Let me be the first one to say it - anyone who drives a large pick-up truck for non-commercial reasons is a grade A asshole. SUV drivers aren't that far off, though I sympathize with the game theory element of buying SUVs to protect against other larger cars -- but I would expect you to take accountability and drive slower and safer than smaller cars.
These monstrosities are environmentally unfriendly, pedestrian unfriendly, kid unfriendly, biker unfriendly, small car unfriendly, and are antithetical to the type of walkable and bikable cities that point to healthier and happier living. I wish we could tax the crap out of these things and drive them out of our towns.
There are valid non-commercial reasons for having trucks and SUVs, but most of the people I know who have them just like big vehicles. They'll say that when they are driving regular cars it's hard to see what's going on around them because of all the SUVs and trucks on the road and the higher headlights of trucks and cars are blinding. It doesn't seem to bother them that they create those same problems for everyone else.
We're in a prisoner's dilemma situation and folks are acting rationally within it. Trying to blame the individual isn't likely to go anywhere. You can't control other people, only your response and this is what you can do. Without a law that forces coordination so we get back to the good outcome it will keep happening.
Sadly it's politically untenable in most (all?) the US not least of which because people will just buy trucks in other states that allow them.
This is what Cali does with their emissions standards but it also seems like people who care worked around it by just registering their cars in other states. And I say this with all the love in the world, if there's any group of people who will massively inconvenience themselves to spite the government it's truck owners.
This is pretty absurd… there are plenty of non commercial reasons to use a truck- towing trailers, hauling wood, etc. they’re pretty essential for people that live in the country, do subsistence farming, or build/maintain their own house. I grew up in the country in a house my dad built, and we got much of our food from plants and animals we raised- we needed a truck.
Ultimately all motor vehicles are pretty dangerous and negatively impact the environment- it makes no sense to have a problem with people that need trucks using them for their purpose, but being fine with people doing the same with a small car.
I can't speak for OP but their take sounded pretty city-focused. I live in a downtown that feels so overrun with these monstrous SUVs and what-have-you for no reason. I know they're useless because they're always empty and they park on my street (or better, in the bike lane I use every day).
I agree with your sentiment. Large vehicles have a lot of utility for a lot of people. I don't want to tax rural folk out of owning an important tool. But in the densest zip code in my state? I'm tired of reading about pedestrian murders in my neighborhood.
> This is pretty absurd… there are plenty of non commercial reasons to use a truck- towing trailers, hauling wood, etc. they’re pretty essential for people that live in the country, do subsistence farming, or build/maintain their own house.
Of course there are practical reasons for pickup trucks. But those are not the reasons why people actually buy them.
63% of F-150 drivers self report that they rarely/never tow:
Few people tow, and if you want to haul things a minivan would probably be most practical.
Even in construction, I think most folks would be better served with a van, as you can lock up your tools more securely and any supplies won't be exposed to the elements.
80%+ of Americans live in cities - is hauling wood and activities related to subsistence farming a regular priority?
I live in Australia and am surrounded by people that choose to drive massive dual cab utes (trucks) as a lifestyle choice - they are mostly used for commuting. This is insane.
I have no problem with tradies driving utes to move supplies and tools to their workplace. But I would say at least half of the ones I see, if not more, are not used for this purpose.
These trucks seem to be deliberately designed and styled to look meaner, belligerent, and menacing. Like a gigantic fist driving down the highway shouting "Stay out of my way!" Are these personality extensions for a population that is getting meaner and more belligerent every year?
These trucks (and some cars, to be fair) visibly project hostility. As a commenter put it in a past HN article, "Emissions requirements don't require a truck to look like it's going to beat you up."[1]
I think you are unfairly judging people different from you with a stereotype- the standard culture war behavior of demonizing and dehumanizing other groups.
That particular truck is a special performance model, trying to look supercar aggressive, and loaded with expensive hardware typically used only on desert racing trucks. This is a long standing thing car manufacturers do- look at the Subaru WRX STI or the 80s VW GTI for example. Wildly impractical, and usually sold at small volumes to draw attention and buyers for other models.
The regular F150 to me looks tacky, cheap, overly trendy, and faux futuristic but not aggressive. You see basically the same styling elements - lots of non functional protrusions and sharp angles - in economy cars like the Prius, it is the current trend. I think it looks awful.
Earlier this year I borrowed a family members 4 door short bed F150 with a lightweight pop up camper on the back for a family road trip where we explored offroad in desert national parks. The vehicle makes a ton of sense for uses like this- it was excellent offroad, just enough room for a family inside, and could carry gear for a week of camping in the back, without the risk of heavy items like firewood and tools hurting the passengers. We had all of the comfort of an RV with about 1/4 the fuel use, and the ability to drive and park anywhere easily. I can see why people buy them for this type of use, they are perfect for it.
Well, those are flat-out illegal here and importing them is made illegal except under a narrow set of circumstances so that the auto industry doesn’t have to compete.
No, it has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with kei cars being underpowered. They can't keep up with the speed of traffic on the highway and they'd be a safety hazard to other motorists.
There’s lots of vehicles that can’t get on a freeway. There’s a sign on every freeway onramp. That’s something we literally already handle so that’s not the problem.
If that were the case they would be classed as Neighborhood Vehicles and so on. You can buy a golf-cart or 4x4 and drive it on public roads after all. Just not a freeway.
It literally, directly, unequivocally is protectionism and insisting otherwise is ahistorical and factually incorrect. It’s a vestige of a 1964 protectionist trade war with Japan that the US auto-industry lobbied their way into keeping even after the other provisions were lifted.
Pickup trucks are a lot higher, wider, and longer, yet have with smaller windows and windshields and less room in the beds than when I was a kid. And FYI I still own a square body 1988 3/4 ton 4X4 Suburban in the 1973-1991 body style so I know the difference between an old truck and a new one. It’s a really horrible shade of beige and my neighbors probably hate it.
These changes have generally has made new pickups designs much more of a pain in the ass to use for towing, hauling wood, feeding livestock, and harvesting crop. New trucks definitely fail the haybale stacking test.
They are now designed to be sold primarily as bro-dozers for suburban manchildren who want to LARP like they are some stereotype of macho, not useful tools for traditional rural living.
I wish I had the link, but what I read is that big vehicles do make the occupants safer, but not much safer. For every life saved by driving a big vehicle, 12X as many pedestrian, cyclist and small vehicle occupant lives are lost due to those larger vehicles.
Thoughts and prayers are all we have in this country. Nothing will be done about that just as nothing is done about guns or healthcare. Just more thoughts and more prayers.
Unfortunately agree, especially given how much of an influence the auto industry has on our government.
My goal is hence to make enough money to allow my family and I to live in an urban walkable environment. The venn diagram overlap of areas that have a high proportion of large trucks and how livable they are is quite small anyways.
Are there any cities where you don't need to be very wealthy to live there? The four you mentioned do not strike me as the kind of places you can live in without significant resources (I'm an Australian; I've been to all those cities except Boulder and wouldn't fancy living somewhere in them that was walkable without a lot of money, but I don't know them extremely well).
High point of my life was getting a new stove and toilet into my Honda fit while a guy parked next to me had no way to lift his new potted plant into his pickup flatbed.
Blame the EPA for forcing vehicles larger and larger using a nonsensical method of calculating efficiency requirements. Companies would be happy to sell compact pickup trucks that got 30mpg but they aren't allowed.
Not true, the reason trucks and SUVs are made and pushed so much is they are high-margin vehicles.
You make WAY more money per unit of work selling a truck or SUV. Sedans, in comparison, make much less money. Hence, all the ads you'll see are aimed at big vehicles.
The manufacturers can make smaller vehicles but it's a stupid idea to do so. You leave money on the table - and for what? Just make the ride higher and you can automatically mark up another 20%.
> Companies would be happy to sell compact pickup trucks that got 30mpg but they aren't allowed.
It seems quite possible to take a sedan and replace the back seat and trunk with a bed and still meet requirements. I'm sure that configuration is a bit less aerodynamic, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker.
Meanwhile companies like Ford are not selling any sedans at all. It seems they think it's more profitable to sell only light trucks and SUVs.
That makes me doubt that the manufacturers "can't" produce compact trucks.
I've got a small pick-up truck, and it's great for me, but nobody makes a good small pick-up for the US market anymore, because of how CAFE standards work.
Currently available small trucks aren't very small and aren't very truck. To get a 6 foot bed, you need to buy a big truck, and a 6 foot bed is IMHO an essential quality of a truck.
The CAFE standards have definitely caused problems. There is the Ford Maverick and the Hyundai Santa Fe now though that are more like what a Ranger or an S10 or a Tacoma used to be 20 years ago, except they're unibody.
Someone on Hacker News pointed out that "right of way doesn't mean you won't die" and "Yield to Gross Tonnage" and I was convinced to trade out my smaller car for a large one. I told my friends about it and we're all buying bigger SUVs. We didn't grow up in America and didn't realize that the culture was an explicit arms race. But now we are appropriately armored! Glad for HN advice. A friend is going to get a Hummer EV 3x but I don't know about that big. GMC Sierra should do.
