I think we need to start requiring commercial drivers licenses on some of these beasts.
They are intentionally designed to be difficult to see out of, difficult to see around. And the high point of contact on a human body means that they are deadly. Definitely should not be allowed on a residential street without an explicit commercial purpose, IMHO.
Example: Fiat Fiorino: https://www.hojeemdia.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.792949!/image/ima...
It used same Chassis as Fiat Uno https://quatrorodas.abril.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/...
So it was obviously a car, with the rear-part modified to carry cargo.
Meanwhile the 1980s F150: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/89/50/8a/89508a513b5076ef6413543f2...
It is obvious that thing is NOT a car, when you learned to drive in a UNO you can't expect a F150 to drive the same!
In the EU the maximum authorized mass (US: GVWR) you can drive with a standard car license is 3500kg or 7700lbs. That means for some models of the F150 you do need a commercial license.
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
PS: Actually, the limits for the basic German driver's license (B) are: Max GVWR of 3500 kg. With trailer, if GTWR not above 750 kg, no GCWR restriction, otherwise max GCWR of 3500 kg.
There's an extended license (BE) for max GTWR of 3500 kg and no GCWR restriction. (Max GVWR still 3500 kg.)
https://www.adac.de/verkehr/rund-um-den-fuehrerschein/klasse... (German text).
The F250 line tops out at a curb weight of ~7500 lbs with a GVWR of an even 10,000.
- sales tax on cars/trucks is by weight and exponentially increases the heavier the vehicle gets
- increase taxes on gasoline
- require a special license to operate a vehicle over XXXX lbs.
- rewrite laws or encourage DAs to prosecute drivers that injure other people in cars or pedestrians even if it's unintentional
- illegal to have passengers in the truck bed (some states still allow this).
These are just off the top of my head.
News flash: People aren't stupid, and you're not that smart. NFA tax stamps aren't still a thing because people don't see the tax loopholes as a ban or infringement on the 2nd Amendment. They absolutely do. They've just grudgingly accepted there may be some positive utility to it. What you're talkong about is nothing but velvet gloved taking by policy.
And other posters are right. It'd be a shitstorm.
And the sort of person that is big about "personal responsibility" for others but calls personal responsibility for themselves "taking away" is actually somewhat stupid in their hypocrisy.
Unless all that "personal responsibility" is actually just backwards justification for a system that's rigged against people without wealth and power and the right skin color, but it couldn't be that could it?
We need to stop these cowardly politics appeasing automobile users. This is how.
Perhaps it's time Americans stopped reacting like conditioned Pavlovian dogs to the mere word "freedom"? Not all "freedoms" are unequivocally good.
Terrible leadership!
If your voters will vote you out because you do unpopular things, that's democracy at work.
Terrible leadership I can agree with wholeheartedly though.
I once drove one to move something (the cab/bed being five feet off the ground wasn't as helpful as you'd think \s). The experience was somewhat surreal, like driving in an air traffic control tower. Much different than a u-haul (my only other trucking experience).
Edit: oh yeah, they do this to go "mudding" (drinking and driving in a giant muddy mess with guns, so much fun!).
https://www.yoursun.com/charlotte/news/redneck-mud-park-has-...
My friend is a Tesla owner in Georgia and has been deliberately blasted by these guys at stoplights a few times. They tried, anyway—hard to do this to a car with superior acceleration and a HEPA cabin filter.
Ruining that for the sake of pissing people off seems a travesty against the machine.
This is just one example of many things that are dividing the society into factions.
I cannot imagine how excrutiating it would be for my wife to have to pay a bunch of stupid taxes and follow a bunch of fascist new laws in order to grow her 100sq ft garden every year which, even so small, STILL requires truckloads of compost and mulch since we are just in the process of building our soil. And that's just for the gardens. I don't have any idea how many times we've hauled in cow, pig, and goat panels. I propose that the assholes proposing taxes and limits on trucks find a way to bring us these goods.
We are talking about the poorly designed showboats that do nothing to improve hauling capacity or utility. In my experience, I'd vastly prefer a lower bed for any of the tasks you mention. The extended crew cabs, stubby beds, and jacked to hell trucks are for aesthetics, not hauling mulch.
