Hacker News Reader

Fine, I will tell you that. The Station Wagon format was perfect for all of that before the CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards came in with the exception for trucks, btu not a requirement that those trucks have commercial license tags.

At that point, the entire production and marketing of the major car companies shifted towards SUV form factors, since they didn't count against their fuel mileage standards. Now, the behemoths are the norm, but what is really selling is the "Crossover", which is in fact indistinguishable from the old station wagon format.

Yes, this thing won't likely do well when run over by an F150 or Yukon. Which is why standards should be set such that the larger vehicles are not such a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller cars (eliminating the front "wall" would be a start). It's likely you can do just fine with a station-wagon/crossover format, although this is obviously small for a bunch of kids and dogs. No car is not made for every purpose, and I wonder why the mere existence of this thing seems to annoy you so much?

The existence doesn't annoy me. It's the sanctimonious tone that this should be the norm, when it's clearly not even remotely built for the reality of how families actually live, despite their marketing.

The actual solution to this short trips problem is better mass transit and cycling infrastructure, with cars reserved for highway travel and other long trips or cargo hauling. Good pre-car suburban neighborhoods existed on a network of walking and electric streetcars. That is the future of urban design, not cars designed for Oompa Loompas.

It's not sanctimonious. It's trying to stop people killing our kids.

Only ~40% of American households have children under 18. Families are not the norm.

The typical household != the typical new car buyer. The average age of a car buyer is decades older than the average American, and >90% of them own their home. So they're likely to either be families or elderly. https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2019/01/new-car-buyer-demogra...

Except having 1 young child hardly requires an SUV. The “minivan years” is really a small percentage of the average American adult’s lifetime.

Exclude people who never have multiple kids, and those you have yet to have kids or whose kids have left home and large vehicles simply don’t fit most people’s lifestyles.

Which is why pickup trucks can be so popular cars just don’t have many passengers on average.

> pickup trucks can be so popular cars just don’t have many passengers on average

Where I live they mostly drive enormous, 4-door "pickup trucks" which can seat 5 grown adults very comfortably. While it's not quite a 7-passenger full-sized SUV, I just want to make sure you're picturing the most popular size and shape of truck when you think about pickups :D

“4 door” pickup trucks are the most popular but many of those don’t actually fit 5 full sized adults. Some don’t even have 3 seatbelts on the second row because people really need to sit sideways.

The breakdown is somewhat vague but Regular, Extended, Crew, Quad are noticeably different cab sizes.

At the other end 3rd row pickups are coming…

I'm sure you're correct and those are out there. I just see almost exclusively ones that look like this: https://cdn.carbuzz.com/gallery-images/2023-ford-f-150-rear-...

Something like a $65,000 truck. LOL

Aren’t they selling more for higher eye level and more upright seating position/posture, than that people are tortured into buying by conspiratory schemes among international corporations?

> Fine, I will tell you that. The Station Wagon format was perfect for all of that before the CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Efficiency) standards came in with the exception for trucks, btu not a requirement that those trucks have commercial license tags.

Eh... we have to thank CAFE for SUVization of the world... the stupid trend is slowly trickling over the pond and it's getting more and more annoying... I do hope that either US will fix CAFE or UE will regulate to have smaller cars (usually hatchback is enough and wagon for bigger families)... or ideally both.

> You buy vehicles for the life and city you have [...]

Agreed, there's a place for all forms of transit. I think the argument that the parent commenter was making was that we already have the density in many places for vehicles of this type make sense for residents, but the barrier is that road infrastructure is built to prioritize larger vehicles, making these vehicles unsafe.

In places where safe infrastructure exists, families frequently plan their lives differently, and I know many (with the means to choose freely) who get by with carshare, good transit, cargo bikes, etc...

OP suggested that the solution should be to regulate in favor of cars like the one in the link. This is totally unrealistic and wrongheaded idea, because there are real use cases and needs that drive the decision to purchase larger, faster vehicles. Outside the functional reasons, there are also highly intractable cultural and emotional forces driving car trends in the opposite direction today.

