5 ms·

Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. The real moral culpabili

Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. The real moral culpability is in the people that created and support the policies enabling the SUV Arma race.

PaulHoule 3y ago
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I do not blame 60 year old laws. At some point before 60 years, voters and their representatives become responsible for not changing the law.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    Detroit appreciates not having the competition so the law stays. See also https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp
_Algernon_ 3y ago
The politicians making these decisions are also just playing a game. "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  This has always been a cop out. When people CHOOSE to play the game because it enriches themselves at the expense of others, they are 100% at fault. Hate the player. You can hate the game too but if nobody played it there would be no problems.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    That's my point. If you take "Hate the player. Hate the game." as a morally valid defense when it comes to driving big cars, it also is a valid defense for politicians regulating the big cars. My point it is an invalid moral defense in both instances.
asterix_pano 3y ago
It is also fair to hate the player, as often they are making the decisions consciously. They are supporting the game, which would die if there was no demand. Same as the meat industry for example. It's too easy to always put the fault on some higher instance.
- falcolas 3y ago
  No demand for vehicles? Not going to happen in the forseeable future. No demand for SUVs? That's possible, but hard. Most auto makers have killed most (if not all) of their cars, meaning if you have a family, you're in a sardine can, a muscle car, or an SUV. I own a Prius, because I don't have a kid. I loaned it out to family who had a kid, and it was a veritable clown car routine anywhere they wanted to go.
lockhouse 3y ago
Some people also actually need a large car. If you have a 6 person household, the only thing everyone will fit in is an SUV, a minivan, or a full size van.
- cuu508 3y ago
  Yep, and some people actually need a truck bed or towing capacity, but most don't.
- discodave 3y ago
  You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians. I.e. a minivan fits more people, but is smaller than some of the massive trucks I see driving around. I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). A modern SUV would likely be a) heavier b) have worse blind spots, and c) has a higher front bumper, so worse impact if you hit a pedestrian. The "I didn't have a choice" argument is almost always a logical fallacy.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - echelon 3y ago
    > You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. Not everybody wants to live in a city or can live in a city. > I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). Unlike pickup trucks, SUVs are fantastic for hauling both children and assorted cargo. Unlike minivans, they're great at handling a variety of driving conditions: gravel, dirt, ice/snow, inclines. They're also fun to drive and don't make it feel like the next sixteen years of your family's life is just dedicated to the brood.
    - m0ped 3y ago
      > One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. That's such and absurd suggestion I'm surprised you felt it worth writing, not to mention there are still plenty of pedestrians even in the suburbs.
vel0city 3y ago
People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. They prefer the more upright seating (higher h-point). They prefer the higher entry/exit point. They feel they need all the cargo space. Lots of people which I agree would probably be just as well served by a sedan or a hatchback just don't care for those car styles these days. Even if the sedan was a few grand less than the SUV (they often were when they were still sold), these people probably still go for the SUV if they could afford it. People didn't generally like them in the past because 1) modern SUVs are kind of a new-ish concept which only really started in the 90s where they absolutely exploded in popularity 2) those 90s body-on-frame SUVs drove like trucks while modern unibody crossovers drive more like cars and 3) it wasn't until about the 2000s that car makers started actually trying to make these vehicles appealing to average drivers as opposed to just work vehicles. These kinds of people are incredibly common from my experiences. Don't get me wrong, I do agree things like the chicken tax and CAFE requirements drove sedans and "light trucks" closer to the same price points, but generally speaking a ton of consumers want it this way.
- echelon 3y ago
  > People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. > A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. Classic. City-dwelling non-car owners projecting their understanding of the world onto the rest of the country. (Or in the case of Europeans, onto Americans.) American suburbia and rural life is car-centric, and that's not going to change. People are not going to want to move to densify or live in the city because that's what "everyone should want". They enjoy their private cabins, their tall all-wheel drive vehicles, not shared transit and subway. If you try to force these people to move to cities through taxation or a lack of support for their infrastructure, they'll vote out your political candidates. There are a lot of people from SF and NYC here. As is the case with /r/fuckcars and their advocating for bikes and "strong cities", these are not the views shared by the rest of the country. If they were, you'd see policies changing overnight.
  - 3y ago
anigbrowl 3y ago
The game can't continue if there isn't a steady supply of new players. As a pedestrian, involuntary non-cyclist, and someone who prefers normal vehicles, your excuse is paper thin.
isoprophlex 3y ago
Don't worry, I can hate the players and the game at the same time!
sjducb 3y ago
Actually the safest cars are full size saloons. Trucks and SUVs rollover in accidents so your head changes from going straight ahead at 60mph to tumbling at 60mph breaking your neck.
mycologos 3y ago
> Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. This might be morally defensible for players making equal trades between protection for themselves and protection for others, but at some point this is clearly no longer the case. For example, most people would agree that killing 1000 people to save your own life is bad. If players aren't even bothering with this calculating the tradeoff between more protection for themselves and less protection for others -- and I think most people who protect themselves with large cars have not done this calculation -- then yes, it's fine to cast aspersions. According to this post from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [1] (which I think is reliable?), going from a 2023 Prius (~88 square feet) to a 2023 Toyota Sequoia (~116 square feet) reduces car driver deaths from 47 per million vehicle years to 26. This seems, uh, fairly low down on the list of interventions your median SUV-driver could take to reduce their mortality, and it's made at a cost to other people, since "light trucks" (like SUVs, trucks, and vans) increase pedestrian fatalities by somewhere north of 50% [2, third page]. At some point, you're just being lazy, which you have a right to do, but I don't think it's particularly defensible. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight [2] https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf

PaulHoule 3y ago

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

lotsofpulp 3y ago
I do not blame 60 year old laws. At some point before 60 years, voters and their representatives become responsible for not changing the law.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Detroit appreciates not having the competition so the law stays. See also https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp

_Algernon_ 3y ago

The politicians making these decisions are also just playing a game. "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

mrguyorama 3y ago
This has always been a cop out. When people CHOOSE to play the game because it enriches themselves at the expense of others, they are 100% at fault. Hate the player. You can hate the game too but if nobody played it there would be no problems.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  That's my point. If you take "Hate the player. Hate the game." as a morally valid defense when it comes to driving big cars, it also is a valid defense for politicians regulating the big cars. My point it is an invalid moral defense in both instances.

asterix_pano 3y ago

It is also fair to hate the player, as often they are making the decisions consciously. They are supporting the game, which would die if there was no demand. Same as the meat industry for example. It's too easy to always put the fault on some higher instance.

falcolas 3y ago
No demand for vehicles? Not going to happen in the forseeable future. No demand for SUVs? That's possible, but hard. Most auto makers have killed most (if not all) of their cars, meaning if you have a family, you're in a sardine can, a muscle car, or an SUV. I own a Prius, because I don't have a kid. I loaned it out to family who had a kid, and it was a veritable clown car routine anywhere they wanted to go.

lockhouse 3y ago

Some people also actually need a large car. If you have a 6 person household, the only thing everyone will fit in is an SUV, a minivan, or a full size van.

cuu508 3y ago
Yep, and some people actually need a truck bed or towing capacity, but most don't.
discodave 3y ago
You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians. I.e. a minivan fits more people, but is smaller than some of the massive trucks I see driving around. I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). A modern SUV would likely be a) heavier b) have worse blind spots, and c) has a higher front bumper, so worse impact if you hit a pedestrian. The "I didn't have a choice" argument is almost always a logical fallacy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 3y ago
  > You just listed 3 choices, which range in size, weight and likelyhood of killing pedestrians One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. Not everybody wants to live in a city or can live in a city. > I knew a family growing up that had six kids, so 8 person household, they had a minivan (Toyota Tarago). Unlike pickup trucks, SUVs are fantastic for hauling both children and assorted cargo. Unlike minivans, they're great at handling a variety of driving conditions: gravel, dirt, ice/snow, inclines. They're also fun to drive and don't make it feel like the next sixteen years of your family's life is just dedicated to the brood.
  - m0ped 3y ago
    > One answer is to not have pedestrians. As the suburbs do. That's such and absurd suggestion I'm surprised you felt it worth writing, not to mention there are still plenty of pedestrians even in the suburbs.

vel0city 3y ago

People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. They prefer the more upright seating (higher h-point). They prefer the higher entry/exit point. They feel they need all the cargo space. Lots of people which I agree would probably be just as well served by a sedan or a hatchback just don't care for those car styles these days. Even if the sedan was a few grand less than the SUV (they often were when they were still sold), these people probably still go for the SUV if they could afford it. People didn't generally like them in the past because 1) modern SUVs are kind of a new-ish concept which only really started in the 90s where they absolutely exploded in popularity 2) those 90s body-on-frame SUVs drove like trucks while modern unibody crossovers drive more like cars and 3) it wasn't until about the 2000s that car makers started actually trying to make these vehicles appealing to average drivers as opposed to just work vehicles. These kinds of people are incredibly common from my experiences. Don't get me wrong, I do agree things like the chicken tax and CAFE requirements drove sedans and "light trucks" closer to the same price points, but generally speaking a ton of consumers want it this way.

echelon 3y ago
> People in this thread almost make it sound like people don't want SUVs, its a decision being forced on them by others. > A lot of people I've talked to about car buying decisions like buying these SUV/crossover things. Classic. City-dwelling non-car owners projecting their understanding of the world onto the rest of the country. (Or in the case of Europeans, onto Americans.) American suburbia and rural life is car-centric, and that's not going to change. People are not going to want to move to densify or live in the city because that's what "everyone should want". They enjoy their private cabins, their tall all-wheel drive vehicles, not shared transit and subway. If you try to force these people to move to cities through taxation or a lack of support for their infrastructure, they'll vote out your political candidates. There are a lot of people from SF and NYC here. As is the case with /r/fuckcars and their advocating for bikes and "strong cities", these are not the views shared by the rest of the country. If they were, you'd see policies changing overnight.
- 3y ago

anigbrowl 3y ago

The game can't continue if there isn't a steady supply of new players. As a pedestrian, involuntary non-cyclist, and someone who prefers normal vehicles, your excuse is paper thin.

isoprophlex 3y ago

Don't worry, I can hate the players and the game at the same time!

sjducb 3y ago

Actually the safest cars are full size saloons. Trucks and SUVs rollover in accidents so your head changes from going straight ahead at 60mph to tumbling at 60mph breaking your neck.

mycologos 3y ago

> Morally culpable, but also defensible since you’re defending yourself from others in large cars. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. This might be morally defensible for players making equal trades between protection for themselves and protection for others, but at some point this is clearly no longer the case. For example, most people would agree that killing 1000 people to save your own life is bad. If players aren't even bothering with this calculating the tradeoff between more protection for themselves and less protection for others -- and I think most people who protect themselves with large cars have not done this calculation -- then yes, it's fine to cast aspersions. According to this post from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [1] (which I think is reliable?), going from a 2023 Prius (~88 square feet) to a 2023 Toyota Sequoia (~116 square feet) reduces car driver deaths from 47 per million vehicle years to 26. This seems, uh, fairly low down on the list of interventions your median SUV-driver could take to reduce their mortality, and it's made at a cost to other people, since "light trucks" (like SUVs, trucks, and vans) increase pedestrian fatalities by somewhere north of 50% [2, third page]. At some point, you're just being lazy, which you have a right to do, but I don't think it's particularly defensible. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight [2] https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf