I've always been skeptical of this take. For one, remember that before the OPEC crisis, American "sedans" were massive. By width and length they were in many ways larger than many SUVs today, even...
I've always been skeptical of this take. For one, remember that before the OPEC crisis, American "sedans" were massive. By width and length they were in many ways larger than many SUVs today, even if they were "sedans", although they didn't get jacked up yet. It was not until the gas crisis that America began to import and favor economy compact sedans from Europe and Japan.
Secondly, the most popular SUVs don't even qualify for this. In the US, the best selling "SUVs" are the RAV4 and the CRV by a large margin. Those are basically tall full sized sedans. A CRV is about 300 lbs heavier than an accord. It doesn't even count as a light truck.
Third, SUVs are popular across the world. They're 50% of new car sales in both Europe and China. Despite the tighter roads of the old world, people still like their big tall cars.
I really don't think any change of emissions or tax policy in the US is going to magically make people not like big tall cars, because they like big tall cars, on average.
Edit: to be more specific, I’m skeptical of the idea that people, and especially Americans, only love big cars because they’re brainwashed by car companies. It both doesn’t seem plausible and feels like cope when the real answer is much more annoying if you want less gas guzzlers, namely that people actually do just love big cars.
My daily driver is a 2012 Camry Hybrid, but I got a chance to drive my brother-in-law's newish BMW X5. Having been on the other side of it, I don't really understand the appeal. I don't like...
My daily driver is a 2012 Camry Hybrid, but I got a chance to drive my brother-in-law's newish BMW X5. Having been on the other side of it, I don't really understand the appeal. I don't like parking such a large vehicle (though the surround view was certainly cool) and I don't like how much less connected I feel to the road. I like being able to place a vehicle in my lane and being up high makes that feel trickier. Maybe it's just the lack of familiarity.
The hatch was certainly nice. But the same could be said for my sister's old Prius.
I mean, I normally drive a Fiat Abarth, but the point of SUVs isn't to be nicer to drive around, its to be able to haul stuff. Say you want to buy a fridge, and you have a Camry, or even a...
I mean, I normally drive a Fiat Abarth, but the point of SUVs isn't to be nicer to drive around, its to be able to haul stuff. Say you want to buy a fridge, and you have a Camry, or even a hatchback sedan, then you're out of luck and will need to get a trailer or something to move your fridge to your house.
If you have a SUV you just put the seats down and throw the fridge in the back. And while most people don't buy fridges super frequently, its not like a fridge is the only thing which you could buy that's too big to fit in a Sedan but would fit in an SUV
I understand the theory, but I don't think many SUVs or even trucks actually see that much usage for those reasons. Also smaller trucks - such as the old Toyota Tacoma or the Nissan D21 - have the...
the point of SUVs isn't to be nicer to drive around, its to be able to haul stuff.
It's not the culprit but that's how it was sold. I also agree the marketing around "safety" which is playing on fear is what also helped to sell the things. I also think the coal industry which is...
It's not the culprit but that's how it was sold. I also agree the marketing around "safety" which is playing on fear is what also helped to sell the things.
I also think the coal industry which is in bed with the automotive industry had a huge hand in it because SUVs are bigger, and less fuel efficient, and weigh more yet are around the same size as a sedan. Only saving grace is it's taller so the cubic inches in the back can be used for clunkier stuff.
In the end, people got manipulated into buying SUVs and now they think they need them and it was their choice.
Another favorite excuse is "we have a child". I love that one because it really illuminates how before SUVs we didn't have families.
The small person driving a massive SUV out of fear of being collided with is also funny because it's harder to park and be cognizant of what's around you when you're driving such a massive thing.
Anecdotally, my camry can comfortably seat people over six feet in every seat. A Rav4 can't, neither can the Hyundai equivalent. Riddle me that.
I don't think it's really a mystery. Same can be said about cell phones. Does the average person need the 2001 equivalent of a super computer in their pocket? No. But they've convinced themselves they do. And that manipulation comes from up top.
Car manufacturers manipulated public transportation, highways, railroads, sidewalks, the environment, legislation, you name it.
I need to haul something with my van every week or 2. That's often enough that it basically makes a smaller vehicle a non-option. I'd love to keep my old vehicle as a hauling-only vehicle and buy...
I need to haul something with my van every week or 2. That's often enough that it basically makes a smaller vehicle a non-option.
I'd love to keep my old vehicle as a hauling-only vehicle and buy something super small and fuel efficient for my daily driver instead of buying a new gas-guzzler.
But we have insurance laws written by insurance companies. Liability insurance specifically doesn't cover my vehicles, but only other property I damage, but for some reason I have to carry it for every vehicle I own. So the extra insurance policy basically wipes out the gas savings.
I mean in a case like that, sure a large vehicle might help - but SUVs don't have much more (if any) space than, say, a station wagon style vehicle. The RAV4 has approximately 70 cubic feet in the...
I mean in a case like that, sure a large vehicle might help - but SUVs don't have much more (if any) space than, say, a station wagon style vehicle. The RAV4 has approximately 70 cubic feet in the cabin, and a Volkswagen Golf has about 67 cubic feet (both with folded down seats). Sure some might get bigger, but most things I've moved would've been fine in the Golf.
And I can just do what I've done every time I've had a large move and just rent a large vehicle for a day to handle my move, then return it and not have to drive that hulking thing everywhere for the odd time I need to move something. I suppose that means I can't impulse buy a couch, but I wasn't going to do that anyway.
I'm not shaming people for liking SUVs and light trucks (unless you rev it loud and lift your Ford F-150 then put bright ass lights that blind me when you're riding my ass in a 30mph zone) I just wish we didn't have to deal with the ridiculousness of them.
The RAV4 is a pretty tiny car. When most people talk large SUVs, they're talking Highlander, which has 84 cu ft of cargo capacity, not counting the driver/passenger seats in front. There's also...
The RAV4 is a pretty tiny car. When most people talk large SUVs, they're talking Highlander, which has 84 cu ft of cargo capacity, not counting the driver/passenger seats in front.
There's also something to be said for how that cu ft is accesisble. There have been numerous cars I've driven where the limiting factor of cargo capacity was not interior volume, but that the openings to it were too tiny.
A new Rav 4 weight 3300-3600 lbs, depending on the exact model. For reference a Civic weighs 3000-3200 lbs, and that's a large Sedan. Then you have large SUVs that are north of 4,000 lbs. A Rav 4...
A new Rav 4 weight 3300-3600 lbs, depending on the exact model.
For reference a Civic weighs 3000-3200 lbs, and that's a large Sedan. Then you have large SUVs that are north of 4,000 lbs. A Rav 4 is definitely in the small SUV side of things, even if it's bigger than what you're used to
True, but I was using the upper limit weight from the Civic Type R hatchback, which is only 100 lbs lighter than an accord. The base model normal Civic isn't quite that heavy
True, but I was using the upper limit weight from the Civic Type R hatchback, which is only 100 lbs lighter than an accord.
