U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency standards administered by NHTSA have encouraged automakers to build larger vehicles. The bigger the vehicle, the lower the fuel efficiency target it has to meet.
That's some monkeys paw type of shit law
Yeah preverse incentives. When doing the wrong thing makes the most sense for the individual. Happens often in tragedy of the commons situations.
If you hit a pedestrian it is better for you that they die. If you find an endangered animal on your land it is better for you to kill it. If you have a child with someone who makes minimum wage it is better for you to divorce.
Maybe it is too much to expect but for things like this, when public policy experts came up with a standard instead of just inheriting a situation, that they plan for these things in advance. Spend a few moments and look at where the incentives are before just hammering a new policy into place.
Wait until you hear how exhaust fumes shrink your penis
Does that also explain Truck Nutz?
Recently bought a new diesel silverado 3500 for my ranch. It's enormous, I'm glad I didn't get the dually option as it's hard enough to drive in the city. Most of its job however is pulling trailers around.
That said, on highway if I drive the speed limit and take it easy I can get 9L/100km. It's unreal that such a huge truck will get almost the same economy as our KIA SUV.
I didn't think that sounded right so I looked it up; Chevrolet themselves say it's between 11 and 12 litres/100km
I don't know what Kia you have, but their diesel Sorento SUV averages 6-7 litres/100km, nearly half what your tiny-penis truck uses
Funny also that people pull trailers in every country in the world using much smaller trucks without a problem
You don't need that truck, same way as nobody else on the planet, no matter what their profession, needs it
You don’t need that truck, same way as nobody else on the planet, no matter what their profession, needs it
Please stop this bullshit. There are most certainly reasons to own a truck that can haul big things. Including in Europe. It's just that 90% of the trucks you see in a Costco parking lot don't need to be that way.
I do occasionally see tiny-penis trucks here in Europe. Do you know what I've never, ever seen though? A dirty one. One used for work, rather than just showing off.
If you had to haul something heavy on a trailer, what would you use? A fuel-guzzling, heavy, unreliable shiny trinket, or a Toyota Hilux?
99% of workers with stuff to move use a van. Farmers use pickups like L200s. Accountants drive tiny-penis trucks for the tax break
Explain to me again why American contractors are the only contractors on the entire planet that need giant trucks?
What do those farmers use to move livestock around? Because you're generally looking at a 10,000lbs trailer for that, which is F450 territory.
What you really want to go after is the lower end the truck market. Circa 2002, the Ford Ranger had a curb weight around 3,300 lbs (exact number depending on the trim) and looked like this. The current one is around 4,200 lbs and looks like this. Small trucks have disappeared entirely in the US market, and there's no good reason for it.
But when you start hitting the Ford Superduty market (F250 on up), you're looking at people who actually use their trucks for the most part. They are big because they haul a lot of stuff and they have to be.
Still waiting for you to explain why American contractors/farmers are the only people on the planet who require these vehicles when everyone else manages with vastly smaller vehicles
Also, do you have to use tweezers to pee?
I don't own one of these tucks, so you can quit with the small dick comments.
I've explained, and you refuse to listen. What do you use to haul multiple livestock animals around?
I run 1000 cows on a 60,000 acre ranch in southern Alberta. It's too rough to run a semi truck and trailer around on but I can haul a tri-axle Wilson gooseneck stock trailer with 20,000 lbs of cattle across it when I need to. There's no roads through the ranch other than dirt trails so it takes a long time to travel through it and the fewer trips I have to make the better. Generally I'm moving cattle on horseback but occasionally I have to move old/sick/injured cows from a to b. Simply put, your European farms are miniscule and you don't need the same capabilities that we do. The world is not uniform.
Van
Fifth wheel. If you don't know what that is, you should probably avoid having a strong opinion on this.
Niche of a niche.
Never seen one in my entire life, lived in 4 countries.
What do you expect to use for hauling livestock? These can have a tow weight of 10,000 lbs, which is much more than you can do with a regular hitch. The fact that you've never personally seen this does not mean anything.