Yield to Gross Tonnage is very much an actual enforced regulation in this part of the world, sadly a little weiner vehicle like a Hummer won't save you.
If you have a large family, it’s hard to get by without an SUV. Four kids and all their car seats do not fit into a regular sized car. While it would be great if we could all just get my on public transportation and shank’s pony like in Europe, the ship left the port a hundred years ago on that one. Like it or not the majority of US cities are designed for the car.
Both of those are SUV-class vehicles and a minivan is pretty much the quintessential SUV. Other than styling there really isn’t a difference between a traverse and a windstar or whatever.
(Sorry they don't seem to have the Windstar on carsized, but the honda odyssey is a pretty close match).
Station wagons and SUVs are different vehicles. SUVs are basically extended-cab sedans, whereas SUVs are built with higher ground clearance and a higher-center of gravity, many on a truck frame.
no need to apologize, I was just using a windstar as an example of a generic 90s minivan, not as some super specific example. :)
that's an interesting comparison tool!
but yeah my point is more related to size and capacity than things like chassis. the fact that the windstar is comparably sized is the point I was trying to make.
it's a fair point that the hood is significantly different though, and I think that seems to be one of the biggest takeaways from the discussion here, that's specifically problematic and dangerous as a design element.
and if your point is that a truck chassis overall increases the weight and so on, and just makes it a heavier, more dangerous vehicle... that's probably true to some extent too, although a van chassis was never exactly "light". I still don’t fully agree with the implication that there’s a meaningful difference between a windstar or Astro van and a traverse as far as vehicle classification. They’re all utes really.
Weight matters for a vehicle -vehicle collision, but for a vehicle-pedestrian collision, it's nearly irrelevant. (This is because the physics goes like M/(M+m); there's an asymptote, and once M>5m it's practically the same as infinity).
But height (especially of the front hood) is very dangerous, both for collision interactions and visibility. That's more or less why the chassis matters from a pedestrian safety perspective. Vehicles getting taller makes streets more dangerous, even if they weren't getting heavier at the same time.
If your goal is to reduce the amount of pickup trucks and SUVs on the road, then you’re going to have to convince people who drive those vehicles to stop. Opening by calling that audience “grade A assholes” is probably not winning anyone over toward your cause. You’d probably have better luck telling them how beneficial it would be for them, those they care about, their community, etc., rather than taking an adversarial tone.
At this point it's pretty clear that they don't actually care about any of those things. You can tell them all about benefits, but the only "benefit" those people are shooting for is "Pwn the Libs!" and if they have to sacrifice their descendants' futures to do it, well... "Sorry, kids... No future for you. Blame the Democrats."
And... heavy electric batteries can add up to 40% more weight to a BEV vehicle compared to the ICE version. So not only are cars getting bigger in size, but they are also getting heavier due to electrification of the powertrain. A 3000lb car becomes a 4200lb car, a 4000lb SUV becomes a 5,600lb SUV.
I believe the Ford Motor Company CEO predicts that cars will get smaller but due to electrification, they will not lose weight.
> anyone who drives a large pick-up truck for non-commercial reasons is a grade A asshole
Well damn, I guess I'm a grade A asshole. I thought about getting a smaller truck, but frankly it's safer to tow my travel trailer with a superduty, since the tongue weight is over what a half-ton is typically rated for, so I kinda figured it made me -less- of a grade A asshole.
Fortunately I only drive it a few thousand miles a year, the rest of the time I drive my Tesla, so maybe on most days you won't call me an asshole.
You haven't explained why but I can preemptively say it isn't. Go outside the confines of American suburbia/countryside and you will see how out of touch these vehicles are to sustainable and healthy living.
Sure, but that applies just as well to driving any car, eating any meat, etc. Very little of modern human living is particularly sustainable or healthy.
It doesn't apply just as well because there's unique challenges. For example, SUVs and trucks being over an order of magnitude more dangerous for pedestrians.
We have got to stop hand-waving things as "well other stuff!"
You're 100% right, car dependency as a whole is a big problem. One that we need to move away from and towards more sustainable modes of transportation. However, that is a big task. One part of that task is deconstructing the American obsession with ego-boosting via motor vehicle.
Anyone who thinks large pickup trucks are only for “commercial use” is a knuckle-dragging city-dweller. Now that we both have the name calling out of the way, how would you suggest I tow my utility trailer without a truck?
