Why Are Pickup Trucks Ridiculously Huge? Blame Government.
Regulations, tariffs, and other government-imposed hurdles reward American car companies for building bigger, more expensive trucks and keep out any potential competitors.

One of my favorite economic rules is simple. Whenever a progressive scold blames capitalism or private companies for a "market failure"—i.e., the inefficient or seemingly inexplicable distribution of goods or services in the economy—it's best to dig a little deeper. Almost always, some government regulation, tax, or law is largely to blame.
One recent example involves the proliferation of mega-pickup trucks. It doesn't take scientific analysis to notice these vehicles, which account for more than 20 percent of all passenger vehicle sales in the United States, have gotten huge. I recently parked my 2012 full-size V-8 RAM next to a new model in a parking lot and mine looked like a toy. They've gotten pricey, too. I paid $19,000 for mine brand new—and the average full-size pickup now approaches $60,000.
"Driving a large pickup or SUV increases the likelihood you'll kill or injure someone; its thirsty power plant… spews more air pollution and greenhouse emissions," according to a report last year in Bloomberg. This has, of course, led to calls for more regulation. The article focused on a proposal by the District of Columbia to impose a $500 annual fee on trucks that exceed 6,000 pounds. The European Union has proposed bans on U.S.-style trucks.
I generally don't care what other people drive, but critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound, 22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier, they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle.
But before we engage in a regulatory frenzy, it might be wise to assess how we reached this point. Part of it is due to consumer demand and manufacturer marketing, but that's an insufficient explanation. I live on an acreage and need a truck for routine work duties and hauling a trailer. The anti-car zealots seem to think we all should get around on buses and bicycles, but the bigger question is why there aren't many smaller, affordable truck options.
The automotive media has been abuzz with stories about a new Toyota pickup truck (IMV 0) that, unlike even the smallest pickups available in the states, features a large and useful bed. It's relatively light and fuel efficient. It can be configured in myriad ways, including a flatbed. According to Road and Track, it was developed in Thailand, where nearly half of all new vehicle sales are pickups. It is a bare-bones affair, but—get this—will only cost around $10,000.
This pickup has an authentic "Road Warrior" vibe that, in my humble opinion, is much cooler than the "tries too hard and costs too much" Tesla Cyber Truck. Don't head to your Toyota dealership anytime soon, as it won't reach U.S. markets, although it will be sold in Mexico. I'm guessing even a $20,000 U.S. variant would sell like proverbial hotcakes, but U.S. regulations, tariffs, and other government-imposed hurdles won't allow it.
One reason U.S. pickups have dominated the marketplace dates back 60 years. "When the European Economic Community raised tariffs on imported chicken from the U.S., President Lyndon Johnson retaliated with a 25 percent 'chicken tax' on imported trucks and other items," wrote the Cato Institute's Daniel Griswold. It was aimed at Volkswagen, which used to sell great little pickups. It no longer sells them here, but "the tariff remains in place out of political inertia." It's no surprise these massive taxes (and tariffs are simply a form of taxation) lead to market distortions. Don't blame manufacturers (except for their lobbying to achieve market protections) when government is the culprit.
Basically, U.S. tariffs undercut the competition from foreign producers who specialize in smaller pickup trucks. American companies have always dominated the large truck market, so the lack of competitors helped them cement their dominance. Speaking of unintended consequences, the federal government's bizarre emission rules also led to the public's preference for larger SUVs and trucks.
Regulations promulgated during the Obama administration required cars "to meet tougher emissions and mileage targets than light trucks—a category that includes pickups and many so-called crossover vehicles that look like SUVs but have the mechanical underpinnings of cars," according to a 2020 Reuters report. As a result, car makers offered more vehicles that conformed to less-rigid light-truck standards.
The panoply of regulatory rules, labor standards, tariffs, and taxes also drive up manufacturing costs, which means car makers need to maximize profit per unit. That offers more incentive to push the priciest vehicles possible. Often, Detroit is fine with additional regulations, which cuts out upstart and foreign competitors. That's not market failure, but government failure. So those seriously concerned about massive pickups should consider less regulation rather than more of it.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ctrl+f: Obesity.
Zero results.
Get out of your enclave, then you'll learn something.
People are happier if they are more financially independent. Make 120 to 180USD / Hr by performing simple tasks. Qd We can help you achieve this. Join our strong community and earn money easily and safely from wherever you want.
On This Website—>>> http://Www.Bizwork1.com
Hah. Bragging about making at most $180/hr performing simple tasks like giving handjobs to the neighborhood kids. (Considering price limitations, that would require he do two at a time (using both hands). What a piker.
I routinely make between $350-$375 an hour hauling yak fat in my big, heavy, gas-hungry F-250 FWD. I realize not everyone has a yak fat rendering plant within an easy drive, but if you do, be aware there is an almost unlimited market for processed yak fat where a "retirement village" can be found. (Some things get really dry after age 60 or so. Besides, endangered animals are only effectively protected when there is some economic benefit to having the critters around, and without some distribution channels to market processed yak fat, the northern Louisiana yak would likely go from EPA classified "vulnerable" to "critically endangered" or even "extinct in the wild" status. Rendering the yak fat is somewhat odoriferous, but once "purified" it is truly a marvelous substance. In addition to promoting -uh - satisfaction in nursing homes, it works well to grease bearings and I use it to shine my 6600 lb 445 cu. in. pickup - freshly washed and "waxed" with yak fat, it literally gleams.
And during yak calving season, when yak fat extraction is termporarily halted, I haul bullshit. With a load of bullshit I can make $500/hr. I recently came upon this opportunity, and with my three-quarter ton I can haul 3,300 lbs of bullshit per load. Washington has an unlimited supply which it is always seeking delivery channels to get out into the state. The railroads won't touch the stuff, and it's airlines don't have room to haul bullshit at times of high
illegal alienundocumented immigrant transfers to sanctuary cities. I've even smuggled a few truckloads of them (only get $175/hr. from them, as the cartels skin them pretty close before they let them enter the river) from the valley up to Chicago when I'm deadheading with no load. They seem especially grateful if the load I hauled before picking them up was yak fat instead of Washington bullshit.This is an opportunity you should not miss. Get in touch with https:www.haulindatfat.org and find out how you can similarly benefit (if you have a big pickup truck).
At least it isn't yak milk. Yak milk is gross.
Is it fortified with vitamin R?
WTF??? This is a “news” article? A joke?
Nobody is this stupid. Reason.com has become a nasty, crusty, collectivist, welfare rat toilet.
What rural dweller demands a smaller truck? The smaller trucks can't work like a full size truck. Towing, hauling, and snow plowing are my big three.
It's like gun control. The problem isn't the gun or the truck. The problem is that despite the fact that 'I don't mean to sound critical of his bullshtting, but...' Greenhut is a fucking socialist and doesn't like it when the market caters to other peoples' demands despite other peoples' interventions.
He’s arguing that smaller trucks are available in much of the world and that but for regulations and tariffs they would be more readily available to Americans should they want them. There is still a demand for them; you still see older smaller Toyota and Ranger pickups all over the place.
I generally don’t care what other people drive, but critics aren’t entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound, 22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier, they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle.
Sounds like a lot of words to say that he agrees with the critics/regulators and is even positing a different concern of his own to make the statement “I generally don’t care what other people drive…” sound more like “I don’t mean to sound racist, but…” or “I was just fucking the goat performatively… as a joke… you know… rhetorically!”
He's not trying to explain why big trucks sell. He's trying to explain why the companies selling the big expensive trucks don't ALSO sell small affordable trucks.
I don’t think Greenhut knows shit about trucks. Saying he bought his 2012 Ram for $19k and comparing it with a new Ram at $60k is apples and oranges. In 2012, a $19k Ram represented a base level work truck with discounts. There are now less discounts available, and a $60k model is probably something like a Laramie trim. Which was substantially more in than $19k in 2012.
Greenhut should stick to promoting open borders and whining about how Trump is a big dictatorial meanie.
I don't know, but what changed since the 80's and 90's? As a kid I remember a lot of farmers and rural dwellers had Rangers, Couriers, S10's and occasionally VW's and Mazdas. Even the large trucks like C10's and F100's were small by today's standards. A crew cab was rare enough to look bizarre before the 90's. I guess at that time it was still common to see farm tractors on the road doing the tasks you describe. I rarely see that anymore, but most of the farms have shut down.
I don’t think you actually farmed.
Rangers and S-10s weren’t generally big enough to pull wagons and implements. This may, in part, explain any perceived proliferation of larger trucks as well, more tech hanging off more implements getting hauled around more often. Crew cabs were rar-er because people could legally ride in the bed of the truck.
The two F-150 Lariats (’83 and ’85) I drove for my employer at the time both had 7.5L V-8s, 1.5X the sides of the largest Coyote engine you can get in an F-150 today (and always fired on all 8).
The Rangers and S10s were what one guy ran to Wal-Mart or the farm supply to pick up one or two things with, but if you needed to shuttle the bailing crew to the barn and the bales along with them or an implement to the co-op or dealer or barn for repairs, it was an F-150 bigger than the F-100 or the F-150s today.
Worth noting or pointing out as well that, in a bit of divergence from Greenhut’s idiocy, agricultural production rose as well. I wouldn’t say it was specifically because of larger pickups because it continued to grow as engines and trucks have now gotten smaller and more efficient, but more and bigger implements being hauled around more capably was a factor.
The two F-150 Lariats (’83 and ’85) I drove for my employer at the time both had 7.5L V-8s, 1.5X the sides of the largest Coyote engine you can get in an F-150 today (and always fired on all 8).
But what kind of power did the old engines make? Modern engines do a lot more with less. My current car is a 2.0l i4, but makes more power than a 4.6l v8 Mustang I used to have (which in turn had more power than an even older 5.0 my buddy had)
But what kind of power did the old engines make? Modern engines do a lot more with less.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every cc was essential and I tried to be pretty straightforward that we, now, with better technology, get similar power for less. I'm just saying that there's a bit of the cultural divide/"Two people seeing two different movies on the same screen." thing going on. Yeah, your 60 yr. old farmer in the 80s drove the F-100 he'd had since the 60s, but he didn't farm 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 acres. He farmed the same 500 or whatever acres that were on the same lot as the barn and rented any other land to someone who farmed 10,000 acres and drove F-150s between the lots and drove the Ranger into town. So if you were sitting at the Denny's with the farmers every morning, you saw F-100s and Rangers while the F-150s were at work behind the screen.
Similar with your "they aren't demanding a smaller truck either" situation below. Mrs. Casual's side of the family is all culturally left, (sub)urban DINKs. The idea of having a car that can hold every single member of your family and 72 hours worth of supplies for each of them 'just-in-case' is absurd to them because society would never fall that far. The idea that we have a truck that can support our family 'just-in-case' *and* take us all skiing on a lark *and* hauls building materials *and* teaches the driving-age kids a wider array of driving skills and/or to more capably operate larger vehicles is just obnoxious consumerist opulence to them (and we really ought to buy a Tesla).
Yeah, I totally understand the "just in case" mentality. For me personally I don't like a big vehicle as my daily driver so I just rent the truck from Home Depot for the 2 or 3 times a year I need it. But that's just me. Besides, if I had room to park an extra car that wasn't my daily driver I'd probably have my own truck too.
My wife likes to sneer at lifted trucks we see around town. "You don't even have any mud on it, what are you lifting it for?" lol
I understand the lack of need of a truck that would justify renting on occasion. But that is not my situation. My truck plows snow when needed, pulls my boat & a 26" camper, pulls a flatbed trailer, hauls firewood, dump runs, etc. And it isn't my daily driver.
Some of us actually NEED a utilitarian truck.
I rented a truck at Menards to haul a door home. It made me want one. It was so nice, spacious and had so many amenities. But the rental fee was a lot less than a monthly payment so I managed to return the truck and not run out to buy one.
I bought a used high end F150 a couple of years ago. It's a very nice looking pickup. But when you open the tailgate and look at the box it was obviously a working farmer or rancher's truck.
And a "grocery getter" in a state that commonly gets blizzards might need to be a big 4 wheel drive pickup.
I don’t think you actually farmed.