The base model normal Civic isn't quite that heavy
And the golf isn't even a station wagon, it's just a hatchback. The difference is that the cargo area in station wagons extends pretty significantly past the rear wheels. Meaning a full on 70s...
And the golf isn't even a station wagon, it's just a hatchback. The difference is that the cargo area in station wagons extends pretty significantly past the rear wheels.
Meaning a full on 70s style station wagon would have significantly more cargo space than the RAV4.
Hard agree on this. I had to move to a new place recently and I moved everything by myself in my SUV. Standing desk? No problem. Dresser? You bet. Mattress? Hell yeah! One of those times I’m...
Hard agree on this. I had to move to a new place recently and I moved everything by myself in my SUV. Standing desk? No problem. Dresser? You bet. Mattress? Hell yeah!
One of those times I’m actually grateful I’m driving a big SUV!
This goes to some of the appeal for SUVs that I neglected to mention: they are a sort of jack of all trades. People buy a car not based upon what they typically need but what they imagine they...
This goes to some of the appeal for SUVs that I neglected to mention: they are a sort of jack of all trades. People buy a car not based upon what they typically need but what they imagine they might need. You may only go to IKEA once every few years, but wouldn't it suck to have a car that couldn't haul all of that home?
Of course, minivans beat SUVs on this. Because of the lower right height but similar overall height, they have more interior volume. And many of them have seats that can be stowed in the floor.
So people were only buying SUVs for practicality, they would be buying minivans instead. Minivans lose on aesthetics for most buyers. A decent sized wagon probably has the same utility as an SUV but is also considered aesthetically inferior for some reason.
IKEA and just about everyone who sells big things offers delivery, though. I guess it’s bad if you need it immediately, but who needs emergency furniture?
IKEA and just about everyone who sells big things offers delivery, though.
I guess it’s bad if you need it immediately, but who needs emergency furniture?
TBF, IKEA's delivery prices are really high. Unless it's changed since the last time I looked, shipping a bookshelf would often cost as much as the bookshelf. Not that that in itself justifies...
IKEA and just about everyone who sells big things offers delivery, though.
TBF, IKEA's delivery prices are really high. Unless it's changed since the last time I looked, shipping a bookshelf would often cost as much as the bookshelf.
Not that that in itself justifies buying a huge vehicle, but that's part of the mindset involved.
That’s odd. Was that with the installation service? I looked it up and it said that it started at $6 or something like that, though to be fair I don’t think that’s a price that anyone...
That’s odd. Was that with the installation service? I looked it up and it said that it started at $6 or something like that, though to be fair I don’t think that’s a price that anyone realistically pays.
I'm mystified about wagons, myself. A manual sport wagon has been my ideal car most of my life- what's not to love? Is it just branding? I always like offbeat stuff, though, and i don't understand...
I'm mystified about wagons, myself. A manual sport wagon has been my ideal car most of my life- what's not to love? Is it just branding?
I always like offbeat stuff, though, and i don't understand a lot of choices people make.
Aesthetically, I've never been a fan of wagons. At least not traditional ones. I think they're better looking than minivans and SUVs by far, but only from some angles. (Namely, the ones that...
Aesthetically, I've never been a fan of wagons. At least not traditional ones. I think they're better looking than minivans and SUVs by far, but only from some angles. (Namely, the ones that minimize the fact that they're wagons.)
Two- and four-door hatchbacks I can get behind. You know, small ones like the four-door VW Golf or the like. But when they get too big, I don't think they look good. Everyone loves the RS6 Avant, but it doesn't work for me. Similarly, I love the Porsche Taycan sedan but the Sport Tourismo isn't nearly as good looking.
What does really work for me, though, are the wagons that look like sedans. The Audi A5 Sportback being a particular favorite of mine. I wish more brands were doing that. Yeah, the sloped hatch means you lose some practicality over a vertical one, but I'll take it.
No. No its not. It easily costs $100 to rent a truck for even an hour. I have to go potentially 10 miles out of my way to go get said truck, and usually have to pay per mile to use the thing, plus...
No. No its not.
It easily costs $100 to rent a truck for even an hour. I have to go potentially 10 miles out of my way to go get said truck, and usually have to pay per mile to use the thing, plus gas. Doing that once a month negates most cost differences from having a smaller car.
That doesn't even factor the savings from being able to just curb pick trash. You would be amazed what people just throw out cause they got something newer.
Where are you renting a truck? The big box home improvement store near me rents out small pickups for $20 for an hour and a half, or 4 hours for $50. Mileage does not change this.
Where are you renting a truck? The big box home improvement store near me rents out small pickups for $20 for an hour and a half, or 4 hours for $50. Mileage does not change this.
Nowhere in the US is it even close to this expensive. I needed to pick up some articles of furniture, so I rented a truck from Home Depot¹. Total cost, including all fees and re-topping it off...
It easily costs $100 to rent a truck for even an hour.
Nowhere in the US is it even close to this expensive. I needed to pick up some articles of furniture, so I rented a truck from Home Depot¹. Total cost, including all fees and re-topping it off with gas, was under $30.
¹ Aside: I actually wanted a cargo van, but someone else nabbed it in the five minutes it took me to walk in, and the pickup they gave me sucked. It was actively snowing that day—y'know, on my furniture in the open bed—and the truck was an appalling pile in the snow. It couldn't make it up my driveway, so I got the unenviable and not recommended experience of carrying a pair of chairs on foot in the snow up a steep driveway around to my back door. It sure made me glad I don't own one of those things.
I wasn't really thinking about pickup trucks, I was thinking Uhaul. However, I just looked up my local Home Depo. Only options, for 1 pickup truck available: $20 for 80 minutes, or $130 for one...
I wasn't really thinking about pickup trucks, I was thinking Uhaul. However, I just looked up my local Home Depo. Only options, for 1 pickup truck available: $20 for 80 minutes, or $130 for one day. They don't prorate. Everything else starts at $100. That sounds ok until I start doing the math for how I'd actually use it.
Uhaul advertises starting at $30, but the reality is you're at $70 for even a small trip after,
It's a 20 minute drive away. So even if I'm hauling from Home Depo, that's down to 40 minutes to load/unload/fill tank or it goes from $20ish to $120ish.
Now if I want to use it the way I actually would want to? It's a triangle shape of 20/25/20. Down to 15 minutes to actually use. Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room if there's even the slightest delay.
It's an OK cost if I didn't already need to own a car. The difference between owning a large enough car to almost never needing a pickup and owning a tiny sedan is minimal.
If I could get by with no car, sure I'd have less a problem with paying $100+ delivery fees once in awhile.
You're absolutely right! But in my case, it was just me moving things slowly over the course of a week. I'd imagine a van/truck would be great if you're moving with someone else who can drive or...
You're absolutely right! But in my case, it was just me moving things slowly over the course of a week. I'd imagine a van/truck would be great if you're moving with someone else who can drive or help move things in a day
I rent a lot of different cars. It feels weird having a Miata one week and a F150 later. The latter is so vague and I usually see the roofs of most other cars besides other pickups or the largest...
I rent a lot of different cars. It feels weird having a Miata one week and a F150 later. The latter is so vague and I usually see the roofs of most other cars besides other pickups or the largest suvs.
