an old Saab 9-3 that was t-boned by a Chevy Avalanche at about 40 mph.

Both vehicles were totaled. My passengers had some lacerations from shattered glass. The avalanche people were taken away in an ambulance. I was fine.

Small cars can be designed quite robustly to withstand these huge trucks hitting them. Not all though.

I think the current tesla sedans do quite well with large vehicle impact testing.

Whoa, freaky. My 9-3 was rear ended by an Avalanche. Luckily no one was hurt and insurance didn't total my car somehow.

I wish it hadn’t totaled mine. It was a 2000 so before GM turned Saabs into Malibus.

Modern safety features certainly help, but ultimately physics is still physics.

There can also be serious problems when modern vehicles have collisions with older vehicles that don't have those safety features, for similar reasons.

It’s not so much about the design than the impression. Lots of people don’t like driving and would rather a bigger car because they feel unsafe next to those other giant cars. Nothing to do with actual danger, just perception.

I think people like excuses to drive SUVs. I had a friend who drove an SUV and talked about the safety and space needs. But the SUV had worse safety and space than many sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks. I always thought it curious about why they would cover up whatever the reason was for driving an SUV but was never able to talk about it because they got deflective and defensive.

The downside is that an SUV flips over without any effort. Especially with the high greenhouses and unavoidable sunroofs nowadays. I've seen SUVs flip over just from being rear-ended.

I saw a Defender flipped on its side after being t-boned by a Mercedes taxi.

speaking of weight

over/under 2.5t on weight of that tesla cyberwart?

Definitely over. A claimed 500mi range on the upper model with three large motors is a LOT more copper, steel, and lipo cells than the X.

This is why I exclusively drive a Mac truck.

Oh dear lord, what's Apple gone and done now? Semi rigs?

It's "Mack" truck

Notice how one of the first marketing points of this new monstrosity is "passenger safety". Because the safety of the passengers in a vehicle the size of a truck with the performance of a sports car is really important. Given the poor standard of driver training it's going to be suicide to drive smaller car soon, let alone be on a bicycle or walking.

>people driving it have no idea what they are doing + have no need for that capacity.

Presumptuous to assume the operators of these vehicles don’t have the need for the capacity. My next door neighbor has 3 kids that fit in 3 car seats she carts them around all day not to mention their accessories and shopping and I always thought she needed a bigger vehicle. SUVs fare better in a collision with a smaller car, when it comes to protecting your kids you are better off riding in a tank.

>3 kids that fit in 3 car seats

Would all fit in a compact

Car seats are massive and I’m pretty sure they’re deliberately designed so that few models will fit three to a row. They certainly don’t fit in my compact or my crossover. Putting them in my compact also requires me to drive with my chest on the steering wheel.

show me a compact that can take 3 car seats and have isofix mounts for all 3 of them.

There are plenty in the UK: https://www.carshop.co.uk/latest-news/cars-with-3-isofix-poi...

Most of those have the "third" set of mounts in the front passenger seat. Is it common to put kids in the front seat in the UK?

In the US kids who are small enough to need a car seat aren't going to be in the front (air bags aren't designed for kids)

I don't know if its a legal requirement, but every car with passenger airbags I've ridden in over the last five years at least has had the ability to disable the passenger airbag, and clear warnings that you should do so if a child is in the front seat.

A lot of those cars arnt compacts. Something like the Grand C4 Picasso is SUV size. And for the compacts they say:

ISOFIX points can be found in the outer rear seats and in the front passenger seat.

So then you most likely wont have space for the second parent.

The ISOFIX requirement is the big constraining factor. Ditch that and you can find combinations of compact car and child seats which will fit three across, though you’ll have less choice in terms of child seats.

Even if you ditch the ISOFIX requirement, it's still difficult to find a combination of 3 car seats that will fit across the back bench, even with large cars.

There isn't a single compact car on the market which fits a family of five - three children in ISO-fix seats and two adults in the front.

You need to look at the Peugeot 5008 or larger MPVs if you want that.

It's a gap in the market, I'd kill for a Model 3 sized car which was 5cm wider and had three proper seats in the back.

Source: the last three months researching and looking for the smallest car I can buy which can fit the whole family in.

Maybe because not many people have triplets? My parents had five children and never had more than one baby seat in the car at a time (they only ever bought one baby seat).

Laws have changed over time. When we got our third our oldest was 6. She was still required to be in a kid seat.

Agreed, there are very few cars on the market that fit the bill. There's the Ford S-Max, Peugeot 5008, and the Audi Q7 (which is ludicrously big) - I think that's it.

It really does feel like a massive gap in the market, and I wonder why that is?

BTW, if you're still looking, and depending on the age of your kids, it might be worth looking at the MultiMac - it's basically a new back bench for your car, with 3x car seats built-in.

I have the Citroën c4 spaceturer which also does this.

The ww Turan is also a option.

Technically, all cars can take 3 car seats (1 in the front, 2 in the back) if they have the mounts for it.

And the space. I doubt any normal family car I've ever driven could fit a rear-facing baby seat behind a tall person in the driver's seat, for example.

No kid who is small enough to be in a car seat should be in the front passenger seat.

Here's a long list, along with a list of carseats that have been tested "3 across" in those cars. A minivan or SUV would undoubtedly be easier to load kids in and out of, of course.

https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-car-seat-guide...

SUVs have a dreadful record for safety. They feel safe, because they're so big, but they really aren't more safe than smaller vehicles.

Get a MiniVan (called a people carrier in the UK) if you need the capacity, not an SUV. Better MPG, less likely to flip over, similar or greater capacity.

And sliding doors, which are one of the best inventions ever when it comes to getting kids in and out of the car in tight spaces and garages.

SUVs fare better in a collision with a smaller car, when it comes to protecting your kids you are better off riding in a tank.

Unless the other party was driving a bigger tank in response to everyone else's tanks.

An arms race where vehicles get heavier and heavier isn't really in anyone's interests over the long run.

They are often called housewife tanks in Germany.

Chelsea tractors

"Hausfrauenpanzer", pronounced somewhat like "House-Frown-Pun-Tser". In case anyone was wondering.

As a bit of a WW2 historian/wargamer, that is the most hilarious thing I've heard in a long time... thank you from my particular context :)

Brilliant.

Interesting. I’ve never heard that before, but I have heard them called Einkaufspanzer (shopping tanks) several times. The implication being it’s the tank you use to do your grocery shopping in.

That's brilliant.

Hilarious - my family and I joke and call the inevitable massive chevy suburbans "Mom Tanks"

> have no need for that capacity

If I'm forking out 40K+ on a car I'm going to make sure it's at least useful for 2-3 vacations per year with the kids. That currently requires about 900L of boot space (stroller, 3 big duffels, a few boxes with supplies, toys, etc)

The thing is, if you the math, owning a small car and renting a larger vehicle the 2-3 times a year you need it is vastly less expensive.

Not the case in central/eastern Europe (where most personally owned vehicles are second hand)

Better for the environment too.

I own zero cars and rent when required. I save a fortune.

For sure! If your living situation allows it that’s definitely the cheapest option, at least for car budget.

By myself I can live with my bicycle and motorbike but once kids, daycare, schools and 10Kg of groceries per week come in to your life things change.

Most grocery stores in the places I’ve lived offer online shopping. From Amazon Fresh to Carrefour. Try it, it will save you so much effort.

You see them everywhere in urban and rural Australia too, though the aussies call them ute.

Honestly if my family is going to own just one car, it will be a SUV, instead of a sedan/compact.

Ute for utility vehicle, I presume?

Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny.

Heh. Another great performance by the late Fred Gwynne.

As someone with two kids, massive storage space appeals to me very much.

Flying somewhere for vacation now costs $$$, so driving say to France, Spain or Portugal is a lot more appealing. A baby stroller already takes up half the 500L boot/trunk space of my BMW X1 and even with an annoying & noisy 400L roof box we still can't fit everything we want (I used to go backpacking for months with a 35L pack, so I'm not someone who takes the kitchen sink on vacation).

A Skoda Superb has a boot space of around 600L, one of the largest among "normal" cars. If you want more space, I guess you have to go for something that may look out of place in the city center but does have practical appeal even outside of farms.

As your example numbers here show though estates are often better for storage than crossovers. So there must be other factors behind crossover popularity.

Their being higher is a big factor I bet (less stooping and more road visibility, although the latter is less of a factor as they get more popular).

The fact you sit higher and the extra visibility that gives on the road is indeed a huge plus. Car salesman told me "everyone's ditching estates for crossovers nowadays" and almost every brand makes one.

Conversely, a low center of gravity and the superior emergency handling that it gives a car is also a huge plus.

My wife used to own a Mercury Sable. I literally dodged a deer with it one day without rolling the vehicle. Ended up in the next lane over in less than half a second still going down the highway.

With my big pickups, I just try to center the deer on my massive grill guard so they don't dent the quarter panels.

You can’t get more American than this comment. Cultural clash at its finest.

I'm with you on this. I recently drove an BMW X5, a 350D M-Sport, and the high level of body roll was a real surprise - straight out of the showroom I turned at a set of lights and thought I was going to roll the bloody thing!

Also, realistically I don't think sitting slightly higher up gives much better visibility.

The fucking problem is now that everyone has an SUV, driving something of a normal size makes you feel like you're going to get crushed to death in an accident.

The trick is to accept your fate. I daily a Miata.

Ah, I used to have one for a while. Great fun.

Reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw on a big, jacked-up American truck, though: "If you can't stop, smile as you go under."