OK
The Rangers and S10s were what one guy ran to Wal-Mart or the farm supply to pick up one or two things with, but if you needed to shuttle the bailing crew to the barn and the bales along with them or an implement to the co-op or dealer or barn for repairs, it was an F-150 bigger than the F-100 or the F-150s today
Yes, you're correct. These were family farms, maybe 30 milkers was the biggest in the area. There were no crews, but you could fit 5 kids in the back of a Ranger, no problem. No equipment ever left the farm for repair. It was all farmer fixes and it was a rare day in haying season that the stick welder wasn't used. It was a hilly/mountainous area so even a F 350 would struggle to haul a fully loaded hay wagon up a steep dirt/gravel road so an MF 165 or 1080 did that. The Ranger type trucks were fine for errands like you describe, gathering sap to make syrup or peddling eggs. They could pull an empty hay wagon or a tedder. The haybine and baler were always pulled by the tractor as was the rake because it was 3 point hitched. Everything was within ~2 miles so this wasn't so bad.
agricultural production rose as well. I wouldn’t say it was specifically because of larger pickups because it continued to grow as engines and trucks have now gotten smaller and more efficient, but more and bigger implements being hauled around more capably was a factor.
Yeah, there are no dairy farms left in my hometown and just a few switched to raising cattle for meat or selling hay. Some sold for development. The small east coast family farms have given way to the larger western farms and corporate farms that have enough land to justify larger and more efficient equipment and more efficient farming.
Due to tech advances you may not need 7.5l to get the job done. That 80's 7.5 only produced like 220hp. The smaller Coyote produces considerably more.
Fleet Fuel Economy regulations happened - CAFE.
As the article points out - these regulations are stricter on cars than 'light trucks' and the little trucks were built like cars so they had to comply with stricter regs.
The article was disappointingly light on the actual reasons for the lack of smaller pickups and the bloating of the larger ones. Most large foreign manufacturers have facilities in the US, so if the demand and profits were there, so would the smaller vehicles (despite any tariffs).
I had always heard that the reason was mainly due to federal fuel economy standards distorting the market, but I was hoping for a little more than a single paragraph at the end of the article. (And, note to the editors, CAFE requirements pre-dated the Obama Administration by more than 30 years...)
Do better, Greenhut.
In the 80s and 90s smaller trucks got better mileage than a massive truck because the weight made the difference in a naturally aspirated engine. Now with fuel injection and computer controls the difference between the small trucks aren't that much better than rhe large trucks because it's the aerodynamics that make the big difference in gas mileage. A truck is like a brick moving through the air.
The average non-rural truck owner isn't doing much (or any) towing, hauling, or snow plowing.
But yeah, they aren't demanding a smaller truck either.
Demanding a ‘smaller truck’ would be like demanding a smaller penis (and maybe a manbun and a handbag). If the ad company is raising those ideas, then find a new ad company. But — there was no customer demand to change from the Ford Ranger to the F-150 — and to change from the F150 to F250/350 in the same year (roughly 2000). That – like almost all customer demand for vehicles – is mostly a function of corporate decisions not customer decisions.
I see a lot, and I mean a LOT of Tacomas everywhere.
Looks like a lot of people want quality smaller trucks. Quality is the key word. Rangers and S-10's were shitty from the jump.
Look at a Tacoma ad. They're not selling - Look a tiny little truck. Isn't it cute. I have a manbun and a goatee. Let's go get a latte and pick up some groceries in my new truck.
That's the Subaru ad.
The Front Range's effete male population doesn't really reflect the rest of the country.
"Men" in socialist cuntrys use tiny trucks while they slurp the organs of real men.
America will soon be using tiny trucks as it sinks into the welfare socialist swamp.
There is a lot of square mileage in just the lower 48 states. What you see on your daily commute isn't really evidence of anything. You're covering a miniscule amount of those square miles.
But yeah, they aren’t demanding a smaller truck either.
I don't think that's the case. Ford's Maverick is insanely popular and they can't keep them on the lot. The pre-2008 Rangers were the same way, but those got eliminated specifically because of Obama's dumb CAFE rules.
The Ford Ranger was killed off long before 2008. The peak sales year was 1999 with 350,000. Ford itself decided to reposition F150 as a passenger vehicle in the 2001 model year by eliminating 10% of the bed length and putting it into the cab with four full doors. With its new ads. By the 2002 model year, Ranger sales were 226,000. By the 2009 model year (Obama), Ranger sales were 55,000.
My father-in-law was a very successful farmer with a far smaller truck than my suburban wife now drives. Bigger is generally better than towing, hauling and snow-plowing but smaller was a LOT cheaper and that was important to a cash-strapped family farm. The same people that keep a tractor running for 30 years may well prefer a truck that's just big enough.
Simply not replacing it just because mfrs are into product obsolescence saves a ton of money over time.
Yeah that's my problem with this take. There are plenty of urban/suburban idiots that buy big trucks to get to the grocery store and back. But most trucks are work vehicles in flyover country. And pretty much all vehicles in Europe are smaller thanks to their insanely high petro taxes.
I have a 2005 Chevy 2500HD. It is much smaller than the current crop but just as tough.
It handles a 900 lb V plow like a snap
yeah, it's got a couple hundred pounds of welds on it but I bought it for 5K 10 years ago
It will outlast me, I'm sure
There are definitely advantages to lighter and shorter trucks. And I don't think he is arguing that large trucks shouldn't be available. But the fact is, most people driving pickups don't really need all that. And even trucks in the same class are bigger than they were 20 years ago. It's gotten hard to find a truck that doesn't have some huge fucking extended cab thing that makes it impossibly long if you want a full sized bed. Maybe that matters less in Idaho, but where I live a 20' long truck just isn't going to work in the woods if you need to, say, turn around.
Rural dwellers have a legitimate use for larger full-sized pickups, and some have a very real need for such vehicles.
Where things get questionable is when there's more of those kinds of vehicles in downtown Seattle and suburban Los Angeles than in ID, MT, and WY combined. Nobody living in my neighborhood (5 miles southeast of LAX airport) really needs a Chevy 2500 Super Duty with a 9" lift kit and 42" tires, and yet there are a handful in the area, along with maybe a dozen more that aren't as heavily modified.
It's not just trucks. The small car market has virtually disappeared in America for a whole combination of factors. The Mitsubishi Mirage is the only new car still being sold in the United States with an average purchase price under $20,000. Things contributing to this:
* The chip shortage makes it more economical to focus what automotive chips there are into higher end (higher margin) products.
* Taking on debt is very attractive in high inflation time, because by the time you pay it off you'll probably be earning a lot more.
* Americans just like gigantic vehicles.
* The Government regulating the auto industry to death.
Which really belongs on the 1st of the list just like Commie-Healthcare, Commie-House Loans, Commie-Education etc, etc, etc ... The massive part of all these problems is like an elephant in the room everyone wants to ignore.
