Hacker News Reader

Comment by mhh__ | Hacker News Reader

I don't mind a wide car as long as it's not one of these absolutely fuck-ugly SUVs. They're a plague.

Go to any remotely rural place in the UK (especially if it's rich) and you'll see SUVs and 4x4 with no more than 2 people in them usually - basically just because there are some leaves on the ground, despite all the millions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds that have been spent on making normal cars safer, grip better and more efficient.

Edit: I fully expect to be seeing some Tesla Cybertrucks assuming they come to mass market.

View on HN

People complain about SUVs with a lot of apparently unnecessary capability (4x4, holding lots of people), but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have. I.e., maybe most of the time it's just you in the car, but you want to be able to haul you and your spouse and your parents around when they come to visit. Or you mostly commute to work, but want 4x4 for when you go skiing.

This is why long term, we need to move away from car ownership and toward something like Zipcar for all. In that world, you would just rent whatever vehicle you needed when you needed it. Step one is making it not just possible, but preferable to not own a car.

I feel the same way. I have a VW Atlas. It’s big but I often take advantage of its size including road trips with 4 adults, two kids in car seats, and luggage. I think I use the volume of it enough to justify a large vehicle versus renting one when needed. Unfortunately I can’t afford To also have a small car for the times I don’t need the volume. I definitely feel a little guilty when there are only 2 people in it.

Most people don't need SUVs to go skiing, just good tires, chains, and a shovel. There's a good chance you'll need these things even if you have an SUV.

Also mhh__ was talking about rural UK. They don't have ski hills there (at least not ones with snow).

People complain about SUVs because

1. They are large and get in the way. 2. Their lights are high up, so they blind you when they tail-gate you at night. 3. They often have poor drivers, possibly because they have large blind spots, possibly other socio-economic reasons.

4. They tend to hit pedestrians and cyclists above their center of gravity, so they knock you down under the wheels instead of up and over the windshield

> but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have.

Exactly. My budget only allows for one car (more precisely: my apartment only gives me one parking space). That car has to be able to do all the things I would want to be able to do. That includes driving to work in a snowstorm. That includes potentially giving my nieces and nephews (who are young enough to need car seats) rides to family functions. That includes hauling an entire warehouse's worth of networking equipment and cables to a job site. That includes occasionally having to drive on unpaved mountain roads.

An SUV is a pretty darn good intersection of those needs.

My wife likes to drive an SUV because of the high vantage point of visibility for the driver, and because it's easer to put kids in a car seat when you don't have to bend over.

There are reasons people like SUVs other than "leaves on the ground".

At the expense of literally everyone else on the road

How so?

To begin with, your high vantage point means that everybody else driving reasonably-sized cars has trouble seeing around you.

Ironically that's why we had to get one in the first place. However, in the US, SUVs and Pickups outnumber sedans, so the majority of people sit at the same vantage point.

SUVs kill more people.

I don't think that's a casual relationship though. SUV drivers are probably more distracted because they are more likely to have kids in the back, they might just be worse drivers, etc. Too many factors to say if it's the SUV's fault.

One easy way to find out is to compare proneness to pedestrian collision—fatal and non-fatal—and see if the difference is nearly as great as when comparing only fatal accidents.

But I really don’t see why you’d even guess otherwise. Much larger and taller front compared to a smaller car means it’ll basically hit your abdomen instead of your legs. Higher weight means tha it’ll hit you with greater energy, and won’t brake as easily. In my mind, of course pedestrian accidents involving SUVs are more often fatal, so I wonder what goes on in yours when you say that you think they aren’t.

Is it because there are leaves on the ground? Or because it is worth the extra price to occasionally have the ability to drive 6 people around or haul all your gear up to the mountain safely or to feel safer on the road?

The people I have in mind have multiple cars, and (where I have in mind) there are no mountains.

There are SUV in freaking European _capitals_, with a single person on board.

The day we start taxing asphalt occupation at near insanity level will always be too late.

I have just upgraded to an SUV. Love it! I would not go back to anything smaller!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com