This misses the point and it's why talking about cars is so annoying if you're a person who doesn't give a shit about cars.
How often do you tow your utility trailer? If you do it every day because you need it for work, then having a big truck probably makes sense.
But if you're like many people who have trucks, you probably do this once a year, if ever, but still feel like you "need" a truck for these occasions.
It's like the people in Australia who live in the outback and need to drive 800km every few weeks to drive to a town to buy supplies. Yeh, sure, maybe a diesel ute with a 200L tank is the right choice for you. But it doesn't mean EVs are a complete waste of time for the 90 percent of Australians that live in cities.
Most people aren't hauling around a trailer every minute.
> How often do you tow your utility trailer? If you do it every day because you need it for work, then having a big truck probably makes sense.
Nope.
We're in Australia, we have a 35 year old home over built double axle heavy steel frame trailer built to handle off road conditions in the north west; it's got heavy duty leaf springs, slaved brakes, can take some serious load tonnage and gets used weekly (still, and has dome for 35+ years).
It gets pulled by a six cylinder sedan car with a Hayman-Reese tow point and tracking anti sway bars.
It's done well in excess of 3 million km now (been stripped down to frame and rebuilt twice now (new wiring, new brakes, refurb'd springs, etc)).
Don't need a big "truck" (oversized Toorak Tractor).
Well, save for hauling wheat and cattle etc. but we have prime movers + semi trailers for that .. and for fire fighting we have an ex military heavy chassis truck modified to carry 5 tonne of water off road .. but that's a bigger beast than US SUV "trucks".
I think the bigger problem is that cars keep getting taller for no reason.
Other than the cybertruck, larger vehicles have been trending more and more towards adding pedestrian safety features. However, the same vehicles are taller than they used to be, making them less safe, and generally worse.
Who wants to lift crap an extra foot into their pickup truck bed, and need a frigging step to get into the side door? The days of “reach into the side of the truck” are long gone, except maybe for basketball players.
Recently I heard some new cars detect imminent collisions, and emergency lift themselves a few inches so they win the game of “who gets to be in the other driver’s lap after the crush zone is exhausted”.
Speaking of the cybertruck, I realized it’s the same height as our aging 1500 class truck (which barely meets clearance in some parking garages). Current year models are even taller.
It's a combination of getting taller, the hood getting longer, and the hood not sloping down. The Ridgeline has much more of a sloping hood, and the visibility is better. Most trucks have the flatter hood and big flat grille presumably because it looks more aggressive. I don't understand why the hoods are getting so long though. Just as an example I've noticed, the Tacoma has about a foot between the bumper and the radiator that's completely dead space. The truck would be more useful if it were a foot shorter (easier to park), a foot more legroom, or a foot longer bed, so I don't know what the reason is. Maybe a crumple zone or something.
Think about going off-roading in your new $100,000 vehicle [although something I wouldn't do if I had such a vehicle]. Suppose there is a big boulder or you want to cross some water: you need the height!
Yeah, and fuck everyone who lives in the country and has large animals, or anyone who wants to haul a camper or trailer. A subcompact can fit like two bales of hay, surely that’s enough right?
Most of them… How do you haul hay? How do you haul a stock trailer to move animals around or take them to the vet? Move fence panels around or haul water?
The comment very clearly says anyone who has a truck for non commercial purposes is an asshole. No qualifiers on where you live. Even non profits are assholes. If OP meant something else maybe they shouldn’t use broad generalizations.
Should be obvious he's referring to the city. Don't know why people do this thing where they make up an argument nobody has made, and then proceed to get mad over it. It's very weird, stop doing that. At this point y'all are rage baiting yourselves.
Oh please, you have a right to privacy in your own homes, but not in shared roads where your driving can endanger others. I welcome this news and hopefully one day we have traffic cameras across every block in the country, that have already proven to reduce speeding/reckless and driving, and to directly impact the ~40k deaths we have on the roads each year.
Read the article. These aren't speed cameras. They're exclusively for tracking location and movement of vehicles. Nobody is going to get a ticket for them. You're only going to get a knock at your door by the cops when someone steals your license plate and uses them to commit a crime.
Also you're completely wrong about the effectiveness of traffic enforcement cameras. Go read some stats on them some time. Read about the bribes and corruption and how these companies have cities shorten yellow lights. And how they pretty much are only used to milk people out of their money and send that money to the private companies who operate them.
The article makes it sound like these cameras are not intended to enforce traffic laws but rather track the location of every car it scans to aid in solving other types of crime.
