"Big=safe" may not be smart reason to get a big car, but it's absolutely a common ("popular") one in the US today. Just looking at how cars are advertised, there's basically two main marketing pushes "just look how safe it keeps your family" and "just look at the hobbies it could let you do that you probably won't actually do but think you will", and yes that second one is a pretty equally common reason people buy them, but both messages get about equal air time in the US and seem common in reasons people buy them.
I realize I'm very dismissive of people buying them for "hobbies/interests", but over-buying capacity based on "perceived need that doesn't actually exist" is a trap that also makes the roads less safe and should be regulated.
Am I hauling crap from Home Depot every day? No. But two or three times a month I need to move a bunch of stuff, be it lumber, mulch, or doors. So I have a vehicle that can do that, because not having that capability would cost more per month in rental or delivery fees than having that capability costs me.
Obviously everyone's needs are different and everyone thinks their own needs are special, so there's not an easy immediate fix and it would need to be a culture change.
This kind of thinking (all expenditures to account for tail-risk demand scenarios is an evil source of inefficiency that must be eliminated) is making society perilously fragile.
Buying optionality is a great idea and people don’t do it enough.
Counter-anecdote: that's exactly the reason given by a lot of people I know who like SUVs, especially. Maybe alongside "it can carry lots of stuff", but sometimes all on its own.
"hurr durr muh safety" is one of the easiest ways to shut down discussion these days.
Now and again I spot an old style pickup (when they were a similar height to a sedan) and they're conspicuous by how petite they look relative to the current offerings (while still having abundant bed space).
I buy things specifically so I don’t have to compete with other people during times of scarcity, such as the last 18 months that just happened.
Renting sucks if you do anything regularly or like to put work into improving anything (like your car or house).
I don’t want to live a life of peonage where I don’t own anything and am at the mercy of other people’s resource allocation decisions whenever I want to do anything.
> Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't. I'm tired of being menaced by extremely clean and pristine pickups
This sounds like you feel persecuted by truck drivers.
I’m not sure the observation about bed space is really true, except maybe insofar as modern safety regulations require more empty crumple space in the front of the car.
Also, to preempt a repeat, last time there was a thread on HN about saving pedestrians by banning pickup trucks, I ran the numbers and a very optimistic estimate for number of pedestrian lives saved by replacing every single pickup with a commuter car was like 200 people per year.
This is a worry factor for people with kids, walking a dog etc., because while the pickup driver may well notice people of adult height, anything below shoulder level is effectively invisible in close-up situations. Most unpleasant close encounters don't come from a speeding vehicle but going in a straight line, but drivers turning right on red or at a stop sign and focused on traffic coming to their left, while ignoring the existence of people trying to cross the street to their right (and sometimes to their left too, because they're gazing into the middle distance and literally overlooking people nearby even though the pedestrians have the right of way).
200 pedestrian lives a year seems like a lot to me, even 100 seems like an excess loss. If you factor in cyclists (though many cyclists are their own worst enemies) I think the number might swell.
Not if you do a population-normalized utilitarian comparison. 200 people is vanishingly small. There are a million other things to focus on first.
The number of soccer moms driving Escalades and other oversized SUVs in their high heels would heal your misconceptions about large car ownership in the US.
NYC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Detroit, etc. have some terrible Winter weather for example. You can't safely, effectively navigate Winter weather in NYC in a vehicle like the Chery QQ Ice Cream. At best it'd be good ~2/3 of the year.
Driving on snow/iced doesn't require power, it requires good tires and an understanding of how to drive on snow and ice.
I do wonder if the engine in it could get up Seattle hills though, my family's old Geo Metro had problems, so something with a fraction of the power could prove problematic.
[citation needed]
Power is not the limiting factor in icy road conditions, traction is. While a heavier car is easier to get moving due to increased normal force, it's equally harder to stop. The actual difference makers are snow tires so you have more traction, and electronic stability control/antilock brakes so you never lose traction.
Having said that, good snow tires are magic.
All seasons can't and _wont_ cut it in some areas, and having tires that only work 3/4s of the year for traction is dicey at best.
Source: I drive a Miata in winter up in Saskatchewan
You can argue that the average car should either be a 2wd Tacoma or a Miata.
The 90s Buick Estate (a behemoth of a wagon) was 9 inches shorter than the Kia Telluride (one of the smaller 3-row vehicles in the US) and seated 8 (though it would be 7 today because front-row bench seats appear to be disallowed except in pickups).
The Estate's contemporary Ford Taurus Wagon could also seat 7 (though two adults in the 3rd row is not comfortable, it worked for short drives in a pinch) was almost 20 inches!! shorter than a Suburban/Escalade.