How cities can stem the tide of pedestrian deaths from large cars and SUVs – Ars Technica
All these children are invisible to the driver...
Fuck all those cars!!! Put them away to hell, not to earth. They are too big for all - except for small egos. But for small egos is therapy much better.
You're viewing a single thread.
Or we could, you know, follow previously established methods of building vehicles that make pedestrian death and dismemberment less likely.
No, no, no. Americans need them this way apparently for some inexplicable fucking reason.
So instead of just designing them with pedestrian safety in mind to begin with, we are just gonna slap on more fucking band-aids (like cameras) that do fuck-all.
Americans never asked for this, it's the classification system for light trucks implemented following the Yom Kippur War that left too much leeway in the definition for "light trucks" that has been driving auto makers in this direction.
Of course there have been knock-on cultural issues where certain people make it part of their ego and the market effect becomes self reinforcing, but that's how we got into this mess. History is a series of unintended consequences, again.
Agreed. The industry is invested in avoiding regulation that could impede their profits at all costs. This means they will invest in advertising pushing the idea that these vehicles are needed.
It's almost like our enemies are rich people! Crazy thought, right?
I'd argue that they have asked for trucks to get so big because they seemingly sell better that way. It's admittedly an imperfect thing to look at since there's few alternatives and many other factors, but these big trucks didn't immediately take over the market. At some point they were introduced and consumers liked them.
I'm not sure if American consumers "liked" them so much as they were pushed heavily by auto makers while they quietly phased out more practically sized vehicles like hatchbacks, station wagons, and a lot of sedans (other than those sedans that fetch a high price for their performance and appeal to an entirely different market; your corvettes, mustangs, etc.) That 'light truck' designation brings with it larger profit margins; the vehicle itself is bigger so the manufacturer can charge more for it, and then they have to obey fewer environmental regulations so development/manufacturing is cheaper in comparison to trying to meet the regulations for smaller vehicles.
Americans never asked for this? Then who is buying these wanktanks?
To be fair, they are hugely popular in both Canada and Mexico as well. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.
Hint; if marketing didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry.
Ban lifted trucks!!
That truck isn't even lifted. Looks like stock.
Yeah, more like "Ban trucks that are built so high off the ground that they can't see pedestrians." That would easily include lifted trucks as well as general monstrosities.
I mean, it's not like any of these motherfuckers uses these things to haul anything other than their kids and fucking groceries anyway.
Too much of a pussy to just own it and just drive a fucking minivan, which can easily carry kids and groceries. Has to buy the big dick extender instead.
But it's even worse than that. The front of the car being so big and high is PURELY aesthetics. All of the machinery that's in current trucks would just as easily fit under a hood that was lower and sloped downward for better visibility, but trucks with a high squared off hood and grille sell more because many truck buyers care more about it having a tough appearance rather then it being an actually better vehicle.
They use them to haul their over-inflated self worth.
Yes, no one who owns a truck uses it to move furniture, trash, dirt, mulch, or an old transmission they pulled at the auto lot. None of them go fishing or hunting, obviously, so fishing rods, camping gear and coolers won't be necessary in the back. Also, no one who owns a truck has ever done home repair and would never carry wood or power tools in the back of, do you get how stupid your strawman is yet?
https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history
I guess self-reporting surveys must be lies then.
In other words, for the most part, these gas guzzling monstrosities are rarely used for hauling shit. Maybe they should just rent a truck when they need one?
That doesn't invalidate trucks used for commercial or professional use, or the fact I'll still stand on.... hauling and outdoor use. It being rare doesn't make it non-existent.
I'm sure some idiot is hauling refrigerators with a Civic, it doesn't make them progressive.
It's not non-existent, but it's non-existent enough to justify most people not owning trucks and just renting them when needed.
I mean, if trucks were still like the 4-cylinder Ranger I had from the 80's, it would make more sense. But they aren't and it doesn't.
Then you have to pay the rental fee. What if I own a truck... and a Civic?
Is it the ego at this point or are you really riding this train?
Is it the ego at this point or are you really riding this train?
At this point, I think that's projection.
Then you have to pay the rental fee.
Oh no! A rental fee! That must have made it so you couldn't afford to eat. What even is this argument?
What if I own a truck… and a Civic?
So you own more vehicles than you as an individual need? I don't know why you think that's supposed to go over well in a Fuck_Cars forum.
That doesn’t invalidate trucks used for commercial or professional use
In that case they need a commercial license and/or it's business property for taxes and the company should own it (if not a sole proprietorship). And you can't use company property for personal use most places.
Good Lord. Imagine living on 8 acres in the woods and you need a professional license to own a truck just to live, lmao.
