People in this thread keep dancing around it but I think nobody has outright said it yet. Maybe it's as simple as: aggressive, belligerent truck styling is uniquely fashionable in America because American culture is getting more and more aggressive and belligerent. Maybe I'm browsing too much r/PublicFreakout, but in the last few years, there's been a visible rise in road rage, people berating service workers, belligerent angry protesting, people trashing businesses over minor transgressions, people losing their shit on airliners, and so on. The public is turning into "that guy in the bar constantly looking for a fight." It shouldn't be surprising that trucks styled such that they look like they're about to bludgeon you are more and more fashionable. Admittedly, this is more of a political statement based on anecdotes than one that comes out of research and data, but hey, this is HN, not Nature.
EDIT: Whether this has anything to do with current car design trends is a different question though :P
It isn't just trucks. Someone posted a picture of a BMW sedan with a really big grille in this very thread. The Toyota Camrys* even has a similar design: https://www.cars.com/articles/how-the-2018-toyota-camrys-tri....
> The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
It's just a big grille. I think the "aggression" aspect is more in the eye of the beholder (or the trolling concept).
> I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
Assuming that's true, are you interpreting the word "aggressive" correctly? It has many senses besides "hostility", e.g.:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggressive:
> 3 : strong or emphatic in effect or intent
> aggressive colors
> aggressive flavors
The “aggressive” in the exec’s comment is my paraphrase, because I’m still looking for the original. It might have been “angry” or “violent,” for all I remember. Either way, the implication was clear: the trucks are meant to project hostility, not flamboyance.
The point is it seems to be a general trend not exclusive to pickup trucks, which some blogger tendentiously latched onto get clicks by stirring up controversy and exploiting pickup truck hate.
It sounds like you're taking personal umbrage at the fact that people don't like these pickup trucks. I think it's worth taking a step back: I don't mind pickup trucks; I'd even go as far so say that I appreciate them for their place in the US's culture and history. But that doesn't mean I can't observe a trend, one that dovetails with latent anti-environmentalism, general disdain or disregard for pedestrians and other road traffic, &c.
I don't know why you're so invested in salvaging that blogger's clickbait, against pretty compelling evidence. If it's a general trend, it makes no sense to read it as especially significant when applied to pickup trucks.
> It sounds like you're taking personal umbrage at the fact that people don't like these pickup trucks.
No, I just don't think it's a good idea to take clickbait or some random hot take as showing some kind of essential truth, especially in an area where there are biases to profitably exploit.
The Jalopnik article is indeed a random hot take. But that doesn't mean the underlying claim ("pickup trucks are designed to be visually aggressive, and are marketed to their target customer base on that basis") is factually incorrect. I'm not aware of any bias that that's exploiting, other than the general aesthetic displeasure I see at a car that looks like it hates everything outside of it.
Because European pedestrian safety requirements all but demand big bulbous front ends, it's uneconomical to design that much of a car or SUV twice and a fugly grill is the solution OEMs have deemed most effective at prettying that up. The trucks are all but forced to copy the same rough shapes because "brand identity" and "design language".
Aggressive styling and goes over the decades. You can make these cars look however you want with a little bit of black plastic and fake chrome with no impact on safety. The actual underlying shapes and dimensions that you are muddying the waters by conflating with aggression are driven by technical requirements.
American pickup truck design is overwhelmingly influenced by American market trends, since that’s where they’re being sold. And the domestic market likes aggressive designs, and does not particularly care about pedestrian safety[2].
[1]: https://www.autonews.com/sales/pickups-europeans-say-thanks-...
[2]: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
It is, however, influenced by European regulations to the extent that American pickup makers desire a) to sell in the European market at all and b) desire to minimise re-engineering costs.
If they have any presence at all then they are subject to European regulations of one form or another.
This is a weird indirection to introduce: of course it’s fashionable. The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
I used Jalopnik as a source, since they’re a well known car website. I’ll try to find additional sources; I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.