Hacker News Reader

Comment by dusted | Hacker News Reader

I've noticed a large increase in what I call "idiot cars" in Denmark too, these giant monstrosities that seem impractical in every way except for driving through smaller cars and making sure the driver survives whatever incompetence lead them to buy it in the first place.

I feel it might be time to legislate this, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to drive a very large car, like, you live 100 miles from the nearest town and there are no roads, only swamp, marsh and desert between you and the grocery, or you haul around your pet cow all day.. Good, have your car, you need it.

In every other case. You don't and you're an idiot helping to accelerate the problem as this now becomes a weapons race on the road, nobody with a normal-sized car will want to drive it surrounded by idiot-cars, as they're simply too dangerous to be around in anything besides an idiot car.

View on HN

Same in the UK. SUVs and large off-road vehicles are taking over. The Range Rover seems to be the car of choice for every wealthy middle-aged mother on her morning school run. Just recently, one of them managed to careen hers into kids outside their school, killing a number of them [1].

Low emission zone are becoming more ubiquitous, which combats the issue to some regards, but I question why anyone but a farmer needs to own anything that large anywhere. This isn't the US, where pavements/sidewalks are a pipedream for anyone outside of New York. Nobody should be solo operating tanks just 5m away from someone walking their dog or on their way to school.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wimbledon-ca...

Range Rovers are a disease in the UK.

A brand which had it's origins in the military and farming, which has now been repurposed to drop kids off at a school.

It's also the most frequent car I see which is sped around and overtakes with zero concern for other road users. The people driving them seem to not understand the size of their car and either pass over-cautiously or tunnel through everybody else whenever the road is partially obstructed (parked cars in towns and villages).

The modern Range Rovers no longer even work for their original purpose. They're not sturdy enough to last on a farm, just fashion symbols.

When I question if humanity will tame itself and step down from destroying our world in the pursuit of comfort and consumerism at all costs, the first thing I think of is a white Range Rover Discovery.

Land Rovers are a disease anywhere they go just based on their quality ratings alone. They are consistently rated as the most unreliable vehicles on the market.

A status symbol. Like BMW. Breaks all the time, but you're showing off to other people that you can afford to fix it and keep it running

BMW is a much more reliable brand than Land Rover and you can get them in non-tank size. But yeah, still an overpriced status symbol in my opinion.

The interesting thing to me is that all the 'rational' arguments given by SUV buyers (more storage, easy of entry, larger interior space) are without exception much better in any family MPV instead of SUVs that invariably are also pretty shit off-road vehicles.

Literally just more weight and waste, zero function other than satisfying the buyers reptilian brain.

Agreed. I've been a passenger in plenty of them; many of them don't seem any bigger on the inside than a hatchback, with very similar boot space. It's all pointless, superficial bodywork that makes the demand for them seem even more egregious to me.

Because the space is under the car, between the wheels. I was surprised too.

Have you been on a BMW X6? I swear there’s less interior space in it than in a 3-series, the trunk is almost at armpit level and a mazda 3 can load bigger things. Same for the mercedes GLC. They’re the contemporary version of the hummer.

Coupe style SUVs like the X6 must be one of the stupidest car design fashions ever. And I say that as a recovered X5 owner....

I recently had my car written off (a small SUV) and due to lack of availability of replacements I replaced it with a similar sized hatchback. Now I find myself thinking why on earth I had an SUV - I'm unlikely to purchase another one as the hatchback is cheaper, roomier inside and handles much better.

There are small 'subcompact' crossover SUVs that get the best of both of those worlds. I've owned a Nissan Kicks and Honda HR-V. Both are marketed as SUVs but really function as roomy hatchbacks (lightweight, tight handling, front-wheel drive), along with others in the category. Very practical compromise between cost/efficiency and size/utility. Generally the only thing that cars in this class don't do is tow.

So apart from being a bit higher up - what is the benefit of the SUV?

Edit: It's a question I keep asking myself, my wife still has a SUV...

You can tow a small camper. ??

You can look down on the plebs? :/

It's not a bit higher up, it's quite a lot and makes a lot of difference in adverse weather (like getting water in your engine or not getting water in there and driving safely through a flash flood, for example). Also the visibility is quite different, especially at night, due to low beams covering much less space in front of a low car [1][2]. The higher stance allows for large tires and smoother ride. Getting in and out of the car, especially with children in seats is much easier.

This is without getting into the actual instances of hatchbacks and SUVs on the market. There is more choice and variety in SUVs.

1. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/prius-4-door-hat...

2. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/rav4-4-door-suv/...