Plus you don't even seem to realize the distinction, just emotionally (and perhaps intentionally?) misunderstand what is under discussion.
<rolls eyes>
You (statistical you as a HN user, not you personally) say this with one breath but one look at the B pillar of an 80s minivan and you'd start coming up with excuses for why it's not safe enough for your kid.
The same demographics that complain about cars growing do a hell of a lot more complaining about safety and efficiency. So the OEM adds space for crumple zones, thick strong doors, a bulbous front end that pedestrians can gently (lol) bounce off of. And the OEM makes smooth sculpted curves so the vehicle can punch the cleanest possible hole in the air. And then they realize there's no room for people, so they scale it up to make more space so we get a Civic that's bigger than a 90s Accord.
You can't have it all HN, so which is it?
I bought a 2-door Tacoma 5 years ago, and the dealer struggled to find one for me. It shipped from over 1000 miles away, meanwhile they had 20+ 4-door Tacomas on the lot.
Looking it up, the longest fourth-generation Hilux was 195.5 inches long, and the shortest Tacoma is 212 inches. Similarly its ~60 inches vs ~70 inches of height. For the single cab, long-bed it's 10 inches higher and 16 inches longer and the Hilux was available with a single-cab short bed that was even 12 inches shorter.
That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras.
You sound a bit like the teachers that would drill mental math because "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket". It's good to be able to do mental math, and it's good to be an alert driver, but let's not ignore the massive capabilities that technology allows.
Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". The former needs only one counterexample.
My car has on several occasions failed to detect that there is a car in front of me, and would have happily crashed into it. About once a year, it also suddenly applies the brake hard thinking there is a car in front of me when there isn't. That is quite dangerous - were there a car behind me it would have rear ended me.
Maybe I should clarify again that I am talking about "basic" safety features like backup cameras or blind spot monitoring. My parent was talking specifically about the intelligent rearview mirror some trucks have.
These things, by definition, see more than the driver because of where they are placed. It is physically impossible for you to see what is behind your rear bumper, so having a camera that can see it is strictly better.
I can't make quite as strong a claim for the more advanced safety features like automatic braking and lane departure warnings, but the data says cars with these systems are safer on average[1].
[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
There are some situations where it’s great, but those features make the driver feel a false sense of security. Let the people feel like they’re entirely responsible so they’re more careful.
For example, widening the roads in the suburbs used to seem like a great idea - more space, less accidents, right? But that’s untrue. Narrower streets with trees blocking visibility on the sides are actually safer because the driver is forced to be more aware [1] [2].
Another good example is road markings and street/stop signs. Surely, having street signs and lane markings is safer right? Well, this is early on, but at least on city streets, it appears that’s not true either. [3] [4]
Now, to your point, it does appear that automatic car safety systems do make cars safer right now [5]. But those types of things are pretty new, so I wonder how long it’ll be until they have the same fate as those other safety innovations of the past. Where taking them away will make driving safer because people feel personally responsible, so they drive slower.
[1] https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies...
[2] https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest
[3] https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-sign...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-ro...
[5] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
In my opinion, the majority of the benefit from safety tech is in parking lots or the highway. You don't need blind spot monitoring or adaptive cruise control on a stop-and-go single lane city street. These features only make sense cruising at highway speed or pulling out of a parking spot.
It's possible that ""full"" self driving cars will make drivers feel less responsible in the cities. I think the transition to genuinely autonomous cars is going to be slow and painful regardless.
One area where I strongly believe (yeah, personal feelies, no empirical study to back it up) misguided priorities have led to sub-optimal safety results is forward visibility. Some sibling comment mentioned "car didn't detect / erroneously 'detected' vehicle in front"... Since when do we need technology to "detect" vehicles in front of us; aren't we supposed to be able to SEE those, in order to be qualified to drive?!?
A: Since A-pillars have gotten as fat as your thigh, obscuring huge swaths of your field of vision.
Now sure, I understand that it's a good thing you won't get crushed flat if your car rolls over. But it's a bad thing if you crash into a vehicle, or run over a pedestrian, because you can't see out of your own vehicle. And how often do roll-over accidents really happen? My guess would be, a lot less often than collisions caused by impeded forward visibility.
