These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us
youtube.com
youtube.com
> But during those 40 years, pickups have changed significantly. They’ve become bigger, heavier and more tricked out, and they’ve transformed from workhorse vehicles to family cruisers.
* https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35046151
The top-selling vehicle in 2022 was the Ford F-150; top selling vehicle in 1982 was Ford Escort: I'm having a hard time believing that people's hauling needs have changed in the intervening decades to rationally justify the sales figures.
I have an occasional driver 2003 Silverado for materials pickup and dump runs. It is a fullsize pickup for its year. 2022 Silverados and F250s completely dwarf it. Yet they have the same seating capacity and bed length. It's totally bizarre. And IMO, they're uglier to boot with their Big Mac looking hamburger ass grills.
That's not just trucks. My parents have a recent Hyundai Ioniq. The car is fat and can have trouble fitting into parking spaces.
But there's no benefit; the extra width seems to have gone into providing empty space between the interior seats and the doors. So the usable part of the interior is just as narrow as ever, but it's harder to maneuver and you have to unbuckle and lean way the hell out of your window to interact with toll booths / parking garage machines / etc. Who wants this?
I'm a Gen-Xer who used to borrow my parents' Chrysler Voyager minivan to regularly haul around 5-7 friends on weekends. Most of the monstrosities on the road today are as big (or bigger) and don't seat as many people.
Which he just said he did...
You made the argument that you believed people should rent a truck or use a smaller SUV to tow most loads. And only get a truck if they needed higher towing capacity.
Your point appears to be "I agree with his vehicle choice".
It's also very common for people to argue they need these large vehicles for activities they aspire to do more often, but in practise only do once or twice a year.
I think I agree. For example:
A simple assertion of the form "It would be more useful if he'd said what he was towing." by itself is boring.
It'd much more be interested why you need to know why someone who said "hey I was driving a Tacoma and needed more towing capacity so I got a bigger truck" needs to explain in more detail what he was towing to you.
Is it so we could have a discussion of how his boat or RV or whatever is or is not acceptable and rational to you? That would be a more interesting subject.
Perhaps you'd like to check the math or google the towing limits or have a discussion about suspension upgrades?
It would make a much more enlightening, dare I say entertaining, discussion to have included on what basis, morality, etc. you presume to have questions about his truck buying decisions and whether they were warranted or ethical. You must have an interesting job to be an expert on this.
I wouldn't want to inadvertently do something immoral like improper daily use of an inappropriate tool.
I grew up in one of the more remote parts of Australia and now live in sparsely populated rural part of W.Australia - we get by pretty well in a six cylinder family car both on and off road .. and we tow regularly mid sized caravans and a thirty year old double axle trailer (built from the chassis beams of an old nine tonne truck) loaded up with whatever (tonnes of fire wood, tonnes of sheep shit for the garden, white goods from the city, fallen trees, hay bales, etc).
Oversize Toorak Tractor US Trucks are mostly overkill, but I do recommend a good set of Hayman Reese anti sway bars for more positive control.
https://www.caravanparts.com.au/hayman-reese-weight-distribu...
On the plus side I probably won't see the end of another four decades of rampant consumption for no fit purpose.
Fingers crossed habits changed (don't hold yor breath!).
And anecdotally I see most (90%) large vehicles without a trailer tow hitch at all.
Perhaps visit the "flyover" parts of the land sometime.
* https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/10/pickup-truck-owner-de...
Or perhaps you may wish to look at the demographics of who buys pick-up trucks:
> Despite any TV ads you see with F-150s in a rural or country setting, the vast majority of these new trucks are in large and medium-sized cities.
* https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/10/pickup-truck-owner-de...
>80% of the US population lives in urban areas:
* https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/urba...
Only 1.3% (2.6M) of the US population are farmers:
* https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/farming-indu...
Yet 2.8M pickups trucks were sold in 2022:
* https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2022-us-pickup-truck-sales-fig...
Yes, if you're on a farm a pick-up truck could be useful. But the majority of buyers are not farmers (or even construction workers, though even a full-size van may be of more practicality). Pick-up trucks are far and away lifestyle vehicles for the vast, vast majority of owners.
I don't currently have one, but I want to buy an efficient pickup truck or unibody pickup truck when I do buy one.
In the rare occasions that I do want a car, a truck is really helpful. I don't really see another solution other than cheap and convenient pickup truck rentals.
In my city, you can rent a truck for the day for about $50 (including a decent amount of miles). I know because I do this regularly. I'd be surprised if such an option isn't available in your city as well.