That can haul a livestock. How about 12? Or would you like them to make more trips (with proportional use of gas and risk of accident)?
As for F150s hauling nothing, that's kinda my point. There's a market above it that actually does work (F250 and up), and there's a market that ought to exist underneath it (what used to be the Ranger, which is now much larger). You're targeting the wrong group by focusing on trucks that haul 10,000 lbs.
Wait, how often do you need to haul stock with your F250?
If every day, then it's more optimal to by having a dedicated livestock truck, Like Volvo FL.
If you're only moving livestock occasionally, but driving F250 daily, you're compensating for your tiny weiner and shitting in the air that everyone breathes
Farmers haul big, heavy things around all the time. If this is news to you, then again, maybe you should step back and stop having strong opinions on things you don't know anything about.
The US public has repeatedly demonstrated that it would rather die than make even minor adjustments in their lives.
So don't expect anything to get done.
I have been thinking about getting some "Child Killer" stickers to start slapping on trucks that are particularly unsafe and huge. I don't get why in neighborhoods that in all kinds of other ways frowns upon putting kids at risk (no driving fast for example) dumbass men are allowed to own MASSIVE trucks that raise the risk of running a child over by a huge amount and no one shames them.
Time to start shaming these people more.
Go for it! The cost would be pretty inexpensive.
*Edit It's funny how the downvoters aren't okay with a simple sticker, but are okay with two ton vehicles killing more people than usual.
U need to care more about other shit instead of this.
Child killer stickers 🤣 get over yourself
The Netherlands is so bike-friendly right now because of a wave of backlash in the 70s to the harms of their post WW2 car-centric design. The protests were literally called 'Stop de Kindermoord', which is Dutch for 'stop the child-murder'.
Well good for them.
At 1/240th the size of the USA, twice the population of California's Bay Area, and one of the highest road densities in the world, it sounds like a trifecta of wins.
As long as you don't need to leave. I have to travel for work Monday longer than the entirety of the Netherlands and half again; I won't even leave the same state. Bikeing won't cut it.
Size is entirely a red herring.
Most people work in the same city or metro that they live in. It doesn't matter how far Boston is from Springfield; 99% of trips a Bostonian makes are to other places in the Boston area. What matters is the design of both cities.
The average commute in the US is under 30 minutes. And the average person doesn't drive an hour and a half for groceries, to pick up a pizza, or to daycare.
Biking doesn't cut it in the Netherlands, either. Instead, they have bike parking lots at their train and subway stations, so a multimodal trip to the office is easier. People mostly don't cycle from one side of Amsterdam to the other; they bike a couple min down the street to the cafe or to get groceries.
Additionally, their road design doesn't push driving as much. For one thing, you can typically bike a more direct path than you can drive due to better modal separation. For another thing, the roads are less pedestrian hostile. Instead of a wide American-style stroads, you might have a narrow 2-way service street for pedestrians, cyclists and cars with a 15 mph speed limit, and an adjacent high-speed road with no driveways. They don't try to have people do a left turn from a suicide lane across 2 55-mph lanes and a sidewalk to get tacos.
I have a small truck, and its A pillar has blocked my view of pedestrians more than once. I have to move my head to check. With big vehicles, I imagine there's even more of a problem.
I ran over my friend in high school while driving a Ford Ranger. She is 5'1 but still, if her hands hadn't flopped up in the air I might've killed her. Worst part is, I'd just dropped her off.
Always need to be careful driving a big vehicle. Learned that the hard way.
Its actually the opposite, the bigger and boxy-er the vehicle, the bigger the windows and the less obstructions from bodywork. The added height also allows you to see much further away and over obstructions like lines of cars, stopped traffic, landscaping, etc.
.
youdontsay.png
next they’re going to try to tell me tanks are more deadly than four door sedans. does anybody buy this stuff?
I miss pop up headlights
These flat fronted high up ones have made their way to Europe how are they legal
I read that as "Tall trucks, SUVs are 45% deadlier to US presidents, study shows", and was like: how did they do that study?
Maybe it's how they are designed. I've sat in a number of them that have ugly blind spots. Back left is a big problem on a lot of them.
I've responded to a bunch of "car vs pedestrian" calls. With adults a low speed hit is usually some minor injuries like lower legs, arms, etc. If they're hit hard sometimes their head hits the windshield. The victim ends up on top of the hood and rolls off the side or up and over the car.
If it's a truck their injuries are more serious. Hip, rib, shoulder/arm, spine, and head injuries. They get hit high and knocked into the ground -- and sometimes partially or completely run over.
Yes, it is.
Big cars are heavier, taller, and have larger blind spots. The first two make them deadlier in an accident, the last makes it easier to run someone over in a crosswalk, parking lot or driveway.
Haha pedestrians don't vote so too bad
Cars don't vote. Pedestrians are the only option, except wheelchair bound people I guess. You're only not a pedestrian when in your car, but you have to encounter other vehicles on foot before and after being in the car.
But people who own cars vote. Pedestrians usually hate all parties and won't bother to vote. They wont even vote to at least not let the other party win.
They go for a bike ride or drink kambocha in their bachelor apartment while looking up fall scarfs for men. Then scream racists at everyone after the guy they really hate wins the election. Then they go downtown and let air out of peoples tires and post on r/fuckcars and snicker and jeer with other pedestrians about how they hate car heads
I can't fathom having an imaginary person living rent free in my head.
Never thought I'd see someone describe people like this for specifically not using some random product. What's next, people who don't use coffee makers are degenerates too?
We're like birds
This is oddly specific
Now I want to hear your take on cyclists.
hell yea brotherrrrr
Easy, just drive them in Mexico or Canada and they’d be fine.
Lmao, I am sorry you are being down voted. This is funny
That's some monkeys paw type of shit law
Yeah preverse incentives. When doing the wrong thing makes the most sense for the individual. Happens often in tragedy of the commons situations.
If you hit a pedestrian it is better for you that they die. If you find an endangered animal on your land it is better for you to kill it. If you have a child with someone who makes minimum wage it is better for you to divorce.
Maybe it is too much to expect but for things like this, when public policy experts came up with a standard instead of just inheriting a situation, that they plan for these things in advance. Spend a few moments and look at where the incentives are before just hammering a new policy into place.
Wait until you hear how exhaust fumes shrink your penis
Does that also explain Truck Nutz?
Recently bought a new diesel silverado 3500 for my ranch. It's enormous, I'm glad I didn't get the dually option as it's hard enough to drive in the city. Most of its job however is pulling trailers around.
That said, on highway if I drive the speed limit and take it easy I can get 9L/100km. It's unreal that such a huge truck will get almost the same economy as our KIA SUV.
I didn't think that sounded right so I looked it up; Chevrolet themselves say it's between 11 and 12 litres/100km
I don't know what Kia you have, but their diesel Sorento SUV averages 6-7 litres/100km, nearly half what your tiny-penis truck uses
Funny also that people pull trailers in every country in the world using much smaller trucks without a problem
You don't need that truck, same way as nobody else on the planet, no matter what their profession, needs it
Please stop this bullshit. There are most certainly reasons to own a truck that can haul big things. Including in Europe. It's just that 90% of the trucks you see in a Costco parking lot don't need to be that way.
I do occasionally see tiny-penis trucks here in Europe. Do you know what I've never, ever seen though? A dirty one. One used for work, rather than just showing off.
If you had to haul something heavy on a trailer, what would you use? A fuel-guzzling, heavy, unreliable shiny trinket, or a Toyota Hilux?
99% of workers with stuff to move use a van. Farmers use pickups like L200s. Accountants drive tiny-penis trucks for the tax break
Explain to me again why American contractors are the only contractors on the entire planet that need giant trucks?
What do those farmers use to move livestock around? Because you're generally looking at a 10,000lbs trailer for that, which is F450 territory.
What you really want to go after is the lower end the truck market. Circa 2002, the Ford Ranger had a curb weight around 3,300 lbs (exact number depending on the trim) and looked like this. The current one is around 4,200 lbs and looks like this. Small trucks have disappeared entirely in the US market, and there's no good reason for it.
But when you start hitting the Ford Superduty market (F250 on up), you're looking at people who actually use their trucks for the most part. They are big because they haul a lot of stuff and they have to be.
Still waiting for you to explain why American contractors/farmers are the only people on the planet who require these vehicles when everyone else manages with vastly smaller vehicles
Also, do you have to use tweezers to pee?
I don't own one of these tucks, so you can quit with the small dick comments.
I've explained, and you refuse to listen. What do you use to haul multiple livestock animals around?
I run 1000 cows on a 60,000 acre ranch in southern Alberta. It's too rough to run a semi truck and trailer around on but I can haul a tri-axle Wilson gooseneck stock trailer with 20,000 lbs of cattle across it when I need to. There's no roads through the ranch other than dirt trails so it takes a long time to travel through it and the fewer trips I have to make the better. Generally I'm moving cattle on horseback but occasionally I have to move old/sick/injured cows from a to b. Simply put, your European farms are miniscule and you don't need the same capabilities that we do. The world is not uniform.
Van
Fifth wheel. If you don't know what that is, you should probably avoid having a strong opinion on this.
Niche of a niche. Never seen one in my entire life, lived in 4 countries.
What do you expect to use for hauling livestock? These can have a tow weight of 10,000 lbs, which is much more than you can do with a regular hitch. The fact that you've never personally seen this does not mean anything.
I've seen a million of these.
https://indespension.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/77eef5ac2f1d972e1ca198c5741eab71/l/v/lv35126dgx_1_1.jpg
I've seen a hundred F150 hauling jack shit.
That can haul a livestock. How about 12? Or would you like them to make more trips (with proportional use of gas and risk of accident)?
As for F150s hauling nothing, that's kinda my point. There's a market above it that actually does work (F250 and up), and there's a market that ought to exist underneath it (what used to be the Ranger, which is now much larger). You're targeting the wrong group by focusing on trucks that haul 10,000 lbs.
Wait, how often do you need to haul stock with your F250? If every day, then it's more optimal to by having a dedicated livestock truck, Like Volvo FL.
If you're only moving livestock occasionally, but driving F250 daily, you're compensating for your tiny weiner and shitting in the air that everyone breathes
Farmers haul big, heavy things around all the time. If this is news to you, then again, maybe you should step back and stop having strong opinions on things you don't know anything about.
I've seen a million of these.
https://indespension.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/77eef5ac2f1d972e1ca198c5741eab71/l/v/lv35126dgx_1_1.jpg
I've seen a hundred F150 hauling jack shit.
Thanks for the support. Some people think the world is uniform and don't understand anything outside of their world view.
All good. I don't recommend going too deep on this thread. Probably raise your blood pressure beyond acceptable limits.
That's Regulatory Capture. Laws made by and for the industry they're supposed to regulate.
No shit.
big thing smash more than small thing, news at 11
The US public has repeatedly demonstrated that it would rather die than make even minor adjustments in their lives. So don't expect anything to get done.
I have been thinking about getting some "Child Killer" stickers to start slapping on trucks that are particularly unsafe and huge. I don't get why in neighborhoods that in all kinds of other ways frowns upon putting kids at risk (no driving fast for example) dumbass men are allowed to own MASSIVE trucks that raise the risk of running a child over by a huge amount and no one shames them.
Time to start shaming these people more.
Go for it! The cost would be pretty inexpensive.
*Edit It's funny how the downvoters aren't okay with a simple sticker, but are okay with two ton vehicles killing more people than usual.
U need to care more about other shit instead of this.
Child killer stickers 🤣 get over yourself
The Netherlands is so bike-friendly right now because of a wave of backlash in the 70s to the harms of their post WW2 car-centric design. The protests were literally called 'Stop de Kindermoord', which is Dutch for 'stop the child-murder'.
Well good for them.
At 1/240th the size of the USA, twice the population of California's Bay Area, and one of the highest road densities in the world, it sounds like a trifecta of wins.
