5 ms·

Nothing but their own egos requires monster vehicles. It's not like Dallas and Orlando are full of unpaved roads.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
True! But they’re spending the dollars, so their preference is what will be built for (see: Ford’s vehicle lineup, all trucks and SUVs). And if you attempt to regulate against them, you’ll get voted out (just like NIMBYs).
- kennywinker 6y ago
  There are a lot of personal preferences we regulate away. I prefer to drive drunk home from the bar, but that's illegal. I prefer to build buildings without obeying fire safety building codes, but apparently that's also illegal. 30k / year die in car accidents in the USA. This is a real problem with a huge human toll, akin to drunk driving or building codes. Step 1 is slow the vehicles down. As soon as they slow down, one of the main drivers of size - fear of an accident with a bigger vehicle - will be greatly decreased and we can do step 2: shrink them.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    If everyone rode all your straw horses we’d all be safe to sip from chocolate streams and eat from gumdrop trees. Driving has never been safer in this country. Slowing cars down is silly, interstates were built to drive 85 MPH on safely with cars without airbags, ABS, even seatbelts. We went through that with the 55 MPH federal mandate, which lowered death rates only a small percent at a large economic cost.
    - kennywinker 6y ago
      You are also right driving has never been safer. But you could have said that before airbags or abs or even seatbelts. and fyi, interstate driving is dangerous: > the fatality rate per 100 million miles traveled in 2015 was still 2.6 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas (1.84 in rural areas compared with 0.71 in urban areas) https://www.tariolaw.com/fatal-car-crashes-urban-car-accidents-vs-rural-car-accidents/ https://www.tariolaw.com/fatal-car-crashes-urban-car-acciden...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    > Step 1 is slow the vehicles down I can't even imagine what that would do to traffic that is already pretty congested. Large swaths of suburban metros would just grind to a halt. > 30k / year die in car accidents in the USA Closer to 40K. Even then, that is compared with almost 3 million people who die for all reasons combined. It's actually sort of amazing how low the fatality rate is given just how much movement there is every day. One for every 100,000,000 miles driven. That's remarkable.
    - Thlom 6y ago
      Slower speeds means cars drive closer together which means throughput increases (to a point). I think around 60km/h is generally considered the speed which yields the biggest throughput of cars.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    I think we need to change our language a bit and stop referring to crashes as accidents. Crashes are common. Accidents are exceptionally rare. While "accident" is a statement of intent, and outside of extreme road rage scenarios, nobody intends to cause a crash, people do deliberately create dangerous situations that lead to crashes. You might not have intended to rear-end somebody, but you did choose to text while driving. You might not have intended to side-swipe somebody, but you did choose to not check your blind spot before changing lanes. The word "accident" implies a mistake that you couldn't see coming. But when someone chooses to create the dangerous situation, it's no longer an accident, because the situation could have been avoided entirely.
valuearb 6y ago
Until you need to haul 6 kids, or three bikes, or furniture, or hone remodeling supplies from Home Depot, etc. Cars aren’t sized to our average use case, they they are sized to frequent use cases. I’m getting tired of the “all I need is a tiny tin box thus so should you” crowd.
- stephencanon 6y ago
  The only one of those that requires a large car is six kids (which is pretty rare). Bike racks work great on small cars. Home Depot delivers. I rent a van or truck to move furniture the one time a year I need to do it. Most people who drive a giant SUV absolutely do not need one.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    No one needs a car at all. We could live like hermits in the woods and go back to hunting and gathering. But if you live in the real world, why not drive a car that makes it easier to do all the things you want to do, if it’s easily affordable?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Thanks for the slippery slope, but they're saying that it barely makes it easier. So the question is how much money you want to spend on that barely.
      - stephencanon 6y ago
        Or alternatively, how much nicer of a car would you like to have for the same money? Most large SUVs are not well-constructed, nor are they much fun to drive. They’re just big. My smallish wagon does everything a typical family (2 adults, 2 kids, dog) has a regular need for (heck, I carry trees and 2x12s and gravel in it, which is more than most people need). On the rare occasion that I’m buying furniture and they don’t deliver or whatever, I rent a van. As a result, my day-to-day driving experience is infinitely more pleasant.
      - 6y ago

True! But they’re spending the dollars, so their preference is what will be built for (see: Ford’s vehicle lineup, all trucks and SUVs). And if you attempt to regulate against them, you’ll get voted out (just like NIMBYs).

kennywinker 6y ago
There are a lot of personal preferences we regulate away. I prefer to drive drunk home from the bar, but that's illegal. I prefer to build buildings without obeying fire safety building codes, but apparently that's also illegal. 30k / year die in car accidents in the USA. This is a real problem with a huge human toll, akin to drunk driving or building codes. Step 1 is slow the vehicles down. As soon as they slow down, one of the main drivers of size - fear of an accident with a bigger vehicle - will be greatly decreased and we can do step 2: shrink them.
- valuearb 6y ago
  If everyone rode all your straw horses we’d all be safe to sip from chocolate streams and eat from gumdrop trees. Driving has never been safer in this country. Slowing cars down is silly, interstates were built to drive 85 MPH on safely with cars without airbags, ABS, even seatbelts. We went through that with the 55 MPH federal mandate, which lowered death rates only a small percent at a large economic cost.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    You are also right driving has never been safer. But you could have said that before airbags or abs or even seatbelts. and fyi, interstate driving is dangerous: > the fatality rate per 100 million miles traveled in 2015 was still 2.6 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas (1.84 in rural areas compared with 0.71 in urban areas) https://www.tariolaw.com/fatal-car-crashes-urban-car-accidents-vs-rural-car-accidents/ https://www.tariolaw.com/fatal-car-crashes-urban-car-acciden...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Step 1 is slow the vehicles down I can't even imagine what that would do to traffic that is already pretty congested. Large swaths of suburban metros would just grind to a halt. > 30k / year die in car accidents in the USA Closer to 40K. Even then, that is compared with almost 3 million people who die for all reasons combined. It's actually sort of amazing how low the fatality rate is given just how much movement there is every day. One for every 100,000,000 miles driven. That's remarkable.
  - Thlom 6y ago
    Slower speeds means cars drive closer together which means throughput increases (to a point). I think around 60km/h is generally considered the speed which yields the biggest throughput of cars.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  I think we need to change our language a bit and stop referring to crashes as accidents. Crashes are common. Accidents are exceptionally rare. While "accident" is a statement of intent, and outside of extreme road rage scenarios, nobody intends to cause a crash, people do deliberately create dangerous situations that lead to crashes. You might not have intended to rear-end somebody, but you did choose to text while driving. You might not have intended to side-swipe somebody, but you did choose to not check your blind spot before changing lanes. The word "accident" implies a mistake that you couldn't see coming. But when someone chooses to create the dangerous situation, it's no longer an accident, because the situation could have been avoided entirely.

valuearb 6y ago

Until you need to haul 6 kids, or three bikes, or furniture, or hone remodeling supplies from Home Depot, etc. Cars aren’t sized to our average use case, they they are sized to frequent use cases. I’m getting tired of the “all I need is a tiny tin box thus so should you” crowd.

stephencanon 6y ago
The only one of those that requires a large car is six kids (which is pretty rare). Bike racks work great on small cars. Home Depot delivers. I rent a van or truck to move furniture the one time a year I need to do it. Most people who drive a giant SUV absolutely do not need one.
- valuearb 6y ago
  No one needs a car at all. We could live like hermits in the woods and go back to hunting and gathering. But if you live in the real world, why not drive a car that makes it easier to do all the things you want to do, if it’s easily affordable?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Thanks for the slippery slope, but they're saying that it barely makes it easier. So the question is how much money you want to spend on that barely.
    - stephencanon 6y ago
      Or alternatively, how much nicer of a car would you like to have for the same money? Most large SUVs are not well-constructed, nor are they much fun to drive. They’re just big. My smallish wagon does everything a typical family (2 adults, 2 kids, dog) has a regular need for (heck, I carry trees and 2x12s and gravel in it, which is more than most people need). On the rare occasion that I’m buying furniture and they don’t deliver or whatever, I rent a van. As a result, my day-to-day driving experience is infinitely more pleasant.
    - 6y ago