I drive a car that is in no sense of the word small—a Subaru Crosstrek. The other day, I was parked next to a recent-model Cadillac SUV whose hoodline was only a few inches short of being level...
I drive a car that is in no sense of the word small—a Subaru Crosstrek. The other day, I was parked next to a recent-model Cadillac SUV whose hoodline was only a few inches short of being level with my roof.
There's no way that car should be legal; you could park a Miata in the blind spot in front of it with room to spare for most of a kindergarten class.
My car (Honda Fit) is small, I even get a discount on the ferries. If I get caught in slow traffic it's often like I'm in a box that I can't see out if.
My car (Honda Fit) is small, I even get a discount on the ferries. If I get caught in slow traffic it's often like I'm in a box that I can't see out if.
It's an interesting effect that to feel safe now you need a bigger car, which in turn means that we in our new bigger cars are making people in smaller cars feel even more unsafe. Vicious cycle...
It's an interesting effect that to feel safe now you need a bigger car, which in turn means that we in our new bigger cars are making people in smaller cars feel even more unsafe. Vicious cycle that probably does need regulation or at least better incentives to fix...
The thing that makes me feel most unsafe in my ancient Camry these days is pulling out onto busy streets with cars parked alongside. If there's a huge suburban or pickup parked, it's always just best guess whether someone might slam into me.
I like my small car too but it has its limits. I'd like something bigger as we have one child and might have another -- ours is a hatchback (Hyundai Accent), I'd honestly just love a hatchback...
I like my small car too but it has its limits. I'd like something bigger as we have one child and might have another -- ours is a hatchback (Hyundai Accent), I'd honestly just love a hatchback that is larger, but once you go into that territory a lot of the offerings are just SUVs.
Honestly, the biggest advantage of a taller car is it's easier to load and unload your kids. I've raised me kids in the back of a Honda Fit and a minivan and the van is just so much more...
Honestly, the biggest advantage of a taller car is it's easier to load and unload your kids. I've raised me kids in the back of a Honda Fit and a minivan and the van is just so much more comfortable to get them in and out of and to drive long distances in.
With the van, I can actually step into the vehicle and strap the kids in, plus it's got the third row if I'm bringing the dog or want to bring 1-3 more people with me. Or, I can take the rear seat out and have nearly the equivalent space my Fit has with all the seats folded down. Long story short, the van is just more comfortable, offers better ingress and egress, as well as more utility overall.
Still love my Fit, but the in spite of the 14mpgs less, the van just wins out overall for everyday use.
My favorite thing about my family's old minivan has always been that Toyota seems to have designed the bed (with the middle seats out) to be exactly 4'x8'. Not only did it haul kids around for two...
My favorite thing about my family's old minivan has always been that Toyota seems to have designed the bed (with the middle seats out) to be exactly 4'x8'. Not only did it haul kids around for two decades, it also served amazingly for all of the tasks like hauling plywood for projects or lugging around big furniture that plenty of our friends' much bigger SUVs or trucks either couldn't handle at all or gave up tons of day to day utility in order to handle the once a month or less task of hauling stuff.
Traded in my civic when I regularly left work in traffic where my left and right windows were blocked with running boards, rear view was a grill, and front was a tow hitch. Didn’t feel very safe...
Traded in my civic when I regularly left work in traffic where my left and right windows were blocked with running boards, rear view was a grill, and front was a tow hitch. Didn’t feel very safe anymore. Funny enough, my small SUV hybrid gets 10 mpg more.
Are you certain? The EPA lists these Honda vehicles (for example) into these categories: Vehicle EPA Size Class 2023 Honda Accord Large Cars 2023 Honda Pilot FWD Small Sport Utility Vehicle 2WD...
Secondly, the most popular SUVs don't even qualify for this. In the US, the best selling "SUVs" are the RAV4 and the CRV by a large margin. Those are basically tall full sized sedans. A CRV is about 300 lbs heavier than an accord. It doesn't even count as a light truck.
If, indeed, fuel economy standards are looser on SUVs than they are on cars, Honda still has an incentive to push SUV sales. (And, as the video points out, if fuel economy standards are lower on larger vehicles, they also have an incentive to increase the size of existing vehicles. As, for example, they have done with the Civic, which has ballooned to what was once an Accord-size.)
to be more specific, I’m skeptical of the idea that people, and especially Americans, only love big cars because they’re brainwashed by car companies. It both doesn’t seem plausible and feels like cope when the real answer is much more annoying if you want less gas guzzlers, namely that people actually do just love big cars.
No doubt about it. But it doesn't have to be completely top-down or bottom-up. There can be pressure from both sides.
On the bottom-upside, as you say, people like bigger vehicles. They feel safer higher up, they like the extra room both in interior space as well as in cargo volume. There's also the safety arms race, where people think they are safer in bigger, heavier vehicles, prompting them to want the biggest, heaviest vehicle they can afford. I know my brother-in-law was concerned that my sister was driving something as small as a third generation Prius, prompting them to get a Highlander Hybrid instead.
It's also undeniable that manufacturers have strong incentives on the top-down side. Fuel and emissions standards are a huge constraint on manufacturers and trucks/SUVs give them an easy out for that. There is a certain degree to which it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. Car manufacturers don't believe consumers are interested in smaller, more efficient vehicles, so they stop selling smaller, more efficient vehicles. With a lack of other available options, consumers opt for larger, less efficient vehicles than they would prefer. I know that I would love it if my Camry Hybrid were a PHEV and had a hatchback in the same vein as the Audi A5 Sportback. But it simply doesn't exist. If I wanted a new Toyota with a hatch, I would have to get an SUV or the Prius. A midsize quasi-sedan PHEV simply isn't an option.
The exact proportion the top-down and bottom-up forces play in the overall change in the American car landscape over the past four decades is impossible to say. But it's much easier to affect change upon the top-down side, if we are interested as a society. The regulations that guided some of these changes certainly were aiming for outcomes that are very different from what we got.
That said, we have seen dramatic consumer preference shifts in response to certain changes in the "driving environment." Prius sales exploded when gas prices went up and the second generation Prius was a hot new car. When gas prices came back down, Prius sales went down with them. (Or at least that is the narrative that I often saw — it's possible the Prius also had reached market saturation.) So bottom-up changes are certainly not impossible.
Why can't it be both? I think that a bigger part of it is advertising, actually. An old advertising idea is that you don't advertise the product, you advertise the idea of the product. More...
Why can't it be both?
I think that a bigger part of it is advertising, actually. An old advertising idea is that you don't advertise the product, you advertise the idea of the product. More specifically, you sell them an idea that they can see themselves in.
Simply put, I haven't seen an advertisement for a small car in a very long time. Almost all of them focus on one of these ideas:
cars for rugged outdoorsmen
trucks for manly men
cars for family camping
SUVs for transporting large families
trucks for doing hard work or towing
etc.
Emissions may be part of it, but realistically I think it's simpler than that: bigger cars cost more money, and car manufacturers want to make more money. You've probably already noticed how expensive they've gotten in the past few years.
