The video points to this article ("Pickup Trucks: From Workhorse to Joyride") that was discussed a little while ago:
> But during those 40 years, pickups have changed significantly. They’ve become bigger, heavier and more tricked out, and they’ve transformed from workhorse vehicles to family cruisers.
The top-selling vehicle in 2022 was the Ford F-150; top selling vehicle in 1982 was Ford Escort: I'm having a hard time believing that people's hauling needs have changed in the intervening decades to rationally justify the sales figures.
The very perplexing thing is that these trucks keep getting bigger without any significant increase in hauling or seating capacity.
I have an occasional driver 2003 Silverado for materials pickup and dump runs. It is a fullsize pickup for its year. 2022 Silverados and F250s completely dwarf it. Yet they have the same seating capacity and bed length. It's totally bizarre. And IMO, they're uglier to boot with their Big Mac looking hamburger ass grills.
Blame the IIHS. Safety ratings give literally zero concern to the possible effects to pedestrians of a collision, no concern to visibility, and only minimal concern to the effects on the driver on the other side of the collision. It’s a full-on arms race of bulkier frames, huge crumple zones, and more mass.
> The very perplexing thing is that these trucks keep getting bigger without any significant increase in hauling or seating capacity.
That's not just trucks. My parents have a recent Hyundai Ioniq. The car is fat and can have trouble fitting into parking spaces.
But there's no benefit; the extra width seems to have gone into providing empty space between the interior seats and the doors. So the usable part of the interior is just as narrow as ever, but it's harder to maneuver and you have to unbuckle and lean way the hell out of your window to interact with toll booths / parking garage machines / etc. Who wants this?
It is driven in part by side-impact crash testing. You need space for the side airbags and separation to allow the side impact bracing to begin to move the entire car sideways before impinging on occupant space.
I'm a Gen-Xer who used to borrow my parents' Chrysler Voyager minivan to regularly haul around 5-7 friends on weekends. Most of the monstrosities on the road today are as big (or bigger) and don't seat as many people.
I don't currently have one, but I want to buy an efficient pickup truck or unibody pickup truck when I do buy one.
In the rare occasions that I do want a car, a truck is really helpful. I don't really see another solution other than cheap and convenient pickup truck rentals.
> I don't really see another solution other than cheap and convenient pickup truck rentals.
In my city, you can rent a truck for the day for about $50 (including a decent amount of miles). I know because I do this regularly. I'd be surprised if such an option isn't available in your city as well.
The cheap rentals in my city are at the airport and that makes it a pain to use them. They're not really cheap if I ascribe a sufficiently high value to my time. The ones close to me often have limited inventory and don't have a pickup truck right now.
Even at the airport, it looks like a pickup truck is $200 for the weekend. And honestly going to the airport is enough of a pain that I'm less likely to do things that require a truck as a result.
If I owned a pickup truck and kept it in a garage by my place then I would be far more likely to make last minute decisions to go camping or yard sale shopping or whatever.
Sure, U-Haul. It's $19.95/day and $1.39/mile. Last time I rented one the automated "don't have to talk to anyone" app I couldn't figure out, but it took less than 120 seconds to navigate the in person exchange to get the key.
You don't need a pickup truck to go camping (they're actually not terribly useful for that) or yard sale shopping. Like seriously it's https://van.life not truck life.
I use U-Haul. Pickup trucks are pretty popular, and they have some at every location around here. Many locations are cool with you leaving your car there for the day, too.
In my area, renting any vehicle at the airport is more expensive than the same vehicle at other locations.
> If I owned a pickup truck and kept it in a garage by my place then I would be far more likely to make last minute decisions to go camping or yard sale shopping or whatever.
You and every other SUV driver share this dream. We all know that last minute outdoorsy fantasy is not gonna happen. And are you buying the entire yard at the yard sale?
> In the rare occasions that I do want a car, a truck is really helpful. I don't really see another solution other than cheap and convenient pickup truck rentals.
As someone on HN, I would think you would be familiar with the saying "optimize for the common case". If most of the time you simply need personal transport, paying for the gas to operate a truck the occasional use seems sub-optimal.
I say this as someone who owns a VW Golf and who borrows or rents larger vehicles once or twice a year.
Consider the humble minivan. Seriously. I’m also in your shoes. I bike or walk most places I need to go, but I use the minivan when I need to get large things. The rear seats fold into the floor and the middle seats come out if I need the extra space. It’s about as long as a decent truck bed with those seats out, my cargo is covered (not to mention there’s more vertical space and I don’t need to tie anything down), and it gets great gas mileage by comparison. I don’t really give a shit if the interior gets messed up, and I’m sitting lower to the ground with great visibility.
They’re also easier to parallel park, as the wheels sit at the corners of the vehicle (the swing of a truck bed makes this trickier), and minivans these days have much more power than they used to. That’s to say nothing of the roof rack, which adds even more cargo opportunity. SUVs are a common alternative, but despite their size, they’re nowhere near as spacious as you hope. You might not be able to haul certain large appliances, but otherwise, minivans have all the benefits of a truck and then some, with few drawbacks.
I’ve owned two minivans and three trucks, and I’d go minivan any day.
For occasional use why not just buy a small car and rent (or buy) a trailer? Seems more versatile to me and probably an order of magnitude less expensive.
As someone who has had both, the truck is A LOT more convenient and versatile. Especially in cases where 4wd is an advantage such as collecting trash or firewood from a beach. Hauling a ton of sand off the beach using a trailer behind my heavy SUV was harder than doing the same with a ute.
Anecdotally we started exceeding the towing capacity of our Tacoma. As a result, in 2022 we purchased an F-150. In other words we bought the top selling vehicle because our hauling needs changed.
Ok? Most people don't haul enough to warrent buying their own tow vehicle, just rent one for the few times a year you need it. Also, many smaller SUVs can tow a range of loads that most people need. If you exceed this then get a truck.
Also note that some places restrict by law how much you can tow. For instance I heard in Canada most vehicles are limited to 220lbs. That's the govt basically guaranteeing SUV sales.
It doesn't matter what specifically he is towing, he stated he needed the higher towing capacity.
You made the argument that you believed people should rent a truck or use a smaller SUV to tow most loads. And only get a truck if they needed higher towing capacity.
Your point appears to be "I agree with his vehicle choice".
Discussions are boring when they are simple assertions with no background or detail.
It's also very common for people to argue they need these large vehicles for activities they aspire to do more often, but in practise only do once or twice a year.
> Discussions are boring when they are simple assertions with no background or detail.
I think I agree. For example:
A simple assertion of the form "It would be more useful if he'd said what he was towing." by itself is boring.
It'd much more be interested why you need to know why someone who said "hey I was driving a Tacoma and needed more towing capacity so I got a bigger truck" needs to explain in more detail what he was towing to you.
Is it so we could have a discussion of how his boat or RV or whatever is or is not acceptable and rational to you? That would be a more interesting subject.
Perhaps you'd like to check the math or google the towing limits or have a discussion about suspension upgrades?
It would make a much more enlightening, dare I say entertaining, discussion to have included on what basis, morality, etc. you presume to have questions about his truck buying decisions and whether they were warranted or ethical. You must have an interesting job to be an expert on this.