As long as you don't need to leave. I have to travel for work Monday longer than the entirety of the Netherlands and half again; I won't even leave the same state. Bikeing won't cut it.
Size is entirely a red herring.
Most people work in the same city or metro that they live in. It doesn't matter how far Boston is from Springfield; 99% of trips a Bostonian makes are to other places in the Boston area. What matters is the design of both cities.
The average commute in the US is under 30 minutes. And the average person doesn't drive an hour and a half for groceries, to pick up a pizza, or to daycare.
Biking doesn't cut it in the Netherlands, either. Instead, they have bike parking lots at their train and subway stations, so a multimodal trip to the office is easier. People mostly don't cycle from one side of Amsterdam to the other; they bike a couple min down the street to the cafe or to get groceries.
Additionally, their road design doesn't push driving as much. For one thing, you can typically bike a more direct path than you can drive due to better modal separation. For another thing, the roads are less pedestrian hostile. Instead of a wide American-style stroads, you might have a narrow 2-way service street for pedestrians, cyclists and cars with a 15 mph speed limit, and an adjacent high-speed road with no driveways. They don't try to have people do a left turn from a suicide lane across 2 55-mph lanes and a sidewalk to get tacos.
Seems like your car needs to be stickered haha
Yeah, but "ma freedom"
I have a small truck, and its A pillar has blocked my view of pedestrians more than once. I have to move my head to check. With big vehicles, I imagine there's even more of a problem.
I ran over my friend in high school while driving a Ford Ranger. She is 5'1 but still, if her hands hadn't flopped up in the air I might've killed her. Worst part is, I'd just dropped her off.
Always need to be careful driving a big vehicle. Learned that the hard way.
Its actually the opposite, the bigger and boxy-er the vehicle, the bigger the windows and the less obstructions from bodywork. The added height also allows you to see much further away and over obstructions like lines of cars, stopped traffic, landscaping, etc. .
youdontsay.png
next they’re going to try to tell me tanks are more deadly than four door sedans. does anybody buy this stuff?
I miss pop up headlights
These flat fronted high up ones have made their way to Europe how are they legal
I read that as "Tall trucks, SUVs are 45% deadlier to US presidents, study shows", and was like: how did they do that study?
Maybe it's how they are designed. I've sat in a number of them that have ugly blind spots. Back left is a big problem on a lot of them.
I've responded to a bunch of "car vs pedestrian" calls. With adults a low speed hit is usually some minor injuries like lower legs, arms, etc. If they're hit hard sometimes their head hits the windshield. The victim ends up on top of the hood and rolls off the side or up and over the car.
If it's a truck their injuries are more serious. Hip, rib, shoulder/arm, spine, and head injuries. They get hit high and knocked into the ground -- and sometimes partially or completely run over.
Yes, it is.
Big cars are heavier, taller, and have larger blind spots. The first two make them deadlier in an accident, the last makes it easier to run someone over in a crosswalk, parking lot or driveway.
Haha pedestrians don't vote so too bad
Cars don't vote. Pedestrians are the only option, except wheelchair bound people I guess. You're only not a pedestrian when in your car, but you have to encounter other vehicles on foot before and after being in the car.
But people who own cars vote. Pedestrians usually hate all parties and won't bother to vote. They wont even vote to at least not let the other party win.
They go for a bike ride or drink kambocha in their bachelor apartment while looking up fall scarfs for men. Then scream racists at everyone after the guy they really hate wins the election. Then they go downtown and let air out of peoples tires and post on r/fuckcars and snicker and jeer with other pedestrians about how they hate car heads
I can't fathom having an imaginary person living rent free in my head.
Never thought I'd see someone describe people like this for specifically not using some random product. What's next, people who don't use coffee makers are degenerates too?
We're like birds
This is oddly specific
Now I want to hear your take on cyclists.
hell yea brotherrrrr
Easy, just drive them in Mexico or Canada and they’d be fine.
Lmao, I am sorry you are being down voted. This is funny