Not as small, but my car is a Prius C. I feel dwarfed by most cars on the roads these days. I'm always needing to inch out juuuust a little further for a turn just so I can see if the road is clear for me to proceed.

You usually can but than there are the moments where you can't. Like that 1.3 parking spots the SUV took (https://i.imgur.com/RGxHHkF.jpg) because...well nobody knows because it should actually fit but the driver couldn't park it in despite the x amount of cameras and assistants or maybe just didn't want to because he/she needed more space to get out of it in the end (actual reason presented to me once). Parking with one wheel on the street/bike lane is quite common too. However probably not because of the same reasons as the street should be wide enough to get out so maybe there are just not enough parking sensors in there. Or that SUV in a narrow city road-fun: driving with too much distance to the right side so everybody coming from the front has to wait for the city tank to pass them because somehow SUV drivers don't have a good feeling about how wide it really is.

Well yeah...they might be a thing that fits well in the US but they as sure as hell don't belong in Europe.

I weekend a tiny roadster as well.

I used to, until my MR2 was run off a road by a careless truck driver. I was fine but the trauma persists - the sickening sound of running into hard items at 70+ mph is hard to forget.

TRACK DAY BRO! :D

Reading this thread and seeing all of the reasons people come up with to justify their "need" of a truck is hilarious.

I live in the midwest, have to deal with snow, and with a good set of winter tires I do just fine in my 97 na.

does the math really work out? You will also have to spend quite some money on fuel and should factor in the depreciation and maitenance costs of your car to make it comparable. And flights on popular routes in Europe are pretty cheap nowadays.

Estimated cost both ways is about 600EUR, that includes fuel, tolls, a cheap hotel half way. Brussels - Bilbao is always an expensive flight for some reason. There's Ryanair airports nearby but it's a huge hassle and we'd still have to rent a car upon arrival.

> Flying somewhere for vacation now costs $$$, so driving say to ...

What about the rest of the time though?

Would you save money by using a "normal" car for most of the year, and then renting something bigger (SUV, (mini)van) when you need the large volume? Or purchase a hitch for your car and rent a trailer when you need to haul things?

A co-worker of mine drives a Ford F-150 year-round because he owns a fishing boat that he used 5-6 weekends per year. Seems... sub-optimal.

My current car is a BMW X1, which isn't really a big car at all. But I do need more space a few times a year, usually on extended trips.

A bigger car of a non-premium brand with a small engine would probably cost about the same in taxes, insurance, consumption.

F-150 is total overkill of course.

I was recently shopping for a car with loads of space - it's actually surprising how little storage space there is in most SUVs, especially compared to larger saloons, estates and hatchbacks!

An Audi Q5, for example, is big vehicle, yet I've more space in my 3 Series GT. Very similar story with the BMW X3 and the Merc equivalent.

At some the very biggest SUVs, such as the Q7 and X5, yes, you have a decent amount of space - but it's absolutely less than you'd think for what are basically tanks.

Roads that have always been able to pass sensibly-sized cars on either side are effectively one-way now because of all the outsize vehicles.

> foreign trucks are unprofitable in the US.

Toyota trucks are everywhere and our family 1995 Toyota t-100 regularly had people stopping us making offers on it from about 2005ish until I gave it to my half-brother in 2013 with almost 140k miles on it (which is nothing for a Toyota), I even had people knock on the door of our house offering to buy it when it wasn't for sale. The Indiana State Police (I live in Indiana) even had some of their fleet as Toyota pickups for years (they still might). Actually, I'm quite confident I received more offers for my t-100 than I did for my '67 c-10 and I'd regularly get stopped and asked if I was willing to sell it too (which I finally did when someone offered me twice what I'd paid for it, which I'm still sore about I really miss that truck).

To be fair though, Toyota does manufacture a lot of vehicles in Canada and the United States which gets around the 'chicken tax'.

The reason you don't see a lot of imported pickups is because most of them are absolutely tiny, when you see an Isuzu truck for example it looks about as practical as an El Camino.

They are also popular in Austria because you pay lower yearly/monthly taxes on small utility trucks even if you don't run a business. Plenty of large US trucks parking in the center of Vienna...

Lots of electric vehicles too, downtown Vienna is thankfully pretty hipster as well as cowboy.

Same for the Netherlands, but here it's only for business owners. But nowadays even the mailman in a business owner, thanks to contracting changing the job market.

A small Peugeot diesel crossover, weighing 1392kg, will cost you €1484 per year in road tax. Meanwhile a Toyota Hilux at 2030kg will cost you €496 in road tax. Even a Ford F250 with the 7.3L V8 and 2850kg will cost you only €692 per year. Less than half of a family crossover.

