The reckless policies that helped fill our streets with ridiculously large cars
The reckless policies that helped fill our streets with ridiculously large cars
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Take road safety: Unlike peer nations, the US has endured a steep rise in traffic deaths, with fatalities among pedestrians and cyclists, who are at elevated risk in a crash with a huge car, recently hitting 40-year highs.
Although the tariff was initially aimed at Germany’s immense auto industry (Volkswagen in particular), it also applies to pickups imported from newer automaking powers such as Japan and South Korea, where carmakers are often adept at building vehicles much smaller than those available to Americans.
“The Chicken Tax has prevented competitive Asian or European truck makers from entering the US market,” said Jason Torchinsky, a co-founder of the Autopian, a media outlet focused on the auto industry.
But the bill included a giant loophole: To protect those who need a heavy-duty vehicle (think farmers or construction workers), Congress made an exception, known as Section 179, for cars that weigh over 6,000 pounds when fully loaded with passengers and cargo.
A 2023 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that vehicles with tall, flat front ends (common on big pickups and SUVs) are significantly more likely to kill pedestrians in crashes.
The negative externalities of supersized cars — in emissions, crash deaths, and the erosion of tires and pavement — are what economists call a market failure, since their costs are borne by society writ large, not the people who buy big pickups and SUVs.
The original article contains 2,746 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 91%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
In a country without special half-sized parking spaces for kei cars/city cars/smart cars, all cars are the same size (one parking space each) and are therefore equally bad.
I mean, sure, bigger cars are more dangerous to the people they crash into, but that's beside the point because crashes are the least of the harmful things about cars! The real problems with them are things that are inherent to the nature of cars -- all cars -- and cannot be fixed merely by making them 1980s-sized again.
Specifically, the biggest problem with cars is the way the built environment has to be absolutely ruined to make space to accommodate them, and how that not only destroys walkability and transit viability, but also causes stuff like obesity and lack of housing affordability. All these things are inherent problems of car-dependency, and it doesn't make the slightest shred of difference whether those cars being depended upon are Isettas or F-250s.
Sure all privately-owned cars are problematic, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that small vehicles have the same impact as massive SUVs/trucks.
Bigger cars are not only more damaging in crashes with pedestrians/cyclists (which you've mentioned but seem to think is unimportant?!) but they also cause more accidents because of poor visibility and longer stopping distances. Also, environmentally-speaking, larger vehicles have a much bigger impact than small cars. Not only are they less fuel-efficient, they also cause more damage to roads leading to more frequent need for repairs.
I agree that ultimately reducing the total number of privately-owned vehicles should be the main goal, but we can also simultaneously strive for smaller cars for the vehicles that are on our roads.
I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that small vehicles have the same impact as massive SUVs/trucks.
I'm not saying its zero; I'm saying it's a lot closer to negligible than people desperately wanting to scapegoat one type of car while clinging to their own would like to think. The only thing capable of significantly moving the needle is not switching from big cars to small cars, but switching from cars to not-cars.
Bigger cars are not only more damaging in crashes with pedestrians/cyclists (which you’ve mentioned but seem to think is unimportant?!) but they also cause more accidents because of poor visibility and longer stopping distances.
Having smaller cars with better visibility and shorter stopping distances could provide a minor improvement in crash frequency and severity. But if you want to get it to zero? Then you've got to redesign the streets to quit prioritizing cars over other road users (pedestrians/cyclists/transit riders). And you've got to make it so that those alternatives are actually viable and get used, which means zoning reform.
Also, environmentally-speaking, larger vehicles have a much bigger impact than small cars. Not only are they less fuel-efficient, they also cause more damage to roads leading to more frequent need for repairs.
The environmental difference between a big car and a small car is tiny compared to the difference between a car and a bicycle. We need to quit chipping around the edge of the problem quibbling about car size and attack it directly by providing alternatives to driving via (say it with me!) zoning reform.
Man, this blows. It used to be I could get a Smart Car, Scion iQ, Mini, Fiat, Subaru hatchback, Ford Focus, the options for small cars were many. Consumer versions of rally cars were amazing. City commuter cars can turn on a dime and park anywhere.
Now out of the remaining Mini, Fiat, and Smart, they’ve discontinued or are about to discontinue gas vehicles altogether. My speedy turbo Mini will soon be a thing of the past, and that makes me sad.
Bring back small fun to drive cars!
Good. EVs might be only a transitional solution but ICE cars need to go ASAP.
I have a 14 yr old RWD smallish manual coupe "fun car". I feel your pain. Can't wait for people to realize how zippy and long-range a tiny little RWD electric can be.