6 ms·

You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which things should be evaluated. It is a known

You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which things should be evaluated. It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed. Millions of school pickups happening on massive trucks - and SUVs - are not ceasing to happen because you loaded your own with a pile of grass. People buy them because they’re “safer”, comfortable and look good. This is coming from research data for years now, and not only in the USA. It can be hard to relate to changes happening at societal scale that don’t affect your own microcosm, but how else can we be aware of it, and act on, if not through data, averages and trends?

dkh 1y ago
You know, for someone who clearly is a bit triggered (reasonably) by dealing with whatever stereotypes and judgements people make about trucks and truck owners, their post is quite positive and respectful. Your reply to it is not. It seems like your argument is “the data indicates a statistical likelihood that someone judging, assuming, or stereotyping will still be accurate.” The factual inaccuracy of prejudice is not the problem with prejudice, the prejudice is
- jychang 1y ago
  I fail to see how prejudice against waste is a problem. Prejudice is a bad thing- for things that people can't change, like their race or age. Prejudice against people making bad or wasteful decisions is a good thing.
  - jpk 1y ago
    The point is you can't reliably tell if someone's choice of vehicle is wasteful unless you get to know them a bit. Snap-judging someone's entire lifestyle in the second it takes to recognize a make and model isn't constructive.
  - dkh 1y ago
    No, prejudice is bad, full stop. By definition it means to judge someone for something before you actually know for sure that they have/do the thing that bothers you. It doesn’t matter what the thing is, that’s not the problem or the point. The point is you can’t, or shouldn’t, view or treat someone as though they have some quality you dislike when you don’t actually know about this individual and only know that a high percentage of them do. You can’t judge an individual this way! If you hate waste (as do I) and you feel trucks contribute to that and that a majority of truck owners don’t make use of their trucks, then great! Speak about it exactly like that. But you can’t simply take any truck driver and say “that individual is wasteful” without knowing. You can’t do that any more than you can assume my friends and I are criminals and drug dealers because at some point we decided to use Telegram as our primary messaging app, or like ICE can assume anyone standing near a pro-Mexico protest is an illegal immigrant, you cannot attribute a quality to an individual without having actual knowledge of it.
    - ricardobeat 1y ago
      > You can’t judge an individual this way But nobody is here to judge individuals. It’s the other way around - the discussion is around behavioral trends and data, they were the ones bringing in personal anecdotes to counter it. The point is to look at the behavior of of the general population and its impact, not trying to prove that anyone in particular conforms (or not) to the overall trend.
  - simianparrot 1y ago
    You can't know it's waste until you know their actual use of it. Like another comment says, prejudice is bad -- full stop.
    - cycomanic 1y ago
      I fail to see the prejudice? The OP said, I quote: > This is a breath of fresh air. Modern pick up trucks post-2017 are giant vehicles with high danger to pedestrians. They are often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of one human. That's not a prejudice that's literally how they are marketed and used to a large extend. The second poster said, he is not using it that way, sure fine nobody said that _everybody_ is using a pick up truck this way, however as the reply to the other post said, there is ample research that the majority of pickup trucks are never used offroad and hardly ever have anything in their bed. Why did the responder feel triggered? And let's not ignore the fact that people driving pickups on the road does have a cost for everyone else, they reduce safety for everyone not in a pick up as well as pedastrians and cyclist, they have poorer milage so are contributing unnecessarily to climate change... Now as to the point of all prejudice is bad. That's a pretty strong statement. Are you not judging people by their actions? If someone walks around with a swastika (sorry for godwins law, but you made an absolute statement) on his sleeve, is it prejudice to judge him?