Not the OP but as someone who grew up in Chicago, but then spent a large time in NYC, here are some examples:
1. Talent Density: Chicago is optimized talent-wise at a regional level (the midwest), while NYC is optimized at a global level. Chicago simply doesn't have the same pull if you don't live in the midwest the way NYC does for folks living anywhere across the world. This creates an obvious talent gap.
2. Culture: Chicago operates as a much more of an all-American city, reflecting cultural attitudes not too dissimilar from the rest of the country. Examples here include a heavy sports culture, emphasis on drinking/going out. You see a similar trend with NYC transplants (like myself in my early 20's) but you're eventually forced to grow out of it in NYC and create a more unique and diversified identity. I haven't seen much of this in my social circle from Chicago who never left.
3. Industry Density: Chicago is considered top at a few select industries including insurance, commodities etc. OTOH, there are very few industries that NYC would not be considered top in. Strong talent begets strong talent and this creates the sort of network effect that's present in the bay (for tech), and in NYC, but not in Chicago minus a few industries. These network efforts, over a long enough timeframe, fundamentally alter the landscape of one's career.
4. Local v.s. global maxima: Chicago allows you to reach a relatively easier maxima (career or culture wise), which likely means Chicagoans are happier on average. That concept doesn't exist in NYC or the bay. It pushes you to reach a global maxima which is inherently more challenging. For example, getting a job at Google likely sets you for life in Chicago. In NYC or the bay, that's simply a starting point. This isn't for the faint of heart but is highly rewarding if you're ambitious and work-oriented.
5. Arts and Fashion: The same concept of local v.s. global maxima exists here too.
6. Food: Far more global and unique in NYC than in Chicago (which in-itself has great food)
I would maybe keep SF and LA as tier 1.5 (ignoring the fact that LA is mostly a collection of suburbs) given their presence at the global scale, but there is a drop-off in tiers for all other cities. Chicago is a great example, it's usually considered a sister city to NYC, but as someone who grew up there and then later spent time in NYC, the differences in cultural attitudes between the two could not be starker.
This is a pretty reasonable approach but I would caution against potentially being too overly-conservative in eventually moving to the bay/NY if career ambition is a goal. What's often missing in these budgeting numbers is the intangible variable of a far lower ceiling of income potential that you have to trade off. How does the calculus change if say there is some probability X of reaching a potential far higher than 150-160k, as tends to be the case in these HCOL areas?
People can question all they want about why wealth is not trickling down but that doesn’t change the underlying analysis or outcomes around why this is a bad idea. You may get income redistribution and trickle down but if it changes the underlying systems that create wealthy, those same people will just end up poorer but more equitable.
Is there any evidence for that assertion ? I mean you take any European country such as Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and even France. Where taxes are remarkably high, and definitely far fewer billionaires per capita. Europe has better health outcomes, better income equality, and extremely low poverty rate compared to the US. [1]
[1] https://data.oecd.org/netherlands.htm
Note: Income inequality [0] and poverty rate [1] are in-distribution relative measures, not absolute measures. You could “improve” these measures by making everyone worse off (i.e. a Pareto worsening).
Europe is not the egalitarian utopia most Americans seem to think it is. Germany's wealth gini coefficient is 79.1. The US is 85.9 (100% is complete inequality, higher is worse).
Sweden and Norway are both in the 80s also -- two countries people in the US constantly point to as places where things are "fair". But in terms of wealth (and income) inequality, it's not that much different.
Well in defense of the European countries, the wealth might be unequally distributed here as well, but you also don't need wealth/money for education, health care, child care and/or pension.
If you don't need money you need luck, especially for education. There are limited seats. And in Germany, you are on track for university or not when you are very young.
I can easily fire my asset manager, or switch to a plethora of low cost options, or manage my capital myself. How exactly will I have those options with the wealth tax if you like you said, I’m not getting that rate of return justifying the tax?
If you're a citizen of a country, you automatically get all of the benefits that come with it: personal safety, transportation networks, infrastructure, etc.—all things that enable your business to be successful. Since you can't opt out of these benefits (without leaving the country), it makes sense that you shouldn't be able to opt out of their cost.
My inclination for these kind of systems isn't so much to prevent the act from happening in real-time but more around providing law enforcement with enough footage to land the perpetuators in jail. Of course if that part of the system is broken then we're truly screwed no matter what.
These monstrosities are environmentally unfriendly, pedestrian unfriendly, kid unfriendly, biker unfriendly, small car unfriendly, and are antithetical to the type of walkable and bikable cities that point to healthier and happier living. I wish we could tax the crap out of these things and drive them out of our towns.