All these children are invisible to the driver…

Fuck all those cars!!! Put them away to hell, not to earth. They are too big for all - except for small egos. But for small egos is therapy much better.

  • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Or we could, you know, follow previously established methods of building vehicles that make pedestrian death and dismemberment less likely.

    No, no, no. Americans need them this way apparently for some inexplicable fucking reason.

    So instead of just designing them with pedestrian safety in mind to begin with, we are just gonna slap on more fucking band-aids (like cameras) that do fuck-all.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      1 year ago

      Americans never asked for this, it’s the classification system for light trucks implemented following the Yom Kippur War that left too much leeway in the definition for “light trucks” that has been driving auto makers in this direction.

      Of course there have been knock-on cultural issues where certain people make it part of their ego and the market effect becomes self reinforcing, but that’s how we got into this mess. History is a series of unintended consequences, again.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Agreed. The industry is invested in avoiding regulation that could impede their profits at all costs. This means they will invest in advertising pushing the idea that these vehicles are needed.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d argue that they have asked for trucks to get so big because they seemingly sell better that way. It’s admittedly an imperfect thing to look at since there’s few alternatives and many other factors, but these big trucks didn’t immediately take over the market. At some point they were introduced and consumers liked them.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is why I said it became an ego thing. Automakers didn’t set out to kill the most kids possible and ask “how do we design towards that”, they exploited a regulatory loophole which then cracked open a wider market niche based on people’s egocentrism, brutality, and myopic attitudes toward transit (e.g. carbrain).

        • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure if American consumers “liked” them so much as they were pushed heavily by auto makers while they quietly phased out more practically sized vehicles like hatchbacks, station wagons, and a lot of sedans (other than those sedans that fetch a high price for their performance and appeal to an entirely different market; your corvettes, mustangs, etc.) That ‘light truck’ designation brings with it larger profit margins; the vehicle itself is bigger so the manufacturer can charge more for it, and then they have to obey fewer environmental regulations so development/manufacturing is cheaper in comparison to trying to meet the regulations for smaller vehicles.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair, they are hugely popular in both Canada and Mexico as well. I’ll leave it to you to figure out why.

          Hint; if marketing didn’t work, it wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar industry.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          47
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, more like “Ban trucks that are built so high off the ground that they can’t see pedestrians.” That would easily include lifted trucks as well as general monstrosities.

          I mean, it’s not like any of these motherfuckers uses these things to haul anything other than their kids and fucking groceries anyway.

          Too much of a pussy to just own it and just drive a fucking minivan, which can easily carry kids and groceries. Has to buy the big dick extender instead.

          • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            32
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it’s even worse than that. The front of the car being so big and high is PURELY aesthetics. All of the machinery that’s in current trucks would just as easily fit under a hood that was lower and sloped downward for better visibility, but trucks with a high squared off hood and grille sell more because many truck buyers care more about it having a tough appearance rather then it being an actually better vehicle.

          • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, no one who owns a truck uses it to move furniture, trash, dirt, mulch, or an old transmission they pulled at the auto lot. None of them go fishing or hunting, obviously, so fishing rods, camping gear and coolers won’t be necessary in the back. Also, no one who owns a truck has ever done home repair and would never carry wood or power tools in the back of, do you get how stupid your strawman is yet?

              • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                21
                ·
                1 year ago

                That doesn’t invalidate trucks used for commercial or professional use, or the fact I’ll still stand on… hauling and outdoor use. It being rare doesn’t make it non-existent.

                I’m sure some idiot is hauling refrigerators with a Civic, it doesn’t make them progressive.

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  19
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not non-existent, but it’s non-existent enough to justify most people not owning trucks and just renting them when needed.

                  I mean, if trucks were still like the 4-cylinder Ranger I had from the 80’s, it would make more sense. But they aren’t and it doesn’t.

                  • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Then you have to pay the rental fee. What if I own a truck… and a Civic?

                    Is it the ego at this point or are you really riding this train?

                • Neato@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That doesn’t invalidate trucks used for commercial or professional use

                  In that case they need a commercial license and/or it’s business property for taxes and the company should own it (if not a sole proprietorship). And you can’t use company property for personal use most places.

