Just gonna keep posting this
tfw your Silverado has worse forward obstruction visibility than an M1 Abrams MBT
Both hilarious and infuriating.
I love how they throw in a peterbuilt and an M1 Abraham for reference lol
This is posted in metric so it doesn’t apply to the U.S.
And it doesn’t even properly show how long and wide those vehicles are.
Truck and SUV size has gotten absolutely ridiculous.
They barely fit in parking spaces. Usually you see the ass of them sticking out.
They should make a version of the chart with model years included. I need a truck for work, but I’ll be looking for a 90’s or older next because the new ones are all too tall with no real utility benefit.
deleted by creator
I just want a bench, no rear seats, and a bed. Yet pretty much everything has that massive crew cab, bucket seats, and often a tiny bed.
Trucks aren’t supposed to be comfortable, they’re supposed to be work horses.
deleted by creator
It’s past time to require a commercial driver’s license to drive one and a business permit on file to buy one. Your average person can rent one when they need the utility of a truck bed.
Or how about the more simpler solution of changing the emissions regulations so trucks and SUVs have to meet the same targets as all the other vehicles.
And if you really want to encourage things even more they could also remove the tariffs on light trucks while increasing the sales tax on large trucks and SUVs.
I think in the truck culture the damage is already done. At this point we need to deal with the demand to have those kinds of trucks.
the hilarious irony is that modern trucks are often useless for hauling any decent loads because they’re crew cabs and jacked up for no fucking reason. To purchase a truck with a large bed often requires a special order and weeks of waiting.
Those fucking pussies all cry like a little girl when you point out what a useless waste they are, and then start inventing all kinds of reasons why they need one.
They are a recent creation; all the rhings you claim you need to haul with them are not.
I have a weird truck, it’s a ten year old F150 with a single cab and an 8 foot bed. It’s the only one I see that isn’t obviously a company truck, and it used to be a hardware store rental truck. It carries building materials, motorcycles, junk to the dump, all with the tailgate safely closed. I don’t like the little 5 foot beds on the crew cab trucks, it’s like you have this giant truck and all you can carry are small things. It’s as useful as a Ford Taurus.
At least, something more than a standard drivers license. A CDL covers things like air brakes or railroad crossing that aren’t necessary for most of the vehicles in question. But a more graduated standard, absolutely.
I need a truck for agricultural purposes, but don’t want to purchase a ToddlerKiller4000. Short of inventing a time machine and traveling back to an era of car-sized rather than tank-sized pickups, my options are pretty slim. Fuck me, right?
My whole family were farmers and one of my cousins jacked his truck up so much it could only pull one of his wagons…
People still give him shit, even tho it was like 20 years ago.
Point being, the stupid shit you see isn’t even practical. The only point of giant modern trucks is helping men with low self esteem. And it doesn’t even help them, it just makes them keep wanting an even bigger truck than everyone else.
Which is why they’ve been consistently getting bigger for decades.
It’s hilarious if you ever off-road.
They’re really shit off tarmac driving anything through anything more advanced than a field. Too long wheel base, far too wide, shit turning cycle, too long nose, not enough weight on the rear wheels when not fully loaded.
You can run rings around them on an off-road track in a Suzuki Jimny or even a 50 year old Lada.
But obviously don’t tell the truck people that. These are cars that are sold on the idea of being able to drive off into the wilderness at a moment’s notice. Pointing out that’s a lie, that they just spent too much money that if anything offers them less freedom than a conventional car, often results in an emotional reaction.
I love my Subaru forester. It is nice enough inside to drive 4 people comfortably but with the back seats down and a tarp spread out I can carry a good sized load of mulch, bales, etc. I was even able to cram an 8 ft ladder into it with the passenger seat pushed forward and the ladder laid out diagonally. I’ve even slept in it. It has enough clearance that I can drive it on really rough forest roads to trailheads. I’m a big guy and it is much more comfortable for me to get into vs something like a Civic. My dad liked it a lot because with his very weak legs he could easily sit in it and swing his legs in and out. He liked it so much he even bought one.
If I ever need a truck I’ll save myself thousands of bucks by just renting one for those rare times. I’ve done it at Lowe’s and it was a no brainer.
These are cars that are sold on the idea of being able to drive off into the wilderness at a moment’s notice.
I suspect that is the selling point behind the majority of Jeeps with winches you see on the road that probably have never left pavement.
They’re suburb commuter pavement princesses and not work vehicles anymore.
I own an '01 3/4 ton suburban for boat and camper hauling. It’s small compared to a stock 1/2 ton today. The top of their beds is almost at my roofline. All that size increase comes with very little gain besides dick measuring it seems. I will never understand why people buy them, especially for 60k+.
More money more dick.
Fortunately, those 12% APR loans they use to buy them are bankrupting them. I have to view this as an exercise in social darwinism.
deleted by creator
When I had to buy a new car a guy at work who was big into cars asked me what I was getting and gave me grief for not getting a big truck. I asked him why I would want such an impractical and expensive truck for just myself (and I lived in an apartment) and he only gave me macho signaling answers.
