4 ms·

>Americans are mocked worldwide for their ridiculous cars. Oversized, gas guzzling, ostentatious, and yes - fetishized cars are associated with Americans worldw

>Americans are mocked worldwide for their ridiculous cars. Oversized, gas guzzling, ostentatious, and yes - fetishized cars are associated with Americans worldwide. Americans mock other nations for all sorts of shit that isn't true, like French people not showering or Germans sounding/being angry all the time. Should we take those thoughts seriously because a lot of people think them? Americans do buy a lot of pickups. Many of these get decent gas mileage. A lot of people use these for work. Crossovers are the biggest new sellers (over 50% of new sales, if my memory serves me correctly), which get marginally worse mileage than the cars they're directly descended from. The size of all of these vehicles is prodded along by "safety" regulations and ratings, where a higher hood height is correlated with the driver/passengers being safer in accidents (this has its own problems but it's a different discussion). I think you have an exaggerated view of what US auto consumer preferences look like. This is really easy because the whole "the US is a shithole with no redeeming qualities" narrative is popular among some crowds, but it doesn't reflect the reality of what's happening. >However car manufacturers did in fact plot - conspired, even - to attack trams, public transport, trains, and anything else that could threaten their dominance. That's just well known fact, and I don't know why you're defending any of this. Those plots and attacks range from completely unverifiable conspiracy theories, to unintended consequences, to actions that one might reasonably argue were an attempt to interfere with public transit. It is nowhere near as cut and dry as you're making it out to be, and trying to claim that some unproven conspiracy by Big Car is the primary reason the US is so dependent on cars today is myopic. You've suggested that others in this thread "just Google it", but some of the first results you're going to see when researching this subject touch pretty heavily on what I've said above -- the person asking you for some sources probably wasn't a "sealion" (whatever that is), they probably already did what you told them to, and some of the highest ranking info directly contradicted your argument. >Have you ever actually traveled outside America and seen how much nicer it is to be able to walk around a city that isn't designed completely around cars? It's a far, far superior daily experience. Nobody is denying that it's nicer to be able to walk around a city without having to deal with cars and traffic. The discussion is whether or not it is even feasible to have that anywhere in the US to the extent that other places do.

mandmandam 5y ago
> Americans mock other nations for all sorts of shit that isn't true, [etc.] That's not an argument that applies here, because Americans actually do buy stupidly big cars. > I think you have an exaggerated view of what US auto consumer preferences look like. This is really easy because [overly defensive strawman] No, I don't. Here's some numbers, which you could have looked for yourself, with the search engine of your choice: " According to data from IHS Automotive, larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013. Meanwhile, large vehicles only accounted for 25.4 percent of all vehicles sold outside the US during the same year." > Those plots and attacks range from completely unverifiable conspiracy theories, to unintended consequences, to actions that one might reasonably argue were an attempt to interfere with public transit. The cars are bigger. The cities are less livable. The conspiracies are verifiable, there are entire books, documentaries, and Wikipedia pages about the various fuckeries involved. You seem to be rather defensive about this though, so feel free to think whatever you like. > The discussion is whether or not it is even feasible to have that anywhere in the US That may be what you wish to discuss - fine. You can have that discussion somewhere else, with someone else. It is feasible though - and necessary. Again, the fucking planet is burning.
- seabird 5y ago
  >That's not an argument that applies here, because Americans actually do buy stupidly big cars. >" According to data from IHS Automotive, larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013. Meanwhile, large vehicles only accounted for 25.4 percent of all vehicles sold outside the US during the same year." "Larger" is doing some really heavy lifting, and that data is not capturing the large market share gains crossovers have made in the last decade. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-... 45% of all vehicles sold in the US in mid 2020 to mid 2021 were crossovers, which are almost without exception based on a "small car" platform and have similar fuel efficiency numbers. You're finding data that has some arbitrary definition of "large" -- from what I can tell, IHS would count an Impreza as "small" and a Forester as "large", and that is completely worthless for backing up a claim that Americans overwhelmingly drive gas-guzzling vehicles. The shift in focus to crossovers in the strategy of large auto manufacturers active in the US is glaringly obvious and you not realizing this is either a matter of you not paying attention or just willfully ignoring it. >You seem to be rather defensive about this though, so feel free to think whatever you like. I'm not even disagreeing with you that it happened in some circumstances, I'm just saying that you're massively overselling the importance of it. It's hard to even engage with this; you just keep saying that there's verifiable instances of it that are as impactful as you're claiming, but then refuse to provide specific examples that might make me reconsider my position. If it's so easy to find info about, just link it and we can be on the same page. >That may be what you wish to discuss - fine. You can have that discussion somewhere else, with someone else. It is feasible though - and necessary. Again, the fucking planet is burning. If you're just going to straight-up make very, very debatable assertions (like reducing American car dependence in favor of public transit being feasible) with nothing to back it up, there's no discussion to be had here. We get that America is car dependent, that we should reduce carbon emissions, that the climate apocalypse is imminent, etc. so if we're just going to go over that ad nauseam we're just wasting our time.