Used to like sports cars but those were mostly driven off the road for everyday use.
the oddity of using a 6,500-pound, 22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter.
What about the oddity of a 5,200-pound, 16.5-foot-long vehicle whose limited capacity, by design, limits it to the role as a mid-size-at-best grocery-getter?
Almost like you assclowns are lying when you say bullshit like "I generally don't care what other people drive, but..." in a distinctly "I don't mean to sound racist, but..." fashion.
We have an older gas sedan, newer hybrid minivan, and my company owned work truck (that I can't use for non work purposes.) I'm working on getting a truck for projects and side work. When I get a truck I'll be getting one of his so-called "mega-pickups." I want a 4 door because I have a family. I want a decent sized bed because 8' lumber, drywall, and major appliances fit poorly in a 4' bed. I want decent clearance and 4wd for weather and offroad. Finally, I want the higher load and towing capacity to accommodate future needs.
Using one of these trucks exclusively as commuter vehicles is silly, but people are welcome to do so. For independent-minded people outside of cities these are practical to handle a variety of needs.
All that said...I'll agree that there should be a bigger market for small trucks. I'm all for eliminating regulations that prevent the market from serving customer needs and preferences
If you're going to have the wheelbase and track width of a quad-cab truck with an 8 foot bed, RWD with good tires and suspension will get you by on pretty much all of the off-road terrain you can handle; just throw 300-400# of sand bags over the rear axle in bad weather and you'll be fine. Full sized "land limos" usually end up being too big for a lot of the more "technical" trails where 4WD is really necessary, which mostly leaves desert/overlanding were reservior shocks, clearance, tires, and wheel travel are the most important things to have (4WD is nice but largely not really needed, and you'll learn a lot about traction/momentum management and picking good lines by doing it in a RWD).
As for weather, people who think they "need" 4WD for that can be very dangerous (especially if they're not used to weather, such as So Cal natives) because of the mindset that 4WD is some kind of "superpower". In reality, 4WD only improves your capability in the least dangerous part of driving (getting moving from a stop) but doesn't help at all in the areas where you're more likely to die (steering and braking). Except for at railroad crossings, nobody has ever died from being stopped in a place where stopping is normal, but moving at 60-70 mph there's all kinds of ways to kill or get killed as a result of losing control on ice or hydroplaning (more so in a vehicle that's tall enough to have a rollover risk).
Unless you're planning to tow a large camper, horse trailer, or boat, very few people really need a 4WD full-sized truck if they don't work in/around agriculture (in which case, they're probably also doing heavy towing). If you have a family and a need to haul drywall, and the budget to buy a "mega-truck", get a Camry (or something similar) and a basic F-150.
Pedestrian deaths have reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier, they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle.
I'm sure it is the trucks fault and not the entitlement society of people Jay walking and crossing roads wherever they want.
You know, if I told you driverless cars required less parking, heavier EVs saved the environment, and that we should reduce the number of lanes to add bike lanes… and you recognized that fundamental physics dictates that the first two are between impossible and not definitively true… and that anyone making decisions like that should know better, you might get the impression that I was knowingly causing those deaths and using oversized trucks as an excuse.
I mean in a different conception it's almost like "We need the blades of the meat grinder to stop less frequently, we need to make them out of a heavier, but more "eco-friendly" material, and we need to get the cyclists and pedestrians closer to the blades while they're in motion." and then being surprised when a 40-yr. high amount of sausage comes out the other end.
Driverless cars do require less parking if we assume fleets of them available for remote call-up taxi use. Why own a car or even learn to drive if you can use a mobile terminal to get a ride and it picks you up within a minute because there are that many of them? Still fewer of them needed, and therefore less parking for them needed, than if all those people had to have their own cars that were idle most of the time.
Says someone who never saw 2001 or any of the Terminator movies...
You beat me to it. Had a guy walk right out in front of me yesterday. Wasn't in a crosswalk and never looked up from his phone.
If larger trucks were unsafe, there would also be an increase in vehicle accident deaths, there isn't.
No shit. It couldn't be that when you increase mass, but keep velocity the same, that momentum increases. Physics is leftist.
You know what? I'm pretty sure that the difference in weight between my friend's giant pickup, and my bitty Jeep, isn't enough that somebody who died being hit by the former would have lived if hit by the latter. They're both just too much more massive than a pedestrian for the difference to matter.
A more plausible factor is the height off the ground; You can just SEE people close by better out of a lower vehicle. As I realized when I nearly got run over in the grocery store parking lot by a lady in a van that was high enough that she needed me to reach up and slap the windshield before she realized there was somebody in front of her.
100% agree
Not to refute you, exactly, because I 100% agree with the difference between a 3,000 lbs. vehicle hitting a pedestrian and a 6,000 lbs. vehicle hitting a pedestrian at the same speed being largely moot, but getting backed over by grandma in the parking lot because she can't see you specifically doesn't show up in traffic casualty and fatality data. Doubly so because getting hit and run over (or getting hit and avoiding being run over) by a 2,500 lb. car at 5 mph does seem more appreciably survivable than a 5,000 lb. car at the same speed.
The issue is almost certainly as I and others have indicated: policies of reducing parking, keeping cars moving, encouraging pedestrians to travel closer to vehicles, making vehicles larger for vehicle-on-vehicle collision safety, as well as other things like social practices causing both drivers and pedestrians to be distracted.
Newer vehicles have proximity sensors. My Ram has them all around.
George Carlin said that anyone driving faster than you is a maniac and anyone driving slower is an idiot. Thus at any given time you are both and idiot and a maniac.
If you are in the big vehicle the person who steps out in front of you is an idiot. If you are the the one stepping in front of a truck then the driver is the maniac.
How about everyone just pay attention to their fucking surroundings like sane people should? If you are a pedestrian it means following the rules and keeping your eyes on the incoming traffic instead of your phone. If you are driving then follow the rules and stop fucking around with the gadgets.
You know, personal responsibility? Is that idea outdated or something?
A pedestrian isn’t a fixed object. The difference between getting hit by a 2 ton car moving at 25 mph and a 5 ton truck at 25 mph is how far the blood splatters – but you’re still dead.
Also - get prepared to make excuses for electric cars - they're as heavy as trucks.
re: "The difference between ..."
No. See my rather long-winded comment below but the short version is that where and how you get hit matters a lot. The 2 ton car strikes well below the center of mass of the average adult human resulting in very different collision dynamics than the 5 ton truck which impacts much closer to center-mass.
