9 ms·

The reason large cars are popular in America is because Americans want to and can afford to buy them. This is due to a number of factors beyond this "loophole",

by sb057 3y ago

The reason large cars are popular in America is because Americans want to and can afford to buy them. This is due to a number of factors beyond this "loophole", including advertising, cultural norms, the fact that a third of Americans are now obese and can't fit in smaller cars, a safety arms race, and a number of other things.

prng2021 3y ago
Yea this article makes it sound like the loophole is the primary reason but I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor. Anyone can google the top 5 SUVs sold in 2022. None of them are over the 6,000 pound gross weight limit to be counted as a track. All of them over grown significantly in physical size over the past decade. American family sizes have steadily dropped for many decades so the editor’s mention of millennials and family sizes contributing to demand for large vehicles is nonsensical. Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact.
- euroderf 3y ago
  And when gas prices go up, everyone gets all whiny and acts all oppressed.
  - prepend 3y ago
    High gas prices are regressive and are a little oppressive. So they function like a tax, most impacting the poor. Makes sense to while about it. And is an oppression, while definitely not the worst.
    - euroderf 3y ago
      I'd like to see the US jack up gas taxes, and then at the end of the year, refund most of it as an equal amount per adult. That would create some serious incentives to cut down on driving or even give up cars entirely, while not becoming a cash cow for the feds.
      - replygirl 3y ago
        This is clever gamification but probably most of the players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary and the only option for local + regional travel. The effect would be to limit their quality of life, either by deferring access to money for basic expenses, by limiting access to employment, or by discouraging children's access to recreation and socialization opportunities. There are similar arguments against VMT taxes How about we tax cars as property, based on Blue Book value and modulated by income bracket, and maybe even by specs like weight and fuel economy? Some states are already doing at least a basic version of this. And instead of giving the money back, we can fund fare-free municipal bus and rideshare programs
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        >for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary That's the point. It is a luxury to live on a 10k sq ft lot in a 3k+ sq ft house. Moving mass far distances requires lots of energy.
        euroderf 3y ago
        It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle. In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Kids can use bikes to get around, families' second cars can be glorified golf carts. Enviro-winning. I agree about the desirability of free mass transit. To take a case in point, Tallinn (Estonia's capital) instituted it for residents (only), the idea being to get people to undo bogus out-of-city residences and return to the city's tax rolls. The last I read, it's working nicely.
        lucas_membrane 3y ago
        > In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.
  - geodel 3y ago
    Huh, about as whiny as people here get about internet bandwidth prices. or about apartment rents when any increase is a vast landlords conspiracy.
- masklinn 3y ago
  > Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact. Not like it’s just Americans either.
  - ch_sm 3y ago
    Cars in the U.S. are still FAR bigger on average than anywhere I‘ve seen (in Europe or Asia).
    - masklinn 3y ago
      They are, but from what I’ve seen there are idiots getting US-style pickups in Europe these days. The stupidity threshold is just higher, because European countries are not designed for vehicles this long or wide so your want for the bloody things has to exceed the sheer inconvenience they are for you (I assume whoever buys these cares nothing for the inconvenience to others), and the money pit they are in fuel and maintenance (as they’re uncommon I’d also assume most garages can’t handle them).
  - amrocha 3y ago
    In the richer neighborhoods of Tokyo you'll see quite a few land rovers and Teslas, which are probably the most inconvenient cars to have in Tokyo. At that point it's about showing off more than anything.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      Are teslas really the most inconvenient to have in Tokyo? They’re not small which definitely counts against them, and their weight may play against the stacking garages some folks have, but IIRC having a car in Tokyo requires justifying that you have an off-street parking spot so it seems well suited for EVs.
      - amrocha 3y ago
        It's mostly the size. I cycle a lot and Teslas are noticeably bigger/wider than most domestic vehicles, which means they don't fit in a lot of smaller side roads. There's more inconvenient vehicles out there, but those are the ones I see most frequently.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor I know a surprisingly nontrivial number of people who needed an SUV, but upsized because of the tax deduction.
  - prng2021 3y ago
    I know one person who did as well but these are tiny percentages of people that can’t possibly be affecting these macro trends. That tax deduction requires having a business. The general population only knows the bare minimum to file their personal taxes, not how to create a LLC to take advantage of tax breaks.
maximilianroos 3y ago
A good piece of evidence supporting this view over the article's is that many things are bigger in America than other developed countries, loophole or no loophole. Take houses — Americans are richer than Europeans, and spend some of that on houses that are significantly larger than European houses.
- amelius 3y ago
  The build quality is generally lower, though. At least compared to Sweden. https://www.reddit.com/r/Carpentry/comments/vcvanr/why_are_american_houses_so_poorly_built/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Carpentry/comments/vcvanr/why_are_a...
  - prepend 3y ago
    Sweden has a very different climate than most of the US. Compare houses in Maine or Minnesota to Sweden. The answers to most questions in that article can be answered by visiting Colorado or Virginia or most places.
    - nivenkos 3y ago
      Also low energy prices - people pay for heat pumps, triple glazing, solar panels, etc. in Sweden because it pays itself back. But when energy is so cheap, why bother?
- zip1234 3y ago
  People everywhere like large houses but it is not entirely preference. The government has a hand in that as well.
paulpauper 3y ago
Pundits consistently underestimate how much income Americans make and how high living standards are compared to the rest of the world. Americans earn a lot of money, hence can afford bigger things in general, likes big homes or cars.
- oezi 3y ago
  Americans are also notorious for spending their money and not having experienced the destruction of private property during WW2 and communism are sitting on a larger pile of inherited wealth. The median income is just 20-30% higher compared to Europe.
- blibble 3y ago
  > Pundits consistently underestimate how much income Americans make and how high living standards are compared to the rest of the world. Americans constantly overestimate the standard of living of the majority of their citizens compared to the rest of the developed world no-one in Europe, Japan or Australia worries about medical bills of bankruptcy regardless or their income I might like a slightly larger house but I'd rather have a Fiat 500 than a giant US "sofa on wheels" fake SUV with the turning circle of 100ft
- swexbe 3y ago
  Most of these new cars are heavily financed.
daliusd 3y ago
When I was working for US company I saw funniest thing - two obese coworkers sitting in Mini Cooper. They fit just fine.
- pengaru 3y ago
  > When I was working for US company I saw funniest thing - two obese coworkers sitting in Mini Cooper. They fit just fine. Oh the irony of this comment if that was a BMW "Mini Cooper"...
- mahesh_rm 3y ago
  The facts that you remember them, and that this comment is hilarious, kind of show that they didn't fit just fine..
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Modern Mini Coopers come in a variety of not-so-mini sizes.
  - PhasmaFelis 3y ago
    Mini now makes several different models including SUVs, but the Mini Cooper remains a very small car (shorter than the original VW bug) with a wonderfully roomy front seat that is perfectly comfortable for my 6'2", 300-pound ass. I've read a 6'8" guy recommending it for people his size. The trade-off is that the back seat might as well not exist. I keep mine folded down to make a two-seater with lots of legroom and cargo space.
nimbius 3y ago
Eh, I think want is a strong word but you're right. Americans are conditioned through predatory advertising to assume the only safe car is a big one, and the only mark of masculinity is size. Chubbiness of my fellow patriots aside, our commutes suck. Plush seating, ample leg room, and a corpulent selection of infotainment amenities help ease the pain of a 30 mile or more slog through traffic.
- JasserInicide 3y ago
  to assume the only safe car is a big one When everyone else on the road has a big one, then yes it is the only safe option.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Not for the pedestrians and bicyclists, which are common in the suburbs so many live in.
    - tonyedgecombe 3y ago
      It would be good if car drivers were assumed to be at fault in these accidents in the same way as the Netherlands.
thethethethe 3y ago
Perhaps americans prefer larger vehicle because of infrastructure design, public policy, and advertising campaigns, not because the desire is just innate? It makes sense that you'd want a larger car when you live in a place that is designed for driving and everyone else is doing it too. Give people other viable options, like walking,cycling, and transit, and I guarantee that they will pick them instead because they are more pleasant and convenient. I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either. The two most desirable and expensive cities in the United States (SF and NYC) are largely built this way.
- goostavos 3y ago
  >I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either The problem is that the walkable / bikable places are so few and far between that they're gobsmackingly expensive. Even on a FANG salary, getting a reasonable place in one of the few walkable neighborhoods is beyond what I'm willing to pay these days. If you want more than 900sqft for your family, trading a 15min walk for a 25min drive just makes so much more sense with how American cities are laid out and how much competition there is over the desirable places.
  - swexbe 3y ago
    That’s on the failures of public planning. Nothing inherently makes walkable places more expensive.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://culdesac.com/about https://culdesac.com/about There are efforts being made, it will just take time. Can’t move almost a century of car centric public policy on a dime. Vote with your dollars and feet.
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    Walkable neighborhoods are expensive precisely because so many people want to live in them and because we have mostly outlawed building them. The fix is simple: just get rid out the laws that prevent them from being built.
ren_engineer 3y ago
not true for trucks at least, smaller pickups got killed by these regulations. Ironic that there are so many people in cities complaining about how big trucks are now when it was stuff they voted for that caused it. Companies still make them, they just can't be sold in the US anymore due to regulations https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co...
PhasmaFelis 3y ago
> the fact that a third of Americans are now obese and can't fit in smaller cars I am quite large in every dimension and my Mini Cooper is the most comfortable car I've ever driven, so I think you're way off on this one.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
If you take the average kms driven in America of ~23,000 km per year and you take the already high and heavily carbon taxed gas price where I live in Canada of ~1.50 cad per liter then the gas cost to do those kms in a prius would be around 1,600 cad a year and the cost to do those kms in an f-450 super duty would be around 6,000 cad per year. 4,400 dollars canadian a year ( which is only around 3,200 USD) is not a big enough spread to overwhelm other, more valuable (to the consumer) considerations. It doesn't help that the well intentioned policies mentioned in the article have effectively bifurcated the market in small and very big, removing consumer choice for smaller (but still large) vehicle designs (i.e. I would love to buy a modern small truck or a hatchback approaching station wagon size, they don't really exist.) The correct conclusion to me seems to be that, given the physic situation drivers experience on the road, it's foolish to continue pushing on fuel efficiency as we are and instead we need to focus on making the road physics situation unpalatable to these kinds of vehicles to lower their value to consumers (with the added benefit of increasing road safety because the things that make the physics situation unpalatable to huge vehicles are in the same design real as all the stuff people like not just bikes on youtube push that will also make the city more walkable and bikable aka livable).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by sb057 3y ago

prng2021 3y ago

Yea this article makes it sound like the loophole is the primary reason but I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor. Anyone can google the top 5 SUVs sold in 2022. None of them are over the 6,000 pound gross weight limit to be counted as a track. All of them over grown significantly in physical size over the past decade. American family sizes have steadily dropped for many decades so the editor’s mention of millennials and family sizes contributing to demand for large vehicles is nonsensical. Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact.

euroderf 3y ago
And when gas prices go up, everyone gets all whiny and acts all oppressed.
- prepend 3y ago
  High gas prices are regressive and are a little oppressive. So they function like a tax, most impacting the poor. Makes sense to while about it. And is an oppression, while definitely not the worst.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    I'd like to see the US jack up gas taxes, and then at the end of the year, refund most of it as an equal amount per adult. That would create some serious incentives to cut down on driving or even give up cars entirely, while not becoming a cash cow for the feds.
    - replygirl 3y ago
      This is clever gamification but probably most of the players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary and the only option for local + regional travel. The effect would be to limit their quality of life, either by deferring access to money for basic expenses, by limiting access to employment, or by discouraging children's access to recreation and socialization opportunities. There are similar arguments against VMT taxes How about we tax cars as property, based on Blue Book value and modulated by income bracket, and maybe even by specs like weight and fuel economy? Some states are already doing at least a basic version of this. And instead of giving the money back, we can fund fare-free municipal bus and rideshare programs
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        >for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary That's the point. It is a luxury to live on a 10k sq ft lot in a 3k+ sq ft house. Moving mass far distances requires lots of energy.
      - euroderf 3y ago
        It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle. In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Kids can use bikes to get around, families' second cars can be glorified golf carts. Enviro-winning. I agree about the desirability of free mass transit. To take a case in point, Tallinn (Estonia's capital) instituted it for residents (only), the idea being to get people to undo bogus out-of-city residences and return to the city's tax rolls. The last I read, it's working nicely.
        lucas_membrane 3y ago
        > In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.
- geodel 3y ago
  Huh, about as whiny as people here get about internet bandwidth prices. or about apartment rents when any increase is a vast landlords conspiracy.
masklinn 3y ago
> Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact. Not like it’s just Americans either.
- ch_sm 3y ago
  Cars in the U.S. are still FAR bigger on average than anywhere I‘ve seen (in Europe or Asia).
  - masklinn 3y ago
    They are, but from what I’ve seen there are idiots getting US-style pickups in Europe these days. The stupidity threshold is just higher, because European countries are not designed for vehicles this long or wide so your want for the bloody things has to exceed the sheer inconvenience they are for you (I assume whoever buys these cares nothing for the inconvenience to others), and the money pit they are in fuel and maintenance (as they’re uncommon I’d also assume most garages can’t handle them).
- amrocha 3y ago
  In the richer neighborhoods of Tokyo you'll see quite a few land rovers and Teslas, which are probably the most inconvenient cars to have in Tokyo. At that point it's about showing off more than anything.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    Are teslas really the most inconvenient to have in Tokyo? They’re not small which definitely counts against them, and their weight may play against the stacking garages some folks have, but IIRC having a car in Tokyo requires justifying that you have an off-street parking spot so it seems well suited for EVs.
    - amrocha 3y ago
      It's mostly the size. I cycle a lot and Teslas are noticeably bigger/wider than most domestic vehicles, which means they don't fit in a lot of smaller side roads. There's more inconvenient vehicles out there, but those are the ones I see most frequently.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor I know a surprisingly nontrivial number of people who needed an SUV, but upsized because of the tax deduction.
- prng2021 3y ago
  I know one person who did as well but these are tiny percentages of people that can’t possibly be affecting these macro trends. That tax deduction requires having a business. The general population only knows the bare minimum to file their personal taxes, not how to create a LLC to take advantage of tax breaks.

maximilianroos 3y ago

A good piece of evidence supporting this view over the article's is that many things are bigger in America than other developed countries, loophole or no loophole. Take houses — Americans are richer than Europeans, and spend some of that on houses that are significantly larger than European houses.

amelius 3y ago
The build quality is generally lower, though. At least compared to Sweden. https://www.reddit.com/r/Carpentry/comments/vcvanr/why_are_american_houses_so_poorly_built/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Carpentry/comments/vcvanr/why_are_a...
- prepend 3y ago
  Sweden has a very different climate than most of the US. Compare houses in Maine or Minnesota to Sweden. The answers to most questions in that article can be answered by visiting Colorado or Virginia or most places.
  - nivenkos 3y ago
    Also low energy prices - people pay for heat pumps, triple glazing, solar panels, etc. in Sweden because it pays itself back. But when energy is so cheap, why bother?
zip1234 3y ago
People everywhere like large houses but it is not entirely preference. The government has a hand in that as well.

paulpauper 3y ago

Pundits consistently underestimate how much income Americans make and how high living standards are compared to the rest of the world. Americans earn a lot of money, hence can afford bigger things in general, likes big homes or cars.

oezi 3y ago
Americans are also notorious for spending their money and not having experienced the destruction of private property during WW2 and communism are sitting on a larger pile of inherited wealth. The median income is just 20-30% higher compared to Europe.
blibble 3y ago
> Pundits consistently underestimate how much income Americans make and how high living standards are compared to the rest of the world. Americans constantly overestimate the standard of living of the majority of their citizens compared to the rest of the developed world no-one in Europe, Japan or Australia worries about medical bills of bankruptcy regardless or their income I might like a slightly larger house but I'd rather have a Fiat 500 than a giant US "sofa on wheels" fake SUV with the turning circle of 100ft
swexbe 3y ago
Most of these new cars are heavily financed.

daliusd 3y ago

When I was working for US company I saw funniest thing - two obese coworkers sitting in Mini Cooper. They fit just fine.

pengaru 3y ago
> When I was working for US company I saw funniest thing - two obese coworkers sitting in Mini Cooper. They fit just fine. Oh the irony of this comment if that was a BMW "Mini Cooper"...
mahesh_rm 3y ago
The facts that you remember them, and that this comment is hilarious, kind of show that they didn't fit just fine..
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Modern Mini Coopers come in a variety of not-so-mini sizes.
- PhasmaFelis 3y ago
  Mini now makes several different models including SUVs, but the Mini Cooper remains a very small car (shorter than the original VW bug) with a wonderfully roomy front seat that is perfectly comfortable for my 6'2", 300-pound ass. I've read a 6'8" guy recommending it for people his size. The trade-off is that the back seat might as well not exist. I keep mine folded down to make a two-seater with lots of legroom and cargo space.

nimbius 3y ago

Eh, I think want is a strong word but you're right. Americans are conditioned through predatory advertising to assume the only safe car is a big one, and the only mark of masculinity is size. Chubbiness of my fellow patriots aside, our commutes suck. Plush seating, ample leg room, and a corpulent selection of infotainment amenities help ease the pain of a 30 mile or more slog through traffic.

JasserInicide 3y ago
to assume the only safe car is a big one When everyone else on the road has a big one, then yes it is the only safe option.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Not for the pedestrians and bicyclists, which are common in the suburbs so many live in.
  - tonyedgecombe 3y ago
    It would be good if car drivers were assumed to be at fault in these accidents in the same way as the Netherlands.

thethethethe 3y ago

Perhaps americans prefer larger vehicle because of infrastructure design, public policy, and advertising campaigns, not because the desire is just innate? It makes sense that you'd want a larger car when you live in a place that is designed for driving and everyone else is doing it too. Give people other viable options, like walking,cycling, and transit, and I guarantee that they will pick them instead because they are more pleasant and convenient. I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either. The two most desirable and expensive cities in the United States (SF and NYC) are largely built this way.

goostavos 3y ago
>I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either The problem is that the walkable / bikable places are so few and far between that they're gobsmackingly expensive. Even on a FANG salary, getting a reasonable place in one of the few walkable neighborhoods is beyond what I'm willing to pay these days. If you want more than 900sqft for your family, trading a 15min walk for a 25min drive just makes so much more sense with how American cities are laid out and how much competition there is over the desirable places.
- swexbe 3y ago
  That’s on the failures of public planning. Nothing inherently makes walkable places more expensive.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2023/04/07/car-free-cities/ https://culdesac.com/about https://culdesac.com/about There are efforts being made, it will just take time. Can’t move almost a century of car centric public policy on a dime. Vote with your dollars and feet.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Walkable neighborhoods are expensive precisely because so many people want to live in them and because we have mostly outlawed building them. The fix is simple: just get rid out the laws that prevent them from being built.

ren_engineer 3y ago

not true for trucks at least, smaller pickups got killed by these regulations. Ironic that there are so many people in cities complaining about how big trucks are now when it was stuff they voted for that caused it. Companies still make them, they just can't be sold in the US anymore due to regulations https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co...

PhasmaFelis 3y ago

> the fact that a third of Americans are now obese and can't fit in smaller cars I am quite large in every dimension and my Mini Cooper is the most comfortable car I've ever driven, so I think you're way off on this one.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

If you take the average kms driven in America of ~23,000 km per year and you take the already high and heavily carbon taxed gas price where I live in Canada of ~1.50 cad per liter then the gas cost to do those kms in a prius would be around 1,600 cad a year and the cost to do those kms in an f-450 super duty would be around 6,000 cad per year. 4,400 dollars canadian a year ( which is only around 3,200 USD) is not a big enough spread to overwhelm other, more valuable (to the consumer) considerations. It doesn't help that the well intentioned policies mentioned in the article have effectively bifurcated the market in small and very big, removing consumer choice for smaller (but still large) vehicle designs (i.e. I would love to buy a modern small truck or a hatchback approaching station wagon size, they don't really exist.) The correct conclusion to me seems to be that, given the physic situation drivers experience on the road, it's foolish to continue pushing on fuel efficiency as we are and instead we need to focus on making the road physics situation unpalatable to these kinds of vehicles to lower their value to consumers (with the added benefit of increasing road safety because the things that make the physics situation unpalatable to huge vehicles are in the same design real as all the stuff people like not just bikes on youtube push that will also make the city more walkable and bikable aka livable).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]