4 ms·

Anything with a hood that's so high primarily because it's gender affirming care is paid for with the deaths and injuries of innocents. Regulate the shape of th

by Zigurd 4mo ago

Anything with a hood that's so high primarily because it's gender affirming care is paid for with the deaths and injuries of innocents. Regulate the shape of the front end of any vehicle, as I'm sure any honest regulator would.

everdrive 4mo ago
It's quite sad, the old 1997 F-150 (the first year of the quite-ugly-but-practical "bubble" aesthetic) specifically advertised its low front hood as an intentional measure to improve visibility. And that thing had better visibility than nearly any modern car. It was incredibly despite still being a relatively large truck.
- rpcope1 4mo ago
  It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. I understand they were at least marginally less safe in a crash, but I think changes could have been made to get them safer and more efficient without compromising the ease of repair and generally more pleasant driving experience. It's amazing how much more divorced from the road and the outside world a new truck is compared to even the late 00's pre financial crash trucks, especially as any additional utility they provide is unchanged at best, and frankly so far as I can tell grossly net negative (i.e. how many 8 foot beds have you see recently? How many flatbeds have you seen that weren't on obvious fleet trucks? The Suburban is also frankly grossly less utilitarian now).
  - Marsymars 4mo ago
    > It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. The Ford Maverick exists!
    - NegativeLatency 4mo ago
      It's about the same size as an old f150 though
      - Marsymars 4mo ago
        Sure, if you go back far enough, but this was in response to the older Ford Ranger being no longer available - the Maverick is fairly comparable in size to a 90's Ranger.
    - CoffeeOnWrite 4mo ago
      It's quad cab only though, unlike the S10 or O.G. Ranger.
      - Marsymars 4mo ago
        Yeah, that's true, regular cab not available in anything other than a full size in North America now. Though the Tacoma does come in extended cab. And the Maverick has a clever bed that fits 4x8 sheets with the tailgate halfway.
- themaninthedark 4mo ago
  You can thank the CAFE standards for setting emission limits of small vehicles below what was technically possible, driving manufacturers to the larger sizes.
  - CalRobert 4mo ago
    Well maybe we'll get small cars again because the fine for violating CAFE is now... $0. https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08/congress-eliminates-corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-penalties-for-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks/ https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08...
    - themaninthedark 4mo ago
      I would like that. I drive a smaller size hatchback, I dislike that I am surrounded by larger vehicles but also don't want to give in to the trend. But to move back, the best thing would be to loosen regulation on the smaller class and tighten + enforce for the larger class. Too much time has passed with everyone getting in the larger vehicle arms race for it just to flip back. The manufacturing would also have to gear back up and as we are discovering with the attempt to re-shore, it take time and isn't easy. Also an additional thought for some of the comments that are talking about the selfishness of those who drive larger vehicles. On one hand it is personally selfish and makes it less safe for pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles. On the other hand, those people have families and friends. My wife wants me to get a larger car because she is worried I will be killed if there is a traffic accident. I have a duty to help provide for my family and I certainly don't want to die, so doing so would not be an irrational choice. Similarly to the choice of driving a pickup truck, often it is not needed most of the time. I have a family member who doesn't own a car, which is great! They always talk about the options available (Uber, Rental, etc) but anytime they have to travel to the airport for a business trip, they borrow a car from us or another family member to get there and use the airport parking. Which is fine because collectively we have it available but it can also be a slight inconvenience as well but it is less then them having to deal with Uber/Rental/Public Transit.
bijowo1676 4mo ago
this is part of the subsidy to American car companies. American Big Three cannot compete with Asian/European cars, so they gave up and erected a regulatory barriers to protect their market: 1. chicken tax 2. Section 179 Deduction - allows writeoff of Vehicles Over 6000 lbs for people non-W2 people (self-employed and small business owners) 3. CAFE footpring and "light truck" loophole and CAFE exemtpions for US trucks everything designed to protect Big Three's highest margin products at cost of human lives

by Zigurd 4mo ago

everdrive 4mo ago

It's quite sad, the old 1997 F-150 (the first year of the quite-ugly-but-practical "bubble" aesthetic) specifically advertised its low front hood as an intentional measure to improve visibility. And that thing had better visibility than nearly any modern car. It was incredibly despite still being a relatively large truck.