Now, at 50 or 60 mph, I'd agree that it's just a difference in how far the blood splatters. But 25 mph can be survivable.
The 2 ton car strikes well below the center of mass of the average adult human resulting in very different collision dynamics than the 5 ton truck which impacts much closer to center-mass.
This is propagandizing your already propagandized opinion below.
First, everybody who claims the bullshit “ride height” statistic has done their own study. Nobody leafs through the actual NTSB or other empirical data because the conclusion(s) are not there to be cherry-picked. That is, they’ll say the 25 mph statistic like you did but won’t actually bother to look at how many people got hit head on at 25 mph, how many got hist at 40 mph, who died from hemorrhaging out their femoral artery, who died when their head his the hood, or got wedged between two cars at 15 mph… Yes, your average collision dummy survives a 25 mph impact better, if you're average pedestrian is older and your average driver is speedier, it's back to being in-the-weeds marginal-at-best distinctions.
Second, your propagandizing, you literally insert the vehicle’s mass into your (originally shaky/dubious) ride height calculations.
But the impact is on the side of the pedestrian. Clearly that is different than hitting the pedestrian in the back of the legs. Knees only bend one way. Also if the pedestrians head gets run over no matter the size of car fucker is dead.
A big truck might knock a pedestrian down and roll right over the person with no serious injury unlike a small car that would grind the poor bastard between the undercarriage and the road.
Seems there are a multitude of scenarios we can run through and in some cases pedestrian comes out better and in others worse no matter the vehicle.
Maybe the pedestrian needs to pay attention to the world around them.
That's something I've noticed, even with a smaller vehicle. Pedestrians seem to be far more willing that before to just walk out into a street without looking to see if a vehicle is coming, and how far away it is - if it can even stop in time. Far too many of them have their noses buried in their "smart" phones to notice anything about the world about them. Another interesting statistic is the number of pedestrians who are drunk and also just as oblivious to where they are.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestrians/
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestrians/data-details/
[clears throat] Yeah, the lesson-of-the-week this week around here has been either “double check both ways before you cross” and “arms up, lights off, then cross”.
Yeah, but it happens all too commonly around here. if they're not going to look for trains at a guarded crossing, what's to stop them from not looking for cars and trucks?
I still remember seeing that railfan's video of the lady who got hit by the BNSF Metra express train in Downers Grove at Fairview back in 1991.
The reality is that big heavy vehicles are safer for the people inside of them than small light weight compacts. This is a factor consumers are weighing especially if they have kids.
Yup. I've seen more than one accident where somebody dear to me survived only because they were driving a real tank of a car when somebody decided to run a red light.
This is why I want to get my wife a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Maybe if I claimed to be a Ukrainian I could get a good deal on one...
YOU are at fault asshole. Even if what you're saying is 100% true (which I doubt), he didn't just appear out of thin air. He was there by the side of the road a moment earlier - and a bit further back from the road before that. Most likely on the phone and walking the whole time - not staring you down and then jumping into traffic while talking on his phone. YOU chose to ignore him earlier when you were able to slow down or stop or swerve or honk. You chose to be unaware of your surroundings and chose to not give a shit about a pedestrian whether they are a kid or an adult. YOU choose to drive by intimidation not by awareness.
And don't tell me you would have stopped if it were a crosswalk because drivers do not stop before crosswalks anymore. You slow down through the crosswalk and maybe stop at the street but if you're turning right you're looking left. Most drivers (80%) intimidate their way through a crosswalk and do not yield unless the pedestrian is already 'in the way'. Crosswalks/intersections are dangerous - the most dangerous single location for pedestrian fatalities/injuries (2/3 of the total) - because that location is precisely where drivers are paying attention to other drivers in bigger vehicles not to pedestrians. Further, most intersections don't have crosswalks either - and even if there is a stop sign, NO driver actually stops at the stop sign line.
Wow. That's a lot to unpack.
Let's look at this from a personal responsibility angle. Is the driver responsible for the actions of the pedestrian or is the pedestrian responsible for their own actions?
It doesn't matter what the driver chooses to drive. They aren't responsible for the idiot jaywalking in front of them.
The person going the fastest is the one responsible for making sure their velocity doesn't kill others.
Not according to law.
Oh I understand that. We don’t seem to accept – I was just firing my gun in the air and that other guy ran into the bullets.
But when it comes to pedestrians…
It is also why much of the US doesn’t even have sidewalks (peds are to blame anyway so why spend money on sidewalks encouraging them to walk anywhere near roads); why Americans learn to be their kids chauffeur in a safe space well into their teens so those kids grow up needing safe spaces and a room in the basement – while in other countries kids can be exposed to non-safe-space as toddlers and learn independence through mobility by age 8 or so.
Though I guess the bright side is that favoring adults in cars means there is no such thing as traffic congestion or road rage or short commute/transport time in the US.
If a person were to run out on a live firing range and get shot, it would still be that person's fault.Your opening statement makes on sense. If a person illegally steps in front of a moving vehical, it is not the drivers fault. It is the fault of the pedestrian for not checking for traffic. Most of us were told as young children to stay out of the road. Somehow we survived without the benefit of a sidewalk. So the next time you are protesting in the middle of the road and you get Darwinned, it is because you were not the fittest.
Be honest, that is really what your beef is really about.
JFucked and honesty are but distance acquaintances.
No surprise you really believe that streets are like a live firing range. How many points do you imagine you get for hitting an old lady in a wheelchair?
If the old lady is trying to avoid getting hit, sees me, and takes evasive action, then 10 points. If the bitch rolls out from behind a wall on the freeway just 0.5 second before I reach that point at 80 mph, then just 1 point.
You are the one who compared guns to vehicles, you flaming retard.
We accept one circumstance, but not the other.
Do you even read the stupid shit you write?
This has to be one of the dumbest statements on here. You get an award.
A "Pedestrian" is a person on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk with a stop sign or a crossing light in their favor.
Idoit is what we call people putting themselves in front of moving vehicles.
'Idoit' - is that French-Canadian?
Actually it's from the Latin.
What about 'child'?
I'm really stunned by how many commenters here just accept how unsafe it is now for kids to walk around. Which is of course why kids now have to get chauffeured around for their entire childhood and learn to be infantilized rather than independent and free.
WTF? Look dude, a lot of us did walk to school, even over a mile one-way, while next to a street with freaking semi tractor trailers on it, back in the 1980s and 1990s.
