Hacker News Reader

Comment by discodave | Hacker News Reader

You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians. I.e. a minivan fits more people, but is smaller than some of the massive trucks I see driving around.

I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago).

A modern SUV would likely be a) heavier b) have worse blind spots, and c) has a higher front bumper, so worse impact if you hit a pedestrian.

The "I didn't have a choice" argument is almost always a logical fallacy.

View on HN

> You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians

One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do.

Not everybody wants to live in a city or can live in a city.

> I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago).

Unlike pickup trucks, SUVs are fantastic for hauling both children and assorted cargo. Unlike minivans, they're great at handling a variety of driving conditions: gravel, dirt, ice/snow, inclines. They're also fun to drive and don't make it feel like the next sixteen years of your family's life is just dedicated to the brood.

Many people move to the suburbs nominally so that their kids can safely walk, bike, and play in the streets. Obviously the actual built environment of the suburbs doesn't remotely support this supposed goal, but the idea that suburbs "don't have pedestrians" is not true or even desired.

> One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do.

That's such and absurd suggestion I'm surprised you felt it worth writing, not to mention there are still plenty of pedestrians even in the suburbs.

It’s no more absurd than the suggestions in this thread that people only need small vehicles while ignoring the realities of why many people actually do need large vehicles.

> That's such and absurd suggestion

It's not absurd at all, which is why it's interesting to watch people who have never fathomed this try to come to grips with it.

There is so much of this country completely unserved by sidewalks, busses, or cycling infrastructure. And it's fine. It works.

Minivans often have AWD varieties these days and its not like all SUVs have it. Other than "inclines" which I doubt most family cars ever see challenging ones, a minivan probably performs similarly to most SUVs on the market when it comes to gravel, dirt, ice/snow when equipped with the right tires.

I own both a minivan and an SUV, the minivan handles horribly in poor weather conditions, even with the proper tires. Our SUV handles much better in all weather even without switching to 4 wheel drive.

The minivan also has horrible clearance that bottoms out frequently when you drive on dirt trails trying to get to hiking trails and primitive campgrounds.

They each serve their purpose. The minivan is by far the best suburban people carrier we could’ve bought, and it has incredible storage capacity when you stow the seats, but it definitely has its limitations.

I'm trying to understand why the minivan would handle so much worse than a comparable SUV/crossover. Could you clue me into the reasons why? Is it actually something innate with the geometry/weight distribution or potentially more like "this particular van has poor handling"?

The biggest things I notice are less ground clearance, which becomes a problem in heavy snow and the less powerful engine which makes it harder to get traction in snow and ice, particularly when trying to get up an incline, such as a hill or ramp.

I can accept the lack of ground clearance but lack of power is not your problem on snow. I would bet that this is traction control related. Modern traction control are for the road and they suck big time in the snow because they don't allow any slippeage. I currently drive an electric RWD car and live at the end of a 2km mountain road with +20% slopes that can get snowed in for a few days before being plowed. On normal traction control, I don't get anywhere but using sports mode made it work like god damn magic.

If one could only buy minivans these times. If you're in Europe, you're out of luck. There is an outdated Sharan/Alhambra with tech from 2015 and tiny TSI engine with whopping 14s 0-100 km/h acceleration. And a bit more modern Ford Galaxy. Or you can buy a minivan from USA, but 99% of them are after huge accidents. And that's basically it. So people buy SUVs.

A modern van versus that older Tarago would also at least be a) heavier b) have worse blind spots c) probably have a higher front bumper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com