    - Qwertious 1y ago
      If prejudice is bad full stop, even to entirely freely chosen actions, then it's wrong to criticize people for writing prejudiced comments - after all, you're being prejudiced against prejudiced comments, and being prejudiced is wrong. (Please note that criticising nested paradoxes of tolerance expires after one use per conversation.)
      - simianparrot 1y ago
        I can't be prejudiced after reading their comment. Prejudice would be dismissing their comment because their nickname contained a word I assume means they're not worth listening to, as an example.
kubectl_h 1y ago
> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed. I'm not here to defend brodozers, but you cannot possibly prove this statement. That a _pickup truck_ isn't hauling the majority of the time it is on the road is not some new thing. But of course there are more pickup trucks on the road than ever, so if you argument is aggregate time of all pickup trucks not doing truck things is the highest its ever been is certainly true, but you'd probably have to go back to before the 80s for that number to actually be meaningfully different per truck.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "prove this statement" but answering questions like this is exactly why organizations do consumer research. To wit [1]: > According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    The hauling figure is useless without specifying what they mean. Usually these “studies” redefine hauling to mean something specific like hauling loose dirt or something extremely heavy. If you can read a quote claiming 2/3 of truck owners don’t “put something in the bed” more than once a year then and not realize that something is wrong with these statistics then you’re missing something.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      The question is not whether they "put something in the bed" — it's whether they use the bed in such a way that the trunk or back seat of a smaller vehicle would be unsuitable.
Aurornis 1y ago
> You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which things should be evaluated. I was pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You cannot conclude that a truck never goes off-road by observing them on city streets. That was your claim, and I explained why it didn’t make sense. I also explained why trucks are not primarily sold as off-road vehicles anyway. > It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed If you read the “studies” that make these claims they use two tricks: First, they specifically exclude a truck defined as a work truck. Second, they redefine “using the bed” to some arbitrary threshold, like hauling a large load of loose dirt or hauling something over so many hundred pounds. If you actually believe that truck owners aren’t putting anything in the truck bed, you’re out of touch. But why does this one point trigger you so much? If I showed you a similar study that the majority of people with back seats rarely had more than 2 people in their cars, would you become similarly enraged at the people buying 5-seat cars instead of a compact 2-seater? If I showed you a study that the majority of people rarely use more than 200 horsepower would you start getting triggered by all of the 300, 400, or even 500 horsepower cars so wastefully driving around? There’s something about pickup trucks, specifically, that makes a vocal minority irrationally angry and triggered. It’s a funny meme to watch because so many comments in this thread are absolutely sure that they understand the situation but they don’t understand basic facts about how you can’t tell if someone goes off-road by judging the condition of their paint, or that using a truck for work purposes doesn’t render it visibly damaged in a way that they can see. They just see trucks, get triggered, mix it with misleading “studies”, and come to believe odd conclusions like “truck drivers don’t use their beds”
- xocnad 1y ago
  Why are you triggered by the vocal irrational minority? You seem quite defensive for someone who is confident and comfortable in the the truck they own and how they use it and maintain it.
  - nwienert 1y ago
    Not them, but I find that people who take out political frustration against non-political things quite annoying. For example, when Tesla was blue-coded, way more comments here were highly forgiving, if not outright glazing. They became red-coded, and suddenly you’d see tons of highly technical reasons they sucked. You can gut yourself into coming up with many reasons this isn’t true, but it’s definitely true. Trucks have gotten this since the beginning. It’s not that it’s triggering, it’s just more annoying to have to waste a lot of time reading things that are clearly therapy for the poster more than any sort of interesting opinion.
hungmung 1y ago
> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed. Just want to point out that big pickups are really about the hauling capacity, it's not like their beds are much bigger than a modern Ford Ranger. An F250 can safely pull 10 tons, and a dually F450 can pull 20t. Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you need a big truck.
- troupo 1y ago
  > Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you need a big truck. That you can probably rent. "I may need to haul a non-trivial load once 10 years from now" is hardly a justification for buying one
  - bluGill 1y ago
    you probably cannot re&t such a truck. Home depot and all rental cars places have a no towing clause in the contract. Uhaul only tows the own trailer by concract. the few rent for towing places are rare, and charge high fees such that it is cheaper to own your own truck.
    - troupo 1y ago
      Searching "rent a truck to tow": - Enterprise https://www.enterprisetrucks.com/truckrental/en_US/towing.html https://www.enterprisetrucks.com/truckrental/en_US/towing.ht... - U-Haul https://www.uhaul.com/Truck-Rentals/Pickup-Truck/ https://www.uhaul.com/Truck-Rentals/Pickup-Truck/ I'm sure there are plenty more + services for towing.
      - bluGill 1y ago
        Most enterprise locations are no towing. Most uhaul trucks are the same despite that webpage. When hou find otn that can tow the costs are so high that it is almost always cheaper to own a truck you drive empty 95% of the time. You have to run your own numbers but everytime I run them for me I can't justify a car and renting a truck when I need one. (I mostly ride my bike)
toast0 1y ago
Let's be honest. I only rarely use most of the features of my vehicles. What's worse? A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat? I have a truck, because I find it more convenient to have a truck bed anytime I need it, than to have to arrange to borrow or rent one. The bed doesn't get used often, but it's also a reasonable vehicle for driving solo or with one passenger; two in a pinch. Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have, too. Unfortunately, the single cab, 6-ft bed small truck market disappeared, and I got this one used with too big of an engine, so the mileage is poor... when I had a 4-cylinder small truck, mileage was better, but I don't drive that much anymore anyway. But, I have lots of space, so I can keep a car for transporting a car pool in comfort, a PHEV with good mileage for longer trips that don't need anything special, a small truck for doing small truck things, and an old van with removed back seats that's fun to work on and can carry things that shouldn't get wet when it's raining. The van visibility towards the front is even better than the truck, because it's cabover, but visibility to the back isn't as good... None of those modern pillars that make it hard to see out the sides though.
- messe 1y ago
  > A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat? A not in use back seat takes up far less space in a sane car than a pick-up truck with a bed. > Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have, too. At the expense of others. And good luck seeing a small child in front of it if you're driving in a moderately pedestrianized area.
  - toast0 1y ago
    My s-10 is 190 inches long by wikipedia. A same year Honda Accord is 189.5–191.1 in long. The accord is marginally wider. Driving alone in my s-10 takes the same space as driving alone in an Accord if I had one. And it's easier to see around or through the S-10, so everyone gets more visibility. The S-10 hood height and length is more than an Accord, so there may be some additional risk there, sure. Either way, a cabover design like the linked vehicle should appeal. Better visibility to the front, and less wasted space.
- rtpg 1y ago
scott_w 1y ago
In the UK there was also a loophole that allowed them to be treated as a business expense when bought by sole traders. Many a hairdresser bought a pickup over the years. That was changed so adding rear seats meant you could no longer class it as a company vehicle (the setup that was most common).

dkh 1y ago

You know, for someone who clearly is a bit triggered (reasonably) by dealing with whatever stereotypes and judgements people make about trucks and truck owners, their post is quite positive and respectful. Your reply to it is not. It seems like your argument is “the data indicates a statistical likelihood that someone judging, assuming, or stereotyping will still be accurate.” The factual inaccuracy of prejudice is not the problem with prejudice, the prejudice is

jychang 1y ago
I fail to see how prejudice against waste is a problem. Prejudice is a bad thing- for things that people can't change, like their race or age. Prejudice against people making bad or wasteful decisions is a good thing.
- jpk 1y ago
  The point is you can't reliably tell if someone's choice of vehicle is wasteful unless you get to know them a bit. Snap-judging someone's entire lifestyle in the second it takes to recognize a make and model isn't constructive.
- dkh 1y ago
  No, prejudice is bad, full stop. By definition it means to judge someone for something before you actually know for sure that they have/do the thing that bothers you. It doesn’t matter what the thing is, that’s not the problem or the point. The point is you can’t, or shouldn’t, view or treat someone as though they have some quality you dislike when you don’t actually know about this individual and only know that a high percentage of them do. You can’t judge an individual this way! If you hate waste (as do I) and you feel trucks contribute to that and that a majority of truck owners don’t make use of their trucks, then great! Speak about it exactly like that. But you can’t simply take any truck driver and say “that individual is wasteful” without knowing. You can’t do that any more than you can assume my friends and I are criminals and drug dealers because at some point we decided to use Telegram as our primary messaging app, or like ICE can assume anyone standing near a pro-Mexico protest is an illegal immigrant, you cannot attribute a quality to an individual without having actual knowledge of it.
  - ricardobeat 1y ago
    > You can’t judge an individual this way But nobody is here to judge individuals. It’s the other way around - the discussion is around behavioral trends and data, they were the ones bringing in personal anecdotes to counter it. The point is to look at the behavior of of the general population and its impact, not trying to prove that anyone in particular conforms (or not) to the overall trend.
- simianparrot 1y ago
  You can't know it's waste until you know their actual use of it. Like another comment says, prejudice is bad -- full stop.
  - cycomanic 1y ago
    I fail to see the prejudice? The OP said, I quote: > This is a breath of fresh air. Modern pick up trucks post-2017 are giant vehicles with high danger to pedestrians. They are often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of one human. That's not a prejudice that's literally how they are marketed and used to a large extend. The second poster said, he is not using it that way, sure fine nobody said that _everybody_ is using a pick up truck this way, however as the reply to the other post said, there is ample research that the majority of pickup trucks are never used offroad and hardly ever have anything in their bed. Why did the responder feel triggered? And let's not ignore the fact that people driving pickups on the road does have a cost for everyone else, they reduce safety for everyone not in a pick up as well as pedastrians and cyclist, they have poorer milage so are contributing unnecessarily to climate change... Now as to the point of all prejudice is bad. That's a pretty strong statement. Are you not judging people by their actions? If someone walks around with a swastika (sorry for godwins law, but you made an absolute statement) on his sleeve, is it prejudice to judge him?
  - Qwertious 1y ago
    If prejudice is bad full stop, even to entirely freely chosen actions, then it's wrong to criticize people for writing prejudiced comments - after all, you're being prejudiced against prejudiced comments, and being prejudiced is wrong. (Please note that criticising nested paradoxes of tolerance expires after one use per conversation.)
    - simianparrot 1y ago
      I can't be prejudiced after reading their comment. Prejudice would be dismissing their comment because their nickname contained a word I assume means they're not worth listening to, as an example.

kubectl_h 1y ago

> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed. I'm not here to defend brodozers, but you cannot possibly prove this statement. That a _pickup truck_ isn't hauling the majority of the time it is on the road is not some new thing. But of course there are more pickup trucks on the road than ever, so if you argument is aggregate time of all pickup trucks not doing truck things is the highest its ever been is certainly true, but you'd probably have to go back to before the 80s for that number to actually be meaningfully different per truck.

jakelazaroff 1y ago
Not sure what you mean by "prove this statement" but answering questions like this is exactly why organizations do consumer research. To wit [1]: > According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
- Aurornis 1y ago
  The hauling figure is useless without specifying what they mean. Usually these “studies” redefine hauling to mean something specific like hauling loose dirt or something extremely heavy. If you can read a quote claiming 2/3 of truck owners don’t “put something in the bed” more than once a year then and not realize that something is wrong with these statistics then you’re missing something.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    The question is not whether they "put something in the bed" — it's whether they use the bed in such a way that the trunk or back seat of a smaller vehicle would be unsuitable.

Aurornis 1y ago

> You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which things should be evaluated. I was pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You cannot conclude that a truck never goes off-road by observing them on city streets. That was your claim, and I explained why it didn’t make sense. I also explained why trucks are not primarily sold as off-road vehicles anyway. > It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed If you read the “studies” that make these claims they use two tricks: First, they specifically exclude a truck defined as a work truck. Second, they redefine “using the bed” to some arbitrary threshold, like hauling a large load of loose dirt or hauling something over so many hundred pounds. If you actually believe that truck owners aren’t putting anything in the truck bed, you’re out of touch. But why does this one point trigger you so much? If I showed you a similar study that the majority of people with back seats rarely had more than 2 people in their cars, would you become similarly enraged at the people buying 5-seat cars instead of a compact 2-seater? If I showed you a study that the majority of people rarely use more than 200 horsepower would you start getting triggered by all of the 300, 400, or even 500 horsepower cars so wastefully driving around? There’s something about pickup trucks, specifically, that makes a vocal minority irrationally angry and triggered. It’s a funny meme to watch because so many comments in this thread are absolutely sure that they understand the situation but they don’t understand basic facts about how you can’t tell if someone goes off-road by judging the condition of their paint, or that using a truck for work purposes doesn’t render it visibly damaged in a way that they can see. They just see trucks, get triggered, mix it with misleading “studies”, and come to believe odd conclusions like “truck drivers don’t use their beds”