                  • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    12
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Good Lord. Imagine living on 8 acres in the woods and you need a professional license to own a truck just to live, lmao.

                    No wonder none of you get it.

            • Neato@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Almost no one uses trucks daily for those activities. It’s an occasional thing. In which case renting is cheaper. Hunting, too since the vast, vast majority of hunters aren’t even hunting weekly.

              Fishing? Collapsible poles or strap them to the top. It’s not like the rest of the world has trucks and they do these things.

              Also, coolers and camping gear? My brother in gaia get a hatchback.

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              We came up with trailers long ago for occassional hauling needs. Not that any of your needs even warrant one.

            • MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              We don’t have this kind of trucks in the Europe AT ALL and people still go fishing, do home repairs, carry heavy or large loads. This is all American lifestyle.

              • schmorp@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Excuse me in which car-free paradise do you live? While Europe might not reach American-level exuberance in car volume, we have seen a very anger-inducing increase in the number of SUVs. Every second car I saw in Germany this summer was way wider and longer than it needed to be. I want these cars regulated the fuck out of Europe rather sooner than later, but right now every arsehole happily buys one on the promise that their own kids are safe inside the moron-family-sized tank while their parent mows down other people’s children.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can easily do all of that and more with my non-lifted mid-sized long-bed pickup. It’s just a fact my dude; they are selling a self-image, not actual utility. Or what about a van with a roof-rack. In my professional experience that’s a lot more utilitarian if you’re a tradesman.

              Again, it’s all about an image that’s been meticulously and brilliantly marketed and sold to very specific demographics.

            • BeakersBunsen@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Don’t impede the circle jerk, unless you use it everyday for work you should rent a truck every other weekend

              • BigNote@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I work in industrial construction on massive unionized projects with tradespeople coming from all over the US and Canada and I can tell you for an objective fact that the number of guys --it’s almost always guys, which should tell you something-- who drive giant lifted obnoxious trucks as their daily driver vs the number who actually really and truly need them on a regular basis is like 100 to 1.

                But even if it were only 10 to 1, that means we have 10 times as many of these giant gas guzzling dangerous trucks out on the road.

                The industry has done such a good job at selling these trucks as part of a self-image, that a lot of guys are incapable of admitting that the only reason they drive one is because they think it looks cool.

              • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                Or just… have a truck? Look, man. Is your problem intensified by the trucks in question being 8-cylinder gas guzzlers?

                Have you ever heard of Toyota?

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Carbrained: When you’re so stuck up your own ass you even lash out at people who were obviously making a joke that meant they agreed with you.

        • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Car manufacturers have been making trucks taller and boxier because their studies show that their owners do that to their trucks after buying them so they want to be more appealing to the average pickup truck buyer… and yes that thought makes my brain hurt

    • Retro_Unlimited@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I saw a YouTube explaining the giant cars in the US have to do with the government making a big equation that car manufacturers have to follow.

      The equation calculated the weight, size, gas mileage, etc, and the only way they can make the cars pass the equation is to make them giant. The equation backfired and now we have giant cars.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        It didn’t backfire. They designed a law that looks good at first glance but actually makes auto manufacturers richer. This happens all the time and it’s on purpose, because they know voters don’t have the analysis resources of lobbyists.

      • Mitchie151@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, the manufacturers get massive tax breaks on this class of vehicle, which means they can make and sell them at the same or better price than a small, fuel efficient car. If a family with kids has to choose between a mid size crossover or an F150 at similar price points, why would you get the crossover? The USA needs to fix the way it taxes cars to disincentivise these fuel inefficient giant cars. No other country has these problems so it’s not a selfish person problem, it’s an entirely logical choice to make given the circumstances.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If Americans had to pay the same petrol taxes that Europeans do, they’d soon go for the tiny cars.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Band-aids like cameras that do fuck all? Cameras are a very quick, simple, and obvious solution to this specific problem. There’s a reason that all new cars have backup cameras nowadays. Perfection is the enemy of good and all that.

      • max@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh. European panel vans can usuallly haul more and have better visibility. Just droop the snoot.