rpcope1 4mo ago
It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. I understand they were at least marginally less safe in a crash, but I think changes could have been made to get them safer and more efficient without compromising the ease of repair and generally more pleasant driving experience. It's amazing how much more divorced from the road and the outside world a new truck is compared to even the late 00's pre financial crash trucks, especially as any additional utility they provide is unchanged at best, and frankly so far as I can tell grossly net negative (i.e. how many 8 foot beds have you see recently? How many flatbeds have you seen that weren't on obvious fleet trucks? The Suburban is also frankly grossly less utilitarian now).
- Marsymars 4mo ago
  > It's honestly frustrating that you can't buy anything like an S10, an O.G. Ranger, Jeep XJ, or even the 90's and early 00's GM and Ford full size trucks. The Ford Maverick exists!
  - NegativeLatency 4mo ago
    It's about the same size as an old f150 though
    - Marsymars 4mo ago
      Sure, if you go back far enough, but this was in response to the older Ford Ranger being no longer available - the Maverick is fairly comparable in size to a 90's Ranger.
  - CoffeeOnWrite 4mo ago
    It's quad cab only though, unlike the S10 or O.G. Ranger.
    - Marsymars 4mo ago
      Yeah, that's true, regular cab not available in anything other than a full size in North America now. Though the Tacoma does come in extended cab. And the Maverick has a clever bed that fits 4x8 sheets with the tailgate halfway.
themaninthedark 4mo ago
You can thank the CAFE standards for setting emission limits of small vehicles below what was technically possible, driving manufacturers to the larger sizes.
- CalRobert 4mo ago
  Well maybe we'll get small cars again because the fine for violating CAFE is now... $0. https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08/congress-eliminates-corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-penalties-for-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks/ https://environmentalhealthsafetybrief.sidley.com/2025/07/08...
  - themaninthedark 4mo ago
    I would like that. I drive a smaller size hatchback, I dislike that I am surrounded by larger vehicles but also don't want to give in to the trend. But to move back, the best thing would be to loosen regulation on the smaller class and tighten + enforce for the larger class. Too much time has passed with everyone getting in the larger vehicle arms race for it just to flip back. The manufacturing would also have to gear back up and as we are discovering with the attempt to re-shore, it take time and isn't easy. Also an additional thought for some of the comments that are talking about the selfishness of those who drive larger vehicles. On one hand it is personally selfish and makes it less safe for pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles. On the other hand, those people have families and friends. My wife wants me to get a larger car because she is worried I will be killed if there is a traffic accident. I have a duty to help provide for my family and I certainly don't want to die, so doing so would not be an irrational choice. Similarly to the choice of driving a pickup truck, often it is not needed most of the time. I have a family member who doesn't own a car, which is great! They always talk about the options available (Uber, Rental, etc) but anytime they have to travel to the airport for a business trip, they borrow a car from us or another family member to get there and use the airport parking. Which is fine because collectively we have it available but it can also be a slight inconvenience as well but it is less then them having to deal with Uber/Rental/Public Transit.

bijowo1676 4mo ago

this is part of the subsidy to American car companies. American Big Three cannot compete with Asian/European cars, so they gave up and erected a regulatory barriers to protect their market: 1. chicken tax 2. Section 179 Deduction - allows writeoff of Vehicles Over 6000 lbs for people non-W2 people (self-employed and small business owners) 3. CAFE footpring and "light truck" loophole and CAFE exemtpions for US trucks everything designed to protect Big Three's highest margin products at cost of human lives