xocnad 1y ago
Why are you triggered by the vocal irrational minority? You seem quite defensive for someone who is confident and comfortable in the the truck they own and how they use it and maintain it.
- nwienert 1y ago
  Not them, but I find that people who take out political frustration against non-political things quite annoying. For example, when Tesla was blue-coded, way more comments here were highly forgiving, if not outright glazing. They became red-coded, and suddenly you’d see tons of highly technical reasons they sucked. You can gut yourself into coming up with many reasons this isn’t true, but it’s definitely true. Trucks have gotten this since the beginning. It’s not that it’s triggering, it’s just more annoying to have to waste a lot of time reading things that are clearly therapy for the poster more than any sort of interesting opinion.

hungmung 1y ago

> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed. Just want to point out that big pickups are really about the hauling capacity, it's not like their beds are much bigger than a modern Ford Ranger. An F250 can safely pull 10 tons, and a dually F450 can pull 20t. Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you need a big truck.

troupo 1y ago
> Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you need a big truck. That you can probably rent. "I may need to haul a non-trivial load once 10 years from now" is hardly a justification for buying one
- bluGill 1y ago
  you probably cannot re&t such a truck. Home depot and all rental cars places have a no towing clause in the contract. Uhaul only tows the own trailer by concract. the few rent for towing places are rare, and charge high fees such that it is cheaper to own your own truck.
  - troupo 1y ago
    Searching "rent a truck to tow": - Enterprise https://www.enterprisetrucks.com/truckrental/en_US/towing.html https://www.enterprisetrucks.com/truckrental/en_US/towing.ht... - U-Haul https://www.uhaul.com/Truck-Rentals/Pickup-Truck/ https://www.uhaul.com/Truck-Rentals/Pickup-Truck/ I'm sure there are plenty more + services for towing.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Most enterprise locations are no towing. Most uhaul trucks are the same despite that webpage. When hou find otn that can tow the costs are so high that it is almost always cheaper to own a truck you drive empty 95% of the time. You have to run your own numbers but everytime I run them for me I can't justify a car and renting a truck when I need one. (I mostly ride my bike)

toast0 1y ago

Let's be honest. I only rarely use most of the features of my vehicles. What's worse? A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat? I have a truck, because I find it more convenient to have a truck bed anytime I need it, than to have to arrange to borrow or rent one. The bed doesn't get used often, but it's also a reasonable vehicle for driving solo or with one passenger; two in a pinch. Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have, too. Unfortunately, the single cab, 6-ft bed small truck market disappeared, and I got this one used with too big of an engine, so the mileage is poor... when I had a 4-cylinder small truck, mileage was better, but I don't drive that much anymore anyway. But, I have lots of space, so I can keep a car for transporting a car pool in comfort, a PHEV with good mileage for longer trips that don't need anything special, a small truck for doing small truck things, and an old van with removed back seats that's fun to work on and can carry things that shouldn't get wet when it's raining. The van visibility towards the front is even better than the truck, because it's cabover, but visibility to the back isn't as good... None of those modern pillars that make it hard to see out the sides though.

messe 1y ago
> A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat? A not in use back seat takes up far less space in a sane car than a pick-up truck with a bed. > Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have, too. At the expense of others. And good luck seeing a small child in front of it if you're driving in a moderately pedestrianized area.
- toast0 1y ago
  My s-10 is 190 inches long by wikipedia. A same year Honda Accord is 189.5–191.1 in long. The accord is marginally wider. Driving alone in my s-10 takes the same space as driving alone in an Accord if I had one. And it's easier to see around or through the S-10, so everyone gets more visibility. The S-10 hood height and length is more than an Accord, so there may be some additional risk there, sure. Either way, a cabover design like the linked vehicle should appeal. Better visibility to the front, and less wasted space.
rtpg 1y ago

scott_w 1y ago

In the UK there was also a loophole that allowed them to be treated as a business expense when bought by sole traders. Many a hairdresser bought a pickup over the years. That was changed so adding rear seats meant you could no longer class it as a company vehicle (the setup that was most common).