I guess in other climates it’s different, but over here people get vans for that. Can I interest you in the concept of “what if your pickup truck had a roof and also wasn’t grotesquely oversized?”
Although, I’m looking at this year’s Renault Trafic and that front is actually starting to get concerning, tbh.
I have a minivan currently and they’re so practical for the average American. Hauling stuff? Put the seats down, and your “bed” is longer than almost any pickup’s, plus it’s protected from the elements. Hauling people? Seats go up, and it will fit seven people. Even though you sit high up the grill is angled downward, meaning better visibility AND in a crash will throw the victim over the car rather than under (way better likelihood for survival). They also tend to get decent mileage compared to trucks. Hell they even make for a great camping vehicle: no tent needed, just throw a sleeping pad in the back with the seats down and call it a night. It’s such a shame that they were branded as soccer mom vehicles, because a lot of folks buying trucks for their “practicality” would be better served with a minivan.
However! They are not good for: carrying loose gravel/soil/mulch/manure, transporting livestock, traveling on 4WD roads and other rough terrain, hauling a trailer, or moving stuff that’s tall but cannot be tipped on its side. The carrying/hauling capacity is really low, the ground clearance minimal, and the carpet-like interior gets dirty really easily. These are not tasks that the average customer is going to undertake often, and I’ve creatively worked around many of these limitations in the past for one-off instances, but it’s definitely not an everyday-use farm vehicle.
A work van is not a minivan.
Refer to the video I posted above. The first comment mentioning those things seemed a bit confusing at first, but I’m starting to think maybe Americans don’t have a notion of what a work van looks like? That’s… a thing I learned today.
I know what a work van is, but I only have minimal experience with them so instead I critiqued my extensive experience with minivans vs pickups. A work van could address some, but not all, of the issues I outlined. The bigger issue is that it’s still a MUCH larger vehicle than I want or need. I’d rather a small pickup and a detachable trailer for when I’ve especially large jobs to handle. I’d even consider importing a kei truck if they were A) road legal and B) available in automatic.
Ah, gotcha. I was confused because whenever the point of pickups comes up people keep bringing up having to use them for work, and in my mind that’s what vans are for. I’ve been taken to school in a van before, but that’s not the point of them.
I think over here people would instead get a hatchback and a van if they had to do both things. That’d probably cost the same amount of money and be more practical. And you’d have two cars by the end of it.
Oh, and there definitely are work vans sized like minivans. That’s the entire point of the Kangoo, as far as I can tell. It’s basically a minivan you can choose to get with or without seats.
EDIT: Oh, hey, apparently you CAN buy a Kangoo with a closed cabin, too. I said earlier that you couldn’t.
Plenty of agricultural stuff you don’t want to share a roof with. And you want a hard bed that you can hose off.
The Trafic in particular has a separated cabin and the floor of that thing is pretty much one layer of sheet metal between the wheels. You’re good on both counts.
It does smell… eh… agricultural inside one of those after a while, of course. It’s kinda nostalgic for me at this point.
For the really nasty stuff people here just get a trolley to hook up to a jeep or a tractor and a bit of patience. Or, you know, sealed containers. Trust me, people do haul a lot of smelly stuff and I haven’t seen anybody who owns an open bed pickup truck in my life. I know more people who moved stuff around with oxen than with pickup trucks. It works.
Wouldn’t be able to pick up chem in it, and you’re welcome to throw a dead, half-eaten calf in your van, but I’d rather throw it in my truck bed and hose the contents of the intestines out later.
Like I said, for the really nasty, loose stuff people would just throw an open bed trolley in the back of a different vehicle and do it that way.
I don’t know what you carry, but I’m pretty sure you can do both of those things in a van if you have to. At most you may want to put a tarp underneath first. And you can hose it later. Again, I don’t think Americans are picturing what the back of a work van looks like or how it gets used. If you fully open the back and side doors at once you actually get direct access to more of the floor than you do in a pickup bed.
Ya, I don’t get why people get bogged down with the van thing. It’s some hollier than thou stuff. And I love my van.
The problem with modern pickups is that they are too huge and used too often as commuter vehicles. And a v8 van would have the same issues. The pickup design is still better suited for a lot of things.
It’s not holier than thou, I literally have never seen a pickup truck in my life outside of the times I’ve been in North America for work. I’m just trying to explain why.
But then I just read the words “A v8 van”, so I don’t think that I’m gonna bridge this particular cultural divide here.
Well, then you probably are just unaware that small pickups used to be incredibly common, and a lot of people still have them, which is why your arguments sound pedantic.
Similarly, there are both large and small vans. So, it does sound pretentious to act like a covered bed is so superior to an open bed. It’s just preference at that point.
And I’m thinking, all things being equal, putting a metal roof over my cargo area would just add weight anyway. I guess it’s not built for towing like my 1-ton is, so maybe that’s a weight savings, but it’s also not built for towing which would make it unusable for most farmwork.
We have tractors for that.
What I’m starting to realize is that despite Americans seemingly being car-first in so many facets the entire narrative around the humongous cars seems to be to have a one-size-fits-all car that is supposed to do everything. Wanna carry manure? Pickup truck. Wanna carry kids to school? Pickup truck. Seemingly want to drag a plow? Pickup truck.
A person with what we’d call a “farm”, or at least a person in a rural area who has animals and plants vegetables in a field (I also think the concept of “farm” is different) would instead have different, cheaper vehicles for all of those. A small tractor head, or a big tractor if you have a lot of land and it’s worth the money, then a van, then a small car, then Jeep or a Range Rover if you need to go offroad and tow a lot.
Do Americans in rural areas just have a different pickup for each person working there instead? That seems insane.
I was honestly not thinking this conversation would reveal one of the biggest challenges to visualize the logic of a different culture I’ve had this week.
Sure but you could do that with a regular-sized truck too.
This particular thread started with op saying they wanted a small truck. A lot of people out here are fighting ghosts with strong car shape superiority complexes.
Japanese mini trucks are outstanding for true agricultural purposes. You have options for dump beds and completely removable (or flip-down) bed sides for super easy side loading. They’re cheap and super economical.
Crash safety is the biggest drawback, so true road-worthiness is iffy (depending on how much the cops in your area care about that sort of thing). But if you’re looking for utility on private property, these things rule.
As mentioned in another comment, I would totally consider importing a kei truck except they’re not street legal in the US and AFAIK they’re not available in automatic.
Toyota pickups are also extremely popular with militias and small militaries who slap a heavy machine gun or AA gun on the bed.
https://jalopnik.com/this-is-how-sudanese-militants-get-their-hands-on-so-ma-1842818238
Yeah from what i could tell theres literally no small or mid size options currently
Based on what I’ve seen, the Ford Maverick is still pretty mid sized relative to the rest. The Hyundai Santa Cruz is pretty small, but might not be practical if you’re actually hauling stuff on the regular, as it’s more like a car+truck hybrid
Relative to the rest is the keyword there. I think the maverick is marketed as a midsize, but its significantly larger than older midsizes.
So disappointed in the new ranger. It’s not a damn ranger.
I had a 98 ranger for farm work. The new ranger is as big as the old F150.
Ya, for sure, I just saw a 90s f150 in the parking lot. I think the new ranger is actually bigger.
Hilux?
deleted by creator
Toyota makes way too much money off of the Tacoma is why specifically. The Hilux would undermine that market by being significantly cheaper. People are willing to pay ridiculous amounts, even for used Tacomas.
deleted by creator
Oh that sucks, we can’t buy the Tacoma in UK but thank fuck because it has a larger footprint than my driveway
Buy a used Nissan Frontier?
I wonder if a Holden Ute is available in LHD
I guess so. The blind hatred in this thread is insane. Apparently, if you drive a big truck, you hate the planet, are a chronic tailgater, have a loud exhaust, and are an alcoholic.
Like damn bro, I’m just trying to haul some shit around. If there was a better way, I’m all ears.
The FuckCars people like to overstate their case and make unnecessary enemies while also having fundamentally good ideas. It is known.
The automotive talk on lemmy is an echo chamber full of the most annoying people you could imagine.
In my experience, I’ve noted that truck drivers are on avg more likely to be shitty egotistical drivers.
I think it’s bc they have small dicks, and they feel safe in their giant metal death machine. Nice n cozy, perfectly ready to tailgate a Mazda MX-5
Sadly, we cannot really ban them as they are utility vehicles that a small portion of the population needs. However, I still see freakin’ ads that frame them as fancy cars.
“The new Amarok V6. Pick-up truck for every day. Powerful and comfortable”I suggest making it illegal to buy them without a registered company or have them in any color other than matte excavator yellow (for construction) or green camo (for hunting and forestry).
I disagree on all accounts. Instead of banning/restricting trucks, we should instead make them less convenient and more expensive. So:
- restructure cities to be transit and pedestrian first, not traffic first - see The Netherlands
- charge vehicle registration fees based on curb weight, since heavier vehicles destroy roads more; multiply this by miles driven, less any documentation the owner has about driving on private land
- charge an extra fee for vehicles falling net mpg targets; don’t special case SUVs and trucks, just tax them (and have certain exceptions to the tax, like if you actually use the higher passenger capacity of minivans, have a farm, etc)
The taxes would go toward pedestrian and transit infrastructure to offset the lower efficiency and greater danger larger vehicles pose.
They are already expensive. People feel it is ok to have an insane monthly truck payment because they must have a massive truck.
