3 ms·

I don't like giant trucks either, but: > Harder to park This is simply not a concern for much of the US where density is low, parking lots are huge, and stree

I don't like giant trucks either, but: > Harder to park This is simply not a concern for much of the US where density is low, parking lots are huge, and street parking is a rarity. You can live your entire life in swathes of the country and never once need to parallel park. > we more fuel It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25. > carry fewer people for the same size+weight (if you need a bigger vehicle). Because of the previous two points, size+weight don't really directly matter much. If you've got the room for the size and the weight doesn't hurt the fuel economy much, then it's not much of a downside. In return, you get a vehicle that can fit more people and more stuff. I know it's fun to criticize truck owners as douchebag bros over-compensating, but, honestly, for many regions, the rationale behind owning them makes a lot of sense. If space and gas is cheap, a vehicle that gives you the status symbol and feel of a luxury sedan, the personal safety of a tank, the passenger capacity of a station wagon, and the storage capacity of a moving van. I think they're bad for the world because they make passengers safer at the expense of everyone else on the road. They are a safety arms race. But people tend to prioritize their own safety first. I would never own one because I don't want to spend that much money or be attached to the kind of cultural associations they have, but if I lived in the 'burbs or a rural area, I would be tempted. They are fun to drive and can do a lot.

sofixa 3y ago
> This is simply not a concern for much of the US where density is low, parking lots are huge, and street parking is a rarity. You can live your entire life in swathes of the country and never once need to parallel park. What about garages in homes? I've seen plenty of photos of massive trucks parked outside or sticking out because they cannot fit inside. > It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25. And a Ford Focus does 30-40 mpg depending on travel type. A Renault Clio does 47 mpg. Both can fit the same amount of people, just less cargo. > I think they're bad for the world because they make passengers safer at the expense of everyone else on the road. You're also forgetting the outsized impact on roads that everyone else pays for and the extra pollution everyone else is breathing.
- munificent 3y ago
  Again, to be clear, I'm not an advocate of huge trucks. I'm just more understanding of why people get them. > What about garages in homes? In the suburbs in the US, it's common to have a large two-car driveway and deliberately not park in the garage so that the garage can be used for workshop space. (Personally, I would kill to have a garage big enough to have real woodworking gear and room for my kayaks.) > And a Ford Focus does 30-40 mpg depending on travel type. A Renault Clio does 47 mpg. Sure, and a moped has even better mileage. But the comment was about giant trucks in comparison to smaller ones. No one's going to take a family of five camping in the woods for a week in a Renault Clio. There is a fair argument that truck owners rarely use the truck to its full capabilities. But I think that understates the psychological value of owning a vehicle that can do those things and that sometimes does. We all know that it can be hard to find the activation energy to drive up in the mountains to hike, or go camping, or buy some lumber to start that DIY project. If doing any of those also means having to rent a vehicle, some of those experiences simply won't happen. A vehicle that can do those things is a constant reminder to their owners to maybe live a little more. > You're also forgetting the outsized impact on roads that everyone else pays for and the extra pollution everyone else is breathing. I'm not forgetting it. I just think it's silly that people against huge trucks seem to completely overlook all of the real reasons why people like them.
mzs 3y ago
> It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25. It is a big difference, that maverick will require 4 gallons to go 100 miles, while the F150 3/4 of a gallon more. It means 19% more greenhouse gasses per mile.

sofixa 3y ago

> This is simply not a concern for much of the US where density is low, parking lots are huge, and street parking is a rarity. You can live your entire life in swathes of the country and never once need to parallel park. What about garages in homes? I've seen plenty of photos of massive trucks parked outside or sticking out because they cannot fit inside. > It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25. And a Ford Focus does 30-40 mpg depending on travel type. A Renault Clio does 47 mpg. Both can fit the same amount of people, just less cargo. > I think they're bad for the world because they make passengers safer at the expense of everyone else on the road. You're also forgetting the outsized impact on roads that everyone else pays for and the extra pollution everyone else is breathing.

munificent 3y ago
Again, to be clear, I'm not an advocate of huge trucks. I'm just more understanding of why people get them. > What about garages in homes? In the suburbs in the US, it's common to have a large two-car driveway and deliberately not park in the garage so that the garage can be used for workshop space. (Personally, I would kill to have a garage big enough to have real woodworking gear and room for my kayaks.) > And a Ford Focus does 30-40 mpg depending on travel type. A Renault Clio does 47 mpg. Sure, and a moped has even better mileage. But the comment was about giant trucks in comparison to smaller ones. No one's going to take a family of five camping in the woods for a week in a Renault Clio. There is a fair argument that truck owners rarely use the truck to its full capabilities. But I think that understates the psychological value of owning a vehicle that can do those things and that sometimes does. We all know that it can be hard to find the activation energy to drive up in the mountains to hike, or go camping, or buy some lumber to start that DIY project. If doing any of those also means having to rent a vehicle, some of those experiences simply won't happen. A vehicle that can do those things is a constant reminder to their owners to maybe live a little more. > You're also forgetting the outsized impact on roads that everyone else pays for and the extra pollution everyone else is breathing. I'm not forgetting it. I just think it's silly that people against huge trucks seem to completely overlook all of the real reasons why people like them.

mzs 3y ago

> It's not as big a difference as you might imagine. The widely criticized big Ford F-150 gets 21 MPG combined and a smaller Maverick gets 25. It is a big difference, that maverick will require 4 gallons to go 100 miles, while the F150 3/4 of a gallon more. It means 19% more greenhouse gasses per mile.