The viable solutions are 100% to encourage the kind of alternatives you listed to give people meaningful tools to decrease overall single family car use of any kind.

> [...] actively discourage or outlaw normal car designs in favor of cars like the one in the link.

I read their comment as encouraging city-specific measures. They specifically reference "urban living", "human-scale living", or slowing down vehicles for "in-town trips". I agree that use-cases exist for larger vehicles, as even in the densest city centers delivery vehicles continue to need access. IMO larger vehicles need not be the vehicles we optimize for, or even allow at all times, in city centers, where such vehicles aren't needed by most residents.

> [...] 100% to encourage the kind of alternatives you listed to decrease overall single family car use, not try to force everyone to change car designs [...]

Honestly I'm thinking of this more like a large cargo bike, and less like a car. It's like a Canta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)) in the Netherlands. It's not meant to serve the same purpose as today's cars, and we probably both agree it would feel unsafe to drive one amongst fast-moving traffic. It fills a gap in the transportation spectrum that's well-suited to certain areas, and I believe we should devote more infrastructure to vehicles which match the needs of an area, which I don't believe is always full-sized passenger vehicles.

We’ve already seen that vehicles like the Canta are abysmal failures in America. Smart Cars finally exited the US and Canada market in 2019 after years of poor sales.

Meanwhile, cargo bike sales are climbing steadily.

I used to be a near pathological classic car fan. It's a unique kind of terror driving a 1500 lb '73 beetle or 2500 pound 1995 ford escort alongside 7000 pound modern SUVs.

That being said, I'm sure these cars will see some adoption in dense/regulated historic neighborhoods. Manhattan has had tolling debates for the last decade - on current trajectory I'd expect lower manhattan to be restricted access by the end of the decade.

I think you loose your pathological classic car club membership by touting a '95 Ford Escort. Just because it is 25 years old and qualifies for gov't definition of classic car does not make it the ideal car someone thinks of when the phrase classic car is used in normal conversation. (=

I had a 1966 Plymouth Fury; it was only about a foot shorter than a 15 passenger van.

We're a one car family for two working parents and two kids, living in Pittsburgh (in the city, not the burbs). We make it work but there's a bit of Uber involved sometimes, and some compromises. Generally worth it - cars are both very convenient and a burden that requires ongoing care and feeding and money.

If we do decide we need a second car as the kids get older, this is _exactly_ what I want. No gas stations. Super easy parking. Low capex and opex. Awesome on all fronts. (But as a second car.)

Like it or not, not all marriages are dysfunctional like that. Sometimes (okay, rarely), the people in the marriage like each other! Two uneven sized cars is not a problem for every marriage, but for those that have that sort of weird power dynamic, the solution, of course, is not talking to each other, or couples counseling/therapy. No the solution is to buy two ugly toy-sized cars, and one more Tesla.

> I would love to see a crash test video of this against an F-150.

Don't buy a small car, don't walk, don't bike, don't use a scooter, because everyone else is driving large vehicles. Awesome.

People all over Europe do exactly this, though. You need space inside the car, not five tonnes of unnecessary metal around that space.

Vehicles that can carry a large family could be significantly smaller if they didn't need to protect occupants from 60mph collisions.

A 30mph crash entails order(s) of magnitude less force. Could look like a tram. Smaller seats with less padding become practical.

Everything about the suburbs makes sense when you have kids. Nothing about the suburbs makes sense without them.

I’m not arguing that the US style suburb is the best we can do, but you’re not going to come up with anything better that really sticks without understanding why it’s built the way it is.

For people who don’t have kids I don’t feel like I can even explain it to you. Nothing can prepare you. You have to experience it.

What about the fact that your kids are reliant on you to shuttle them between school, activities, friends’ houses, etc? This makes no sense to me. In a city they can walk from age 11 or so.

That’s great for pre-teens and teens as long as the city is fairly safe for kids. I was talking about smaller children and babies.

It’s also important to note that not all cities are kid friendly. Some are places I’d never allow a kid to go, with open air psychiatric hospitals on the street and people passed out everywhere on drugs. Of course this is a different problem that has more to do with incompetence and corruption in government and non-profits.