Author assumes the only reason people buy a truck is for "signalling".
Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck, including families with kids (which e.g. in Europe manage to get just fine with a regular car, not even a SUV).
I don't think we can be confident that social signalling is the major factor here.
European streets are often narrower and parking spaces smaller. Many trucks that are popular in the US are so heavy that you may not be allowed to drive them with a standard license. You need a truck license, which may be valid only for a few years and have stricter standards. And due to the climate, you are more likely to have to protect the cargo from the elements, which shifts the balance towards vans. But vans are not very convenient in daily use.
Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either. Not to mention in the US tons of regular working class people buy tracks, when people with 2x to 10x their income in Europe don't.
>Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen.
LOL, what people would believe!
Sorry I've missed a step. In your first comment I thought you meant buying a truck was people status signalling that they were affluent. If you don't think that, what do you think is being signalled?
"Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck"
"nah, it's not that, as people with higher disposable incomes *in the EU* don't buy such trucks either".
I just left out the "in the EU" there, to be implied by the context I was replying to.
That said, I didn't mean to imply that "buying a truck was people status signalling that they were affluent" in the US.
Just that they think (or made to think) they need it, and that they culturally like the extravaganza - same way many in the US think they need bigger cars and sneer at European sized cars.
The buyer cares. And if the buying is detrimental to more than the buyer himself (eg wastes resources, harms the environment, overtaxes infrastructure), then it makes sense for others to let that buyer know how they actually feel.
But I agree with your suggestion that it is entirely possible for a truck buyer to have reasons other than those supposed by the author.
Didn't he already explained he's against buying of trucks when there's no real need?
To everybody, naturally including them personally.
And none of the harms are based on distance driven. US-sized trucks are worse than smaller regular cars on those metrics for the same distances too.
>Please just admit the thing you really don't like is the culture associated with large trucks
One can dislike both you know.
Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This is especially true about things economists call "externalities", which includes the damage to the environment and things outside direct economic dealing.
Just because you don't see it as equivalent, doesn't mean others don't
Meaning, respond to this:
> Just because some particular damage can't be measured financially or settled with a fine, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This conclusion is applicable regardless of the analogy’s aptness. You obviously don’t like the conclusion. But can you argue against it?
Also, as you seem to be focused on the “buying” rather than the “driving” of a truck, would you be ok with a tax or some other disincentive aimed solely at truck drivers rather than truck buyers?
Laws are not only an approximation of morals, but also a compromise among all stakeholders in a country.
As said, it may not be the same thing overall, but morally it can be perceived on a similar level.
The alternative is that for every delivery of goods I would need to pay an $80 fee (and I do these with pretty regular frequency; that's about 2x what it takes to fill up my tank). We'd need to be more careful of not going out during storms or when there's even moderate risk of winter storms. I would need to plan trips across the mountains much more in advance. There's a lot of other things that'd probably change too, including how we do road trips.
I'm a bit judgy of people who have a truck that clearly don't do truck things with it, but of all my friends that have trucks I don't know anyone who isn't. All that to say, I roll my eyes when I see statements trying to steelman who should morally own a truck.
Sidenote - I'm finding my vocabulary pretty lacking now that so much stereotyping is done in images and memes.
Do you think you'd feel the same if someone in approximately your situation got something like a 2024 Silverado with a laughably large grill, much larger and more expensive? To me there's practically I wouldn't even second guess, and then there's everything beyond that, but I'd be curious what a truck owner thinks.
My grandfather's always had a truck, but it's always been something the size of a Canyon or Tacoma, and with that he's never struggled with any of the relatively large crap he hauls around.
https://www.australianfrontlinemachinery.com.au/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-04/second-wind-for-ex-de...
O'wise we don't much bother with US style "trucks" | oversized SUV's.
People get upset at such blunt truths because it makes people look stupid, and we are, we humans are very stupid.
Translation: "I am smarter than other humans"
And anyway, US trucks are just a peculiar form of luxury car. Case in point the Toyota Hilux, which is Toyota's famously sturdy workhorse truck, is not even sold in the US. Instead they have the Tacoma, an entirely different construction.
It is built around consumer comfort features and impressive specs instead of being rugged, easy to repair and inexpensive.
Anecdotally the Tacoma is huge, and horrible off-road. There are other tradeoffs, like softer suspension, which you want in a passenger car for comfort, but not in a vehicle used for hauling and going on difficult terrain.
In practice, a lot of working age Men own a light duty pickup (f-150, Silverado 1500 or smaller types like the Ranger or Colorado) when you get outside of the Cities for the utility. It's basically needed if you live in the country and want to be self-sufficient. While you may see these on a farm, more than likely a farmer would need something more heavy duty to pull anything serious.
People with Boats can usually get away with hauling it with a light duty truck, whereas people with RV's usually will have something more heavy duty.
They are far from status symbols, and often people will have old trucks (beaters) that are paid off and will use when it's practical.
The article literally shows two examples of ads for trucks, one advertising utility and one signalling...
The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. It doesn't imply that is the only reason, just that it's an increasingly _common_ one.
Marketing has driven, rather than responding to, the change in consumer goals.
I mean let's be honest, more often than not, if you're not buying a ute with a bog standard metal tray and little extras, it is for signalling.
Because the more "luxury" ones, with a hard top, with a thick plastic, painted body kit, and bullbars - compromise heavily on actual usability, and are way less useful than a standard ute with a tray
Maybe I’m just old fashioned and have an appreciation for imported Commodore Utes. It seems language has changed:
Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term "ute" in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries.