The reckless policies that helped fill our streets with ridiculously large cars
The reckless policies that helped fill our streets with ridiculously large cars
It costs about the same to assemble a SUV and a sedan. An SUV could be priced at close to double. Americans love big things that they can own.
My PHEV sedan is uncomfortably low to the ground. I'd be happy with the same exact car lifted maybe 4". But that doesn't seem to be on offer.
Have you considered an aftermarket solution? There's a good chance you can change the suspension on your current vehicle for a fairly reasonable price.
If Chevy put their Voltec powertrain from the Volt PHEV into a Silverado, I’d buy one the first day it came out.
Does the Toyota Crown come in a PHEV flavor?
I’d imagine most people with those SUVs don’t actually own them. They’re either leasing them, or have a huge monthly car payment that they’ll just fold into another car loan when trading it in for the next.
“80% of new cars in the United States are financed.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/453000/share-of-new-vehicles-with-financing-usa/
1/5 of new cars are leased.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/453122/share-of-new-vehicles-on-lease-usa/
Eight of the top ten vehicles leased in 2020 were SUVs or large trucks.
https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-are-the-most-commonly-leased-vehicles/
Do you have any data, at all, to back up any of that?
This is a fantastic write up of the problems we are facing in the US automotive market. Broken regulations incentivize large trucks/SUV's, including for electric vehicles.
Smaller vehicles use less energy. Smaller vehicles cause less road wear. Smaller vehicles are fine for most use cases - but I recognize not all use cases. Smaller vehicles cause less damage in collusions to other cars and pedestrians.
I'm not saying to take away any options... But let's stop incentivizing the wasteful and start incentivizing the efficient. I as a consumer would love to see more small car options for selfish reasons. They handle better and are more fun to drive.
The Chicken Tax needs to be abolished alongside the overly strict laws not allowing kei cars and trucks on highways. Yet, motorcycles are allowed on the road and are more dangerous than said kei trucks.
Motorcycles are dangerous for you, Kei trucks are dangerous for you and others. You can consent to being a meat crayon. I don't even have riders on the back of my bike unless they also ride, have a helmet and at least boots.
But yes, the chicken tax is bullshit
I think that adding to this is people's heightened perception of danger. You feel safer being higher up (which of course is a fallacy, as this article points out). If it was status and advertising alone driving these sales, I would expect to see sportier-looking cars selling more at the same time. I have also noticed more people using vans as domestic vehicles. Home security stuff seems to have boomed around the same time as well.
Interestingly, the most prominent group I can think of who still value small cars are boy racers.
Even Toyota has increased the height and "angrified" the super-popular Sienna, one of the last remaining mini-vans.
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!
I feel this this bot has been doing a poorer job recently. I'm seeing less proper AI summaries and more "just start quoting the article somewhere in the middle with no context"
These YIMBY people go on and on about traffic deaths but never talk about the companies requiring a return to office that forces everyone to drive unnecessarily.
During COVID and the work from home (WFH) mandate, traffic deaths fell off a cliff due in large part to people not driving to work.
I'm not saying cars shouldn't be smaller or cities walkable. I'm saying these people like YIMBYs are disingenuous about safety and the environment because a return to a WFH mandate would help immediately.
YIMBYs are simply shills for greedy developers that want to gentrify inner cities.
These YIMBY people go on and on about traffic deaths but never talk about the companies requiring a return to office that forces everyone to drive unnecessarily.
During COVID and the work from home (WFH) mandate, traffic deaths fell off a cliff due in large part to people not driving to work.
I'm not saying cars shouldn't be smaller or cities walkable. I'm saying these people like YIMBYs are disingenuous about safety and the environment because a return to a WFH mandate would help immediately.
YIMBYs are simply shills for greedy developers that want to gentrify inner cities.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you seriously saying that someone arguing cars should be smaller to reduce traffic deaths are shills because they aren’t specifically arguing for your position, which is that everyone who can work from home should?
My brother in Christ, you are creating a false dilemma. You are George W saying “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
You are essentially saying, “If you want to reduce traffic deaths, your primary argument needs to be that we should all work from home. Otherwise you’re being paid to help gentrify cities.”
The cities are already gentrified. You're about 10-20 years behind the times.
Americans are just by and large awful people. So what if it kills more people and is awful for the environment, it makes me feel safer.
You're so transparent it's not even funny. Your bait is weak. Kindly fuck off.
On second thought, I take that kindly back. Just fuck off.
Some form of "_____ are just by and large awful people" is an extremely common but rationally indefensible belief. The probability of man-made borders and categories accidentally separating the good from the bad by coincidence is effectively zero.
American attitudes are the result of incentives. Getting people to believe things can be very profitable, and American companies spend many billions of dollars getting Americans to believe that a bigger vehicle is a necessity with a wide ranging campaign that includes both traditional ads and product placement in music and movies. The same would happen anywhere else where a sufficient opportunity to profit exists.
Americans doing awful things because they saw ads for it isn't really improving my view of them.
Who are your people?
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
individualism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
I feel like articles like these are red-herrings designed to distract people from the real problem, and/or give them an excuse to feel morally superior when they shouldn't because they drive a normal-sized car instead of a big one.
But here's the real problem: America was a catastrophe of car-dependency even before the bloated SUVs and such started showing up, and merely shrinking the cars back down to normal size isn't gonna fix it. The biggest issue with cars isn't the injuries and deaths from crashes or the or the greenhouse gas emissions; it's the fact that cities are absolutely ruined by trying to build enough parking to accommodate them all. Forcing everything to be spread out in order to fit parking lots and wide roads in between destroys walkability and the viability of transit. The costs of all the extra land -- or even just all the extra concrete for parking decks -- drive up housing prices. Euclidean zoning prohibits convenient access to third places, harming mental health, and even when the zoning does allow e.g. a pub to be built, customers have to drive drunk to get home because it's too far to walk!
My city imposes minimum parking requirements for businesses that want a license to serve alcohol. Not maximums, minimums. Think about how fucking insane and ass-backwards that is for a minute.
The article makes a big deal about how big vehicles are more dangerous to things they crash into than small ones, but consider this: car wrecks kill tens of thousands of people each year, but that harm is dwarfed by the fact that hundreds of millions of people are obese because they're forced to drive everywhere instead of walking. Over 40% of the total US population is obese now, compared to 10% in the 1950s before the effects of car-dependency had a chance to kick in.
The point is, all of these things don't change whether the cars we're dependent on are little hatchbacks or gigantic SUVs. Practically speaking, every car is the same size: one parking space*. It's the parking spaces themselves -- and therefore the cars that occupy them, whether big, small, electric or gas-guzzling -- that have got to go!
(* or one two-second safe following distance when in motion, compared to which the length of the vehicle itself is negligible in terms of its effect on road lane capacity)
I agree with a of your points that we should be reducing the negative impacts of cars to society (reducing/removing parking minimums, better zoning, etc) but I don't feel this is a red herring at all. Large vehicles are a problem for all the reasons the article indicates. Those issues should be addressed, and what your talking about is a while other problem that also needs to be addressed.
Just because it's factually true, doesn't mean it can't also be a red herring anyway. You've got to think about why it's a point that's being brought up.
In this case, there are a lot of people with a vested interest in keeping their [perceived to be] convenient car-oriented lifestyle, but who may have been feeling twinges of guilt and doubt about it lately because of all the talk about climate change and whatnot. There are also a lot of businesses with a vested interest in selling them cars and fuel and drive-thru food and pavement and other trappings of said car-oriented lifestyle. So there are huge forces motivated to push narratives aimed at absolving these drivers of their guilt.
That's what I believe the intended takeaway of an article like this is: "Oh, it's not me who's the problem; it's those other folks with the bro-dozers and mall-crawlers who are the problem. I'm behaving just fine -- virtuously, even! -- because my 'green' and 'safe' hybrid sedan shuts off instead of idling in the Starbucks drive-thru in the morning."
They want you to pay no attention to the fact that the existence of that Starbucks drive-thru, and more to the point, the existence of the stroad upon which its queue overflows each morning, are what's really causing the car crashes, and the lack of walkability, and the unsafe biking, and the climate change from everybody whose car doesn't shut off when it stops, and so on...
The obesity in America has very little at all to do with walking or not walking.
It has everything to do with the American diet. Would forced exercise help? Some. But it ain’t gonna solve anything
That too is a red herring.
I don't think our industrialized food and unwalkable cities are mutually exclusive when it comes to obesity.
Fine, then. I have four words for you:
Drive-though fast food.
(And if that's not pointed enough, here's a video about how much easier it is to shop for healthy groceries in a walkable area, and another that points out (among other things) how lack of walkability correlates with obesity even if, as you say, it's not the single direct cause.)
Damn, I have never looked at it this way and now that I am...it's really sad. Thank you for the eye opener.
There's lots of youtube content on this subject... here's a decent jumping off point, if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI