6 ms·

The hoods on trucks are so massive now if you put a 6 year old in front of one you wouldn't be able to see them at all. Like seriously wtf are we doing here? R

The hoods on trucks are so massive now if you put a 6 year old in front of one you wouldn't be able to see them at all. Like seriously wtf are we doing here? Regulators badly need to reign the car makers in.

quantumBerry 5y ago
CAFE standards (regulations) are the reason why trucks are so large. Fuel efficiency standards are based on the size of vehicle, so a bigger vehicle allows for more fuel consumption and thus a more practical to build vehicle while still meeting standards. There is no shortage of small trucks internationally. If you want smaller trucks, you seek deregulation (removal of fuel efficiency standards and the chicken tax).
- Skunkleton 5y ago
  > If you want smaller trucks, you seek deregulation This is a false equivalency.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    > This is a false equivalency. This is a false statement. Unless you are oblivious to the current regulations, and the fact that one must remove (deregulate) CAFE as it stands before small trucks are economically feasible.
chadash 5y ago
Pass a higher gas tax. If we paid European gas prices most new cars would get much smaller pretty quickly.
- mips_avatar 5y ago
  European regulators also take pedestrian safety much more seriously than US regulators. You only see cars in Europe with the pedestrian safe sloping nose.
  - thrill 5y ago
    They certainly take driver training much more seriously.
    - nathanaldensr 5y ago
      This is the real solution. The quality of drivers in the United States is atrocious. It's laughable what constitutes "driver's education" here. Every state is different, but likely none of them treats driving as the dangerous, serious-at-all-times activity it really is.
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        Some European jurisdictions also have meaningful vehicle inspections. There doesn't seem to be any US state that will take your car off the road for being jacked up five feet in the air.
      - closeparen 5y ago
        Living in an ordinary US metro area without a car is a punishment we reserve for drunks and the desperately poor; we haven’t the heart to inflict it on those who are merely bad at driving. What are we going to say? “Sorry, kid, if you want to be a functioning adult you’d better move to Manhattan.”
    - pmkiwi 5y ago
      In the US, you bring your own car for your driving exam... And this is barely a joke !!
  - jahnu 5y ago
    I'm not sure about that. I see cars like the Cadillac Escalade here in Austria. Not many of them mind you and almost always only outside hotels like the Intercontinental. I assume to ferry wealthy tourists around in what they are accustomed to in the US.
- closeparen 5y ago
  Even the huge trucks are electric now. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/ https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/
  - Tiktaalik 5y ago
    YEP. Electric cars are something we must do to halt climate change, but we need to recognize it's an example of doing the same broken thing, just better. At the end of the day we will have a more green version of what we have now, carrying over all the existing flaws of automobile oriented infrastructure (ie. pedestrian deaths, traffic).
    - closeparen 5y ago
      Migrating away from automobile transportation solves "traffic" in only the most obtuse sense of the term - there aren't literally passenger cars contending for space. We care about traffic because it deters us from going where we'd like to and makes remaining trips take longer. I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that walking, cycling, and transit are slower than driving and will deter even more trips. We spin that in a positive way, as encouraging the development of more neighborhood-level communities and businesses. But then it's hard to explain why "traffic" is a problem you're solving. Traffic has the same effects as the solution you're selling!
      - Tiktaalik 5y ago
        Traffic is an issue with automobile oriented infrastructure because automobiles are such a space inefficient way of transporting people. In the context of a conversation of how trucks are getting bigger and bigger, it's worth noting that the size gains are having implications on traffic too! The point being though that electric cars will be just as space inefficient as ICE cars. If we want to move more people, more efficiently and avoid traffic jams and new highway construction, we'll have to opt for different solutions.