At a certain point, it won’t make sense. But cost alone isn’t going to solve it, hence the need to rework infrastructure to make owning massive cars inconvenient. If driving takes twice as long as the train, far fewer people would drive, and that eventually kills the car culture.
Yes, of course. I am not entirely serious with this plan either – there is no way you could convince existing owners to have them recolored.
They’re already expensive and inconvenient.
The problem is that (many) Americans are emotionally unfulfilled consumers first and contributing members of their communities second, or third… or last, if at all.
Most of the people driving these vehicles only care about themselves. They’ll removed and moan about these restrictions you’d like but they’ll still buy them because their egos are so utterly fragile.
And for those who have legit reasons to operate one of these vehicles, we’ll end up subsidizing the commercial fees as write offs with taxpayer dollars.As with many hot topic issues, it’s easy to apply band-aids detrimental to one group while appeasing another group – but the core of the issue still remains.
I’d argue that Americans are poorly compensated for their labor, our culture applauds those who work the hardest for the least reward, the family and community structures are sacrificed in exchange for appearing financially powerful. Our culture is about what you’ve acquired, not what you’ve given (other than your time). A big truck says you’ve acquired a lot.
Regulations for corporations permit them to grow and advertise without enough accountability – specifically in how their “freedom of speech” impacts the perception and lives of everyday Americans. Corporations are motivated by profits and returns more than they are consumer satisfaction or safety. As long as consumers keep believing these big trucks are what they need to show how much they’ve acquired, how financially powerful they are, vehicle makers will keep increasing prices while reducing costs to get a better return on Wall Street investments.
we’ll end up subsidizing the commercial fees as tax write offs with taxpayer dollars
That’s not really how it works though. All that does is move money from one bucket into another. Yeah, maybe your federal income tax receipts will go down marginally, but you’ll need to allocate less of your budget to infrastructure since that’s being funded by the tax.
It’s really not an issue.
the core of the issue still remains
A huge part of the core of the issue is our car-centric culture, as in we’ve equated driving a car with freedom somehow such that waiting in traffic is preferable to sitting on a train actually getting somewhere because you’re in your car.
To solve that, we need to drastically change city centers to be inconvenient to navigate by car. We do this by eliminating car corridors in cities, which pushes cars to the outside along a belt routes. Every part of the city is still accessible by car , it just takes longer. This allows lots of good things to happen, such as:
- lower taxes - fewer roads means less road maintenance
- safer streets for pedestrians, cyclists, etc
- more room for parks and other green space
- longer distance, high speed rail travel becomes cost effective - you’d need to ride an airplane (with the security nonsense) far less frequently
Once people no longer need cars to get around, the culture can change. That’s precisely what happened in the Netherlands (they used to be very car centric), and it can happen elsewhere too.
People will always want status symbols, but perhaps they’ll pick more environmentally friendly ones if cars aren’t as central to the culture, such as jewelry or designer clothing. Ideally they’d pick fully funded retirement accounts instead, but that’s not as flashy.
Corporations are motivated by profits
And that’ll always be true.
Instead of trying to restrict how they can make profits (they’ll just lobby for carveouts in any regulation that impacts them), governments should instead try to change the demand side of the equation. For example:
- If large cars are causing issues, redo the roads so big cars are less convenient. Also raise gas taxes, registration taxes, etc.
- If suburbs are causing too much sprawl, increase property taxes, build more high density housing, and build commuter rail to other dense cities.
And along with all this, government agencies should be producing high quality research to present to the populace in an effective way (hire an actual marketing team, don’t just publish papers).
The trick is to get the ball rolling. Someone needs to pilot these ideas to show they work, then others will follow suit.
huge part of the core of the issue is our car-centric culture, as in we’ve equated driving a car with freedom somehow such that waiting in traffic is preferable to sitting on a train actually getting somewhere because you’re in your car.
I’m sorry but you already lost me right here. This is an ignorant ideology in this vast country. I live in a city and don’t own a car, so I appreciate the sentiment (big fan of a Climate Town and Not Just Bikes). But man, it’s just ignorant.
As I said, no one cares about increased costs. Taxes are good for funding programs, not so much for restricting stuff.
If you think suburbs are cheaper to live than cities, you really are in need of some perspective. You think people want to live in cities? Or are you suggesting we force people to move to cities? Whut?People, sorry, Americans don’t want better public transportation or infrastructure. They want better ways to travel by themselves in large cars with the greatest convenience.
Again, I appreciate the idea that we need better public transportation and infrastructure (especially as I have travel for the holidays coming up). You’re just not going to ‘legislate away’ people’s desire to be independent. It’s the epitome of the United States’ culture.
I mean, you’ve got a better argument if you make claims that we should bring factory jobs back to inner-cities. That, or something similar, motivates populations to engage with cities at all and creates the demand for better transportation infrastructure. But most people already don’t need the cars they have. They buy their four door pick up truck for that one time they might need the capacity of the course of ownership. I’d venture to guess most sedan owners don’t ever even carry more than one passenger.
Granted, historically, persistent high gas prices have driven people to downsize their vehicles. So there’s some evidence that this has the desired effect. But legislators aren’t going to do this as a tax to force the public to buy smaller cars. They’re more motivated by generating profits for car makers so they can employ more people (in theory). Still, I think it’s up for debate if people would choose a smaller car or the same big car with a smaller (or electric) engine.
suburbs are cheaper to live in than cities
They are in my area and everywhere I’ve lived. Rent alone is 2x the price vs my area about 20 miles outside the city center, and property often has a larger gap. Basic needs like groceries and services are also cheaper.
The difference has closed a bit in the last couple years, but it’s still cheaper in the suburbs, provided you have a decent way to get to work.
And yes, I think people do want to live in cities. I would if it made financial sense, and my coworkers are similar. But only like 10% of people in my office (that I interact with with to know) live within 10 min of my office, mostly due to cost, and that’s with transit completely sucking to my office (it would take 2 hours by transit, vs 30 min by car). One lives an hour away by car!
force people to move to cities
Absolutely not! I’m merely saying we should make driving in cities more restrictive, to the point where it’s faster for most people to use transit or ride a bike. That can drastically reduce traffic, infrastructure costs, and in many cases average commute time.
Americans don’t want better public transportation
Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to that has visited Europe praises their train infrastructure, which works for tourists and commuters alike. And when I ask if they’re interested in seeing the same here, they say it “wouldn’t work here.”
I really don’t buy that argument. Yes, America is bigger, but we have very dense regions where transit absolutely makes sense. NYC’s subways are world famous, so it’s not like people are against mass transit, they just prefer the option that’s more convenient and faster. In NYC, that’s the subway, but much of the rest of the country has invested in their roads way more so transit tends to be a worse experience than driving.
I grew up near Seattle, and they finally put in a commuter rail line after decades of some of the worst traffic in the country. I now live near SLC, which had way better transit with a much smaller population over the same period. In fact, I think SLC is still way ahead of Seattle because the transit system actually works cohesively, vs in Seattle where there are like three different systems that don’t quite line up. Utah’s Frontrunner has ~2x the ridership vs Seattle’s Sounder, despite the metro area being about 1/4-1/3 the size and both having a similar length (80-90 miles). And I’d argue that Utah’s car culture is much stronger than Seattle’s, and traffic is way better. If you build a good system, people will use it.
What we need is better transit lines to connect suburban and urban areas, and perhaps a handful of high speed rail options between close-ish metros. Amtrak is quite popular on the east coast because it connects major metros and is competitive with cars, and it’s less popular in the west because of the opposite reason. Improve the service and people will use it.
I just drove from SLC to LA because it’s cheaper than flying with my kids and I don’t have to deal with airports; if there was a train that went there a little faster than my car for something that splits the difference in price vs an airplane, I would’ve taken it. I’ve talked to several people in my office, and they said they’d take a high speed train to Vegas or LA if it was cheaper than flying and faster than a car. That doesn’t exist, so my coworkers drive.
Trains are even more American than the automobile imo, and the only reason cars won is because we didn’t upgrade the trains and we installed a ton of roads and hid the costs in taxes. Trains cost less to operate than cars on roads (assuming we’re factoring in road/rail maintenance), but they cost more to the average rider so they’re less popular. It’s not complicated, people are cost and time conscious, and trains haven’t been keeping up with the subsidized roads.
‘legislate away’ people’s desire to be independent
I don’t think that’s how people would actually behave if a more efficient option arrived.
Cars have a few functions in today’s society, including:
- transportation - our cities are car centric
- status - probably won’t change much
- utility - Costco runs and whatnot
The first is the “Independence” issue, but people have been quick to give up independence for convenience (e.g. streaming vs owning physical media, extended warranty vs knowing how to fix cars, broad acceptance of TSA so they don’t need to worry about terrorists, etc). At the end of the day, people care far more about convenience than independence. How many people actually have food storage at home, or any survival knowledge?
The second two are similar, having the capability to do something yourself (even if you probably won’t) is a form of status. But people are ordering more and more stuff to their homes instead of picking them up that guy utility argument is getting weaker and weaker. Just look at trucks’ shrinking beds and growing cabins as evidence that people are really just after the status instead of actual utility or independence.
So we’re really just talking about status here. And I think it’s totally fine to keep a car parked in your garage to show off to friends or whatever, provided it’s not clogging up highways or running over kids. Go ahead and take it out on weekends or whatever, just don’t drive it to work (do you really want rock chips damaging your fancy truck anyway?).
So no, I reject all of that. If we built high quality transit, people do ride it. If we make getting downtown with a car more difficult than taking transit, even more will take transit and traffic will improve. It’s that simple, we just need a few brave cities to prove it to the public.
If you can’t put a flatbed or utility bed on it, it shouldn’t be called a utility vehicle. They’re just SUVs with the back opened up.