mandmandam 5y ago

> Americans mock other nations for all sorts of shit that isn't true, [etc.] That's not an argument that applies here, because Americans actually do buy stupidly big cars. > I think you have an exaggerated view of what US auto consumer preferences look like. This is really easy because [overly defensive strawman] No, I don't. Here's some numbers, which you could have looked for yourself, with the search engine of your choice: " According to data from IHS Automotive, larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013. Meanwhile, large vehicles only accounted for 25.4 percent of all vehicles sold outside the US during the same year." > Those plots and attacks range from completely unverifiable conspiracy theories, to unintended consequences, to actions that one might reasonably argue were an attempt to interfere with public transit. The cars are bigger. The cities are less livable. The conspiracies are verifiable, there are entire books, documentaries, and Wikipedia pages about the various fuckeries involved. You seem to be rather defensive about this though, so feel free to think whatever you like. > The discussion is whether or not it is even feasible to have that anywhere in the US That may be what you wish to discuss - fine. You can have that discussion somewhere else, with someone else. It is feasible though - and necessary. Again, the fucking planet is burning.

seabird 5y ago
>That's not an argument that applies here, because Americans actually do buy stupidly big cars. >" According to data from IHS Automotive, larger vehicles accounted for 63 percent of total US sales in 2013. Meanwhile, large vehicles only accounted for 25.4 percent of all vehicles sold outside the US during the same year." "Larger" is doing some really heavy lifting, and that data is not capturing the large market share gains crossovers have made in the last decade. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-... 45% of all vehicles sold in the US in mid 2020 to mid 2021 were crossovers, which are almost without exception based on a "small car" platform and have similar fuel efficiency numbers. You're finding data that has some arbitrary definition of "large" -- from what I can tell, IHS would count an Impreza as "small" and a Forester as "large", and that is completely worthless for backing up a claim that Americans overwhelmingly drive gas-guzzling vehicles. The shift in focus to crossovers in the strategy of large auto manufacturers active in the US is glaringly obvious and you not realizing this is either a matter of you not paying attention or just willfully ignoring it. >You seem to be rather defensive about this though, so feel free to think whatever you like. I'm not even disagreeing with you that it happened in some circumstances, I'm just saying that you're massively overselling the importance of it. It's hard to even engage with this; you just keep saying that there's verifiable instances of it that are as impactful as you're claiming, but then refuse to provide specific examples that might make me reconsider my position. If it's so easy to find info about, just link it and we can be on the same page. >That may be what you wish to discuss - fine. You can have that discussion somewhere else, with someone else. It is feasible though - and necessary. Again, the fucking planet is burning. If you're just going to straight-up make very, very debatable assertions (like reducing American car dependence in favor of public transit being feasible) with nothing to back it up, there's no discussion to be had here. We get that America is car dependent, that we should reduce carbon emissions, that the climate apocalypse is imminent, etc. so if we're just going to go over that ad nauseam we're just wasting our time.