The cheap rentals in my city are at the airport and that makes it a pain to use them. They're not really cheap if I ascribe a sufficiently high value to my time. The ones close to me often have limited inventory and don't have a pickup truck right now.
Even at the airport, it looks like a pickup truck is $200 for the weekend. And honestly going to the airport is enough of a pain that I'm less likely to do things that require a truck as a result.
If I owned a pickup truck and kept it in a garage by my place then I would be far more likely to make last minute decisions to go camping or yard sale shopping or whatever.
You don't need a pickup truck to go camping (they're actually not terribly useful for that) or yard sale shopping. Like seriously it's https://van.life not truck life.
That's a good call on vans though. A cargo van might be a good idea for legitimate well maintained campgrounds.
In my area, renting any vehicle at the airport is more expensive than the same vehicle at other locations.
You and every other SUV driver share this dream. We all know that last minute outdoorsy fantasy is not gonna happen. And are you buying the entire yard at the yard sale?
As someone on HN, I would think you would be familiar with the saying "optimize for the common case". If most of the time you simply need personal transport, paying for the gas to operate a truck the occasional use seems sub-optimal.
I say this as someone who owns a VW Golf and who borrows or rents larger vehicles once or twice a year.
A car is a luxury good for someone in my situation and a pickup truck is the common case for that luxury good.
They’re also easier to parallel park, as the wheels sit at the corners of the vehicle (the swing of a truck bed makes this trickier), and minivans these days have much more power than they used to. That’s to say nothing of the roof rack, which adds even more cargo opportunity. SUVs are a common alternative, but despite their size, they’re nowhere near as spacious as you hope. You might not be able to haul certain large appliances, but otherwise, minivans have all the benefits of a truck and then some, with few drawbacks.
I’ve owned two minivans and three trucks, and I’d go minivan any day.
(Edited because I forgot some things)
EDIT: and oh yeah, hate the goddam trucks of course.
> The growth of SUVs and light trucks presents a challenge to creating walkable cities due to their size, poor visibility, and negative impact on safety and the environment. The popularity of these vehicles has been driven by marketing from the auto industry, which has promoted their supposed safety and versatility. However, their size and design make them more dangerous for pedestrians and other road users, and they contribute significantly to carbon emissions. Cities need to take steps to regulate SUVs and light trucks, such as taxing them by weight, limiting vehicles with high bumpers, and increasing fees for parking permits and insurance.
Of course there’s a one sentence bottom line to a majority of YouTube content, but I appreciate the artform, adjacent color commentary, and evidence-based rigor from these higher quality creators. Albeit at a ridiculous speed lol.
Selling a positive vision rather than shaming people and trying to take things away from them would help.
This was me. Video is rather hard for me, because I need to be in the right time and place for it.
I think it's quite weird to hate a type of vehicle and want to prevent other people from accessing it. Just live and let live.
Utility depends on context. Emotions matter. Urbanism consists of emotional responses. Camping in wilderness is different.
1) Side streets that prioritize street parking (e.g. streets with multi-family housing) mean that a poorly-parked truck is literally impossible to see around when you're driving a smaller vehicle. Exiting an apartment driveway is frequently a precarious maneuver when you can't clearly see traffic coming in one or both directions. Heaven forbid there's a bicyclist obstructed from view.
2) Headlight elevation blinds other drivers, especially those in shorter vehicles. If you're being blinded from behind at night, you have to slow down to let them pass, or else your mirrors become useless or even actively dangerous to look at.
3) Blind spots in newer light trucks are horrendously large, as indicated in the video. Many drivers are not aware of the blind spot to the front-right side of the cab and are at risk of being PITed by an inattentive driver changing lanes into them.
4) Echoing the point about parking infrastructure. Being unable to park these sorts of vehicles in standard spaces and garages means that many of these end up parked on the street where inconvenience to other drivers is maximized.
The only way a driver can completely mitigate these problems is to simply join in the Bigger Vehicle arms race, to the detriment of all other drivers and pedestrians.
The "personal space" of an SUV is gigantic, while driving around in small cars you have a vastly better sense of the road and people around you. If everyone is driving cars, your visibility of the road and traffic is far better because you can see through the windshields of cars in front of you.
AND THOSE GODDAMN HEADLIGHTS.
When the human race was first getting mainstream education on global warming in the late 1990s, the United States of America collectively decided to basically double the weight of its vehicles, and squander engineering wonders that vastly increased the fuel economy of vehicles.