No wonder none of you get it.
Then how do you stop the spread of these monstrosities to suburbs where the driver never uses it for that function? All I'm seeing from you is calling us silly for now wanting something the size of a fleet vehicle used on streets not designed for it and killing pedestrians they cant see. Atleast requiring some sort of inbetween grade of license besides passenger cars and everything else could curtail people who are not skilled enough to drive those vehicles or not motivated enough for a status symbol purchase. Rather than say we don't understand that people have some legit need and poo-poo us, couldn't you try and be helpful with ideas?
There's no issue with driving whatever on private property. But driving a professional vehicle on public roads should require a professional license.
Almost no one uses trucks daily for those activities. It's an occasional thing. In which case renting is cheaper. Hunting, too since the vast, vast majority of hunters aren't even hunting weekly.
Fishing? Collapsible poles or strap them to the top. It's not like the rest of the world has trucks and they do these things.
Also, coolers and camping gear? My brother in gaia get a hatchback.
We came up with trailers long ago for occassional hauling needs. Not that any of your needs even warrant one.
I fish with a Camry just fine.
I can easily do all of that and more with my non-lifted mid-sized long-bed pickup. It's just a fact my dude; they are selling a self-image, not actual utility. Or what about a van with a roof-rack. In my professional experience that's a lot more utilitarian if you're a tradesman.
Again, it's all about an image that's been meticulously and brilliantly marketed and sold to very specific demographics.
We don’t have this kind of trucks in the Europe AT ALL and people still go fishing, do home repairs, carry heavy or large loads. This is all American lifestyle.
Don't impede the circle jerk, unless you use it everyday for work you should rent a truck every other weekend
I work in industrial construction on massive unionized projects with tradespeople coming from all over the US and Canada and I can tell you for an objective fact that the number of guys --it's almost always guys, which should tell you something-- who drive giant lifted obnoxious trucks as their daily driver vs the number who actually really and truly need them on a regular basis is like 100 to 1.
But even if it were only 10 to 1, that means we have 10 times as many of these giant gas guzzling dangerous trucks out on the road.
The industry has done such a good job at selling these trucks as part of a self-image, that a lot of guys are incapable of admitting that the only reason they drive one is because they think it looks cool.
Or just... have a truck? Look, man. Is your problem intensified by the trucks in question being 8-cylinder gas guzzlers?
Have you ever heard of Toyota?
Carbrained: When you're so stuck up your own ass you even lash out at people who were obviously making a joke that meant they agreed with you.
That's it. I've had enough of this. I'm off to buy a truck!
They're wonderful. I personally enjoy looking down on everyone in mine. And if I was to ever hit a line of kids in the road, I know I'm safe.
Car manufacturers have been making trucks taller and boxier because their studies show that their owners do that to their trucks after buying them so they want to be more appealing to the average pickup truck buyer... and yes that thought makes my brain hurt
Definitely stock cause it doesn't even look leveled, and no one lifts without leveling.
no one lifts without leveling.
Can I introduce you to the world of hack job block kits prolific in rural Canada?
I saw a YouTube explaining the giant cars in the US have to do with the government making a big equation that car manufacturers have to follow.
The equation calculated the weight, size, gas mileage, etc, and the only way they can make the cars pass the equation is to make them giant. The equation backfired and now we have giant cars.
It didn't backfire. They designed a law that looks good at first glance but actually makes auto manufacturers richer. This happens all the time and it's on purpose, because they know voters don't have the analysis resources of lobbyists.
Yep, the manufacturers get massive tax breaks on this class of vehicle, which means they can make and sell them at the same or better price than a small, fuel efficient car. If a family with kids has to choose between a mid size crossover or an F150 at similar price points, why would you get the crossover? The USA needs to fix the way it taxes cars to disincentivise these fuel inefficient giant cars. No other country has these problems so it's not a selfish person problem, it's an entirely logical choice to make given the circumstances.
If Americans had to pay the same petrol taxes that Europeans do, they'd soon go for the tiny cars.
Band-aids like cameras that do fuck all? Cameras are a very quick, simple, and obvious solution to this specific problem. There's a reason that all new cars have backup cameras nowadays. Perfection is the enemy of good and all that.
Eh. European panel vans can usuallly haul more and have better visibility. Just droop the snoot.
“Ban stuff I don’t like”
Yeah, it's totally just stuff I don't like!
It's not like there's any evidence whatsoever these giant pieces of shit are more dangerous. The referenced news story definitely doesn't talk about the science behind why they're more dangerous. It's just people don't like it! /s
Could you be any more disingenuous?
Found the emotional support vehicle user
"Interpret everything in bad faith"