Was that before or after you cleaned up the matchbox house in the middle of the highway and had a lump of coal tar for breakfast?
Good times.
Walking out in front of traffic is stupid. Parents need to teach their kids this basic fact. If they weren't too busy playing with their phones they might find time to explain these things to their kid. But evolution in action. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I don't have a lot of pity for people who can't manage to cross streets safely. Just like I don't have pity for skydivers when they hit the ground at high speeds.
So streets belong to the vehicle that can't control itself
They don't belong to pedestrians who can't control themselves.
Every driver who kills a kid thinks they are the real victim here.
every child that runs out into the road is a victim...
Of bad parenting.
But you go ahead and move goal posts so you can hide behind children. That only works on people with bad parents
Let's hope you run over your own kid- in the driveway.
Yes, wish something hateful, because you have lost the arguement.
I assume you also believe that 90% of kids get kidnapped if they walk home from school.
Wait so I'm on a highway with the speed limit 60. A child runs out in front of me. Because cars don't stop instantly I'm the bad guy.
Not the child who shouldn't have been taught not to run in the street.
Not the parents who should be watching the child.
Not even the guard rail right? Just the cars fault.
Yes, there are horrible drivers out there and some accidents should be avoided but there is also responsibility of the non car person. That's is called common sense.
I'm sure you drive 10 miles/hr or 16 kilometers per hour so you can have a stopping distance of 10 ft/3 meters. Even passenger cars at reasonable speed can't stop in less than 50-100 ft
It seems like the unofficial night-time dog walking uniform in my neighborhood is all-black sweats including a long-sleeved hoodie. Not to mention the skateboarders and cyclists (more every day with the proliferation of e-bikes) wearing basically the same thing while weaving in and out of traffic on major arteries.
Common on Jesse, it's not like idiots are on there phones watching TikTok when they cross the street. Wait...
Weight of a F150: between 4,021 and 5,740
Weight of a Tesla: between 3,582 and 5,390
Government? Automakers have tried multiple times to sell smaller trucks for the US market. Other than the Toyota Truck/Tacoma, they've been fairly unsuccessful in the marketplace. And it's not just with trucks, it's cars/SUVs as well, and even work vans. Americans have proven time and time again to prefer larger vehicles when they can get them. It's a reason none of the European city cars have ever done well in the US market, and why the smaller work vans fail compared to the full-size work vans.
This is the invisible hand doing its work.
Big vehicles feel safe to people. Doesn't matter if they are safer or not, the perception is it is one of safety.
I suspect the rise in "pedestrian" deaths to be due to smart phones. Not trucks.
I suspect you're right.
The rise in pedestrian deaths since 2005 is because the previous fall in pedestrian deaths from 1985-2005 was due to a huge decrease in people walking. It's a deceptive decrease. All the previous 'bad habits' - perceptions that the driver is safe inside their cage means traffic speeds increase, right-turn-on-red, seat belts, etc - still made ped injury RATE (injuries per mile walked or per ped on the sidewalk) increase during that time. When walking decreased to a level where it can't go down anymore, the rising ped injury rate resulted in rising absolute injuries.
The 'safest' vehicle change would be to stick a large spike on the steering wheel pointed at the driver so they get killed if they slow down too fast. Likewise, child-safety seats on the front bumper.
You stole that idea from House.
You think the writers of House were the first to come up with that excellent example of stable genius?
It isn't consumers creating that demand. It is the companies (American ones) who have never been able to figure out how to manufacture smaller vehicles profitably.
Then explain why even the Japanese and Korean automakers gave up on small cars here.
Mostly for the same reason I had to stop driving a sports coupe in the early 2000's. In traffic that's getting higher and higher, you're blind and they can't see you. Intimidated off the road - like pedestrians really. Same general dynamic with sedans and such. That is not really legitimate consumer demand. It is coerced. So yes - lower volume leads to fewer choices and it looks like less demand to have the same size car but coerced to get a bigger vehicle is sure as hell not demand that satisfies.
Way before then however Detroit couldn't make smaller cars profitably. Which is what opened the door for the Japanese cars. And foreign makers are basically 100% of all smaller cars made here now.
You seem very agitated by this topic. Did a F350 with really big tires steal your lunch money or something?
"It isn’t consumers creating that demand. It is the companies (American ones) who have never been able to figure out how to manufacture smaller vehicles profitably."
Truely one of the most economically-ignorant posts ever on this site. Not even turd is this stupid.
Come on. If the free market does not force people into the choices that the elites prefer, that is a classic "failure of capitalism".
Even the Tacoma kind of blew up at some point. Starting in 2005, the "2nd generation" Tacoma was a little bigger than the 90s era T100/Tundra or Dodge Dakota (which in the 90s was marketed as "mid sized").
Mini Cooper (a slightly bigger version of the old Morris Minor) found a bit of a niche as a smaller car, but other than assisted suicide, there's little reason for anyone to attempt to drive something like a Smart Car in most US Cities (and anywhere outside of the cities). Probably too many people like the idea of being able to take a road trip to somewhere relatively nearby for something with only 2 seats and vitrually zero useful cargo space.
Trump defenders get quite irate when leftists deny the benefits of tariffs.
This is why we say you have TDS. You just dragged Trump and your dislike of him and his "defenders" into an article where Trump was not mentioned once by the author, and only mentioned first by you.
There was no reason to do that here.
No, I explained why you and others get angry at anyone who suggests that increased prices due to tariffs have an effect on consumer behavior.
The pre-Trump political right recognized how economic incentives work and didn't go around saying people who do are leftists.
Yet, Sacrkles, you were the only one to drag Trump and your dislike of anything related to Trump in here. Even Greenhut never mentioned the man.
That's why we say you have a massive case of TDS.
I do have several of Trump's Deranged Supporters following me around heckling me. True.
There is a big FAT glaring hole in your “free foreign trade” observation. All things being equal HOW does it make more sense to buy something from China than anywhere in the USA? Do you think shipping is an asset in the trade market?
Well humorously it is. Precisely because US taxpayers are picking up the shipping disadvantage specifically and only because it’s foreign. The Free-Trade bandwagon isn't looking for JUST free trade; they're literally asking for subsidized trade ... Make China Great Again.
Comparative advantage is leftist.
Youre defending advantaged trade dummy.
According to you the solution is to hike taxes Americans who buy stuff that crosses political borders.
You still don't understand economics lol.