        closeparen 5y ago
- post_break 5y ago
  Not everything needs a tax. Just change crash test ratings and manufacturers will have to adapt.
- zip1234 5y ago
  Electric hummer on the way--9000 lbs, 0-60 in 3 seconds.
  - Skunkleton 5y ago
    Tires go from 100% tread to 0 in about the same amount of time too, I assume?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- mmcgaha 5y ago
  Tax is not the answer. People are already paying the stupid tax on the $60k pickup truck (I laugh at your down votes), but that does not stop people from buying them. They know they are overpriced, maintenance costs are higher, environmental costs are higher, tight parking is an issue, and garage space is too tight, yet they buy them any way. It used to be people bought trucks because they were the tool they needed but they are a status symbol now. For gods sake can we please go back to small sporty BMW status symbol?
cameldrv 5y ago
The regulators in this case are the problem. What's driving massive hoods and massive trucks in general is fuel economy regulations. The CAFE regulations specify a target fuel economy based on the "footprint" of a truck [1], which is the wheelbase times the width between the tires. Trucks with larger footprints have less stringent fuel economy requirements. Unfortunately, the formula they use to determine this makes compact trucks practically impossible. A truly compact truck like a 90s Ford Ranger or Chevy S10 is supposed to achieve 44 MPG, while a full sized truck only needs to get 27. The irony is that many people would prefer to buy a smaller, easier to park, less expensive, safer, and more fuel efficient truck, but these regulations make them unavailable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#New_%22Footprint%22_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  The other half of this is the chicken tax. Internationally, small trucks are widely available. However the tariffs make it much more difficult for the market to bear the sale of these small trucks (vs domestic mid-size truck or imported small passenger car) in the USA, CAFE notwithstanding.
  - cameldrv 5y ago
    That's a factor to some extent, but not as much as the CAFE regs. Many foreign manufacturers simply produce trucks in the U.S. or Mexico. Toyota for example makes their pickups in Texas and Mexico and so isn't subject to the chicken tax. The big 3 and Toyota all used to make compact pickup trucks. Ford has the new compact Maverick coming out next year, but even that is still 6 inches wider, 4 inches taller, and 23 inches longer than the Ranger of 30 years ago. If you look at today's Ranger, it's 11 inches wider, 7 inches taller, and 35 inches longer than the Ranger of 1991.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  This does not explain the rise of SUVs though, and generally cars just getting bigger and bigger.
david38 5y ago
Historically children are actually safer. The large front end distributes the force over the entire body of the child. That being said, * better to see the child and not hit them * people should get training in how to drive trucks. They are not cars. Requiring a special license will make the lazier ones think twice at least
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I highly doubt that the larger frontend distributing the force over the whole body makes things safer. In particular because for a higher frontend this includes the head, which is arguably the most sensitive area of the body. Do you have any studies that back up that claim?
jkestner 5y ago
A bunch of kids can fit in that blind spot. https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/13-investigates-millions-vehicles-have-unexpected-dangerous-front-blind-zone/531-9521c471-3bc1-4b55-b860-3363f0954b3b https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investig... Which is why they’re now patching it with front cameras. I saw a video from inside the cab of a big pickup truck (like an F250), where they’re at a stoplight and there’s a Corvette in front of them that can’t be seen from the driver’s seat, so they only see it on the dashboard screen.
pmkiwi 5y ago
Many drivers of SUV are not aware of the body of their vehicle because these are so large and high. How many a large car is turning, say right (via a dedicated lane), but 10-20% of the vehicle is still in the other lane? Hundred times every week probably... This is just driving me crazy because they are not a bus or a very large delivery truck! They are just an Audi, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, etc ...