Business permit on file and a commercial driver’s license.
Makes sense. In the Czech Republic and probably most of EU, a standard license applies to vehicles up to 3.5 t. Adding a category would help.
In this region, forestry vehicles are either regular-green (more ‘crayola’ than ‘olive’) or just plain white.
The only people who drive camo trucks here are prepper weirdos or hunter rambos.
I do like the color options
In what way? The idea of only two color options, or would you be willing to buy such a truck?
I just like the colors. If there’s only going to be two I think those are solid choices.
…probably needs to be a fleet white, too, for actual work trucks to reflect solar heat gain…
It’s trivial to setup a company. That’s not a real block.
Now, some kind of graduated licensing standard (below a CDL, but above the current standard), absolutely.
Keepin it a buck fifty bro 💪
Yeah typical reaction from a car driver. You “people” always have to make some sexual comment about our dicks. It’s like our penis’s live rent free in your sick fetishized little brains.
Of course if you need to move something the we are the first people you think of as well. But then it’s right back to dicks.
Lol i got a van to move shit
But sounds like i struck a nerve. Do you feel nice and safe in your big trucky wucky, threatening other drivers with grave bodily injury by tailgating them? :o
Are you sad bc you happen to fit the most basic stereotype easy target joke ever?
Yep and I feel safe driving my cars also. I use my truck for fun stuff and daily in a smaller vehicle. My reason for getting a truck never involved my genitals I haul stuff, hunt and fish. Just got a moose into the back this week, am i supposed to do that with a car? You think about genitals way to much.
Lol, yes I feel pretty safe in my three ton vehicle. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Tell me does it make you feel less safe knowing there are dudes who’s dicks are riding about head level to you? All those dicks at head level riding around you at highway speeds in vehicles bigger than yours. Is the small dick thing a coping mechanism to come to terms with the fact that you encounter hundreds of throbbing cocks at head level every day when you take to the streets?
Lol naw, I’m indifferent so long as you’re not threatening me.
But you deffo seem to have the fragile ego necessary to needlessly escalate while feeling safe, either behind a screen or behind the wheel of a three ton vehicle.
Sorry about your tiny dick bro. Truly. I hear personality is more important anyway… oh fuck. Wait, you really are tragic huh?
Once again my dick lives rent free in your skull.
You really showed them! Your tiny dick lives rent free in their heads! Tiny dick! Tiny dick!
I don’t really have high opinions on modern truck design, or the average US truck driver. But I’m with you on the body shaming.
There are plenty of tiny-cock’d individuals who are considerate drivers, and reasonable in their vehicle choice. They don’t deserve to get lumped in with the average US truck driver.
Time to form the “Coalition of tiny dicked responsible drivers”
I usually rent a moving van. Trucks didn’t kill U-Haul.
Or a uhaul pickup. It’s like $20 + mileage, which is really not a large price to pay to not have to deal with truck owners.
The only person who ever cut me off to brake check me after I signaled a merge drove an F-250 dually with a Dallas Cowboys (I laugh just thinking about it) tow hitch and a fake butch name so he could sound tough in the parking lot where nobody knew what it said his name was on the registration.
I offered to fix the damage out of pocket but he wanted to feel powerful for once in his life, and so he called my insurance because one of the arms on his tow hitch got bent as it shattered the grill of my civic.
We had been driving in toward downtown LA in morning rush hour traffic and the dude thought it was appropriate to race into my signal, force me off the merge that I had already started so that he could keep me from being in front of him in the right lane.
I have plenty more I could say about this guy but it’s a waste to say anything more than the fact that he probably got a little dick.
The only person. Well i could say the only person to ever slam on their brakes and get out and threaten me drove a car.
Cool story, sounds like you need to learn how to drive.
I actually stopped driving because of it. I don’t know how much worse the damage would be the next time, the dicks just keep getting smaller and smaller
Man your probably gaining weight so it looks smaller.
Mmm, tasty bait
deleted by creator
LOL. Funny you self identify as a “tiny dick”. You’re a dumb Fuck loser.
deleted by creator
Sounds like you have a pretty bad dick fetish if a random comment was enough to trigger you. But hey it’s cool if you like cocks, I’m not judging.
Why do people feel the need to have a $60K+ massive behemoth? 99% of the time if I glance in the bed it is spotless. It is probably only used for commuting and carrying groceries. It might haul a load of mulch once a year. The things are so high that if they hit a car they are going to ride up over the hood and crush you. At least my state finally got its act together and banned those goddamn frontend lifted trucks that made it impossible to see anything within 50 ft and guaranteed a deadly collision. Now I know someone will say “But I need it for my building job/farm/etc”, you are the exception, the vast majority sold are not being used for that.
“reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash” Sounds like an arms race. Soon we will be driving armored personnel carriers.
It is bad enough they make them with ridiculously loud exhausts as bad as muscle cars and fart exhausts. Electric cars and trucks quieting everything can’t come fast enough.
As someone who uses their truck as it’s intended I can say your absolutely correct. I get comments from other truck drivers when they see the dings and scratches and they’ll be laughing while I’m looking at their spotless $80,000 truck that the heaviest thing they haul is a gallon of milk. I hope they downsize these trucks some day soon because when mine goes I don’t want a physically bigger one. These trucks also take up 4 spots everywhere they go for parking.
I’ve had a 95 V8 f150 and a 94 4cyl ranger that I consider to be about the perfect expression of the two most useful trucks ever made. There just isn’t anything like them anymore.
A big part of the problem is that they just don’t make small affordable trucks anymore.
The tiny little Ford ranger of the 90s used to be the cheapest car at a Ford dealership. The current ranger is only a couple inches smaller than the f150 and costs a couple grand less, if you can even find one.
There’s clearly some demand for small trucks, too. I’ve been seeing an increasing number of imported kei trucks around me.
I had a 1986 Mazda B2000 for a while. Very useful, tough little thing, even though it only had like 75hp.
Personally, I’m a pretty big fan of smaller everything. This trend to make everything larger and larger annoys me. There’s only one exception to this and that’s mainly in living space. You shouldn’t feel crammed into a suitcase when you’re at home. It should be a place to relax and unwind, not a claustrophobic’s nightmare.
I remember when people started to pick up old Hummers and I couldn’t understand why, for the life of me. Then they made the considerably smaller H2, which took off. The original hummer had it’s place, in extreme terrain and conditions; the Hummer doesn’t really have a place where you’re exclusively driving on roads. Military applications are exempt of course, since they don’t know when they will need the versatility, but civilian ownership is dubious at best. I’m sure there’s exceptions, but exceptions are going to be a fairly trivial amount of the population.
H2 was a glorified SUV, and it got weird after that.
But the enbiggification of things doesn’t stop there, electronics are a huge contributor as well. Massive 80+ inch TVs for your studio apartment are kind of ridiculous, you basically cover most of the useful wall surface with a single television that displays a single program at a time. Meanwhile, 30-40 inch TVs from the broadcast TV era (mid 80’s through the 90’s) usually had features like picture in picture so you could watch more than one program at a time. Such features only exist in history books.
Another big offender in my opinion is cellphones. I understand that mobile devices have become a massive link that ties us together and has supplanted many other potential technologies, acting as a catch all for a lot of devices that simply are no longer required (like calendars, calculators, planners, books, lists… Even video enabled telephone devices and such things) a phone is a general computer in your pocket that can be reconfigured for all these purposes through the use of software. The thing is that all of that doesn’t require additional space inside the phone since the technology advances at a reasonable speed relative to the software capabilities, but screens keep getting larger, batteries get bigger, but you don’t get any additional run time for your phone as a result. It takes up more room in your pocket and provides nearly no benefit for it’s increase in size beyond “mines bigger”…
And I’m not just talking about the biggest phones available, all phones are expanding, the base Nexus/pixel phone has had increasingly larger sizing over the years, same with Samsung, same with Apple, same with pretty much every other manufacturer. It is to the point of being unable to get a device with less than a 5" screen even if you try, and the devices that are 5" or even 6" are horribly outdated in technology or have so many corners cut so they can be budget devices that nobody really wants and would only buy to save money.
The argument can be made for just about everything… Except maybe boxed and canned goods at grocery stores… But that’s a different rant for a different day.
I drive trucks for years, but now that I’m hauling less plywood and more camera gear I use a van.
The thing about the trucks is I usually didn’t need them to be trucks - maybe once or twice a week. But it’s not like I was gonna pay insurance on 2 cars, and even only using it occasionally as a truck it still made more sense than a Civic.
I think more trucks like the Ford Maverick would be a hit. Small, affordable 4-door hybrid that has a short bed.
You know the answer. It’s insecure man children.
“reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash” Sounds like an arms race. Soon we will be driving armored personnel carriers.
Well, yeah. It is an arms race. I drive a “midsize” SUV, and a large part of the reason is that these trucks are going to be on the road no matter what. Statistically, in the event of a collision between a truck and a car, the truck driver will live and the car driver will die, no matter who is at fault. Is it more dangerous for drivers of small cars and pedestrians? Absolutely! But it’s safer for the person in the tank. Ergo, if you want to maximize the safety of yourself and your passengers, be the one driving the tank. Am I selfish for driving my SUV? Probably–but it’s hard to make a moral argument that defeats “This is more likely to keep me alive.”
I live in a rural area, so walking isn’t an option even if we had the infrastructure (which we don’t), and I dream of a future in which we have commuter rail here. But until then, I’m going to be in the thing that’s most likely to keep one of these monsters from killing me, and once my son is old enough to drive, you bet your ass I’m putting him in one too, because these things are on the road whether I like it or not. The tragedy of the commons is that everyone contributing to the calamity is rational.