Yes. The solution is to tax/control equally (domestic/foreign) at the very least. That would include wage controls on foreign markets which the US doesn’t have authority to do and is precisely why the US Constitution granted the “Union of States” authority to counter-act it by tariffs.
Rightfully it would actually go a bit further since it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the funding for a National Defense would rightfully be funded by International Markets.
The irony there is that if it wasn't for leftard mandates (like minimum wage) and entitlements (that is actually UN-Constitutional) there would be enough of a Tarriff or Domestic Tax to really matter to anyone. The left made this mess and the roosters have came home to roost.
...or put in preschooler terms: You can't 'compete' with a neighbor who is a bank-robber or slave-owner and attempting to will just turn yourself into the same animal you're trying to 'compete' with. Foreign nations do not ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all and that is what this nation *should* be directing itself towards not away from.
"Owning the libs" isn't a good reason?
it is neither Trump or Tariffs, its regulations European small cars do not meet U.S. safety requirements, and they have cars that get 65 MPG but they do not meet U.S. smog requirements. I'd love to have a tiny car for $6k to drive as a second daily car instead of my Truck but they are not allowed here. I have looked into buying older ones but they are often worn out and i need a dependable car
I have a 62 Austin Healy Sprite that got 45 MPG when I was driving it. Moved to CA back in the 80s and it passed all of the mandatory smog tests. But the law required that I pay a mechanic to take the vacuum hose off the distributor. Ran like shit. Replaced the hose and problem solved.
TDS
And the only non-truck/SUV you can buy from Ford is the Mustang,
Aren't they making a really hot super car? I can't remember the name, it's an updated version of what Ford made to battle Ferrari...
I was going to say that can't be right...but went and looked. What happened to their Focus? Besides it breaking down daily
It is a bare-bones affair, but—get this—will only cost around $10,000.
Uh… seems kinda disingenuous to describe the (impending) unpopularity/unavailability of this car:
as having anything to do with size. If I had to guess, I’d put myself in the ~5% of people I know who can or would feel comfortable driving a 5 speed manual transmission by ear. And that includes grandpa who grew up driving manual transmissions by ear but would be (kinda rightfully) pissed off that he had to put his hearing aid in to drive a car.
I mean, I know I wouldn’t want a radio if I had to drive it, and it doesn’t come with one, but if I could get a tachometer and a radio at virtually any price, I wouldn’t bother with the model without either.
If I had to guess, I’d put myself in the ~5% of people I know who can or would feel comfortable driving a 5 speed manual transmission by ear.
I do that daily (with a 6-speed though). I learned on a 4-speed that had two gauges, speed and fuel. Everything else was an idiot light. So, you had to listen for the engine and transmission, and watch your speed a bit. My last car was much the same way - 5-speed with no tachometer.
I've had trucks with no tack or radio and no electric windows or AC. One was a 64 f250 with 3 on the tree and the other was 90 chevy 1/2 ton standard cab longbed with 5 speed. If they offered those today i'd buy but I do need AC now. I actually do not like the computer screen on my new truck they could get rid of that as well. give me buttons and knobs that i don't have to look at to engage
Beyond the first few days of learning to drive a stick, I can't think of anyone who paid any attention to the tachometer. I certainly didn't. And after the first year or three, I wasn't dependent on the sound, either. At least, not on my own car. I could tell just by how the car reacted to the pedal whether it was time to shift.
You might be right that there are only single-digits of people who can drive a stick these days but my guess is that of the people who can drive a stick, 90-95% of them could do so without a tach.
At least, not on my own car. I could tell just by how the car reacted to the pedal whether it was time to shift.
^ Tell me you've never had anyone tell you to "keep it under E minor" without telling me you've never had anyone tell you to "keep it under E minor".
You can probably get from point A to point B without having the speedometer or the fuel gauges to stare at too but they're still nice to have when you actually do need them aren't they Miss Daisy?
The other day I passed one of those Japanese mini-trucks on the highway. Tried to get a peek at the driver but the windows were tinted.
I'm old enough to remember when "light trucks" were a thing. The only truck my parents ever owned was a Datsun LUV. Not much bigger than a Volkwagon Beatle. But it got the job done for a family that lived in town and not on farm.
In college I got stuck with my grandpa's truck. Giant 1960s Ford 350. Huuge! It was for mygrandpa's camper, so it had massive shocks, and I needed a flipping step stool to get in. I would rather have had a light truck.
Big trucks are fine if you need a big truck. But some of the new generation of big trucks don't even have the bed space that the old LUV had. Giant cab dualies with a tiny bed that couldn't haul a load to the county dump. It's crazy.
Sure work trucks fine for when you need a work truck. But half these things aren't for work. They're for pretentious show. Affectations by people who think cowboy boots are for dancing and not of kicking shit.
Not blaming those who own them, am blaming the Federal (and state) governments for perversely incentivizing them.
Never saw the point in buying a truck that can't load a sheet of drywall. I can haul my snowblower in the back of a minivan.
Pedestrian deaths have reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety"
So are those pedestian deaths being caused by Trucks or is this like gun deaths that are 99% caused by criminal intent and not by legal gun owners.
Regulation has made trucks bigger in fact all cars are bigger and heavier due to regulation. its for our own safety. two years ago i got the most basic small truck i could find, a colorado, I was still too expensive but I need it. i would have preferred a full size truck for carrying loads and getting thru the snow.
Regulation has made trucks bigger in fact all cars are bigger and heavier due to regulation. its for our own safety.
Yeah, the notes on the IMV 0 says there's no trim on the a-pillar. Seems like something like that wouldn't be allowed off the line or regulated by the NTSB here. Like it's fine for a classic, modified, or plain POS car, but a new car rolling of the line is required, explicitly or implicitly, to have internal metal structural members covered.
"So are those pedestian deaths being caused by Trucks or is this like gun deaths that are 99% caused by criminal intent and not by legal gun owners." Don't forget, it's SOP to add in suicides to pad the gun death numbers for extra drama. I guess people think without guns, all those suicides wouldn't happen....Sure they're gun deaths, technically, but they'd otherwise be fentanyl deaths, or bridge jumping deaths, or jumping in front of train deaths or whatever. It's pretty sure that 90% of the stats someone dumps in your lap to buttress an argument are mostly bullshit.
