My observation is that in many countries people want to drive big cars but only in US non-negligible fraction of population can afford it: combination of 5th highest median income in the world, low (relative to the EU) fuel (and electricity) prices and availability of parking for large cars. A state can counter this by higher taxes, but looks like support for this is not broad enough.

That would seriously depend on 'what part' of California you are talking about. In the cities and down south where parking and traffic are huge factors, you bet. But the farther north you go the more trucks and large SUVs you will see on the road. California is far too big to be treated as a single entity when it comes to anything.

Arguments that the empty part of California is huge and therefore important baffle me. 99% of Californians live south of Yuba City. 90% of them live south of Lodi. Half of them live south of Ventura.

Yes the incredibly empty "Empty Quarter" of the state is large, and empty. As in nobody lives there. The best-selling vehicle in Modoc County may or may not be a truck, but the fact is of no interest.

> In the cities and down south where parking and traffic are huge factors

Really, INME, just “in the cities” (with maybe also the coastal mountain areas between the coastal cities). The inland rural south is no different than the inland rural north in this respect, AFAICT.

But the population is largely in the cities.

>Fuel prices and registration fees are only slightly higher in California but that small economic nudge is enough to knock trucks completely out of the ranks of best-selling vehicles in that state.

I'd be cautious about blaming it all on fuel prices. I'd argue that the increased wealth of California residents relative to the rest of the country also plays a part in why a vehicle that is too expensive for most people made it so high on that list in California.

Trucks aren't especially cheap.

2022 Ford F-150 XL: $30,870[0]

Tesla Model 3: $46,990[1]

[0]https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/?intcmp=vhp-attribut...

[1]https://www.tesla.com/model3/design

That price is for a V6 (not ecoboost), single-cab, short-bed F-150 that doesn't even have power locks or windows. Those trucks aren't generally sold to consumers. Minimally, you're looking at at least $35,515 for an XL Super Cab, but more than likely you're looking at a minimum cost of $41,755 for an XLT. KBB's data [1] reported that the average cost in 2018 for an F-150 was $47,174 before fees.

[1] https://www.kbb.com/reviews/pricing-your-next-ford-f-150-it-...

Not sure what you were trying to cherry-pick there, but in general trucks cost more than cars, and this has been the case for decades. The recent new record highs for average new light vehicle price has been largely driven by a continued shift toward trucks and away from cars.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1168-janu...

> This is not because of some innate character of Americans, it is because of specific state policies and subsidies.

I would argue it's more because auto manufacturers wish to streamline their production lines. Body-on-frame is very flexible and allows them to re-use most components across different products.

The marketing departments then produce Television ads questioning your masculinity if you don't drive a vehicle based on a commercial truck frame. Suddenly "it's what the customer demands".

> Fuel prices and registration fees are only slightly higher in California

I'm not sure what the prices and fees are in California, but for comparison, in Mississippi it costs me about $45/year for registration and today I paid $4.17 for fuel. If I recall correctly, vehicles newer than 20 years old can cost significantly more to register here, but I don't have anything that new.