quantumBerry 5y ago

CAFE standards (regulations) are the reason why trucks are so large. Fuel efficiency standards are based on the size of vehicle, so a bigger vehicle allows for more fuel consumption and thus a more practical to build vehicle while still meeting standards. There is no shortage of small trucks internationally. If you want smaller trucks, you seek deregulation (removal of fuel efficiency standards and the chicken tax).

Skunkleton 5y ago
> If you want smaller trucks, you seek deregulation This is a false equivalency.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  > This is a false equivalency. This is a false statement. Unless you are oblivious to the current regulations, and the fact that one must remove (deregulate) CAFE as it stands before small trucks are economically feasible.

chadash 5y ago

Pass a higher gas tax. If we paid European gas prices most new cars would get much smaller pretty quickly.

mips_avatar 5y ago
European regulators also take pedestrian safety much more seriously than US regulators. You only see cars in Europe with the pedestrian safe sloping nose.
- thrill 5y ago
  They certainly take driver training much more seriously.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    This is the real solution. The quality of drivers in the United States is atrocious. It's laughable what constitutes "driver's education" here. Every state is different, but likely none of them treats driving as the dangerous, serious-at-all-times activity it really is.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      Some European jurisdictions also have meaningful vehicle inspections. There doesn't seem to be any US state that will take your car off the road for being jacked up five feet in the air.
    - closeparen 5y ago
      Living in an ordinary US metro area without a car is a punishment we reserve for drunks and the desperately poor; we haven’t the heart to inflict it on those who are merely bad at driving. What are we going to say? “Sorry, kid, if you want to be a functioning adult you’d better move to Manhattan.”
  - pmkiwi 5y ago
    In the US, you bring your own car for your driving exam... And this is barely a joke !!
- jahnu 5y ago
  I'm not sure about that. I see cars like the Cadillac Escalade here in Austria. Not many of them mind you and almost always only outside hotels like the Intercontinental. I assume to ferry wealthy tourists around in what they are accustomed to in the US.
closeparen 5y ago
Even the huge trucks are electric now. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/ https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/
- Tiktaalik 5y ago
  YEP. Electric cars are something we must do to halt climate change, but we need to recognize it's an example of doing the same broken thing, just better. At the end of the day we will have a more green version of what we have now, carrying over all the existing flaws of automobile oriented infrastructure (ie. pedestrian deaths, traffic).
  - closeparen 5y ago
    Migrating away from automobile transportation solves "traffic" in only the most obtuse sense of the term - there aren't literally passenger cars contending for space. We care about traffic because it deters us from going where we'd like to and makes remaining trips take longer. I think pretty much everyone acknowledges that walking, cycling, and transit are slower than driving and will deter even more trips. We spin that in a positive way, as encouraging the development of more neighborhood-level communities and businesses. But then it's hard to explain why "traffic" is a problem you're solving. Traffic has the same effects as the solution you're selling!
    - Tiktaalik 5y ago
      Traffic is an issue with automobile oriented infrastructure because automobiles are such a space inefficient way of transporting people. In the context of a conversation of how trucks are getting bigger and bigger, it's worth noting that the size gains are having implications on traffic too! The point being though that electric cars will be just as space inefficient as ICE cars. If we want to move more people, more efficiently and avoid traffic jams and new highway construction, we'll have to opt for different solutions.
      - closeparen 5y ago
post_break 5y ago
Not everything needs a tax. Just change crash test ratings and manufacturers will have to adapt.
zip1234 5y ago
Electric hummer on the way--9000 lbs, 0-60 in 3 seconds.
- Skunkleton 5y ago
  Tires go from 100% tread to 0 in about the same amount of time too, I assume?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mmcgaha 5y ago
Tax is not the answer. People are already paying the stupid tax on the $60k pickup truck (I laugh at your down votes), but that does not stop people from buying them. They know they are overpriced, maintenance costs are higher, environmental costs are higher, tight parking is an issue, and garage space is too tight, yet they buy them any way. It used to be people bought trucks because they were the tool they needed but they are a status symbol now. For gods sake can we please go back to small sporty BMW status symbol?

cameldrv 5y ago

The regulators in this case are the problem. What's driving massive hoods and massive trucks in general is fuel economy regulations. The CAFE regulations specify a target fuel economy based on the "footprint" of a truck [1], which is the wheelbase times the width between the tires. Trucks with larger footprints have less stringent fuel economy requirements. Unfortunately, the formula they use to determine this makes compact trucks practically impossible. A truly compact truck like a 90s Ford Ranger or Chevy S10 is supposed to achieve 44 MPG, while a full sized truck only needs to get 27. The irony is that many people would prefer to buy a smaller, easier to park, less expensive, safer, and more fuel efficient truck, but these regulations make them unavailable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#New_%22Footprint%22_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...

quantumBerry 5y ago
The other half of this is the chicken tax. Internationally, small trucks are widely available. However the tariffs make it much more difficult for the market to bear the sale of these small trucks (vs domestic mid-size truck or imported small passenger car) in the USA, CAFE notwithstanding.
- cameldrv 5y ago
  That's a factor to some extent, but not as much as the CAFE regs. Many foreign manufacturers simply produce trucks in the U.S. or Mexico. Toyota for example makes their pickups in Texas and Mexico and so isn't subject to the chicken tax. The big 3 and Toyota all used to make compact pickup trucks. Ford has the new compact Maverick coming out next year, but even that is still 6 inches wider, 4 inches taller, and 23 inches longer than the Ranger of 30 years ago. If you look at today's Ranger, it's 11 inches wider, 7 inches taller, and 35 inches longer than the Ranger of 1991.
cycomanic 5y ago
This does not explain the rise of SUVs though, and generally cars just getting bigger and bigger.

david38 5y ago

Historically children are actually safer. The large front end distributes the force over the entire body of the child. That being said, * better to see the child and not hit them * people should get training in how to drive trucks. They are not cars. Requiring a special license will make the lazier ones think twice at least

cycomanic 5y ago
I highly doubt that the larger frontend distributing the force over the whole body makes things safer. In particular because for a higher frontend this includes the head, which is arguably the most sensitive area of the body. Do you have any studies that back up that claim?

jkestner 5y ago

A bunch of kids can fit in that blind spot. https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investigates/13-investigates-millions-vehicles-have-unexpected-dangerous-front-blind-zone/531-9521c471-3bc1-4b55-b860-3363f0954b3b https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-investig... Which is why they’re now patching it with front cameras. I saw a video from inside the cab of a big pickup truck (like an F250), where they’re at a stoplight and there’s a Corvette in front of them that can’t be seen from the driver’s seat, so they only see it on the dashboard screen.

pmkiwi 5y ago

Many drivers of SUV are not aware of the body of their vehicle because these are so large and high. How many a large car is turning, say right (via a dedicated lane), but 10-20% of the vehicle is still in the other lane? Hundred times every week probably... This is just driving me crazy because they are not a bus or a very large delivery truck! They are just an Audi, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, etc ...