Microlino boss: Most cars are far too big for what they're being used for
topgear.com
topgear.com
When I need a truck, I have a friend I can borrow it from. When I need a van, I have a friend I can borrow it from. Otherwise my Honda Fit does everything I need it to. Growing up my family borrowed cars all of the time.
But outside of my circle of friends, I've noticed most people these days don't have friends/family they feel comfortable asking favors from. Everyone wants to be self-reliant, so everyone wants a car that can do everything for them. Ironically even for hauling friends around in.
For me, it's another extension of the larger "bowling alone" trend.
I can't fathom having a large vehicle just for the sake of the odd trip that requires one, completely understand if you need one for work, for anything else it's just much cheaper to rent one when needed.
Sure but two days a week I need to transport 3-4 people at once, once a month I need to travel 30+ miles to visit relatives, and a couple times a year I need to travel 200+ miles for a road trip. Would it really be better if I owned two cars?
EDIT: Personally, I think this solution (micro cars) is less optimal than owning larger cars (for infrequent, one-off trips) + better public transportation (for frequent, predictable trips).
Any kind of "share" program inevitably will wind up becoming "I have to compete for this resource when I want to use it, which means sometimes I won't be able to access it when I need it"
So that's a big fat no from me
You can share access to important resources all you want. I'm not playing that game
Are you really gonna hold up flying as an example of a "share" that works? Flying is notoriously a miserable experience, between security, delays, cramped seating...
Yeah, I mean, it'll get you to where you're going but it's not really an enjoyable experience.
But here is another idea: what if the US were able to build an alternative system for transporting more people efficiently? Then the need for cars would be reduced and consequently no fight over one specific type of resource.
Maybe they could call it, I don't know, mass transit...
Big difference.
Btw, not all of US is dependent on personal car, you shouldn't talk that way either.
This is not being hostile to cars. This is to avoid external costs being pushed to non-owners. Would you say that restaurants are "hostile to smokers" because people are not allowed to smoke indoors in public spaces?
> not all of US is dependent on personal car, you shouldn't talk that way either.
With the except of NYC and parts of New England (the cities that were founded before cars were a thing), it is.
Btw in Italy I've seen many Microcars which are technically 4-wheeled scooters and thus could be driven by 14 years old kids.
and faster than anything else on the road too ;)
Not an attack on your comment at all, or your choices. I totally get it :-)
But the thinking around needing a car that does-it-all is a problem that needs to be resolved!
My Australian perspective:
Even if we ignored the climate crisis, our cities and metropolitan areas are not designed to deal with the influx of massive cars and trucks!
Australian roads are now seeing the huge RAM Trucks from the US!
I see RAM trucks on the school run, with one of two kids in them, then the parent drives it to work. The RAM trucks are spotless. No mud, no dir, and not a scratch. Never done a days towing or work in the Trucks life.
We don't have the road width or parking space capacity for these RAM size trucks.
At least the massive popularity of the Tesla Model Y, and lately BYD, over here gives us some hope that when people are given choices, people will choose compact-ish efficiency!
And then there is the climate problem...
Essentially, my belief is that we are all going to have to swallow the hard pill and make unpalatable choices. We cannot individually own cars that do it all. We are just going to have to inconvenience ourselves and rent a Van or Truck for when we need it, or god forbid, use a train or bus! ;-)
Actually rather than a car that does it all, I think of a car primarily for filling in the long tail of trips while public transportation handles the most common trips.
And to be clear I definitely don't advocate for extra large ram/escalade style cars here, my point is a 2 seat car that sits inbetween a car and a bicycle and is primarily for commuting is a wasteful and impractical idea.
Most people would say you're insane. But I understand you, and I know what you need: this 1991 Daihatsu HiJet Deck Van.
Large vehicles serve a few purposes including: signaling status/wealth/power and having the size and mass to favor the occupants in collisions with smaller vehicles.
Miatas are pretty small, but I agree GP is right to lament the lack of lightweight vehicles in the US. I've read the average European car weighs ~1000 lbs less than its American counterpart. I personally feel gross driving around in heavy vehicles, like are people really so insecure they feel the need to haul all this extra mass around, and ignore the repercussions at scale?
Yes, and that's precisely why the extra mass is so terrifying. You have it backwards.
I understand that some things are not optimal, but if you want to live otpimziing everything then we aren't beings anymore, and just bots...
This sort of thing is just propaganda for the poors, those who can will have big cars and houses in the city anyway.
The only non-financial downside to having a larger vehicle is occasionally struggling to find parking, and even that is mostly a non issue outside of city centres.