The worst thing is that some pickup trucks don't have a bed big enough to qualify as a work vehicle, so they cut the bed and make it longer (VW Amarok) or they take out the rear seats and put a divider in between to create a cargo area. Or people just buy a bigger truck so it's big enough to qualify. It's also exempt from CO2 tax giving you between €5000 and €72,000 (not a typo) off your initial purchase. So the €256,000 Range Rover SVA suddenly becomes a whole lot more affordable at €184,000, just by tossing the rear seats, calling it a utility vehicle and registering it on your business.

Mind boggling that we do this while construction of new homes is shut down all over the country because of the nitrogen crisis.

Here in Belgium you have the rear seats taken out of any car and register it as "lichte vracht" (light cargo), massively reducing the taxes you pay on it. Anyone can do this.

I've seen an Audi RS6 like this.

Here are detailed pictures of a Range Rover Autobiography converted to a cargo van: https://link.marktplaats.nl/m1475620469

I've actually considered removing the rear seats from my Ford Fiesta simply for the increased practicality, was mostly just deterred by the hassle/expense of installing some kind of cargo floor to replace the seats.

My wife and I both own businesses here and neither of us have heard of this.

That's absolutely nuts.

The only thing I heard of is that older cars can be registered under a company and the market value used for tax purposes. That's why you see a lot of these massive Mercedes on the road..

What do new homes have to do with nitrogen?

The Netherlands outputs too much nitrogen. Mainly because we are the number two exporter of food. So we are drastically cutting sources of nitrogen. Construction of new homes is done by heavy machinery that output a lot of nitrogen into the atmosphere.

I should add that only 1 percent of nitrogen is caused by construction, compared to 40 percent being caused by agriculture.

Did you mean carbon? I’ve never heard of anyone caring about nitrogen emissions.

I'd expect the lack of competition, especially from Japan, would make the American trucks more expensive and less reliable.

Add to that the hardcore brand loyalty a lot of truck owners seem to have, it really is surprising.

What else is really surprising to me is their resale value, especially when they are optioned with desirables such as 4x4 or a diesel powertrain; 10-15 year old Dodge Rams with the Cummins are still selling in the $10k+ range, with some of the nicer 10-year-old examples fetching closer to $20k, roughly half the original MSRP

There is actually a fair amount of competition from Japan. The Toyota Tundra/Tacoma, Nissan Titan/Frontier, and Honda Ridgeline are all popular and in some ways better trucks than their American counterparts. I think many "truck people" are also people who tend to prefer domestically-made goods; in the same way that people shopping at Home Depot are more likely to buy products with the "Made in the USA" sticker on them.

The Tundra is the only full-size truck made in Texas.

The Titan is made in Mississippi.

The Ridgeline in Alabama.

Those who identify as Republicans seem to indicate willingness to pay more for Made in USA than Democrats according to the polls I've seen.

https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/21/poll-support-for-purch...

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/171016...

There's a bit of irony in that the Japanese car companies make all their cars (destined for the US market) in the US, whereas the American car companies tend to prefer Mexico.

In fact the 2019 Honda Ridgeline has more American content than any other pickup, US brands included.

https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2019/06/2019-honda-ridgeline-i...

I mean, they are.

But they’re trucks and not cars, so things randomly falling off is part of the appeal.

If you have 2-3 provider and strong demand that is enough competition

The Tacoma (Japanese) is the best selling mid-size truck in the US. It isn't the lack of Japanese trucks.

How is the chicken tax related to practicality of trucks in urban settings? It makes American trucks cheaper. But OP's question was about the practicality of a large truck in an urban setting.

It seems like you wanted to show off your knowledge of the chicken tax and just threw it in an answer to whatever thread came up first.

I believe their point is thaat if the automotive industry has any control at all, then they'll lean toward the segment that has a moat to protect them from competition. So buying advertising to make it seem normal or desirable to have a truck for example.

It doesn't make them more practical, just more common.

>It makes American trucks cheaper.

Cheaper relative to the foreign competition, but the prices of American trucks are not reduced by the tax.

>It seems like you wanted to show off your knowledge of the chicken tax and just threw it in an answer to whatever thread came up first.

Maybe, but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who don't know about the chicken tax. It is relevant to a general discussion of trucks.

It's definitely relevant to a general discussion about trucks. I just couldn't tell if I was missing something and it was somehow directly related to trucks in urban environments.

>an exclusively American thing.

UK has Chelsea Tractors.

Though those are not usually pickups. More Range Rovers and similar. The Thais like their pickups though. Locally made Hiluxs are #1

They're very popular in the countryside. Pick-ups from Ford, Mazda, Isuzu are also locally made in Thailand.

They're used a lot as utility and work vehicles. Road conditions can be pretty bad especially during the rainy season.

In Bangkok small cars are more popular.

> Trucks in urban settings are an exclusively American thing.

I suppose you have never been in Crete, Greece. :P

Wouldn't they have that incentive regardless?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com