(If my opinion that "visual aids shouldn't be necessary" in the forward direction makes me a "mental maths-advocating teacher", then so be it.)
/me waves from my tiny Corolla, slightly larger than my 2002 Prius, which a Camry has shrunk in size to meet relative to the 2009 model.
https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs
https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sed...
The size comparison to a 2003ish Camry is very similar.
2003 Camry:
189″ L x 71″ W x 58″ H
2018 Corolla:
183″ L x 70″ W x 57″ H
Wonder if this will begin a trend. The car navigation system is pretty worthless these days except if you find yourself unexpectedly out of phone range (I still carry paper maps, but these days many phone navigation apps allow you to pre-download your route so you don’t have to worry about being out of coverage).
And then half the cars can’t sync your phone without a dozen menu selections.
What am I supposed to search for, small small trucks? Trucks that are actually small? Looking for cheap trucks still delivers large vehicles, just with fewer features: https://www.motortrend.com/news/cheapest-pickup-trucks-frill...
I even searched 'smallest trucks' and...guess what. The Honda Ridgeline seems like the most compact but they're all pretty chunky. https://www.web2carz.com/autos/buying-and-selling/8257/these...
If you suggest used trucks, that just shores up the point that manufacturers keep building bigger trucks. Please show us these small trucks of which you speak, even if they're more expensive or whatever.
I'm buying a car for first time in a decade. I used to want to dirtbag out of a tacoma and have been looking for one but it's hard. Even a 13 year old one seems big - and also crazy expensive ;)
For you what would be the max miles you'd buy a Ranger? A tacoma?
Actually, I think the burden of proof is on the GP who made the original claim that there are plenty of small trucks for those who want them. Additionally, it's easier for them —or you— to provide a single example of a common small truck than for the parent to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the sizes of all trucks over decades of model years. Plus, they have already pointed out the Tacoma, at least, as having grown.
> Last I checked this (common) misconception is patently false.
This is merely an assertion with no more evidence than the parent. To flip your question: Can you provide examples of small truck models to back up your claim?
The Tacoma's weight has increased from the 3155 lbs. - 3877 lbs range when it was first released [0], to now being in the 4,425 lbs. – 4,480 lbs range [1]. In comparison, the 2020 Ford F-150 weighs in the range of 4,069 lbs – 4,653 lbs [2]. For fairness, a Ford F-150 from 1995, the first year that the Tacoma came out, weighed around 4,316 lbs [3]. So, they are in fact the same weight.
Similarly, the length of the Tacoma was 30-40 inches shorter when it was released [0][1]. Now, it is within the range of a modern F-150 [2].
In conclusion, the Tacoma has increased substantially in size since its introduction (the Wikipedia page mentions it was reclassified from a compact pickup to a midsize pickup), and is now on par with a Ford F-150 (both modern and the 1995 version) in terms of weight and length.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma#First_generation... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma#Third_generation... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series_(thirteenth_gene... [3] https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/1995/features-specs/
This proves false the the assertion that a modern Tacoma is bigger than an old F150, but glad I could get downvoted by people with no mental rigor.
Side note, no one would call a Tacoma "compact". It was a small pickup in 1995 when it was introduced and now people call a 'midsize' truck.
"Some carmakers are now leaving out high-end features as a result of the chip shortage, according to a Bloomberg report on Thursday.
Nissan is reportedly leaving navigation systems out of cars that would normally have them, while Ram Trucks has stopped equipping its 1500 pickups with a standard “intelligent” rearview mirror that monitors for blind spots"
I have an unpopular opinion, especially when we start to look at the increase of safety features and increase in pedestrian injuries, that we may be better off going back to smaller trucks designed for good visibility and less reliance on features. (bias: I drive a 16 year old wagon, and feel panicked around bicycling with what feels like more trucks in the US)
---
"Hertz said it is “supplementing” its fleet “by purchasing low-mileage, preowned vehicles” from auctions and dealerships."
I find it wild that just a year ago Hertz filed for bankruptcy [0] and was selling vehicles by end of year [1].
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/business/hertz-bankruptcy/ind...
[1]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/hertz-must-offload...