Would it be OK to buy a truck for very infrequent towing, but then only use it when hauling or towing. Perhaps bicycling or running to work on a normal daily basis? Or having a responsible vehicle such as an EV or hybrid? Or maybe an E-Bike?
I wouldn't want to inadvertently do something immoral like improper daily use of an inappropriate tool.
It really depends what you are towing - a full length triple axle low trailer with a shipping container full of car parts, a mega house on wheels caravan?
I grew up in one of the more remote parts of Australia and now live in sparsely populated rural part of W.Australia - we get by pretty well in a six cylinder family car both on and off road .. and we tow regularly mid sized caravans and a thirty year old double axle trailer (built from the chassis beams of an old nine tonne truck) loaded up with whatever (tonnes of fire wood, tonnes of sheep shit for the garden, white goods from the city, fallen trees, hay bales, etc).
Oversize Toorak Tractor US Trucks are mostly overkill, but I do recommend a good set of Hayman Reese anti sway bars for more positive control.
Anecdotally I see a majority (90%+) people commenting on HN living in relatively urban areas and perhaps this is why you see trucks as wasteful - the closest thing to a working pickup truck they see is fellow commuters in vehicles that have never been off pavement without even a tow hitch, etc.
Perhaps visit the "flyover" parts of the land sometime.
Yes, if you're on a farm a pick-up truck could be useful. But the majority of buyers are not farmers (or even construction workers, though even a full-size van may be of more practicality). Pick-up trucks are far and away lifestyle vehicles for the vast, vast majority of owners.
I suspect that the lack of comments means that most people agree with the sentiment but put off watching the video for later. If true - it says something about the relative ease of consumption of textual content. I follow a political scientist who says she never views videos (of official statements for example) because the transcripts are so much more efficient, and makes sure to post transcripts of her video appearances.
EDIT: and oh yeah, hate the goddam trucks of course.
GPT-4 summary, since I also found the narrator annoying and went straight to the transcript:
> The growth of SUVs and light trucks presents a challenge to creating walkable cities due to their size, poor visibility, and negative impact on safety and the environment. The popularity of these vehicles has been driven by marketing from the auto industry, which has promoted their supposed safety and versatility. However, their size and design make them more dangerous for pedestrians and other road users, and they contribute significantly to carbon emissions. Cities need to take steps to regulate SUVs and light trucks, such as taxing them by weight, limiting vehicles with high bumpers, and increasing fees for parking permits and insurance.
I feel like Youtube vidoes are a massively annoying format for digesting information. It's so slow compared to text and it's full of fillers and introductions and flowery language. I'm surprised this is so upvoted on HN, especially because in my brief scanning the video format doesn't add anything
I typically watch at 1.75x speed, sometimes 2x. Same (sometimes faster) for podcasts.
Of course there’s a one sentence bottom line to a majority of YouTube content, but I appreciate the artform, adjacent color commentary, and evidence-based rigor from these higher quality creators. Albeit at a ridiculous speed lol.
I watched this video before it showed up here. I am delighted to see it make the front page of HN (though Slaughter already has plenty of notoriety) and upvoted without saying much, because the urbanism fight is just... tiring. At least when talking to North Americans.
Maybe the urbanism fight is tiring because people realize what they would have to give up in order to achieve the urbanist vision -- especially their trucks and SUVs.
Selling a positive vision rather than shaming people and trying to take things away from them would help.
I love trucks. They're a lot of fun to drive (I have two 1990 JDM SUV for offroad camping. Especially to modify and add things like CB radios for convoys, bull bars for protection from trees and assholes who won't let you merge. My favourite modification was a turbo. At night in the bush, navigating some track, the turbo diesel whistle sounds so good, and gives more torque for the mud.
I think it's quite weird to hate a type of vehicle and want to prevent other people from accessing it. Just live and let live.
Well I'll be first to admit that my thing against trucks is a bit of knee jerk. To me they are big, loud, scary and expensive. I'm uncomfortable being around roads full of trucks, especially biking. Yet I know that a Mazda Miata will kill be just as well. And I can see the utility in a lot of situations. I've looked at them for camping in wilderness of western US too, I'll be honest, but realized that I would not be able to stretch out in any of them and quickly passed. Yet at the same time I just moved to a little city that identifies hard (to an unhealthy degree imho) with cowboy and military culture and it seems most vehicles are trucks. I honestly think this contributes to this city being universally looked down upon and ridiculed. Although the symbolism of the truck in this context is probably tightly enmashed with the real physical properties.
Utility depends on context. Emotions matter. Urbanism consists of emotional responses. Camping in wilderness is different.
I'm good with live and let live. But my SO's Honda Fit was just demolished by a modern truck who "didn't see her" despite having a clear line of sight down the road--but due to the relative slope, I suspect the Fit was obscured by the truck hood. She was in pain for 6 weeks. So where is live and let live?
I am trying to avoid videos and podcasts too. But it is an uphill battle. Text, while easier to produce, would give the platform only 10 minutes of engagement at best instead of 30, and won't generate comparable number of subscriptions. Also text is easier to copy and harder to monetize. So, there is either zero or a negative incentive for authors to go text.
Over the years my opinion on light trucks has shifted from ambivalence to seething resentment. The main reason is that I now live in an area where large vehicles have become increasingly disruptive to normal living:
1) Side streets that prioritize street parking (e.g. streets with multi-family housing) mean that a poorly-parked truck is literally impossible to see around when you're driving a smaller vehicle. Exiting an apartment driveway is frequently a precarious maneuver when you can't clearly see traffic coming in one or both directions. Heaven forbid there's a bicyclist obstructed from view.
2) Headlight elevation blinds other drivers, especially those in shorter vehicles. If you're being blinded from behind at night, you have to slow down to let them pass, or else your mirrors become useless or even actively dangerous to look at.
3) Blind spots in newer light trucks are horrendously large, as indicated in the video. Many drivers are not aware of the blind spot to the front-right side of the cab and are at risk of being PITed by an inattentive driver changing lanes into them.
4) Echoing the point about parking infrastructure. Being unable to park these sorts of vehicles in standard spaces and garages means that many of these end up parked on the street where inconvenience to other drivers is maximized.
The only way a driver can completely mitigate these problems is to simply join in the Bigger Vehicle arms race, to the detriment of all other drivers and pedestrians.
Typical American went to France/Nice for a week. It is astonishing how many more small cars can fit and move around roads than a bunch of SUVs.
The "personal space" of an SUV is gigantic, while driving around in small cars you have a vastly better sense of the road and people around you. If everyone is driving cars, your visibility of the road and traffic is far better because you can see through the windshields of cars in front of you.
AND THOSE GODDAMN HEADLIGHTS.
When the human race was first getting mainstream education on global warming in the late 1990s, the United States of America collectively decided to basically double the weight of its vehicles, and squander engineering wonders that vastly increased the fuel economy of vehicles.
If the demand and desire for these is really so great, slap a $10,000 surcharge + $1,000/year fee on their ownership and redirect all of it to BEVs and alt energy.
On #2, it's not just headlight elevation -- it's bumper height. Imagine that truck on 44s with a 4" lift kit and 2" body lift crashing into a standard car. If you guessed that their bumper would go through the rear window of whatever they crashed into, you'd be right. At worst, they'd shear the top off the car they crashed into, possibly decapitating the occupants.
A common reason to lift trucks is to fit larger tires. Larger tires roll further with each revolution. Many trucks with larger tires DO NOT also have larger brakes. That makes braking performance worse. Running soft mud tires on the highway and not changing them when they inevitably wear down after just a few thousand miles also yields worse performance. Combine this with the added top-heavy nature, suspension with more travel, worse visibility, and "king of the road" attitudes that many lifted truck drivers bring, and it's not hard to see that this is a recipe for disaster.
I really wish that at least California would crack down on vehicle inspections and actually start refusing to register these vehicles, fine the owners, and make them reverse the mods or scrap the vehicle. If you want to build an off-road Tonka truck, get a side by side which is way more capable anyway, or get something with adjustable suspension and swap out the wheels and tires.
Lastly, it's also infuriating how many vehicle owners, but especially truck drivers, remove their catalytic converters and/or mod their diesel truck to not require Diesel exhaust fluid. When they register the vehicle for use on public roads, they agree to adhere to emissions standards. They then renege on this agreement. It's only fair, then, to disallow them to operate that vehicle on public roads, to stop them from polluting the public air that we all must breath at a rate far beyond what they agreed to. I don't wager that many folks appreciate hearing their loud exhaust at all hours of the day, either. We have a few neighbors in our suburb with big loud trucks and for some reason they love flooring them every time as they turn the corners in the subdivision. I'd love to see all those vehicles get crushed for repeated inspection failures, and that's probably the level we'd need to go to given the widespread flouting of the law that we currently see.
I drive a car that operates on maxwells equations rather than burning dinosaur juice, and I understand electricity a lot better than those fire chariot Rube Goldberg machines. Why do people remove the catalytic converter, diesel exhaust fluid? (I have to admit I don’t really know what purpose they serve either, IC stuff has been too complex for me to fully grok)
Emission standards require you to maintain the car as it was sold to you.
So with DEF that means that since the car was sold with a DEF injection mechanism the car's computer will not allow the car to drive once you're out of DEF, as that will bump up the emissions.
As far as I know it kill performance, but you'll wanna have a spare bottle at the ready.
Catalytic converters on the other hand are much more impactful. They definitely reduce performance. And if you run rich you'll wear it out. So people cut them out.
California should massively increase their checks. Like pull people over for loud pipes. That would help a lot.
But you know, those people go to the smog shops that are open after working hours. And guess what, CA's government only checks them during working hours...
Catalytic converters are not really impacting performance most of the time, at least in terms of power. There are some efficiency losses from the restriction, but the net result is much cleaner exhaust. At peak power there is some reduction due to the converter, but it has been completely swamped by improvements in power density, so it isn't something anybody should be worried about. If you aren't running at peak power, the losses don't really matter.
> 2) Headlight elevation blinds other drivers, especially those in shorter vehicles. If you're being blinded from behind at night, you have to slow down to let them pass, or else your mirrors become useless or even actively dangerous to look at.
Being blinded by headlights is a problem for me, but getting blinded from behind is a side issue. The big problem is getting blinded from ahead by oncoming traffic going the other way. This isn't a matter of the lights being mounted too high either. They're either aimed too high or they're just ridiculously bright.
I don't understand why cars are getting made this way.
Simple. Humans are not rational creatures. It's like in high school... people prefer to chasing what appears "cool" or whatever makes them feel powerful, or what will meet the approval of the in-group, or whatever it is they want. Ergo, they run on emotion over logic. It's why, for example, a lot of cars nowadays have low profile tires - they "look cool", even though they are worse than taller tires for typical road conditions. Then you have the fact that, all people are also (to varying degrees, but ultimately/inevitably) short sighted and self-centered, and horrible decisions get made all the time.
There is no reason why anyone needs more that 64k of RAM.
GPUs use too much power, people just want to play games because they want to feel some emotion. Is not valid because it is not based on logic.
Hence we should ban GPUs and only allow on board graphics. The physical constraints of integrated typically mean that the power usage of such setups is naturally limited, and people won't be able to play games for silly emotional reasons because the frame rates would be too low.
5) Many owners replace the mufflers with “mufflers”, dramatically increasing the noise. Many of them sound like the engine is venting straight into the air with no sound dampening at all. You can hear these things at night easily a mile away, loud enough to wake you up or have to rewind if you’re watching something.
I’m not even talking about coal rollers, which are their own special breed. The noise makers are extremely common and seem to be getting more popular.
Yes, can confirm. I have a 3" straight pipe direct from the turbo. The turbo acts as the muffler. I've heard a diesel without the turbo or muffler and it sounds like a bulldozer on meth.
However with just the turbo, at least on a 4.2L straight six, it sounds very nice (to me at least). Given the ability to breath and get the great away from the engine quickly the turbo can kick in earlier, mine is at 1500rpm or less. Gives more responsive power and cooler running. The turbo whistle sounds very nice.
This is referred to as “straight piping” in the car community, and you are correct it’s basically replacing the entire exhaust system with a straight pipe from the engine to the back. Even very weak Honda’s can be absurdly loud with this.
I don't drive much, but every car I have ever driven (50 years with a driver's license) has had a little toggle on the rear-view mirror to put it into night-time mode. Is that insufficient?
It's actually the side mirrors which are the problem. I tend to glance at them frequently to maintain situational awareness, but that good habit is punished when a vehicle with elevated lights simply hovers in the lane next to you. Many times I have to actively adjust the mirror to a useless position just to keep from accidentally blinding myself.
I agree with the video's thesis that large trucks and SUVs are unsafe to pedestrians, children, and other drivers even, but the end of the video focuses on trying to change regulations to make these kind of vehicles safer in many respects. The issue is that, at least in the United States, there are so many of these large trucks and SUVs on the road, that even if some safer regulations come in, these vehicles are already on the road in large numbers. In my neighborhood alone, there are more large trucks and SUVs than cars.
I wish that the video concentrated more on things that you can do to protect yourself or others from large trucks and SUVs. I have been hit by a car while cycling before, and it was no fun, but I did at least roll up the hood as described in the video. That will not happen for one of these large vehicles. I try to concentrate on positive things that I can at least control for in cases like these, but I honestly am drawing a blank. Any ideas?
There are still ways to improve safety, mostly by just slowing traffic down. These cars kill at any speed, but they are significantly less likely to if traveling at say 30km/h.
Narrow lanes, reduce visibility, add complexity and turns. Traffic will naturally slow down with drivers paying more attention. It's been demonstrated that the easier you make a road to drive on, the more people speed and play with their phones.
Thanks, those are all generally good ideas. I realized another would be to provide separate paths for pedestrians and vehicles (beyond just sidewalks), but that may be difficult to implement in many suburban neighborhoods.
You can, switch the roads to brick/stone, and make it narrow enough that unless you crawl relatively slowly, you are at risk of scraping on things on the sides.
If you're in the Bay Area, I invite you to drive around on Middlefield Rd in the 25mph sections to see how well setting speed limits way below what most drivers would consider reasonable works in practice (most people travel ~35-45mph there).