From my experience I think you are correct that people want big cars because they want to imagine they will lead a life that requires it. They want to envision themselves being outdoorsy or...
From my experience I think you are correct that people want big cars because they want to imagine they will lead a life that requires it. They want to envision themselves being outdoorsy or hauling a boat or something. It almost feels like the physical version of people who don’t want to vote for higher taxes on brackets they aren’t in because one day they might be that person.
I have a midsize pickup truck, we got it when we moved onto a larger property and needed a work vehicle. But I noticed when I got it that a lot of my friends/coworkers voiced how much they wanted a similar vehicle due to the fun factor, when they definitely do not need the utility.
Comparing Euro and Asian SUV sales to America is apples and oranges though. The vehicle styles are absolutely and obviously different to what we would see in North America....
Comparing Euro and Asian SUV sales to America is apples and oranges though. The vehicle styles are absolutely and obviously different to what we would see in North America.
Generally, European S.U.V.s are smaller than three-row models such as the Chevy Traverse, Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander that we buy in droves. Ford is a popular brand in Europe, but there are few Explorers there. And you will see far more Jeep Renegades overseas than Wranglers.
You're not wrong. The main reason SUVs and large cars are popular in the US isn't just CAFE standards. The US makes sure roads have much higher LOS than equivalent roads in Europe and much of...
I've always been skeptical of this take. For one, remember that before the OPEC crisis, American "sedans" were massive. By width and length they were in many ways larger than many SUVs today, even if they were "sedans", although they didn't get jacked up yet. It was not until the gas crisis that America began to import and favor economy compact sedans from Europe and Japan
You're not wrong. The main reason SUVs and large cars are popular in the US isn't just CAFE standards. The US makes sure roads have much higher LOS than equivalent roads in Europe and much of Asia. Roads that would be 2 lanes or simply gravel graded in Europe or Japan are 4 lanes in the US. Moreover US lane widths are much larger than those in Europe or Asia. With more and wider lanes, naturally larger cars are more appealing.
Of course all Americans get to pay the taxes for this high LOS road system oriented around personal vehicles.
In short, fuel efficiency standards were stricter on passenger vehicles than on "light trucks." This created an incentive for car manufacturers to push consumers towards vehicles that could be...
In short, fuel efficiency standards were stricter on passenger vehicles than on "light trucks." This created an incentive for car manufacturers to push consumers towards vehicles that could be classified as "light trucks" for regulatory purposes. The SUV perfectly fit that model.
Later, we updated the fuel efficiency standards… And made it worse.
I think the obvious fix is to apply the same fuel efficiency standards to all vehicles, maybe allow for exceptions via permits for specific purposes. If it were up to me it would be just a...
I think the obvious fix is to apply the same fuel efficiency standards to all vehicles, maybe allow for exceptions via permits for specific purposes. If it were up to me it would be just a straight up moratorium on the sales of SUVs they are unsafe for everyone and there's nothing they can do that you can't get done with station wagon or minivan.
Having constant standards for all vehicles wouldn't make sense. If your 2300 lb Miata has the same fuel efficiency standards as your 4100 lb station wagon, then suddenly you effectively have no...
Having constant standards for all vehicles wouldn't make sense. If your 2300 lb Miata has the same fuel efficiency standards as your 4100 lb station wagon, then suddenly you effectively have no standards for the Miata. Or you have outlawed cars that weight much above 3,000 lbs.
Neither of those are good options, even if you completely ignore SUVs
It seems reasonable to reduce the number of heavier cars that are primarily used as passenger vehicles. In fact, it might be a good option. Heavier cars are worse for pedestrian safety, noise...
It seems reasonable to reduce the number of heavier cars that are primarily used as passenger vehicles. In fact, it might be a good option.
Heavier cars are worse for pedestrian safety, noise pollution, road maintenance, tire particulate pollution, and safety of passengers in other vehicles. With more heavier cars on the road, people are incentivized to buy a heavier car themselves for their own safety. A reasonable way to stop that cycle would be to put stricter fuel efficiency standards of heavier cars.
A good, real-world example of this is the keijidousha program in Japan. They create a real financial incentive to produce and buy lighter cars, which are better for public safety and the...
A good, real-world example of this is the keijidousha program in Japan. They create a real financial incentive to produce and buy lighter cars, which are better for public safety and the environment, reducing parking space and minimizing emissions. Effectively, larger cars are taxed and restricted, with regulations defining a smaller class of more favorable cars that people should be steered toward.
Notably, there are various classes besides "kei and non-kei." The Honda Fit, which is a truly enjoyable and practical car, was actually designed because the modern Civic (with its ballooning size, compared to the 90s ones) put it into an even higher bracket that made it unfavorable for the Japanese market. So the Fit was released, at a size and weight much closer to that of a 90s Civic. I drive one, and in the rare occasions I've often across them, I've noted that it's slightly larger than the Dodge Spirit or Civic, which were considered acceptable family sedans when I was growing up. You can fit two adults and two children-to-teenagers in any of them, and still have trunk space. (And the curb weight clocks in at around 2,600 lb for the Fit.)
Additionally, the typical vehicle on the road in the US has 1-2 occupants and is simply being used to go from point A to B, maybe carrying some shopping items. (I've heard the number "1.5 occupants" repeated before.) It's absolutely a reasonable step to put an additional financial disincentive on choices that are bad for city planning and public safety (negative externalities), while being generally unnecessary except for outliers.
We currently have Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, which this video discusses. Perhaps those should be generalized to Corporate Average Energy Efficiency standards as a way to...
We currently have Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, which this video discusses. Perhaps those should be generalized to Corporate Average Energy Efficiency standards as a way to incentivize the creation of lighter, more efficient vehicles even in the EV era.
Additionally, in a similar vein, perhaps we need a Corporate Average Weight tax. So it's perfectly fine to sell an 8,000 pound Hummer EV, but you better not sell very many of them. (That or a consumer-oriented weight tax that scales progressively rather than a linearly.)
Try to keep in mind that this space is meant to be used for discussion and conversation, act as if you're literally communicating with another person in real life. This isn't Reddit, we're not...
Try to keep in mind that this space is meant to be used for discussion and conversation, act as if you're literally communicating with another person in real life. This isn't Reddit, we're not trying to compete for attention or anything here. Not trying to talk shit to you personally, just something to keep in mind when you hit that reply button.
I mean yes, but the original point is a bit of a non starter and hard to converse with. If they/you want conversation or debate then your initial point needs more thought behind it as well. There...
I mean yes, but the original point is a bit of a non starter and hard to converse with. If they/you want conversation or debate then your initial point needs more thought behind it as well.
There are ways to get there but no politician wants to kill their career to pass something the large majority of the public does not want.
You'd have to start smaller with incentivizing car manufacturers to make smaller cars in a way that is positive to them, wait for them to advertise and change public opinion over decades and then finally get the regulations that the public would then be behind. Of course that's all extremely difficult as well.
A negative "tax" like that always angers people and is a bad way to get people "on your side".
