Well I don't think it would be that much different, truthfully. The problem of the suburbs is a matter of layout and zoning, not so much the vehicles used. If you fix the layout and zoning it'll naturally reduce vehicle size.

Would better zoning have a bigger impact? Of course.

But it would definitely make an impact. If you are driving a Honda fit, there is no distance at which you can’t see my kids.

In a ford f-150, the driver probably needs to be at least a dozen feet away to see my kids

Yea you're right about that. I didn't mean to imply otherwise though it seems I did.

I guess what I meant to say was, to actually solve this problem we also need structural changes so that even driving one of these vehicles in our cities is a bit uncomfortable and so that it's less common precisely because of the reason you specified and many more.

As we build and design better cities, people will naturally not want to buy such vehicles except if they have actual needs for them. I mean, you should be able to buy whatever you want. If you want a giant truck by all means go for it, but society shouldn't cater to edge cases, especially when they cause hazards like the one you described.

I think you probably know this because you used the US name for the car (internationally known as the Jazz), but for those who don’t, Honda discontinued the Fit in the US market due to poor sales. For every internet comment bemoaning the lack of these vehicles there’s the actual fact of revealed consumer preference in the US market.

Much of consumer preference doesn't originate from the consumers' own minds, though. It's shaped largely by marketing, and in the US car companies have been pushing bigger, boxier, more plush, and more expensive with its ad spend and incentives for decades now. It's way easier to find a dealership offering 0%-2% financing on some aircraft carrier of a vehicle than it is on a small car.

Americans' appetite for small cars seems to be linked pretty closely to the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline. Automakers always want to push more premium vehicles, because they make their margins selling to people with more money to buy more features, more space, more performance. The low end of the market is lower margin and you have to make up for it with volume.

When we hit another recession, we'll see smaller cars appear again.

Fuel coast only go up and never down. The market and politicians make it seem like it will go down but in the end it still rises slowly. This is something that most people cannot understand nor want to.

I drive a car and will never buy a truck or SUV because it allows me spend the least amount on fuel. It also allows me to see in front of the vehicle while making it easier to maneuver in tight spots.

American car culture is built on self projection not about functionality.

Great example of this are people who say they bought a truck so the can take home large items from a hardware store. Yet they only will do this less than ten times a year ... making renting a truck and owning a car more economical in the long run.

Evolution of the tuck bed being 60% and cap being 40% in the 1950s to cab being 60% and bed being 60% shows it is not even about functionality of a truck being a truck.

If I have to haul something, I will rent and not waste my time and money maintaining a large vehicle.

The real cost of fuel absolutely goes up and down. It has bounced back and forth between $2 and $6 of today's money for the past century.

If you're looking only at nominal figures, then what you're seeing is the inflation of the dollar, not the change in how much gasoline costs.

This is a roundabout way of saying Americans are willing to spend more money on bigger car because they like them better.

Aside from urban cores with limited parking and lots of narrow streets, it’s obvious that “bigger” means more utility regardless of marketing. You can fit more people and more stuff more comfortably (apparently people really prefer the spacious people room even above room for stuff). People are not being brainwashed by ads.