Particularly amusing is https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/radar-isnt-best-optio... ... where most people seem to agree that everyone drives too fast, but in order to use radar / lidar to measure speed, they'd need to comply with state law which would mean /raising/ the speed limits in order to comply with the 85th percentile rules, so instead they just stick their heads in the sand and continue to believe, despite many studies finding to the contrary, that zero enforcement and a sign that says 25mph will actually get people to drive on 5-lane roads at ridiculously slow speeds. This leads to an exciting mix of a few cars trying to actually drive the 25mph speed limit while most other people try to frantically pass them. Extra fun on sections that don't have left turn lanes, where the left of the two lanes becomes the de-facto turn lane, then combine that with the general lack of turn signal usage and you get...a very frustrating commute indeed. But what do you want for your $3m 1000sqft single-family home in those neighborhoods??
The rationale for speed zoning is also based on the following fundamental concepts, which are
deeply rooted in our system of government and law:
• The normally careful and competent actions of a responsible person should be considered legal.
• Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of unreasonable
behavior by the individual.
• Laws cannot be effectively enforced unless the majority of people voluntarily consent to and
comply with them.
In general, most people accept, understand, and follow these concepts. But, as mentioned
earlier, when confronted by local traffic challenges—an increase in traffic volumes or the frequency
or severity of car crashes in a particular area, for example—people often reject these concepts and
rely instead on a number of widely held misconceptions, such as:
• Lowering a posted speed limit will reduce traffic speeds.
• Raising a posted speed limit will increase traffic speeds.
• Lower speed limits will reduce the rate of crashes and increase safety.
• Any posted speed limit is safer than an unposted speed limit.
In fact, these commonsense notions are not supported by studies, which consistently
demonstrate that:
• The speed of traffic does not change significantly after new or revised speed limits are posted.
• There is no direct relationship between posted speed limits and the frequency of traffic
crashes.
Lane width vs speed is interesting to read about too: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_pars... (tl;dr people will naturally drive more slowly on streets with street parking, narrow lanes, curves, driveways, visible foot traffic, etc, and drive more quickly when roads are visibly more open)
I haven't seen an American road like that on previous discussions about urban planning in the USA. It's interesting to compare with an urban road in Europe. It's been painted very similarly -- narrowed lanes, regular "25" numbers on the road, the unwanted lanes turned into car parking. You can find that all over Europe in places where there's not much budget but speeds need to be reduced.
But the main difference is the length, and the straightness.
I'm afraid I don't have any solutions.
Possibly it's still a bit wide -- the middle could be painted as a 0.5m wide hatching rather than just a single/double line, or maybe bike lanes could be fitted between parked cars and the existing kerb, but that is probably tight.
Exponentially scaling property taxes and especially moving violation fines for heavier vehicles seems like a great way to align incentives. The heavier the vehicle, the more-strongly you're encouraged to drive safely (which makes sense, as heavier vehicles are more dangerous); if you have multiple vehicles, it encourages you to use lighter ones unless you really need a heavy one for a given trip; and they'd remain a viable option for safe drivers who really need one (but even those drivers would be encouraged to get the smallest one that'll get the job done).
Private car insurance companies are pretty sophisticated, so they certainly know if a certain vehicle is causing higher claims and will price accordingly.
But, IMHO, the legal minimum liability insurance policy is way too low. A serious car accident could easily cause millions in personal injury damage. Most US states require only ~$50k personal injury coverage.
We could take pushbikes off the road. It's too dangerous for our soft squishy bodies to not be encased in faux leather and crumple zones. Since most people need to get from a to b in a shorter time and potentially carrying goods, maybe its safer to remove cyclists from the roads for their own protection. After all its not just SUVs that pose a danger to cyclists. Don't worry though, we will still be able to ride our bicycles at dedicated bike parks where motorised vehicles aren't allowed.
I don't disagree with you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that protects one's right to own and drive a car (there is for owning firearms). But car ownership is seen as a right, rather than a privilege, and that comes with it a hugely entrenched feeling of entitlement, privilege, and exceptionalism.
A way to feel this is to go car-free for a week in the US. Some places are easier than others. But compare this to going car-free for a week in Europe. It will probably be a much different experience for most places in Europe, as compared to the US.
Driving at all is specifically and overtly considered a privilege and not a right by the law. We are told that more than once on our way to getting a license.
I would be in favor of governments taking that more seriously.
It takes a lot to lose one's driver's license. You can be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter and the idea of losing a license is seen as inhumane - as if that's what's going to ruin one's life. "How will they get to work? How will they do any other daily activity? We couldn't do that to them!"
What makes you think that rights come from “the law”? Do you think that because some people you never met wrote something on a piece of paper, it becomes right or wrong? What if those people that wrote it believe that killing babies is good for the environment? Is it okay now?
You're conflating two different things -- the law, and the concepts of right and wrong.
But the majority of the things people think of as "rights" do, in fact, come from the law. "The law" is just us collectively deciding what the rules we live by are.
There is a small set of fundamental human rights, but that's a bit of a different thing and I think it's very hard to argue that driving a vehicle on public roads is one of them.
I reject that anyone else can tell me what rules to live by. I only respect other peoples requests if they claim and show that my actions are causing harm. Otherwise, the “collective” is just a bunch of people I never met ganging up and telling me how to live my life at the point of a gun. And they don’t even have the courage to hold the gun themselves in most cases but go crying to father government to punish people they don’t agree with.
I define “rights” as what I may do morally, not a code, act, statue or “collective” decision. Words can have multiple meanings. What you are calling rights, I am calling arbitrary rules made by other people against my will.
Edit to reply to below: I am that I am. I don’t take titles like anarchist, but sure, that’s a decent title if you insist.
Anarchy isn’t a system. It’s just a word. It means no rulers. I don’t think that we should abolish the government (nor could we, it doesn’t exist), I just wish people would grow up morally, so we (conscious beings) didn’t feel the need to play ruler and ruled. I wish to see a world where each being understands morality and what is right and wrong “to the bones” or “from the soul”, so the idea of abstracting away and externalizing our morality and violence was no longer the accepted normal.
Rights don’t come from the constitution. They just are. If someone is not causing harm, then there is no harm being done. Doing (or threatening) violence against people you may think will cause harm using “the government” seems to be more and more popular every day.
Edit since I can’t reply further down: “Reproductive rights” as you call them are also something that doesn’t come from laws or the constitution, whether the constitution protects it or not. Regardless of one’s moral standing, it is never up to other people to decide what is right or wrong for me. That is for me to decide. My rights end when I cause harm to another being, as as defined by the other being who claims to be harmed. No government or papers are needed.
You're right there aren't any quick fixes, but regulation can change things over time. While there may be tons of SUVs on the road now, we could incentivize different vehicles and within 10-15 years the balance would be completely different (as it was not that long ago). Grandfather in whatever has already been sold, and require a different standard for the future. This is the exact pattern we use for emissions and safety standards.
I would be OK with this if it was a bylaw for urban environments. You need to realize that these vehicles actually serve a real purpose outside of the cities.
There should also be an exemption for overlanders who otherwise live in urban environments for whom the truck is not a daily driver.
The only hope is for the fad to somehow go out of style.
It seems hopeless but maybe there is a marketer somewhere who can convince Americans that more practical vehicles are also cool. Ford has just reentered the small pickup market with the Maverick, for example, and I believe they are doing well.
Electrification could also push people to smaller vehicles, if the range benefits are real.
Isn't this advantageous as it pertains to climate change though? The less people, the less pollution there will be, especially if the lethality is applied earlier in life before the person has the chance to release a lot of carbon.
Are they really? A quick search for "US pedestrian deaths by vehicle type" and I came across this 2005 study [0] looking at pedestrian fatalities per mile by vehicle type (and I'll admit some has changed in the nearly 20 years since the study was published). What surprised me was motorcycles caused more pedestrian fatalities than light trucks per billion miles. Urban buses had the highest kill rate, nearly 4 times that as light trucks.
Happen to have anything with more current statics?
Buses have flat fronts (at least to a typical chest/head height), so they're terrible for pedestrian collisions. The typical American school bus from 2002 is horrendous -- huge blind spots, a high chassis, and the typical user being well below adult height. To European eyes, they look like some sort of off-road military transport vehicle.
Though other than buses, I think the paper supports the video:
> The increased risk associated with light trucks is attributed to several factors: their greater mass; greater vehicle speed of collision with pedestrians, and
their front end design.
US import restrictions and tariffs also contribute to this problem… I would sell my left pinky toe to be able to buy a VW Multivan stateside. A practical 7 seater that can fit adult passengers in the third row, in a Toyota Camry-size package. Meanwhile, in the US, station wagons are completely dead, “mini”vans are nearly a foot longer than the Multivan and are larger than the fullsize cargo vans of yore, and adult-friendly 3 row SUVs are even larger than that. Automakers are basically coercing consumers into upsizing.
> Meanwhile, in the US, station wagons are completely dead,
In the US, seemingly everything but the SUV is dead. I bought a car in 2021 after having a kid, and it was either a “crossover” (SUV body on a smaller frame) or a minivan if you wanted a five-door/hatchback. I occasionally kick myself for giving up my Fiesta; that thing was wonderful in US cities.
>We're constantly being told that the astronomical growth in the average size of motor vehicles would infringe on the """FREEDOMS""" of people to do whatever they want.
It's cringe, unnatural, and distracts from the message. Present the logic of your argument in a neutral manner and leave it to the listener for emotional interpretation - don't force it.
The guy from the channel doesn't really care about seeming cringe or making videos for people who buy these trucks and SUVs. His audience is people who already agree we need to make change and his content is about providing points, examples of what is wrong, ways it can be improved, and data to back it up.
It's refreshing isn't it? "Seeming cringe" only happens if you already suffer from "Car Brain", which I think is best defined as thinking of the car itself as having inalienable rights, much like that of a human being.
Most video essays on youtube are scripted. Do you think that they should all be delivered in a monotone? (I've actually never heard anyone assert that stuff that's read from a script needs to be delivered without any emotion before.)
Three car seats for kids aged 1.5 to 7 don't really sit side by side in a mid-size SUV like a Sorrento.
Its stupid, really. Hefty, booster seats from reputable brands seats have integrated cup holders.
Cup holders.
Also, consider that a 1.5 year old's rear facing car seat is a steel reinforced monstrosity. The thing is so big, I cant install it behind the driver seat because I cant extend the seat back (Im 1-1.5 stdev above average american height).
So, the third kid's booster chair with a seat belt aligning backrest (needed for the younger kids so that the belt doesn't sit on the kid's neck) simply doesn't fit. Not if you want to reach the belt buckle.
For short trips I usually just have the oldest go booster-less. For longer trips I install the chair while she's sitting, buckled on the chair. I then lift her and the seat and muscle them in. Finally, I can pull the straps to tighten the booster chair to the backseat.
My SUV is not small. There's plenty of room. But we all drive like maniacs (guilty as charged, btw) so our kids need these massive steel reinforced cocoons.
So, why trucks? Trucks, and SUVs on truck frames (ford expedition, suburban), are wider.
Thanks. I haven't seen cupholders on a booster seat before!
It looks like European child seats and booster seats are a bit narrower, or at least narrower versions are available. You are obviously stuck with what's sold in the US though.
I do remember a period as a child when my mum would sit with me in the back, so a rear-facing child seat could go in the front seat.
Ya, thats kinda (rules aren't clear) not allowed in the US because of air bags. Apparently if the airbag went off it would blow up since its unable to expand (?). Or something.
The problem is the force of the airbag expanding rams the baby face-first into the passenger seat, and they are seriously injured or killed. Hence the big warning sticker.
Most (possibly all) European cars come with a switch to turn off the front passenger airbag. It's a legal requirement to use this switch appropriately in the UK, presumably in the same way it's a requirement for the driver to ensure all children are wearing seatbelts.
It should possibly also be used if a smaller child (under 12-ish) sits in the front seat, although I can't find an official recommendation on that — they're more keen to emphasize that children are safer in the back.
It seems in America, only trucks and sports cars without rear seats have this switch, but it is possible to have one fitted if you can justify it (i.e. several children).
This was frustrating for me too. The people I know who have an SUV have one because they have a large family, they have the same political views as the poster of the video, but they complain about the incentives that force them to buy SUV's when they could instead just be buying smaller or used cars.
So I thought this video's attacks at that specific demographic were an unwarranted personal bias, but I also thought it made good points about the auto industry and good reasons why SUV's are bad.
Serious inquiry: how do people with large families move around in places like Copenhagen or Amsterdam, where the primary mode of transport is bicycles?
You can fit 5 people in most normal cars, and 7 (especially children) in some estate cars / station wagons.
Failing that a minivan, although that's unusual.
Many people in Copenhagen and Amsterdam own a car, the difference is they don't use it for every journey. They're also much less likely to own two or more cars than in America.
A child seat on an ordinary bicycle is very common, typically for taking a small child to nursery. Cargo bikes work too, and are good if you have more than one child, although they're much less common than YouTubers would have you believe.
Once children can ride their own bicycle they will, and later they can ride alone. Similarly, they can use public transport, with their parents or alone.
Not sure how large you mean, but for <=3 kids: walking, metro, bus, cargo bike, taxi. I'm in NYC, and I'll take a 10 minute walk to the supermarket with my kids over a 10 minute drive any day.
dcrainmaker has 3 young girls. He uses a cargo bike it seems, even for Christmas tree shopping. His partner rides along side on her own bike. I assume once the girls get old enough, they'll ride their own bikes.
For larger families, I guess each parent would get a cargo bike and split the load.
As a European who has visited the US, I mean, they're just nice though.
It's fun to drive a truck. The experience is better than driving a little city car like I do here in the UK. I would have one here if the roads were wider.
To me this just feels like another one of those "we could just have a lower quality of life" things that seem super popular amongst a small subset of people.
I don't need one, but I want one, I can have one, and you can just fuck off if you don't like that. I mean, that's about as American as it gets.
I haven't watched the video yet, but I assume it's going to be about how new, giant trucks are more deadly to pedestrians. I've heard it said, but not been able to verify, that the rise in these giant trucks is caused by the EPA having less-strict MPG requirements for heavier vehicles. Does anyone know more about this?
Yes, but there's also an element of pervase incentive related to safety adding to it. There was an additional regulation put in some time ago regarding hood design, such that pedestrians have a crumple zone above the engine block. The correct way to solve this was mount the engine lower and slope the hood more, but auto manufacturers decided to just jack up the whole frontal facade instead, defeating the whole purpose. I'm not arguing against having this regulation btw, there are worse out there, it's just interesting is all
This so much. I desperately want something like a Hilux but they aren't imported or produced because of epa regulations. The smallest thing you can get is a Tacoma/ranger which are all bigger than most SUVs. It's absolutely bonkers
The modern Hilux is pretty big. The 2020+ is the same size as a Ford Maverick (although there is a short wheelbase version that is 13 inches shorter).
I love the size of the Fiat Strada and Dacia (Renault) Duster. My friend came to Brazil with me and also fell in love with them, but there's nothing currently on the market in the US like that.
I love the idea of the Hilux, but I have personally found the original Tacoma (similar size) had a tiny death trap of a cab, and the current Tacoma still isn’t big enough to fully extend my legs. I also rode in a competing model in South America, and was surprised how rough the engine (and everything else) was. It was like a large UTV. They are great machines in many ways but I can’t see that many people in the US actually buying one.
They would do great in light duty commercial applications like lawn services and so forth, but those seem perfectly satisfied with the old, fully depreciated ranger, hilux, and tacoma floating around.
Which should make the "solution" obvious to the regulators.
To license them as a "passenger car", they have to also meet passenger car safety, emissions, and fuel economy standards. If they don't meet those standards (that were in effect as of their build date) then they can't be licensed as a "passenger car".
It's also to do with safety equipment: it's basically the same stuff whether you build a sedan or a truck, so it costs the same to put in. But perceptually the consumer gets "more cat" for their money by buying a bigger vehicle since the safety gear is largely a fixed cost.
I was driving a hatchback in 2015 and was rear ended by a truck at an intersection when I slowed down for the amber light while the truck didn’t. I ended up in the middle of the intersection, with traffic just starting to go on both sides.
The worst part, the back of the car was boxed in so far, that it almost touched the driver’s seat. Thankfully no one was sitting behind me. The truck on the other hand had a after market metal guard in front of it, which meant it had little damage beyond the guard needing a paint job. Even the headlights were intact. I remember thinking that I’ll never want to drive anything smaller than a truck if I want to drive in America. It took my 7 years before I switched back to a sedan, thanks to Tesla M3.
Shit that sucks. I was rear ended by a station wagon in my my truck when I slowed down at a give way an he didn't. I'm 2300kgs so I hardly moved. He got a nice dent in his bumper from my towbar.
I think it's important to understand the why behind people buying these cars. One can bullshit on how terrible (light-)trucks are all day long, but that won't change a thing. The market exists and it's not going to shrink anytime soon.
I'm thinking of getting an SUV. Why? Well, because my family is growing and at some point we won't fit into a regular 5-seater.
I would love to live in a city primarily designed for walking, but such cities are overpacked and have crazy high real-estate prices.
Before bullshitting on SUVs, maybe it's worth looking into a core issue - start investing into a smaller cities, incentivize corporations to leave New York, San Francisco, etc. - spread them all out across the US and create the smaller versions of Manhattan.
I could be wrong though, but that's my take on it.
He addresses the size of vehicle issue and explains how station wagons or vans are more practical than SUVs for most families. Perhaps your situation is different, but I felt he made a compelling case.
I'm in the middle of the video right now, but honestly, I absolutely hate the look of station wagons. The author makes a lot of claims that I do not share (not all of them though). For example, I do find G63 a cool looking car. On the other hand, pick up trucks are ugly as hell. But for some people they are not. People are different and they prefer different things. That's what makes our lives interesting and varied.
It feels like the author wants to fix the problem by just saying "Hey people, don't buy SUVs. Hey corporations, don't manufacture SUVs", whereas a more strategic and "backward" approach is needed.
> but honestly, I absolutely hate the look of station wagons.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps it's the $billions that US automotive manufacturers have spent to make you _think_ that. Or the peer pressure from having a vehicle that "stands out" from all of the SUVs on the road?
I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely asking those questions.
> Are you sure about that? Perhaps it's the $billions that US automotive manufacturers have spent to make you _think_ that.
It's hard to answer that question. How do I know? My brain just tells me: "This car is ugly af, don't ever get one". My guess is that these cars are convenient, but I would never want to own one.
> People are different and they prefer different things. That's what makes our lives interesting and varied.
Agree, however, I think the a key point of the video is about how we balance our own experience vs. that of the community we live in. SUVs and light trucks have a cost and it's fair to question if that cost is worth it. He shed light in areas where I wasn't so familiar such as blind spots and child fatalities.
> It feels like the author wants to fix the problem by just saying "Hey people, don't buy SUVs. Hey corporations, don't manufacture SUVs", whereas a more strategic and "backward" approach is needed.
I thought his main argument was that people respond to incentives. That's why 40 years ago the Ford Escort was so popular vs. the F150 today. These incentives are driven by government regulation. He acknowledges that it is rational to buy an SUV when everyone has one because it's game theory. The way out is for society to regulate trucks more fairly according to their broader costs. There are reasons we need trucks and we should have trucks, but perhaps we shouldn't incentivize that to be the primary vehicle for everyone.
Van vs. SUV seems like a distinction without a difference, at least as far as “crossover” SUVs are concerned, which are by far the best selling style in the US. If anything, most crossovers are probably smaller, nimbler, and get better gas mileage than the typical minivan. And for the most part, stations wagons don’t exist anymore in America.*
* The Subaru Outback is now essentially a crossover SUV. I guess you might still be able to buy the wagon version of one model of Audi?
He's in Europe, so by "van" he means the vehicle at the top of [1], which is by far the first choice for most people who need to carry significant tools or equipment for their job.
The second choice is an ordinary station wagon / estate car with the rear windows optionally replaced by metal panels. (Possibly more secure, in some countries also less vehicle tax.) These usually have something like "Network installer" or some sort of engineer written on the side -- some tools, but not so bulky and probably further to drive between jobs.
I had a van in the past, they are awesome. Lots of space, stuff stays dry, great handling if you're in a model that sits you over the front wheels. You'd want decent bull bars for frontal impact protection tho.
Bull bars defeat the whole pedestrian safety benefit.
The EU and UK have strict limits on what's allowed, the type you see in Australia and the USA are banned. It's frustrating that the first website I find selling something similar lists the main benefit of bull bars as "styling".
I fully support the people who vandalize vehicles with bull bars parked in urban areas.
I don't think it is correct to vandalize a vehicle with a bullbar parked in an urban area. You don't know if they are just visiting from out of town.
How about I vandalize your house because I don't like your ring doorcam. Or vandalize your dog because it barked at me? If I caught someone vandalizing my pride and joy I'd vandalize their face.
Excusing vandalism of private property should always be opposed because you don't know what someone will excuse to vandalize your property. It's a very short sighted opinion.
If bull-bars are 'needed', the vehicle will already have scratches from off-road driving.
In some European cities, some off-road vehicles are already banned from urban areas, or require special permits. Currently I'm only aware of this applying to heavy(ish) commercial vehicles. It's not a given that any vehicle need drive anywhere, at the owner's convenience and society's detriment.
You might consider the effect of your vehicle on your family's faces, if you have a moment of inattention while driving near your home.
Needed and wanted. I want a full exo cage where the whole vehicle has a roll cage on the outside. Even more crash protection, plus it doubles as a roof rack and deck for taking in whatever wonderful view you just drove to.
I'm OK with not having off road vehicles in the city but then I have multiple vehicles so I could dedicate one to going to the city. Where as some people might only be able to have one. But then the only reason I would ever be in a city is to go to a hospital.
As my family are not mongoloids milling about in the street I'm sure their faces will be fine.
For me, it wasn’t an option, even though a wagon was my first choice. I don’t live near a shop that services Subarus (or someone that sells them), so the Outback was not an option. In terms of what was in inventory at the dealers I visited, the smallest things you could get were either sports cars or crossovers —- if manufacturers were making station wagons, the dealers weren’t stocking them.
I had a collision with a car while riding an e-bike last week; I was going straight when the car, in the opposite lane, turned right in front of me to enter a parking lot. I tried to stop but ended up running straight into their front fender, sending me over the handlebars.
Fortunately for me, it was a sedan, and I landed on the hood with nothing more than a few light bumps. If it had been a truck, or an SUV... I'd have gone straight into the side, probably hit my head, bounced into the street, who knows what.
I’m European, so I’m looking at the US fascination with SUVs from the outside, and my take is that it’s a similar circular effect as in US gun ownership.
Everyone needs a car, so everyone gets one. Since the US is hyper-individualistic (by no means a uniquely American trait) you want a “safe” car, but not “safe” as in “Volvo” but “safe” as in “being able to ram another vehicle if it tries to stop you”.
So this escalates the trend of how a car is supposed to look, and when you’re forced into an infrastructure where the “default” car to European eyes looks more like an Infantry Mobility Vehicle than anything else, what are you going to buy when you need a “car”? The implication is quite objectively that if you buy anything less, you are in a sense in danger, and the same goes for gun ownership: it’s very easy to be a proponent of strict gun control in a country where almost nobody has one.
I currently don’t own a car, because I don’t need one, and I’ll likely never own a gun for the same reasons, but I’m not fooling myself: if I took the place of an SUV- and gun-owning American I probably wouldn’t get rid of them.
I guess my point is that since these are both circular problems, they’re kind of a Gordian knot. It’s not easy to start untying the reality as it is, but it’s of course possible if the political will exists.
The gun thing isn't a circular problem tho since humans can pose a threat even without a gun. Even the difference between men and women puts the woman at a huge disadvantage. Thus a firearm becomes a force equalizer for her protection from the average unarmed man that could easily victimise her.
That’s not the point. It’s a circular problem because if you live in a country where the majority owns guns, your safety is obviously compromised if you don’t, to a degree it wouldn’t be in a country where almost no one did.
That women are on average less strong than men is just as irrelevant as any other existing difference in violence capital before involving guns, that’s not the point, and neither is the point that guns are “equalizers” because everyone understands this, the question is how the average rate of gun ownership affects itself (circular), and to me it’s pretty obvious and relatable: if everyone else has a gun then you’re exposed without one, if no one else has a gun then not having one is much more tolerable because the violence monopoly of the judiciary system can be upheld.
One thing that people don't really undestand about the Dutch is that they don't drive small cars by choice. It's by design. Insanely high taxes.
Now let me tell you, I've driven a LOT in Germany & Austria, and I've been stuck behind many Dutch pulling their caravans in their tiny cars that don't make it up to 55mph. So then semi trucks start to pass.
If there’s an accident between an F150 and a Prius I’d rather my family be in the F150. The premise of OPs video is nice but it’s utopian. Once only mid size sedans are on the road, I’ll drive my family around in one. Until then, I’ll keep them in a much safer vehicle.
Many of the comments say that trucks should have a tax premium. In my state (and a lot of others) only two types of cars are explicitly called out to have an extra charge in the yearly property tax. Hybrids like a Prius are +$50 and electric cars like a Tesla are +$100.
Most state income from cars comes from a tax on gasoline and so they view electric vehicles as not paying "their fair share". And the big gas hungry SUVs and trucks are a good source of income for the states.
Part of fixing this stuff is changing the economics of how states do taxes for cars. It is a tough problem and many of the alternative suggestions have fairness or privacy issues.
I love my big 4x4 Tundra, even though it’s unfortunate as a daily driver. But pulling stumps, going waaaayyy into the back country and especially the beach, it’s a tool and it enables adventures like no other.
Aside: In my neighborhood there tends to be a lot of these large trucks parked on the street or in the drive. We get a lot of snow, so parking inside the garage is advantageous. Unfortunately, these trucks can't fit. They're too tall to make it inside. These houses were built in the late '80, so not terribly old.
This video is nothing but confirmation bias narrated over stock video clips. By the same logic used in this video:
- Bicyclist in traffic accidents are much more likely to die than those in SUVs. Also, because the physical size is so much smaller, it's much easier to miss seeing them, which increases risk of accidents. Therefor to ensure safety we should all drive SUVs.
- Bicyclist are much slower than SUVs, causing traffic congestion which wastes time and reduces fuel economy. Furthermore, the slow speed results in significantly extended commute times resulting in poor time-management. Therefor we should all drive SUVs to increase efficiency.
- Transporting 3 kids to soccer practice with a bicycle is dangerous for both physical and mental health of the kids due to factors mentioned above. Furthermore the mom will loose her ever-loving mind if there is no video playing in the back seat to distract the 3 year-old from asking "are we there yet" every 2 minutes. Therefor, for the sake of mental health, we should all drive SUVs.
> Bicyclist in traffic accidents are much more likely to die than those in SUVs. Also, because the physical size is so much smaller, it's much easier to miss seeing them, which increases risk of accidents.
I think the author will agree with this premise but not the conclusion. They will argue that individually, you'd be safer in an accident with a bicycle if you drove an SUV instead of "lighter, electric vehicles", and the cyclist will be way less safe, hence society in aggregate is less safe if more people drove SUVs instead of sedans.
Hence the author concludes, in 18:30, that "we should be moving to lighter electric vehicles", contrary to what you claim their "logic" to be.
> Bicyclist are much slower than SUVs, causing traffic congestion which wastes time and reduces fuel economy. Furthermore, the slow speed results in significantly extended commute times resulting in poor time-management. Therefor we should all drive SUVs to increase efficiency.
The author would agree with you if cyclists typically occupied the full lane. In practice, cyclists yield to vehicles in the same lane. One also compares the fuel savings of not driving against the total congestion it causes.
> Transporting 3 kids to soccer practice with a bicycle is dangerous for both physical and mental health of the kids due to factors mentioned above. Furthermore the mom will loose her ever-loving mind if there is no video playing in the back seat to distract the 3 year-old from asking "are we there yet" every 2 minutes. Therefor, for the sake of mental health, we should all drive SUVs.
The author would argue not to commute by bicycle in this instance but that "we should be moving to lighter electric vehicles". I'm not certain regarding a video playing; the price difference should be able to get you a more versatile iPad.
I don't even really have a beef with trucks used in the countryside. My main beef is their use in the city as commuting vehicles, where the vast majority of them have never, and will never, be used as a truck.
In that setting, trucks are a nuisance and danger to everyone else without any rational reason for being.
This is just culture war dreck dressed up as an argument.
The phrase `pathetic suburbanites` even appears in the video description. The anti-truck stuff is really a proxy for hating a lifestyle and the people who live it.
It's funny to see how people who hate trucks are now carping about things like parking space now that electric trucks make gas mileage and emissions irrelevant.
I agree it's not wrong to like trucks, and that hating on the owners is a cheap shot. I also think that this video points out the externalities that trucks impose. In a rational society, one would expect the government to address these externalities, but here we are.
It's not the government's job to fix everything or engineer a perfect society, and personal choice and freedom matter too.
This YouTuber, like many other people who favor a denser urban lifestyle, looks down on people who disagree with him and wants the government to coerce them into living the way he wants them to. "Externalities" are just an excuse for that, and even if those externalities were removed he would find other justifications because the root cause is that he doesn't like the people who prefer a different lifestyle than him.
The video goes over all the arguments. Trucks have bad visibility, encourage reckless driving, and wreck smaller cars/pedestrians during collisions. This isn't "hating", these are serious problems.
Trucks are popular specifically because of government meddling. Importing smaller and cheaper transport vehicles like vans is impossible because of import fees. Trucks also don't have to adhere to emissions and crash safety regulations which means trucks are cheap relative to cars. If we leveled the regulatory playing field trucks wouldn't be nearly as popular.
> If we leveled the regulatory playing field trucks wouldn't be nearly as popular.
Yes they would. People aren't buying big trucks because they have no choice. Very few people would cross-shop trucks and small import vans. They want the big trucks.
Look at the F150 or the Silverado. They are bigger than they used to be. Import restrictions cannot explain that. They are bigger because every time they grow, customers like it.
Saying things doesn't make them true. He does not make a convincing argument.
Trucks are much nicer than they were 40 years ago and our culture has changed as a result. 40 years ago few people would have considered driving a truck, they were all basically farm trucks with limited creature comforts. Now they are luxury vehicles.
In the US there are strong incentives for light trucks / SUVs and that's the result we see - they're the most popular vehicles. In Europe / Japan the incentives are different and we see an entirely different class of vehicles on the road.
The point is that marketing and incentives matter. Trucks are not objectively better, they are subjectively preferred among certain demographics in the US because of marketing. He addresses very clearly that manufacturers make more money selling SUVs due to regulation - so it tracks that those are the vehicles pushed by manufacturers
Culture matters too. Americans want different things than Europeans and Japanese people. We see this in most areas of life and it's not always because of marketing.
There are also an increasing number of SUVs and automatic transmission vehicles on European roads compared to a decade or two ago...
This is nothing to do with urban/suburban/rural life, and everything to do with dangerous vehicles.
Working people in Europe tend to use a van, which has much better pedestrian safety. The video praises that. (That's both urban and rural, since it's not clear.) People in rural areas drive normal cars.
Yet the government builds the roads that these things put pointless wear and tear on.
Wear and tear on roads is exponentially related to the weight of the vehicle, a 9000lb hummer should be taxed appropriately along with requiring a different class of license for the danger such mass presents to other road users.
Without the government, the obvious conclusion is that individuals should take it in their own hands and start taking action against the owners. Deflating the tires and vandalism come to mind.
It should be pretty evident from the video thumbnail alone that a large part of the "anti-truck stuff" is at least partly related to the danger the pose to small pedestrians.
It's telling that a criticism of objective externalities (they are less space efficient and more dangerous) is perceived by you as a personal slight. The only one making this a personal matter is you, yet you accuse others of doing so. Why is that?
It's not wrong to like trucks, and not wrong to dislike them, by the same token.
I'd like to learn more about electric trucks around you. The only electric sorta-truck I see arond here in NYC is the new Amazon delivery van, which has low bumpers and excellent forward visibility. All other electric vehicles are cars, scooters, and even smaller devices.
Idiotic utopia, geared towards crowded European cities. In the US, it is moronic idea at best. I'd rather be in the driver seat of that truck and not die as a result of an accident. Trucks are not stupid. They are useful vehicles if you live in Rural places. What is stupid is the creator of this video.
Did you watch the video? The author has nothing against trucks themselves, it's SUVs (light trucks) in suburbia and cities that he argues is the problem. Specifically, the many cases where people never even use the capabilities of the larger car (off roading, towing, stuffing it full of shit) and instead the choice of a larger car becomes an overall negative for society (more dangerous for the other guy in any collision, harder to see around, harder to see kids or pets as the driver, headlights more blinding to oncoming traffic die to their greater elevation). Anyhow, you sound very angry and closed minded, maybe give other opinions a chance, you don't have to agree but you also don't have to be an ass about it
Don't hate SUV's. Don't hate trucks. If you're going to have disdain, have it for the people who drive them as status symbols or as compensation for... things. I own one vehicle, and it is an old SUV. I enjoy it because it's borderline a classic vehicle but it's also extremely economical for my use case. My use case does not factor in MPG. Plus, it's cool.
The only thing a video called "These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us" is going to do is get a bunch of people who dislike SUV's to agree with it. And that's fine. Any argument can be true if you want it bad enough, I guess.
* SUVs are useful tools that can serve a real purpose
* Even within the same vehicle classes, cars are getting bigger and heavier in the name of safety and consumer preferences. This is disastrous for the safety of pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles
* Most people will never take their SUVs/trucks off-road, or use them for blue collar-type work, or tow anything more than once a year, for which they could easily rent a vehicle
* Thus, barring safety concerns (which are themselves exacerbated by the prevalence of massive vehicles on the roads) or an opportunistic desire for more interior space, most people would be equally well served by smaller cars.
* However, people are not buying smaller cars. This has the effect of “literally killing” sharply increasing numbers of pedestrians every year, and indirectly killing countless others through increased air pollution and greenhouse gas effects.
You can tow a small trailer with any car. That's the common way to haul the occasional big load in rural Western Europe. My relatives who live in the country side have one or borrow one from a friend when they need to stock up on fire wood, move a washing machine or carry away debris to the recycling center.
I also drive a SUV and find it alarming how much bigger a lifted F250/F350 next to me is. The way they drive can be pretty appalling... full throttle just to pass, switch 3 lanes without looking, intensionally cutting off small cars (2 things I saw in the past week!) I can't imagine how intimidating that would be in a sedan. Which I think is the point of lifting a huge truck?
There are other good arguments for disliking SUVs compared to all other consumer cars like crash incompatibly & bad vision for 'low' objects (children, other cars).
> But during those 40 years, pickups have changed significantly. They’ve become bigger, heavier and more tricked out, and they’ve transformed from workhorse vehicles to family cruisers.
* https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35046151
The top-selling vehicle in 2022 was the Ford F-150; top selling vehicle in 1982 was Ford Escort: I'm having a hard time believing that people's hauling needs have changed in the intervening decades to rationally justify the sales figures.