If the demand and desire for these is really so great, slap a $10,000 surcharge + $1,000/year fee on their ownership and redirect all of it to BEVs and alt energy.
See the incredible myopic vision! The complete lack of tone awareness! An utter lack of sense of their surroundings!
All in one comment!
And the best thing: That's exactly how SUVs are driven! It's such a sublime comment.
A common reason to lift trucks is to fit larger tires. Larger tires roll further with each revolution. Many trucks with larger tires DO NOT also have larger brakes. That makes braking performance worse. Running soft mud tires on the highway and not changing them when they inevitably wear down after just a few thousand miles also yields worse performance. Combine this with the added top-heavy nature, suspension with more travel, worse visibility, and "king of the road" attitudes that many lifted truck drivers bring, and it's not hard to see that this is a recipe for disaster.
It's literally illegal in many places, but the enforcement is so lax that everyone gets away with it https://www.motortrend.com/features/0601st-truck-lift-kit-st...
I really wish that at least California would crack down on vehicle inspections and actually start refusing to register these vehicles, fine the owners, and make them reverse the mods or scrap the vehicle. If you want to build an off-road Tonka truck, get a side by side which is way more capable anyway, or get something with adjustable suspension and swap out the wheels and tires.
Lastly, it's also infuriating how many vehicle owners, but especially truck drivers, remove their catalytic converters and/or mod their diesel truck to not require Diesel exhaust fluid. When they register the vehicle for use on public roads, they agree to adhere to emissions standards. They then renege on this agreement. It's only fair, then, to disallow them to operate that vehicle on public roads, to stop them from polluting the public air that we all must breath at a rate far beyond what they agreed to. I don't wager that many folks appreciate hearing their loud exhaust at all hours of the day, either. We have a few neighbors in our suburb with big loud trucks and for some reason they love flooring them every time as they turn the corners in the subdivision. I'd love to see all those vehicles get crushed for repeated inspection failures, and that's probably the level we'd need to go to given the widespread flouting of the law that we currently see.
So with DEF that means that since the car was sold with a DEF injection mechanism the car's computer will not allow the car to drive once you're out of DEF, as that will bump up the emissions.
As far as I know it kill performance, but you'll wanna have a spare bottle at the ready.
Catalytic converters on the other hand are much more impactful. They definitely reduce performance. And if you run rich you'll wear it out. So people cut them out.
California should massively increase their checks. Like pull people over for loud pipes. That would help a lot.
But you know, those people go to the smog shops that are open after working hours. And guess what, CA's government only checks them during working hours...
Being blinded by headlights is a problem for me, but getting blinded from behind is a side issue. The big problem is getting blinded from ahead by oncoming traffic going the other way. This isn't a matter of the lights being mounted too high either. They're either aimed too high or they're just ridiculously bright.
I don't understand why cars are getting made this way.
GPUs use too much power, people just want to play games because they want to feel some emotion. Is not valid because it is not based on logic.
Hence we should ban GPUs and only allow on board graphics. The physical constraints of integrated typically mean that the power usage of such setups is naturally limited, and people won't be able to play games for silly emotional reasons because the frame rates would be too low.
I’m not even talking about coal rollers, which are their own special breed. The noise makers are extremely common and seem to be getting more popular.
However with just the turbo, at least on a 4.2L straight six, it sounds very nice (to me at least). Given the ability to breath and get the great away from the engine quickly the turbo can kick in earlier, mine is at 1500rpm or less. Gives more responsive power and cooler running. The turbo whistle sounds very nice.
I don't drive much, but every car I have ever driven (50 years with a driver's license) has had a little toggle on the rear-view mirror to put it into night-time mode. Is that insufficient?
I wish that the video concentrated more on things that you can do to protect yourself or others from large trucks and SUVs. I have been hit by a car while cycling before, and it was no fun, but I did at least roll up the hood as described in the video. That will not happen for one of these large vehicles. I try to concentrate on positive things that I can at least control for in cases like these, but I honestly am drawing a blank. Any ideas?
They have to be registered with the state department of motor vehicles.
Either charge them a differentially higher vehicle registration fee, or ban them outright.
Another front is questioning whether car insurance rates reflect the real legal liability that drivers of these vehicles incur?
If they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?
That’s a political non-starter in the U.S. You’d have better luck taking away personal firearms.
A way to feel this is to go car-free for a week in the US. Some places are easier than others. But compare this to going car-free for a week in Europe. It will probably be a much different experience for most places in Europe, as compared to the US.
I would be in favor of governments taking that more seriously.
But the majority of the things people think of as "rights" do, in fact, come from the law. "The law" is just us collectively deciding what the rules we live by are.
There is a small set of fundamental human rights, but that's a bit of a different thing and I think it's very hard to argue that driving a vehicle on public roads is one of them.
I define “rights” as what I may do morally, not a code, act, statue or “collective” decision. Words can have multiple meanings. What you are calling rights, I am calling arbitrary rules made by other people against my will.
Edit to reply to below: I am that I am. I don’t take titles like anarchist, but sure, that’s a decent title if you insist.
Anarchy isn’t a system. It’s just a word. It means no rulers. I don’t think that we should abolish the government (nor could we, it doesn’t exist), I just wish people would grow up morally, so we (conscious beings) didn’t feel the need to play ruler and ruled. I wish to see a world where each being understands morality and what is right and wrong “to the bones” or “from the soul”, so the idea of abstracting away and externalizing our morality and violence was no longer the accepted normal.
Edit since I can’t reply further down: “Reproductive rights” as you call them are also something that doesn’t come from laws or the constitution, whether the constitution protects it or not. Regardless of one’s moral standing, it is never up to other people to decide what is right or wrong for me. That is for me to decide. My rights end when I cause harm to another being, as as defined by the other being who claims to be harmed. No government or papers are needed.
But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.
So don't hit that Rolls in Los Angeles.
Typically the dead child is held liable.
Not really. They're more lethal and will kill thousands of people in the US.
Are they really? A quick search for "US pedestrian deaths by vehicle type" and I came across this 2005 study [0] looking at pedestrian fatalities per mile by vehicle type (and I'll admit some has changed in the nearly 20 years since the study was published). What surprised me was motorcycles caused more pedestrian fatalities than light trucks per billion miles. Urban buses had the highest kill rate, nearly 4 times that as light trucks.
Happen to have anything with more current statics?
[0] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/11/4/232...
The statistic needs to be vehicle type in accidents in urban areas.
Notably all vehicle types become more dangerous in urban areas but even buses on rural roads are more dangerous than light trucks on urban roads.
Buses have flat fronts (at least to a typical chest/head height), so they're terrible for pedestrian collisions. The typical American school bus from 2002 is horrendous -- huge blind spots, a high chassis, and the typical user being well below adult height. To European eyes, they look like some sort of off-road military transport vehicle.
Though other than buses, I think the paper supports the video:
> The increased risk associated with light trucks is attributed to several factors: their greater mass; greater vehicle speed of collision with pedestrians, and their front end design.
It seems hopeless but maybe there is a marketer somewhere who can convince Americans that more practical vehicles are also cool. Ford has just reentered the small pickup market with the Maverick, for example, and I believe they are doing well.
Electrification could also push people to smaller vehicles, if the range benefits are real.
Narrow lanes, reduce visibility, add complexity and turns. Traffic will naturally slow down with drivers paying more attention. It's been demonstrated that the easier you make a road to drive on, the more people speed and play with their phones.
Further reading if you're really curious about this situation in particular, there's been a lot of back and forth around Menlo Park / Atherton specifically: - https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8751/Engin... - https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2020/10/22/menlo-park-counc... - https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/11/17/palo-alto-eye... - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-m... - on 85th percentile theory: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-li...
Particularly amusing is https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/radar-isnt-best-optio... ... where most people seem to agree that everyone drives too fast, but in order to use radar / lidar to measure speed, they'd need to comply with state law which would mean /raising/ the speed limits in order to comply with the 85th percentile rules, so instead they just stick their heads in the sand and continue to believe, despite many studies finding to the contrary, that zero enforcement and a sign that says 25mph will actually get people to drive on 5-lane roads at ridiculously slow speeds. This leads to an exciting mix of a few cars trying to actually drive the 25mph speed limit while most other people try to frantically pass them. Extra fun on sections that don't have left turn lanes, where the left of the two lanes becomes the de-facto turn lane, then combine that with the general lack of turn signal usage and you get...a very frustrating commute indeed. But what do you want for your $3m 1000sqft single-family home in those neighborhoods??
Edit: there's a lot more traffic engineering theory around speed limits vs how fast people actually drive. The last couple of points in particular are extra fun: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/998/Setting-S...
The rationale for speed zoning is also based on the following fundamental concepts, which are
deeply rooted in our system of government and law:
• The normally careful and competent actions of a responsible person should be considered legal.
• Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable
behavior by the individual.
• Laws cannot be effectively enforced unless the majority of people voluntarily consent to and
comply with them.
In general, most people accept, understand, and follow these concepts. But, as mentioned
earlier, when confronted by local traffic challenges—an increase in traffic volumes or the frequency
or severity of car crashes in a particular area, for example—people often reject these concepts and
rely instead on a number of widely held misconceptions, such as:
• Lowering a posted speed limit will reduce traffic speeds.
• Raising a posted speed limit will increase traffic speeds.
• Lower speed limits will reduce the rate of crashes and increase safety.
• Any posted speed limit is safer than an unposted speed limit.
In fact, these commonsense notions are not supported by studies, which consistently
demonstrate that:
• The speed of traffic does not change significantly after new or revised speed limits are posted.
• There is no direct relationship between posted speed limits and the frequency of traffic
crashes.
But the main difference is the length, and the straightness.
I'm afraid I don't have any solutions.
Possibly it's still a bit wide -- the middle could be painted as a 0.5m wide hatching rather than just a single/double line, or maybe bike lanes could be fitted between parked cars and the existing kerb, but that is probably tight.
There is literally no way in hell that you are going to get anyone in the US with a large truck or SUV to drive under 20mph
There should also be an exemption for overlanders who otherwise live in urban environments for whom the truck is not a daily driver.
In the US, seemingly everything but the SUV is dead. I bought a car in 2021 after having a kid, and it was either a “crossover” (SUV body on a smaller frame) or a minivan if you wanted a five-door/hatchback. I occasionally kick myself for giving up my Fiesta; that thing was wonderful in US cities.
>https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?t=38
>They're just... BAD for cities. Really bad.
>https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?t=81
>We're constantly being told that the astronomical growth in the average size of motor vehicles would infringe on the """FREEDOMS""" of people to do whatever they want.
It's cringe, unnatural, and distracts from the message. Present the logic of your argument in a neutral manner and leave it to the listener for emotional interpretation - don't force it.
Suffer from "car brain" is a great way to write off and invalidate the opinions of a large swathe of people who enjoy or have cars as a hobby.
I bet you'd crack the shits if people started talking about banning GPUs cos they use too much power and anyway, they're only used to play games.
So I thought this video's attacks at that specific demographic were an unwarranted personal bias, but I also thought it made good points about the auto industry and good reasons why SUV's are bad.
For larger families, I guess each parent would get a cargo bike and split the load.
see https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2020/12/getting-the-christmas-tr...
You can fit 5 people in most normal cars, and 7 (especially children) in some estate cars / station wagons.
Failing that a minivan, although that's unusual.
Many people in Copenhagen and Amsterdam own a car, the difference is they don't use it for every journey. They're also much less likely to own two or more cars than in America.
A child seat on an ordinary bicycle is very common, typically for taking a small child to nursery. Cargo bikes work too, and are good if you have more than one child, although they're much less common than YouTubers would have you believe.
Once children can ride their own bicycle they will, and later they can ride alone. Similarly, they can use public transport, with their parents or alone.
Just wait until you find out about "acting."
I spent an hour [edit: today] arguing that the speed limit should be reduced to 25 mph. So many problems would be solved if we did that.
But, when my Golf dies, I will be a full-size truck or an expedition. What can I say? I have kids and car seats suck.
(I'm unfamiliar with modern American trucks, it's a long time since my last visit.)
Its stupid, really. Hefty, booster seats from reputable brands seats have integrated cup holders.
Cup holders.
Also, consider that a 1.5 year old's rear facing car seat is a steel reinforced monstrosity. The thing is so big, I cant install it behind the driver seat because I cant extend the seat back (Im 1-1.5 stdev above average american height).
So, the third kid's booster chair with a seat belt aligning backrest (needed for the younger kids so that the belt doesn't sit on the kid's neck) simply doesn't fit. Not if you want to reach the belt buckle.
For short trips I usually just have the oldest go booster-less. For longer trips I install the chair while she's sitting, buckled on the chair. I then lift her and the seat and muscle them in. Finally, I can pull the straps to tighten the booster chair to the backseat.
My SUV is not small. There's plenty of room. But we all drive like maniacs (guilty as charged, btw) so our kids need these massive steel reinforced cocoons.
So, why trucks? Trucks, and SUVs on truck frames (ford expedition, suburban), are wider.
It looks like European child seats and booster seats are a bit narrower, or at least narrower versions are available. You are obviously stuck with what's sold in the US though.