One option would be to levy a heavy fuel tax and let the market drive fuel efficiency. I'm not suggesting getting rid of minimum standards, but building in some extra incentive for fuel...
One option would be to levy a heavy fuel tax and let the market drive fuel efficiency. I'm not suggesting getting rid of minimum standards, but building in some extra incentive for fuel efficiency. Taxes are political suicide here in the US, but we've seen spikes in fuel prices increase the demand for fuel efficient cars. Theoretically, a fuel tax (i.e., carbon tax) should work.
NJB is usually right, but he always says things in the most condescending ways. If he wanted to educate people who aren't already pro-transit and pro-cycling, he could take a more nuanced and...
NJB is usually right, but he always says things in the most condescending ways. If he wanted to educate people who aren't already pro-transit and pro-cycling, he could take a more nuanced and softer approach to his arguments.
The whole point of improving public transit and walkability is to give people more options for their mobility to make our cities work better for more people. The kinds of anti-car videos he makes definitely alienates and polarizes drivers who 95% of the time just want to get from A to B quickly, safely, and comfortably, but don't have other options.
New country, big country, cheap oil, new (big) roads and wealthy residents... USA had everything necessary for people to want & demand big cars (and big stuff in general) and the habit stuck....
New country, big country, cheap oil, new (big) roads and wealthy residents... USA had everything necessary for people to want & demand big cars (and big stuff in general) and the habit stuck. American cars were also often bristling with features that were limited to premium marques in Europe at the time, this is a historical thing but generally Americans demanded a lot more from their vehicles. More switches and a lot more steel, neither of which were in short supply in the booming American 20th century economy.
I know it's not quite the same today as it was in the past but on the whole American cars, especially domestic American cars, are still relatively huge. It's definitely not the 60s/70s/80s any more though.
That said: cars are getting bigger everywhere, you only need to look at the average car park in Europe to see this and you very likely drive a much bigger car today than you did in the 90s regardless of where you live in the world. The SUV evolved into a sort of larger road-going alternative to the Estate/Wagon, the 'crossover' has replaced the hatchbacks of the 80s and 90s and is just a taller, bigger hatchback and the regular saloon/sedan car has all but disappeared in Europe. High passenger and pedestrian safety standards have also contributed to cars getting bigger and had a huge influence on design in general, it is why people feel all brands of car look so similar in the 2010s.
As an interesting historical note, black people strongly preferred big cars back in the days that the Green Book was a useful guide for identifying friendly gas stations, restaurants and motels...
As an interesting historical note, black people strongly preferred big cars back in the days that the Green Book was a useful guide for identifying friendly gas stations, restaurants and motels and also for avoiding unfriendly ones and "sundown towns". There's a reason there aren't so many black people in the "heartland" and it's not because they don't like living in the countryside or can't farm or raise livestock.
A big car, such as a Cadillac, demonstrated to your wife or sweetheart that you had the capacity to just pull over somewhere safe for the night and sleep (relatively) comfortably in your car. It wasn't so much a status symbol as a way to travel without being murdered in your sleep.
My spouse and I were hit by a car that missed a stop sign a month ago, and I am so glad we were driving an SUV. Our car was totalled, but we both walked away from the crash. The car that hit us...
My spouse and I were hit by a car that missed a stop sign a month ago, and I am so glad we were driving an SUV. Our car was totalled, but we both walked away from the crash. The car that hit us was a larger SUV, and you could see it was much less effected than our car was. I'd probably be dead if we'd been driving our sedan.
In a place where most drivers are in SUVs, it feels dangerous to me to not have one as well. So regardless of how the US got into this situation, I can easily see how it becomes self-pertuating.
I've always been skeptical of this take. For one, remember that before the OPEC crisis, American "sedans" were massive. By width and length they were in many ways larger than many SUVs today, even if they were "sedans", although they didn't get jacked up yet. It was not until the gas crisis that America began to import and favor economy compact sedans from Europe and Japan.
Secondly, the most popular SUVs don't even qualify for this. In the US, the best selling "SUVs" are the RAV4 and the CRV by a large margin. Those are basically tall full sized sedans. A CRV is about 300 lbs heavier than an accord. It doesn't even count as a light truck.
Third, SUVs are popular across the world. They're 50% of new car sales in both Europe and China. Despite the tighter roads of the old world, people still like their big tall cars.
I really don't think any change of emissions or tax policy in the US is going to magically make people not like big tall cars, because they like big tall cars, on average.
Edit: to be more specific, I’m skeptical of the idea that people, and especially Americans, only love big cars because they’re brainwashed by car companies. It both doesn’t seem plausible and feels like cope when the real answer is much more annoying if you want less gas guzzlers, namely that people actually do just love big cars.
I like my small car, but I have to say that it's frustrating being surrounded by vehicles which seem to be twice my height.
My daily driver is a 2012 Camry Hybrid, but I got a chance to drive my brother-in-law's newish BMW X5. Having been on the other side of it, I don't really understand the appeal. I don't like parking such a large vehicle (though the surround view was certainly cool) and I don't like how much less connected I feel to the road. I like being able to place a vehicle in my lane and being up high makes that feel trickier. Maybe it's just the lack of familiarity.
The hatch was certainly nice. But the same could be said for my sister's old Prius.
I mean, I normally drive a Fiat Abarth, but the point of SUVs isn't to be nicer to drive around, its to be able to haul stuff. Say you want to buy a fridge, and you have a Camry, or even a hatchback sedan, then you're out of luck and will need to get a trailer or something to move your fridge to your house.
If you have a SUV you just put the seats down and throw the fridge in the back. And while most people don't buy fridges super frequently, its not like a fridge is the only thing which you could buy that's too big to fit in a Sedan but would fit in an SUV
I understand the theory, but I don't think many SUVs or even trucks actually see that much usage for those reasons. Also smaller trucks - such as the old Toyota Tacoma or the Nissan D21 - have the same carrying capacity of newer, massive trucks. I don't think utility is the culprit behind the push to SUVs and trucks.
Personally I think it has more to do with marketing, particularly the "keep my family safe" narrative, and the fact that automakers make much higher margins from SUVs and Trucks than they do from sedans.
It's not the culprit but that's how it was sold. I also agree the marketing around "safety" which is playing on fear is what also helped to sell the things.
I also think the coal industry which is in bed with the automotive industry had a huge hand in it because SUVs are bigger, and less fuel efficient, and weigh more yet are around the same size as a sedan. Only saving grace is it's taller so the cubic inches in the back can be used for clunkier stuff.
In the end, people got manipulated into buying SUVs and now they think they need them and it was their choice.
Another favorite excuse is "we have a child". I love that one because it really illuminates how before SUVs we didn't have families.
The small person driving a massive SUV out of fear of being collided with is also funny because it's harder to park and be cognizant of what's around you when you're driving such a massive thing.
Anecdotally, my camry can comfortably seat people over six feet in every seat. A Rav4 can't, neither can the Hyundai equivalent. Riddle me that.
I don't think it's really a mystery. Same can be said about cell phones. Does the average person need the 2001 equivalent of a super computer in their pocket? No. But they've convinced themselves they do. And that manipulation comes from up top.
