Americans are mocked worldwide for their ridiculous cars. Oversized, gas guzzling, ostentatious, and yes - fetishized cars are associated with Americans worldwide.

> It's not some insidious plot to keep you from walking around your city.

OP didn't say it is. However car manufacturers did in fact plot - conspired, even - to attack trams, public transport, trains, and anything else that could threaten their dominance. That's just well known fact, and I don't know why you're defending any of this.

Have you ever actually traveled outside America and seen how much nicer it is to be able to walk around a city that isn't designed completely around cars? It's a far, far superior daily experience.

But remind me. Where are BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Jaguar, Rolls Royce, and others HQ’d?

While Americans have larger vehicles we also have more space and unfortunately a society designed around cars. I don’t get how we are “fetishizing” cars when almost all of the actual fetish vehicles are designed in other countries. Everyday people buying a giant SUV are almost certainly not fetishizing it. They just have 3 kids and it’s easy and they sit up high on the road.

I agree completely with the rest of your post, though. I’m experiencing some schadenfreude (not in a serious manner) with those multi-car households and giant gas-guzzling vehicles having to experience a bit of the costs for the world they advocate for when they typically do not. Problem is they vote, even against their (and my) long-term interests.

Those cars are designed in other countries to be larger specifically for America taste.

Americans visit Europe and chuckle at the "tiny" cars, which are in fact perfectly appropriate for three children. And those cars were designed by the same companies for European standards.

To me, that reads as fetishization on a mass cultural level, and while you can point the finger anywhere you like that fact will remain at the core.

There is no justification, on a planet burning faster every year, for the ridiculously oversized cars Americans choose. None.

You're mixing up a preference based on no immediate negative repercussions with Pimp My Ride. Believe it or not, Americans are just regular people. Immigrants to the U.S. don't walk from point to point, they buy large SUVs too.

If Americans are burning the planet (and we are, to be clear, with bone-headed city and urban planning decisions) than auto manufacturers from other countries absolutely share the blame, including their employees (to the same extent you'd blame an American for buying a large SUV) for selling the fuel and matches and advertising how cool the fuel and matches are, especially when used together.

Which facts? Can you provide some sources?

You may be genuine, in which case I recommend using literally any search engine on the device of your choice to find sources which you like. Wikipedia, YouTube, or deeper - there is no shortage of sources - all you have to do is look.

Americans mock other nations for all sorts of shit that isn't true, like French people not showering or Germans sounding/being angry all the time. Should we take those thoughts seriously because a lot of people think them?

Americans do buy a lot of pickups. Many of these get decent gas mileage. A lot of people use these for work. Crossovers are the biggest new sellers (over 50% of new sales, if my memory serves me correctly), which get marginally worse mileage than the cars they're directly descended from. The size of all of these vehicles is prodded along by "safety" regulations and ratings, where a higher hood height is correlated with the driver/passengers being safer in accidents (this has its own problems but it's a different discussion).

I think you have an exaggerated view of what US auto consumer preferences look like. This is really easy because the whole "the US is a shithole with no redeeming qualities" narrative is popular among some crowds, but it doesn't reflect the reality of what's happening.

>However car manufacturers did in fact plot - conspired, even - to attack trams, public transport, trains, and anything else that could threaten their dominance. That's just well known fact, and I don't know why you're defending any of this.

Those plots and attacks range from completely unverifiable conspiracy theories, to unintended consequences, to actions that one might reasonably argue were an attempt to interfere with public transit. It is nowhere near as cut and dry as you're making it out to be, and trying to claim that some unproven conspiracy by Big Car is the primary reason the US is so dependent on cars today is myopic. You've suggested that others in this thread "just Google it", but some of the first results you're going to see when researching this subject touch pretty heavily on what I've said above -- the person asking you for some sources probably wasn't a "sealion" (whatever that is), they probably already did what you told them to, and some of the highest ranking info directly contradicted your argument.

>Have you ever actually traveled outside America and seen how much nicer it is to be able to walk around a city that isn't designed completely around cars? It's a far, far superior daily experience.

Nobody is denying that it's nicer to be able to walk around a city without having to deal with cars and traffic. The discussion is whether or not it is even feasible to have that anywhere in the US to the extent that other places do.

That's not an argument that applies here, because Americans actually do buy stupidly big cars.

> I think you have an exaggerated view of what US auto consumer preferences look like. This is really easy because [overly defensive strawman]

No, I don't. Here's some numbers, which you could have looked for yourself, with the search engine of your choice:

" According to data from IHS Automotive, larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013. Meanwhile, large vehicles only accounted for 25.4 percent of all vehicles sold outside the US during the same year."

> Those plots and attacks range from completely unverifiable conspiracy theories, to unintended consequences, to actions that one might reasonably argue were an attempt to interfere with public transit.

The cars are bigger. The cities are less livable. The conspiracies are verifiable, there are entire books, documentaries, and Wikipedia pages about the various fuckeries involved.

You seem to be rather defensive about this though, so feel free to think whatever you like.

> The discussion is whether or not it is even feasible to have that anywhere in the US

That may be what you wish to discuss - fine. You can have that discussion somewhere else, with someone else. It is feasible though - and necessary. Again, the fucking planet is burning.

"Larger" is doing some really heavy lifting, and that data is not capturing the large market share gains crossovers have made in the last decade.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...

45% of all vehicles sold in the US in mid 2020 to mid 2021 were crossovers, which are almost without exception based on a "small car" platform and have similar fuel efficiency numbers. You're finding data that has some arbitrary definition of "large" -- from what I can tell, IHS would count an Impreza as "small" and a Forester as "large", and that is completely worthless for backing up a claim that Americans overwhelmingly drive gas-guzzling vehicles. The shift in focus to crossovers in the strategy of large auto manufacturers active in the US is glaringly obvious and you not realizing this is either a matter of you not paying attention or just willfully ignoring it.

>You seem to be rather defensive about this though, so feel free to think whatever you like.

I'm not even disagreeing with you that it happened in some circumstances, I'm just saying that you're massively overselling the importance of it. It's hard to even engage with this; you just keep saying that there's verifiable instances of it that are as impactful as you're claiming, but then refuse to provide specific examples that might make me reconsider my position. If it's so easy to find info about, just link it and we can be on the same page.

>That may be what you wish to discuss - fine. You can have that discussion somewhere else, with someone else. It is feasible though - and necessary. Again, the fucking planet is burning.

If you're just going to straight-up make very, very debatable assertions (like reducing American car dependence in favor of public transit being feasible) with nothing to back it up, there's no discussion to be had here. We get that America is car dependent, that we should reduce carbon emissions, that the climate apocalypse is imminent, etc. so if we're just going to go over that ad nauseam we're just wasting our time.

I assume they know how to sell, and that fetishisation works.

>It's not some insidious plot to keep you from walking around your city.

It's exactly that. "Jaywalking" was promoted by the US auto industry. It doesn't exist in most countries.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

I'm still waiting for a coherent challenge that isn't 1) we need to completely change the economy and how geography works because climate change; or, 2) I don't like the people who really like cars.