I do remember a period as a child when my mum would sit with me in the back, so a rear-facing child seat could go in the front seat.
Most (possibly all) European cars come with a switch to turn off the front passenger airbag. It's a legal requirement to use this switch appropriately in the UK, presumably in the same way it's a requirement for the driver to ensure all children are wearing seatbelts.
It should possibly also be used if a smaller child (under 12-ish) sits in the front seat, although I can't find an official recommendation on that — they're more keen to emphasize that children are safer in the back.
It seems in America, only trucks and sports cars without rear seats have this switch, but it is possible to have one fitted if you can justify it (i.e. several children).
It's fun to drive a truck. The experience is better than driving a little city car like I do here in the UK. I would have one here if the roads were wider.
To me this just feels like another one of those "we could just have a lower quality of life" things that seem super popular amongst a small subset of people.
I don't need one, but I want one, I can have one, and you can just fuck off if you don't like that. I mean, that's about as American as it gets.
The worst part, the back of the car was boxed in so far, that it almost touched the driver’s seat. Thankfully no one was sitting behind me. The truck on the other hand had a after market metal guard in front of it, which meant it had little damage beyond the guard needing a paint job. Even the headlights were intact. I remember thinking that I’ll never want to drive anything smaller than a truck if I want to drive in America. It took my 7 years before I switched back to a sedan, thanks to Tesla M3.
Maybe you should get a truck?
(I'm not in America)
To license them as a "passenger car", they have to also meet passenger car safety, emissions, and fuel economy standards. If they don't meet those standards (that were in effect as of their build date) then they can't be licensed as a "passenger car".
MPG and GHG emissions per mile seem to both be part of the fuel economy standards in the US now.
They would do great in light duty commercial applications like lawn services and so forth, but those seem perfectly satisfied with the old, fully depreciated ranger, hilux, and tacoma floating around.
I love the size of the Fiat Strada and Dacia (Renault) Duster. My friend came to Brazil with me and also fell in love with them, but there's nothing currently on the market in the US like that.
I'm thinking of getting an SUV. Why? Well, because my family is growing and at some point we won't fit into a regular 5-seater.
I would love to live in a city primarily designed for walking, but such cities are overpacked and have crazy high real-estate prices.
Before bullshitting on SUVs, maybe it's worth looking into a core issue - start investing into a smaller cities, incentivize corporations to leave New York, San Francisco, etc. - spread them all out across the US and create the smaller versions of Manhattan.
I could be wrong though, but that's my take on it.
It feels like the author wants to fix the problem by just saying "Hey people, don't buy SUVs. Hey corporations, don't manufacture SUVs", whereas a more strategic and "backward" approach is needed.
Agree, however, I think the a key point of the video is about how we balance our own experience vs. that of the community we live in. SUVs and light trucks have a cost and it's fair to question if that cost is worth it. He shed light in areas where I wasn't so familiar such as blind spots and child fatalities.
> It feels like the author wants to fix the problem by just saying "Hey people, don't buy SUVs. Hey corporations, don't manufacture SUVs", whereas a more strategic and "backward" approach is needed.
I thought his main argument was that people respond to incentives. That's why 40 years ago the Ford Escort was so popular vs. the F150 today. These incentives are driven by government regulation. He acknowledges that it is rational to buy an SUV when everyone has one because it's game theory. The way out is for society to regulate trucks more fairly according to their broader costs. There are reasons we need trucks and we should have trucks, but perhaps we shouldn't incentivize that to be the primary vehicle for everyone.
Yep, it's worth it. Question answered. for me at least.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps it's the $billions that US automotive manufacturers have spent to make you _think_ that. Or the peer pressure from having a vehicle that "stands out" from all of the SUVs on the road?
I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely asking those questions.
It's hard to answer that question. How do I know? My brain just tells me: "This car is ugly af, don't ever get one". My guess is that these cars are convenient, but I would never want to own one.
* The Subaru Outback is now essentially a crossover SUV. I guess you might still be able to buy the wagon version of one model of Audi?
The second choice is an ordinary station wagon / estate car with the rear windows optionally replaced by metal panels. (Possibly more secure, in some countries also less vehicle tax.) These usually have something like "Network installer" or some sort of engineer written on the side -- some tools, but not so bulky and probably further to drive between jobs.
The EU and UK have strict limits on what's allowed, the type you see in Australia and the USA are banned. It's frustrating that the first website I find selling something similar lists the main benefit of bull bars as "styling".
I fully support the people who vandalize vehicles with bull bars parked in urban areas.
How about I vandalize your house because I don't like your ring doorcam. Or vandalize your dog because it barked at me? If I caught someone vandalizing my pride and joy I'd vandalize their face.
Excusing vandalism of private property should always be opposed because you don't know what someone will excuse to vandalize your property. It's a very short sighted opinion.
In some European cities, some off-road vehicles are already banned from urban areas, or require special permits. Currently I'm only aware of this applying to heavy(ish) commercial vehicles. It's not a given that any vehicle need drive anywhere, at the owner's convenience and society's detriment.
You might consider the effect of your vehicle on your family's faces, if you have a moment of inattention while driving near your home.
I'm OK with not having off road vehicles in the city but then I have multiple vehicles so I could dedicate one to going to the city. Where as some people might only be able to have one. But then the only reason I would ever be in a city is to go to a hospital.
As my family are not mongoloids milling about in the street I'm sure their faces will be fine.
Fortunately for me, it was a sedan, and I landed on the hood with nothing more than a few light bumps. If it had been a truck, or an SUV... I'd have gone straight into the side, probably hit my head, bounced into the street, who knows what.
Everyone needs a car, so everyone gets one. Since the US is hyper-individualistic (by no means a uniquely American trait) you want a “safe” car, but not “safe” as in “Volvo” but “safe” as in “being able to ram another vehicle if it tries to stop you”.
So this escalates the trend of how a car is supposed to look, and when you’re forced into an infrastructure where the “default” car to European eyes looks more like an Infantry Mobility Vehicle than anything else, what are you going to buy when you need a “car”? The implication is quite objectively that if you buy anything less, you are in a sense in danger, and the same goes for gun ownership: it’s very easy to be a proponent of strict gun control in a country where almost nobody has one.
I currently don’t own a car, because I don’t need one, and I’ll likely never own a gun for the same reasons, but I’m not fooling myself: if I took the place of an SUV- and gun-owning American I probably wouldn’t get rid of them.
I guess my point is that since these are both circular problems, they’re kind of a Gordian knot. It’s not easy to start untying the reality as it is, but it’s of course possible if the political will exists.
That women are on average less strong than men is just as irrelevant as any other existing difference in violence capital before involving guns, that’s not the point, and neither is the point that guns are “equalizers” because everyone understands this, the question is how the average rate of gun ownership affects itself (circular), and to me it’s pretty obvious and relatable: if everyone else has a gun then you’re exposed without one, if no one else has a gun then not having one is much more tolerable because the violence monopoly of the judiciary system can be upheld.
Now let me tell you, I've driven a LOT in Germany & Austria, and I've been stuck behind many Dutch pulling their caravans in their tiny cars that don't make it up to 55mph. So then semi trucks start to pass.
It's hell. I wish they had more horsepower.
Most state income from cars comes from a tax on gasoline and so they view electric vehicles as not paying "their fair share". And the big gas hungry SUVs and trucks are a good source of income for the states.
Part of fixing this stuff is changing the economics of how states do taxes for cars. It is a tough problem and many of the alternative suggestions have fairness or privacy issues.
- Bicyclist in traffic accidents are much more likely to die than those in SUVs. Also, because the physical size is so much smaller, it's much easier to miss seeing them, which increases risk of accidents. Therefor to ensure safety we should all drive SUVs.
- Bicyclist are much slower than SUVs, causing traffic congestion which wastes time and reduces fuel economy. Furthermore, the slow speed results in significantly extended commute times resulting in poor time-management. Therefor we should all drive SUVs to increase efficiency.
- Transporting 3 kids to soccer practice with a bicycle is dangerous for both physical and mental health of the kids due to factors mentioned above. Furthermore the mom will loose her ever-loving mind if there is no video playing in the back seat to distract the 3 year-old from asking "are we there yet" every 2 minutes. Therefor, for the sake of mental health, we should all drive SUVs.
I think the author will agree with this premise but not the conclusion. They will argue that individually, you'd be safer in an accident with a bicycle if you drove an SUV instead of "lighter, electric vehicles", and the cyclist will be way less safe, hence society in aggregate is less safe if more people drove SUVs instead of sedans.
Hence the author concludes, in 18:30, that "we should be moving to lighter electric vehicles", contrary to what you claim their "logic" to be.
> Bicyclist are much slower than SUVs, causing traffic congestion which wastes time and reduces fuel economy. Furthermore, the slow speed results in significantly extended commute times resulting in poor time-management. Therefor we should all drive SUVs to increase efficiency.