Car manufacturers manipulated public transportation, highways, railroads, sidewalks, the environment, legislation, you name it.
Being American is being car crazy.
I need to haul something with my van every week or 2. That's often enough that it basically makes a smaller vehicle a non-option.
I'd love to keep my old vehicle as a hauling-only vehicle and buy something super small and fuel efficient for my daily driver instead of buying a new gas-guzzler.
But we have insurance laws written by insurance companies. Liability insurance specifically doesn't cover my vehicles, but only other property I damage, but for some reason I have to carry it for every vehicle I own. So the extra insurance policy basically wipes out the gas savings.
I mean in a case like that, sure a large vehicle might help - but SUVs don't have much more (if any) space than, say, a station wagon style vehicle. The RAV4 has approximately 70 cubic feet in the cabin, and a Volkswagen Golf has about 67 cubic feet (both with folded down seats). Sure some might get bigger, but most things I've moved would've been fine in the Golf.
And I can just do what I've done every time I've had a large move and just rent a large vehicle for a day to handle my move, then return it and not have to drive that hulking thing everywhere for the odd time I need to move something. I suppose that means I can't impulse buy a couch, but I wasn't going to do that anyway.
I'm not shaming people for liking SUVs and light trucks (unless you rev it loud and lift your Ford F-150 then put bright ass lights that blind me when you're riding my ass in a 30mph zone) I just wish we didn't have to deal with the ridiculousness of them.
The RAV4 is a pretty tiny car. When most people talk large SUVs, they're talking Highlander, which has 84 cu ft of cargo capacity, not counting the driver/passenger seats in front.
There's also something to be said for how that cu ft is accesisble. There have been numerous cars I've driven where the limiting factor of cargo capacity was not interior volume, but that the openings to it were too tiny.
I think it depends on the RAV- my 2000 was teeny, i drove a 2016 and it was enormous.
A new Rav 4 weight 3300-3600 lbs, depending on the exact model.
For reference a Civic weighs 3000-3200 lbs, and that's a large Sedan. Then you have large SUVs that are north of 4,000 lbs. A Rav 4 is definitely in the small SUV side of things, even if it's bigger than what you're used to
Funnily enough, the civic is classed as a compact sedan. The accord is supposed to be the full size.
True, but I was using the upper limit weight from the Civic Type R hatchback, which is only 100 lbs lighter than an accord.
The base model normal Civic isn't quite that heavy
And the golf isn't even a station wagon, it's just a hatchback. The difference is that the cargo area in station wagons extends pretty significantly past the rear wheels.
Meaning a full on 70s style station wagon would have significantly more cargo space than the RAV4.
Hard agree on this. I had to move to a new place recently and I moved everything by myself in my SUV. Standing desk? No problem. Dresser? You bet. Mattress? Hell yeah!
One of those times I’m actually grateful I’m driving a big SUV!
Sounds convenient, but wouldn't it be just as easy to rent a van or small truck?
This goes to some of the appeal for SUVs that I neglected to mention: they are a sort of jack of all trades. People buy a car not based upon what they typically need but what they imagine they might need. You may only go to IKEA once every few years, but wouldn't it suck to have a car that couldn't haul all of that home?
Of course, minivans beat SUVs on this. Because of the lower right height but similar overall height, they have more interior volume. And many of them have seats that can be stowed in the floor.
So people were only buying SUVs for practicality, they would be buying minivans instead. Minivans lose on aesthetics for most buyers. A decent sized wagon probably has the same utility as an SUV but is also considered aesthetically inferior for some reason.
Team minivan. I miss mine, and am hoping Toyota's hybrid minivan becomes affordable by the time I'm ready to switch cars again.
IKEA and just about everyone who sells big things offers delivery, though.
I guess it’s bad if you need it immediately, but who needs emergency furniture?
TBF, IKEA's delivery prices are really high. Unless it's changed since the last time I looked, shipping a bookshelf would often cost as much as the bookshelf.
Not that that in itself justifies buying a huge vehicle, but that's part of the mindset involved.
That’s odd. Was that with the installation service? I looked it up and it said that it started at $6 or something like that, though to be fair I don’t think that’s a price that anyone realistically pays.
No not really. I just have it delivered. It costs far less than owning a car and they bring it to me. Super convenient.
I'm mystified about wagons, myself. A manual sport wagon has been my ideal car most of my life- what's not to love? Is it just branding?
I always like offbeat stuff, though, and i don't understand a lot of choices people make.
Aesthetically, I've never been a fan of wagons. At least not traditional ones. I think they're better looking than minivans and SUVs by far, but only from some angles. (Namely, the ones that minimize the fact that they're wagons.)
Two- and four-door hatchbacks I can get behind. You know, small ones like the four-door VW Golf or the like. But when they get too big, I don't think they look good. Everyone loves the RS6 Avant, but it doesn't work for me. Similarly, I love the Porsche Taycan sedan but the Sport Tourismo isn't nearly as good looking.
What does really work for me, though, are the wagons that look like sedans. The Audi A5 Sportback being a particular favorite of mine. I wish more brands were doing that. Yeah, the sloped hatch means you lose some practicality over a vertical one, but I'll take it.
No. No its not.
It easily costs $100 to rent a truck for even an hour. I have to go potentially 10 miles out of my way to go get said truck, and usually have to pay per mile to use the thing, plus gas. Doing that once a month negates most cost differences from having a smaller car.
That doesn't even factor the savings from being able to just curb pick trash. You would be amazed what people just throw out cause they got something newer.
Where are you renting a truck? The big box home improvement store near me rents out small pickups for $20 for an hour and a half, or 4 hours for $50. Mileage does not change this.
Nowhere in the US is it even close to this expensive. I needed to pick up some articles of furniture, so I rented a truck from Home Depot¹. Total cost, including all fees and re-topping it off with gas, was under $30.
¹ Aside: I actually wanted a cargo van, but someone else nabbed it in the five minutes it took me to walk in, and the pickup they gave me sucked. It was actively snowing that day—y'know, on my furniture in the open bed—and the truck was an appalling pile in the snow. It couldn't make it up my driveway, so I got the unenviable and not recommended experience of carrying a pair of chairs on foot in the snow up a steep driveway around to my back door. It sure made me glad I don't own one of those things.
I wasn't really thinking about pickup trucks, I was thinking Uhaul. However, I just looked up my local Home Depo. Only options, for 1 pickup truck available: $20 for 80 minutes, or $130 for one day. They don't prorate. Everything else starts at $100. That sounds ok until I start doing the math for how I'd actually use it.
Uhaul advertises starting at $30, but the reality is you're at $70 for even a small trip after,
It's a 20 minute drive away. So even if I'm hauling from Home Depo, that's down to 40 minutes to load/unload/fill tank or it goes from $20ish to $120ish.
Now if I want to use it the way I actually would want to? It's a triangle shape of 20/25/20. Down to 15 minutes to actually use. Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room if there's even the slightest delay.
It's an OK cost if I didn't already need to own a car. The difference between owning a large enough car to almost never needing a pickup and owning a tiny sedan is minimal.
If I could get by with no car, sure I'd have less a problem with paying $100+ delivery fees once in awhile.
You're absolutely right! But in my case, it was just me moving things slowly over the course of a week. I'd imagine a van/truck would be great if you're moving with someone else who can drive or help move things in a day
I rent a lot of different cars. It feels weird having a Miata one week and a F150 later. The latter is so vague and I usually see the roofs of most other cars besides other pickups or the largest suvs.
I drive a car that is in no sense of the word small—a Subaru Crosstrek. The other day, I was parked next to a recent-model Cadillac SUV whose hoodline was only a few inches short of being level with my roof.
There's no way that car should be legal; you could park a Miata in the blind spot in front of it with room to spare for most of a kindergarten class.
My car (Honda Fit) is small, I even get a discount on the ferries. If I get caught in slow traffic it's often like I'm in a box that I can't see out if.
It's an interesting effect that to feel safe now you need a bigger car, which in turn means that we in our new bigger cars are making people in smaller cars feel even more unsafe. Vicious cycle that probably does need regulation or at least better incentives to fix...
The thing that makes me feel most unsafe in my ancient Camry these days is pulling out onto busy streets with cars parked alongside. If there's a huge suburban or pickup parked, it's always just best guess whether someone might slam into me.
I like my small car too but it has its limits. I'd like something bigger as we have one child and might have another -- ours is a hatchback (Hyundai Accent), I'd honestly just love a hatchback that is larger, but once you go into that territory a lot of the offerings are just SUVs.
Honestly, the biggest advantage of a taller car is it's easier to load and unload your kids. I've raised me kids in the back of a Honda Fit and a minivan and the van is just so much more comfortable to get them in and out of and to drive long distances in.
With the van, I can actually step into the vehicle and strap the kids in, plus it's got the third row if I'm bringing the dog or want to bring 1-3 more people with me. Or, I can take the rear seat out and have nearly the equivalent space my Fit has with all the seats folded down. Long story short, the van is just more comfortable, offers better ingress and egress, as well as more utility overall.
Still love my Fit, but the in spite of the 14mpgs less, the van just wins out overall for everyday use.
My favorite thing about my family's old minivan has always been that Toyota seems to have designed the bed (with the middle seats out) to be exactly 4'x8'. Not only did it haul kids around for two decades, it also served amazingly for all of the tasks like hauling plywood for projects or lugging around big furniture that plenty of our friends' much bigger SUVs or trucks either couldn't handle at all or gave up tons of day to day utility in order to handle the once a month or less task of hauling stuff.
Traded in my civic when I regularly left work in traffic where my left and right windows were blocked with running boards, rear view was a grill, and front was a tow hitch. Didn’t feel very safe anymore. Funny enough, my small SUV hybrid gets 10 mpg more.
Are you certain? The EPA lists these Honda vehicles (for example) into these categories:
If, indeed, fuel economy standards are looser on SUVs than they are on cars, Honda still has an incentive to push SUV sales. (And, as the video points out, if fuel economy standards are lower on larger vehicles, they also have an incentive to increase the size of existing vehicles. As, for example, they have done with the Civic, which has ballooned to what was once an Accord-size.)
No doubt about it. But it doesn't have to be completely top-down or bottom-up. There can be pressure from both sides.
On the bottom-upside, as you say, people like bigger vehicles. They feel safer higher up, they like the extra room both in interior space as well as in cargo volume. There's also the safety arms race, where people think they are safer in bigger, heavier vehicles, prompting them to want the biggest, heaviest vehicle they can afford. I know my brother-in-law was concerned that my sister was driving something as small as a third generation Prius, prompting them to get a Highlander Hybrid instead.
It's also undeniable that manufacturers have strong incentives on the top-down side. Fuel and emissions standards are a huge constraint on manufacturers and trucks/SUVs give them an easy out for that. There is a certain degree to which it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. Car manufacturers don't believe consumers are interested in smaller, more efficient vehicles, so they stop selling smaller, more efficient vehicles. With a lack of other available options, consumers opt for larger, less efficient vehicles than they would prefer. I know that I would love it if my Camry Hybrid were a PHEV and had a hatchback in the same vein as the Audi A5 Sportback. But it simply doesn't exist. If I wanted a new Toyota with a hatch, I would have to get an SUV or the Prius. A midsize quasi-sedan PHEV simply isn't an option.
The exact proportion the top-down and bottom-up forces play in the overall change in the American car landscape over the past four decades is impossible to say. But it's much easier to affect change upon the top-down side, if we are interested as a society. The regulations that guided some of these changes certainly were aiming for outcomes that are very different from what we got.
That said, we have seen dramatic consumer preference shifts in response to certain changes in the "driving environment." Prius sales exploded when gas prices went up and the second generation Prius was a hot new car. When gas prices came back down, Prius sales went down with them. (Or at least that is the narrative that I often saw — it's possible the Prius also had reached market saturation.) So bottom-up changes are certainly not impossible.
Why can't it be both?
I think that a bigger part of it is advertising, actually. An old advertising idea is that you don't advertise the product, you advertise the idea of the product. More specifically, you sell them an idea that they can see themselves in.
Simply put, I haven't seen an advertisement for a small car in a very long time. Almost all of them focus on one of these ideas:
cars for rugged outdoorsmen
trucks for manly men
cars for family camping
SUVs for transporting large families
trucks for doing hard work or towing
etc.
Emissions may be part of it, but realistically I think it's simpler than that: bigger cars cost more money, and car manufacturers want to make more money. You've probably already noticed how expensive they've gotten in the past few years.
From my experience I think you are correct that people want big cars because they want to imagine they will lead a life that requires it. They want to envision themselves being outdoorsy or hauling a boat or something. It almost feels like the physical version of people who don’t want to vote for higher taxes on brackets they aren’t in because one day they might be that person.
I have a midsize pickup truck, we got it when we moved onto a larger property and needed a work vehicle. But I noticed when I got it that a lot of my friends/coworkers voiced how much they wanted a similar vehicle due to the fun factor, when they definitely do not need the utility.
Comparing Euro and Asian SUV sales to America is apples and oranges though. The vehicle styles are absolutely and obviously different to what we would see in North America.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/automobiles/european-us-cars-automakers.html
You're not wrong. The main reason SUVs and large cars are popular in the US isn't just CAFE standards. The US makes sure roads have much higher LOS than equivalent roads in Europe and much of Asia. Roads that would be 2 lanes or simply gravel graded in Europe or Japan are 4 lanes in the US. Moreover US lane widths are much larger than those in Europe or Asia. With more and wider lanes, naturally larger cars are more appealing.
Of course all Americans get to pay the taxes for this high LOS road system oriented around personal vehicles.
In short, fuel efficiency standards were stricter on passenger vehicles than on "light trucks." This created an incentive for car manufacturers to push consumers towards vehicles that could be classified as "light trucks" for regulatory purposes. The SUV perfectly fit that model.
Later, we updated the fuel efficiency standards… And made it worse.
Direct link to the YouTube video.
The question for me is less "How can we fix this?" and more "Does anyone care to fix this?"
I think the obvious fix is to apply the same fuel efficiency standards to all vehicles, maybe allow for exceptions via permits for specific purposes. If it were up to me it would be just a straight up moratorium on the sales of SUVs they are unsafe for everyone and there's nothing they can do that you can't get done with station wagon or minivan.
Having constant standards for all vehicles wouldn't make sense. If your 2300 lb Miata has the same fuel efficiency standards as your 4100 lb station wagon, then suddenly you effectively have no standards for the Miata. Or you have outlawed cars that weight much above 3,000 lbs.
Neither of those are good options, even if you completely ignore SUVs
It seems reasonable to reduce the number of heavier cars that are primarily used as passenger vehicles. In fact, it might be a good option.
Heavier cars are worse for pedestrian safety, noise pollution, road maintenance, tire particulate pollution, and safety of passengers in other vehicles. With more heavier cars on the road, people are incentivized to buy a heavier car themselves for their own safety. A reasonable way to stop that cycle would be to put stricter fuel efficiency standards of heavier cars.
A good, real-world example of this is the keijidousha program in Japan. They create a real financial incentive to produce and buy lighter cars, which are better for public safety and the environment, reducing parking space and minimizing emissions. Effectively, larger cars are taxed and restricted, with regulations defining a smaller class of more favorable cars that people should be steered toward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
Notably, there are various classes besides "kei and non-kei." The Honda Fit, which is a truly enjoyable and practical car, was actually designed because the modern Civic (with its ballooning size, compared to the 90s ones) put it into an even higher bracket that made it unfavorable for the Japanese market. So the Fit was released, at a size and weight much closer to that of a 90s Civic. I drive one, and in the rare occasions I've often across them, I've noted that it's slightly larger than the Dodge Spirit or Civic, which were considered acceptable family sedans when I was growing up. You can fit two adults and two children-to-teenagers in any of them, and still have trunk space. (And the curb weight clocks in at around 2,600 lb for the Fit.)
Additionally, the typical vehicle on the road in the US has 1-2 occupants and is simply being used to go from point A to B, maybe carrying some shopping items. (I've heard the number "1.5 occupants" repeated before.) It's absolutely a reasonable step to put an additional financial disincentive on choices that are bad for city planning and public safety (negative externalities), while being generally unnecessary except for outliers.
Yes, but 3,000lbs is an unreasonably low limit. That would make a Civic or Mini Cooper, for example, illegal.
We currently have Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations, which this video discusses. Perhaps those should be generalized to Corporate Average Energy Efficiency standards as a way to incentivize the creation of lighter, more efficient vehicles even in the EV era.
Additionally, in a similar vein, perhaps we need a Corporate Average Weight tax. So it's perfectly fine to sell an 8,000 pound Hummer EV, but you better not sell very many of them. (That or a consumer-oriented weight tax that scales progressively rather than a linearly.)
I'm 100% for this. At the very least, oversized vehicles should require a commercial license and be subject to additional odometry-based taxation.
Well, I guess I'll just be glad you don't get to tell me what to drive
Try to keep in mind that this space is meant to be used for discussion and conversation, act as if you're literally communicating with another person in real life. This isn't Reddit, we're not trying to compete for attention or anything here. Not trying to talk shit to you personally, just something to keep in mind when you hit that reply button.
I mean yes, but the original point is a bit of a non starter and hard to converse with. If they/you want conversation or debate then your initial point needs more thought behind it as well.
There are ways to get there but no politician wants to kill their career to pass something the large majority of the public does not want.
You'd have to start smaller with incentivizing car manufacturers to make smaller cars in a way that is positive to them, wait for them to advertise and change public opinion over decades and then finally get the regulations that the public would then be behind. Of course that's all extremely difficult as well.
A negative "tax" like that always angers people and is a bad way to get people "on your side".
One option would be to levy a heavy fuel tax and let the market drive fuel efficiency. I'm not suggesting getting rid of minimum standards, but building in some extra incentive for fuel efficiency. Taxes are political suicide here in the US, but we've seen spikes in fuel prices increase the demand for fuel efficient cars. Theoretically, a fuel tax (i.e., carbon tax) should work.
This video has a lot of overlap with Not Just Bikes' video "These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us" if you want to learn more
Is it as condescending as Not Just Bikes always feels?
Yes, but he's not wrong. SUVs are a plague.
NJB is usually right, but he always says things in the most condescending ways. If he wanted to educate people who aren't already pro-transit and pro-cycling, he could take a more nuanced and softer approach to his arguments.
The whole point of improving public transit and walkability is to give people more options for their mobility to make our cities work better for more people. The kinds of anti-car videos he makes definitely alienates and polarizes drivers who 95% of the time just want to get from A to B quickly, safely, and comfortably, but don't have other options.
New country, big country, cheap oil, new (big) roads and wealthy residents... USA had everything necessary for people to want & demand big cars (and big stuff in general) and the habit stuck. American cars were also often bristling with features that were limited to premium marques in Europe at the time, this is a historical thing but generally Americans demanded a lot more from their vehicles. More switches and a lot more steel, neither of which were in short supply in the booming American 20th century economy.
I know it's not quite the same today as it was in the past but on the whole American cars, especially domestic American cars, are still relatively huge. It's definitely not the 60s/70s/80s any more though.
That said: cars are getting bigger everywhere, you only need to look at the average car park in Europe to see this and you very likely drive a much bigger car today than you did in the 90s regardless of where you live in the world. The SUV evolved into a sort of larger road-going alternative to the Estate/Wagon, the 'crossover' has replaced the hatchbacks of the 80s and 90s and is just a taller, bigger hatchback and the regular saloon/sedan car has all but disappeared in Europe. High passenger and pedestrian safety standards have also contributed to cars getting bigger and had a huge influence on design in general, it is why people feel all brands of car look so similar in the 2010s.
As an interesting historical note, black people strongly preferred big cars back in the days that the Green Book was a useful guide for identifying friendly gas stations, restaurants and motels and also for avoiding unfriendly ones and "sundown towns". There's a reason there aren't so many black people in the "heartland" and it's not because they don't like living in the countryside or can't farm or raise livestock.
A big car, such as a Cadillac, demonstrated to your wife or sweetheart that you had the capacity to just pull over somewhere safe for the night and sleep (relatively) comfortably in your car. It wasn't so much a status symbol as a way to travel without being murdered in your sleep.
The whole reason I switched to an SUV is because hitting a deer in a car sucks. In an SUV it's not as bad because you're up higher.
My spouse and I were hit by a car that missed a stop sign a month ago, and I am so glad we were driving an SUV. Our car was totalled, but we both walked away from the crash. The car that hit us was a larger SUV, and you could see it was much less effected than our car was. I'd probably be dead if we'd been driving our sedan.
In a place where most drivers are in SUVs, it feels dangerous to me to not have one as well. So regardless of how the US got into this situation, I can easily see how it becomes self-pertuating.
If this article says anything other than "Because propaganda works" then it's not worth your time.