Sounds like the low beams are mis-aimed if they are generating a much larger light pool and likely dazzling other drivers on the road at night.

I am pretty sure IIHS is setting up lights according to the DOT regulations when they test. As the report says: "The low beams never exceeded glare limits".

It's simple geometry - headlights at the same angle will intersect with the ground farther when they are higher off the ground.

But does that have any noticeable impact on the driving experience - can't say I've ever noticed any difference in headlight lighting between SUVs and "normal" cars?

It depends, makes a difference for me as I like to be aware of the surroundings. Seeing that some people drive while looking into their phones, I figure, it may not matter for everyone.

Instead of punishing the middle class by slapping ulez on them, it would be far more effective and fair for the london mayor to offer free school buses like they do in some parts of America.

I'm not sure the middle classes are likely to be hit by ULEZ anyway - it hits vehicles older than a certain age, primarily - not many of those Chelsea Tractors are likely to fall foul of it. While I agree with ULEZ, I will admit it's quite regressive - the people with old/polluting vehicles are, in many cases, those least able to afford anything better and/or the charge. Public transport should be much better, but that's way beyond the scope of something the mayor can quickly impact.

We need the need to follow Paris's lead and tax by weight - damage to roads follows a 4th power law, so very from a dumb immediate economic POV this makes sense.

Add to that the production of newer ones just negated the effeciency gain.

School children already have free bus travel in London.

Ummmm under sixteens have had free bus and tram travel in London for years. Or do you not want them to interact with members of the public and live in a sanitised bubble consisting solely of you and your nanny?

Children under 16 already get free travel on buses and trams in London, though they have to pay discounted fares on the tube and they'll need a photocard if they are 11 or over.

I'm aware of that having owned one and journeyed by bus to school every day. I also see vast amounts of traffic near schools during term times. So from personal observations and experience that's not nearly enough.

In the US nearly everyone drives their truck like it's a car. This is very dangerous. Hence the pedestrian death numbers soaring.

I have a 4x2 F-150 as my daily driver that is also my tow rig and work truck. I drive like a grandpa because I dont want people/pedestrians to be threatened by my vehicle. Nor do I want to hit anyone or anything.

You would not believe how popular it is to make the truck even bigger. People are obsessively doing 3" lift kits with aggressive stance rims and 40" tires. It costs yet another fortune to do this and causes otherwise fuel efficient trucks to suck gas like a 1977 Dodge 3/4 ton.

I'm in a truck and I have to dodge these fucks.

Edit: Part of this is due to the tax code. People can form an LLC and write off the truck and any "expenses" (cough... lift kits and superchargers) and still use the thing as their daily driver.

Same in The Netherlands. In the last year I’ve seen several micropenis-compensating huge RAM and Ford pick-ups appearing in my neighborhood. They don’t fit a standard parking spot. For small businesses they carry less than something like a Ford transit. Horrible noise. Terrible visibility from the wheel. Terrible fuel economy. I’m severely hoping that our government imposes a 1000% tax on them or something.

They already get taxed disproportionately based on weight alone. But this meme import needs some form of EuroNCAP curbing not just emissions related.

Something like an F-150 in Dutch cities is (in my view) an unacceptable risk for any child on a fietspad or a pedestrian. The visibility is shit, and the chances of survival on impact are close to nothing. A lorry is literally safer than that non-sense.

I feel like the "compensating" joke about large SUV and truck drivers has really run its course by this point.

Except for some edge cases, what else is the use of a 3,000kg 6m truck when it is transporting between 1 and 4 people except to compensate?

The point is that the compensating / micropenis jokes have been beating a dead horse for at least 10 years at this point. It's boring, it's embarrassing and it takes away from your message when you pepper them into your speech.

I disagree. At least in The Netherlands, these vehicles are a classic “mid life crisis mobile”. People compensating for something by buying an outrageous vehicle. So the “compensating joke” I’m making is in my opinion at least 50% truth.

I am not making a claim about the truthiness of the "joke". I'm saying it's old, not funny, and frankly annoying. And, to be clear, I have no stake in defending large vehicle ownership; I'm just saying you will elicit more agreement and fewer eye-rolls if you drop the "compensating" joke.

I still disagree.

A completely factual statement like “my daily observations support the theory that sales of large pick-up trucks in The Netherlands have grown, while I can not observe a matching growth in business development that could explain the increased need for such vehicles” would be read by exactly no one.

A joke based in truth catches people’s attention and draws them to read essentially the same thing I said above.

A rhetorical device, sure. But we are on a discussion forum here, not in an economics paper.

> I still disagree.

Have you measured the penis size of every large vehicle owner, published your findings, and had them peer reviewed?

What the hell are comments like this doing on HN? Please take your phallic insecurity and go away.

It’s just wrong. If I think of men likely to have a micropenis it’s going to correlate strongly with genetic or developmental issues. Not the things exactly with track with being able to afford or make great use of some imposing pickup truck.

I know a family where every man is built like a brick shithouse and ain’t compensating for shit and every man has owned at least one truck. Big vehicles fit big people and carry big things that big people lift into them.

The difference is that such men are just entitled to use such things without being mocked. Whereas a man with a small dick using such things, or a man with any sort of socially contemptible trait using such things, is mockable. Don’t they know their place?

I’m not sure I understand your point. But yes, if you have a construction company and you buy a huge pick-up I still think you might be better off with a van but at least I see your point in buying the pick-up. If you are a family of 4 whose biggest load is the weekly groceries, I absolutely think you are not entitled to drive around a tank-like behemoth, especially on the small roads in Dutch communities.

> I’m not sure I understand your point.

I’m pretty sure you do, because the poster is pretty specific. You make statements around micropenises and the required compensation for them that are incredibly toxic. The whole meme is dead, yet you persist in continuing with it. The poster is not questioning your assessment of the suitability of owning these vehicles, as you are no doubt aware, they are questioning your use of toxic language to make your point.

There are better and more eloquent ways of making your point. There is no need to shame a bunch of people that are born a certain way. Do you also make blanket statements about people of colour? LGBTQ+ folk?

Be a better human.

This will be my final reaction in this thread. I’m only shaming people who for no reason buy an unreasonable vehicle thereby actively destroying our climate and risking our children’s life.

The fact you use penis size to shame people, and refuse to see how that is wrong says more about you as a human than is does about people buying the cars you decry.

It's not men with unreasonable vehicles who are shamed by being compared to men with Micropenis. It's men with Micropenis that are shamed through comparison to men who destroy our climate and risk our children's life.

Notice that if two people didn't denounce you, you wouldn't have denied making the implication that you seemingly made, and the stereotype being made would appear to be tacitly accepted as the truth. I'm not denouncing you to attack you, I'm denouncing you to protect men who are in pain from at least the pain of arbitrary societal stigma.

Saying that men with large cars are bad because they destroy our climate and risk our children's life is a wholesome and agreeable notion. It shames people for their actions regardless of what bodies they have. Nothing wrong with that notion.

How do you explain the women who drive these vehicles?

I’ve never seen a woman drive these (in The Netherlands). It’s always middle aged men.

Status symbol of intimidation. I can afford this because I'm something. Step aside. You get to telegraph your success everywhere. Especially at work. When you telegraph success it begets more success. Shiney door handles, wheels, and badges that say "Platinum."

I need to tow shit and haul building supplies. The base model tows more, gets better milage, and handles better...and costs a hell of a lot less.

They survive the crash.

Yes. And my 8 year old son on his bike dies. Serves him right, he should’ve gotten himself one of those RAM 1500’s as well.

Wonder why.

A lot of this is that anything electric needs to be an order of magnitude heavier and significantly large to achieve any range due to the much lower energy density of batteries.

It's possible to have small electrics but those often have short ranges and most of the big ugly things you see on the roads in DK is kinda hybrids or follows the trend set by the hybrids.

The real way to deal with the SUV nonsense and not hurt the rural areas where you might need range is to just charge double for parking for large cars and cap the speed of large almost trucks to the same as lorries.

I've got a Tesla Model 3, which a) has a perfectly decent range, up near the top of the general class, and b) isn't a huge car. It's not a small car but a sensibly mid-sized car - significantly smaller than the ridiculous SUVs I weave in between.

Electric is a non-factor here; in fact, one of the fundamental things that Tesla gets right, which other manufacturers of electric vehicles studiously ignore, is aerodynamics (not all, clearly). The very worst size and shape for an electric vehicle is "huge and brick-like" as it is for all vehicles - it's much more apparent with EVs, though, where the range is so easily comparable.

(N.B. I got it before Musk went so spectacularly off the deep end, it was a motoring choice not a political/fandom one).

The model 3 and BMW i4s are both classified as compacts in the American system (same as Honda accords). The leaf, bolt, and i3 are sub compacts (civic class).

I have an i4 now, and I really feel the extra 2 inches in width it has over my previous Acura ILX (basically a fancy Honda civic). None of the sub compact EVs have very good range yet.

Don't get me started on the retina singing eye level headlamps that all these vehicles are starting to wear these days.

Do the people who design and market these things not have families of their own, with kids in the back in rear facing seats whose 9 month old eyes get blasted with straight up stadium-level lighting by some dead eyed balding suburbathug in his lifted FU-150?

Often these big cars even have a quite small trunk, e.g. compared to a station wagon.

Soon though, a few car makers will release electric station wagons (e.g. Peugeot e-308). Many danes already drives station wagons, so I hope people will start buying those kind of cars instead of SUV's.

Apparently, according to a guy trying to put in a higher offer on a car already sold, used estate cars in the UK are now selling at a premium because people who actually want such a car for its practical benefits, including farmers (a battered Volvo V70 and then XC70, which isn't a crossover like the XC60[1], is a common sight on a farm) struggle to find them because the market is full of shiny "wank tanks" with the boot space of a chunky hatchback coming off leases.

[1] and now the ridiculous XC40, for which they discontinued the "actually a car" V40, three years after also discontinuing the XC/V70 entirely.

There’s also the C40; perhaps less ridiculous?

XC70 boot has 575 liter capacity, C40 419 liter. Even the new V90 has a smaller boot than an old XC70 (and a smaller hatch which is less convenient).

Thankfully there are many European roads where those monstrosities would just get stuck, and would be full of scratches when pulling them out.

If only. Unfortunately cars are considered sacrosanct in most places, for some reason. Your own body is worth less than a car and the safety of cars is high on police priorities. If cars don't fit down a road they'll just destroy the foliage or verge and we'll pay to widen the road.

Buildings, villages,....

Maybe calling everyone with a car you don't like an incompetent idiot isn't the best way to go about doing things.

> you're an idiot helping to accelerate the problem as this now becomes a weapons race on the road

This is a very harsh take for something that is legal and widespread everywhere across the world (at least Western world).

You have to try really hard to pretend you don't understand why this is happening. It's a race to the top of the safety spectrum, and for good reason. Traffic accidents are among the single biggest sources of preventable deaths and grave injuries, and getting a bigger car is one of the single most important aspects you can control in this equation. It's actually super simple.

If this is truly a problem, and I guess it is, then there should be some form of legislative intervention against it. The people buying them are not the problem, the environment which encourages this is.

> This is a very harsh take for something that is legal and widespread everywhere across the world (at least Western world).

No, he is absolutely right. 99% of all people do not need a bigger car, they need better driving skills. But hey, its capitalism so of course we solve our issues with money

I highly doubt that safety is on the mind of SUV and truck buyers. Perhaps that is the reason they give after the fact, but really it is all about looks.

It's not a race to the top of the safety spectrum. That's just a disguise and also only for some people. It's a race to the top of the "social" and $ spectrum where you have to show how little you care about the others and the environment and also how much money you can dump on vanity and impractical things

I think it's actually both. Some people buy bigger cars for looks/status, and then others (esp. parents of small children) feel compelled to buy a larger, safer vehicle in response. In the case of minivans, they are choosing a less cool, but safer, vehicle than smaller alternatives.

Occupants of the largest vehicles on the road experience less than 1/10 of the fatalities than those in the smallest. We desperately need new regulations/legislation to address the vehicle size arms race.

https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf...

Safety for me, but not for thee...

Some people don't even get to make a choice, they just suffer the consequences (e.g. children and others that can't drive for whatever reason). As vehicles have been getting bigger, pedestrian deaths have been going up. I don't think it's mere coincidence.

I don't really understand why everyone in this post is so hung up on this.

As long as there is no regulation in a particular area, obviously each actor will look out for their own interest. I wouldn't even call it selfish, it's just the natural order of things and an example of the tragedy of the commons. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that people here act as if learning how to drive better and getting an SUV is an either/or choice is ridiculous.

It's a race to the top of the safety spectrum in which my 8 year old son on his bicycle can only participate as a guaranteed loser.

In fact its all a long con to bring the Penny Farthing back into style so drivers of modern land barges can see your child on his bicycle over their own 1.5m high hood/grille.

This just needs to reframed so that political actors / governments can actually legislate this away.

The reality is that large SUVs do make everyone on the road less safe, and that should be impressed upon people buying these things. Buying an SUV might make you the driver safer, but your kids, neighbours, relatives etc. less safe.

People are more communally conscious than you give them credit…

Sounds like you're one of the idiots

It only sounds like that because most people are not able to look at things objectively.

But, obviously, you're wrong. I don't own a car and haven't for many years. I never intend to own a car ever again. But just because I don't want to own a car, that doesn't mean that anyone who does is an idiot.

Hope that settles it.

So youre not even a pert of this conversation. Only car buyers determine which cars are sold.

That makes absolutely zero sense, regardless of how much I'd look at it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com