The author would agree with you if cyclists typically occupied the full lane. In practice, cyclists yield to vehicles in the same lane. One also compares the fuel savings of not driving against the total congestion it causes.
> Transporting 3 kids to soccer practice with a bicycle is dangerous for both physical and mental health of the kids due to factors mentioned above. Furthermore the mom will loose her ever-loving mind if there is no video playing in the back seat to distract the 3 year-old from asking "are we there yet" every 2 minutes. Therefor, for the sake of mental health, we should all drive SUVs.
The author would argue not to commute by bicycle in this instance but that "we should be moving to lighter electric vehicles". I'm not certain regarding a video playing; the price difference should be able to get you a more versatile iPad.
I don't even really have a beef with trucks used in the countryside. My main beef is their use in the city as commuting vehicles, where the vast majority of them have never, and will never, be used as a truck.
In that setting, trucks are a nuisance and danger to everyone else without any rational reason for being.
The phrase `pathetic suburbanites` even appears in the video description. The anti-truck stuff is really a proxy for hating a lifestyle and the people who live it.
It's funny to see how people who hate trucks are now carping about things like parking space now that electric trucks make gas mileage and emissions irrelevant.
It's not wrong to like trucks.
This YouTuber, like many other people who favor a denser urban lifestyle, looks down on people who disagree with him and wants the government to coerce them into living the way he wants them to. "Externalities" are just an excuse for that, and even if those externalities were removed he would find other justifications because the root cause is that he doesn't like the people who prefer a different lifestyle than him.
Trucks are popular specifically because of government meddling. Importing smaller and cheaper transport vehicles like vans is impossible because of import fees. Trucks also don't have to adhere to emissions and crash safety regulations which means trucks are cheap relative to cars. If we leveled the regulatory playing field trucks wouldn't be nearly as popular.
Yes they would. People aren't buying big trucks because they have no choice. Very few people would cross-shop trucks and small import vans. They want the big trucks.
Look at the F150 or the Silverado. They are bigger than they used to be. Import restrictions cannot explain that. They are bigger because every time they grow, customers like it.
Trucks are much nicer than they were 40 years ago and our culture has changed as a result. 40 years ago few people would have considered driving a truck, they were all basically farm trucks with limited creature comforts. Now they are luxury vehicles.
The point is that marketing and incentives matter. Trucks are not objectively better, they are subjectively preferred among certain demographics in the US because of marketing. He addresses very clearly that manufacturers make more money selling SUVs due to regulation - so it tracks that those are the vehicles pushed by manufacturers
There are also an increasing number of SUVs and automatic transmission vehicles on European roads compared to a decade or two ago...
Working people in Europe tend to use a van, which has much better pedestrian safety. The video praises that. (That's both urban and rural, since it's not clear.) People in rural areas drive normal cars.
Wear and tear on roads is exponentially related to the weight of the vehicle, a 9000lb hummer should be taxed appropriately along with requiring a different class of license for the danger such mass presents to other road users.
I'd like to learn more about electric trucks around you. The only electric sorta-truck I see arond here in NYC is the new Amazon delivery van, which has low bumpers and excellent forward visibility. All other electric vehicles are cars, scooters, and even smaller devices.
The reason is for my own safety & my passengers' safety.
I will not compromise on this.
Out there it's an arms race, and it's in your best interest to pick the bulkiest suit of armor.
Will you collaborate on this? Help ban heavier vehicles for everyone?
Up until an F350 barrels through an intersection, clips off a breakaway light pole and flattens you while you're waiting to cross at the crosswalk.
The only thing a video called "These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us" is going to do is get a bunch of people who dislike SUV's to agree with it. And that's fine. Any argument can be true if you want it bad enough, I guess.
* SUVs are useful tools that can serve a real purpose
* Even within the same vehicle classes, cars are getting bigger and heavier in the name of safety and consumer preferences. This is disastrous for the safety of pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles
* Most people will never take their SUVs/trucks off-road, or use them for blue collar-type work, or tow anything more than once a year, for which they could easily rent a vehicle
* Thus, barring safety concerns (which are themselves exacerbated by the prevalence of massive vehicles on the roads) or an opportunistic desire for more interior space, most people would be equally well served by smaller cars.
* However, people are not buying smaller cars. This has the effect of “literally killing” sharply increasing numbers of pedestrians every year, and indirectly killing countless others through increased air pollution and greenhouse gas effects.