All of these ridiculous trucks should be off the road, and I will cheerfully give mine up–once everyone else has, and not a moment sooner. Until then, anybody selling APCs yet? It looks like that Abrams has better sight lines than a 2500. Where do I get a road legal one of those?
This is similar logic that 2A people use to claim citizens should have access all weapons that the military has. My man, no citizen needs a swarm of deadly drones, but since the guy up the block has an AR 15, I gotta keep up. The truth is, nobody really wins a war against a military superpower with small arms unless they have tenacity, balls of steel, support, and organization. Unless the gravy seals are digging tunnels, eating rat meat, they are not going toe to toe with the army like the Vietnamese. You could give them all weapons in the world and they still can’t find grit, tenacity and balls. Key ingrediesum.
Anyway…
That’s why I still drive my Corolla, and also, coincidentally, I can’t afford a big suv.
I have a simple question for people: if the truck bed can’t hold an eight foot wooden stud without half of it sticking out the back, why do you have a truck?
My dad always said that it should fit an 4x8 sheet of plywood laying down. Also that if you don’t need to haul 4x8 sheets of plywood on the regular then you probably don’t need a truck.
I’ve never owned a truck, and there honestly hasn’t been mant times when my Mazda 3 wont do. . Six drawer dresser - check. Queen size mattress-check. Hockey bags and kids- check. Visitors from the airport and luggage- check. Ikea furniture-sometimes sticks out the back.
There are a lot of uses of trucks beyond transporting construction materials. I wouldn’t want to tow a trailer loaded with round bales with a car, or try to put a big block chevy in the trunk.
I threw this in another chat talking about this, but some of these vehicles have poorer forward visibility than a literal fucking Abrams tank.
Pedestrians should not be allowed outside without high vis, a helmet, and flashing lights after dark. Youngsters should never be permitted to be outside since they are invisible to motor vehicles.
Driven by the exact same douche bags hoarding the guns that are killing us
Thank God cars didn’t exist when the constitution was written. We could actually solve this with legislation.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
American car buyers can’t get enough big, tall SUVs and trucks — but new data suggests that the downsides of this trend are growing increasingly deadly.
It also comes at a time when the auto industry is embracing bigger, more brutish designs for its SUVs and trucks, reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash.
There have been numerous studies and investigations examining how tall, flat-nosed trucks and SUVs are more likely to cause serious injury and death when they hit pedestrians.
Larger bodies and higher carriages mean pedestrians are more likely to suffer deadly blows to the head and torso, as opposed to the legs when struck by a shorter vehicle.
And front blind zones associated with large trucks and SUVs have contributed to the injury and death of hundreds of children across the country, studies have shown.
Recently, NHTSA said it would update its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), also known as the five-star safety rating, to include advanced driver-assistance system features like automatic emergency braking, blind-spot detection, and lane-keep assistance.
The original article contains 708 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Welcome to 30 years ago. This is the least new news I’ve seen in ages!
30 years ago you could get a normal size truck. Now you can’t.
Okay does nobody on this site actually follow car stuff.
The Ford Maverick is what you’re describing. It’s smaller than a lot of SUVs. It sold so incredibly well that every other car company that makes pickup trucks is racing to copy it.
You’re taking things a little too literally, things will be said with a tiny, miniscule, little bit of hyperbole. Geez.
And from what I see, it’s crew cab only. So no, even with your pedanticness you can’t buy what you could 30 years ago.
You said you can’t get a normal sized truck. I pointed out that only can you, but said models sell incredibly well.
I feel like you were caught running your mouth without actually having any idea what you’re talking about and then tried to pretend you were joking.
Again, a little itsy bitsy tiny bit of hyperbole is normal in common speech. You’re being pedantic.
And a crew cab only? Base model has a short box (maybe I’ll check the others later). Even with your pedanticness you’re wrong lol. And now projection! You are the one running your mouth when you’re flat out wrong lol.
Enjoy the last word trying to get out of it.
How old are you? The way you’re talking is extremely childish and vindictive.
Because people stopped buying them. They decided they’d rather be safer at the expense of everyone else on the road. 'Merka! Fuck yeah!
Actually regulations killed them.
Lack thereof. Relaxed emissions standards on larger vehicles meant that manufacturers could save cost by making their vehicles bigger and bigger.
So that’s what they did. They stopped selling smaller trucks to avoid regulation and pushed the idea that they were safer (for the person inside them) and part of an adventure freedom fantasy for suburban families.
A flat emissions standard for all non-commercial vehicles would have prevented that.
Okay so bad regulation killed them.
So… not welcome to 30 years ago.
And haven’t you heard the idea that CAFE standards increased the size of vehicles?
All hat, no cattle
How do deaths scale with vehicle mass and did the study control for that …it seemed to be a (pretty critical) omission.
In before all the folks who argue that people want this thing and therefore they must be made
Obligatory 'We need to diversify transportation options" comment.
Cars have been killing us for a long time.