An interesting question that's well phrased. The answer is that some, though not all, of those deaths are in fact being caused by bigger trucks. We can say that because we know (contrary to the jaywalking claims above) that the rate of pedestrian accidents is roughly steady (adjusted for population growth). If total accidents are basically flat but accidents resulting in death are up, we have to look at what happens during the accident to understand what changed.
The difference is that accidents which would be merely crippling if committed by a car are more likely to be deadly when committed by a truck. The cause is the bumper/grill height compared to the average human adult's center of mass. A strike by a car on a pedestrian is going to hit at about the knees. You cut the legs out from under the person and send their body rolling across the hood (depending on speed, of course). You'll do catastrophic damage to the legs but the transfer of energy to the torso and head is more distributed. The same collision with a large truck puts the impact point at hip or high-thigh height. The torso bounces off the grill rather than rolling onto the hood. The head whiplashes then is thrown to the pavement. Overall, the truck-strike injuries are generally in more serious parts of the body.
Note that all these dynamics are equally true in pedestrian collisions with full trucks (semis, etc). The differences in death statistics are incremental.
By the way, I have to disagree with your claim that the regulations that made trucks bigger also made cars bigger. On the contrary, cars are averaging smaller, lower at the front and most importantly a lot lighter than they used to be.
2012 paid $19,000 for mine brand new—and the average full-size pickup now approaches $60,000.
300% Inflation over 10-years. It's been seen before. Housing (FHA loans), Healthcare (Socialized), Education (FAFSA). And *every-time* it's seen it was *exactly* because of government involvement.
'Guns' don't make sh*t ... So whatever it is pretending to make is just STEALING and a market full of STEALING ends up costing ridiculously to the honest purchaser.
A lot of that increase in price is due to mandatory features like backup cameras and such. It adds up.
+100000 Indeed... "Good Intentions" with 'Guns' (Gov-Guns) is not "good" at all but is instead "bad" self-righteous tyranny. The usage of 'Guns' (government) is literally the turning point.
First of all, manufacturers do lobby for these restrictions, and their continuation, so they are responsible for the advantages these restrictions give them. Secondly, they wouldn't keep making these trucks bigger and bigger, and more and more expensive, if Americans didn't keep buying them. I'm definitely not a truck guy, but an online search shows a Ford "Maverick" sells for $23,000 and change. I'm sure that's a "base" price, but the Maverick can't be very big. If Ford couldn't sell any pickup larger than the Maverick, well, they wouldn't make one any larger. But, obviously, they can, and the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the profit. I believe that's called "capitalism".
Demand explains it, even if there are other factors that incentivize it.
People that love trucks often love big trucks. A small 2 seater truck with small bed can get some work done. A large full cab 4 seater can be a family trip vehicle, beach vacations, room for car seats, it really can be an all in one vehicle for a family. More comfortable to ride in, fun to be up high in a big vehicle. Also its nice to know if I feel like towing a camper/trailer/uHaul my truck could hack it without me needing to rent something else.
I as well as many friends and co-workers do a good amount of DIY stuff around the house. I know 1 guy who has a Tacoma, and that's the only small truck. Everyone else has at minimum a RAM 1500/F150 sized truck, some bigger. Most of us could probably get away with a ranger/tacoma, but most people want a big truck rather than a small truck.
Blame Government.
I tire of the libertarian default here. Those regs don't come out of thin air. They are ENTIRELY the result of Big Truck capturing govt.
If govt didn't exist, Big Truck would still attempt to limit competition and it would succeed even if in a different way.
The reason govt gets captured is because people choose to abdicate their privileges of citizenship - holding govt accountable to consent of the governed not just consent of Big Truck. Why is the US one of the only countries in the world where light trucks no longer can be bought? Other countries have govts.
And yet libertarians like Greenhut will always default to 'Blame govt'. Never really mentioning those who corrupt govt because this ilk of libertarian is basically just corporatist so doesn't mind that sort of corruption. Corruption thrives in the dark when citizens aren't paying attention and are cynical and nihilist.
If you're "tired of the libertarian default", maybe you shouldn't hang out at an overtly libertarian magazine. It's okay to disagree but saying you're tired of something that you're voluntarily doing to yourself comes across as profoundly stupid.
Then, oddly, you rant about regulatory capture, which is a common libertarian theme and is already explicitly discussed in the article above.
One might think that an overtly libertarian site would be a place where one could hear arguments to persuade and convince. But hey - I guess preaching to the choir works.
Never government, always those bad corporations.
What's corrupt about oversized trucks? It is that YOU don't like them so they must be banned?
“Big truck” is not to blame for government letting itself be captured.
Government, not the beneficiaries, is to blame for regulatory capture and corporate cronyism.
Failure to hold government accountable is what results in that.
Governments at city, county, state and federal level regulate almost every business to some degree. The people in those governments don't often have degrees in economics or any kind of engineering. Most are Poli Sci or lawyers. So the regulations they write and pass generaly suck and are designed to favor one constituency over another. As such, it's the governments fault, is usually right. As Reagan is quoted as saying,"if the answer is government it had to be a really stupid question."
"I tire of the libertarian default here. .."
We tire of your constant, ignorant bullshit, JFucked.
"Driving a large pickup or SUV increases the likelihood you'll kill or injure someone"
And less likely that you'll be the one getting killed or injured. It's like an arms race out here.
Dear Lord. You probably parked your base model Ram next to an F250. The F150-sized trucks are the most popular, not the larger versions.
Almost certainly. FIL has an older (early 2010's) truck, and I have an equivalent model 2023. They are very similar size.
This dude parked next to a 2500/250 and didn't know what it was
I wonder if the writer has had the thought that possibly, just possibly, American customers have decided they like bigger trucks. I know I do. No reason they should be regulated down. Isn't this supposed to be a free market website? The automakers are free to make smaller trucks too. Ford makes one called the Maverick. If it sells better than bigger trucks, I'll bet Ford makes even more of them. Does foolish government distort the market? Sure it does. People can still like bigger trucks in spite of dumbass government policies and regs. The amazing thing is that despite carrying 500 monkeys on it's back, capitalism still manages to find a way to give us what we want. I suggest bigger trucks are here to stay unless nanny state assholes decide to regulate them away. I'm not sure which side Mr. Greenhut is on, but it seems too close to the regulatory stance for my taste.
Not to mention with the new computerized engines they shut down half the cylinders when rolling without a load so they get amazing mileage. They only kick in all cylinders under acceleration or load.
The design of the truck isn't aerodynamic at all and short of a total resign it isn't getting much better. So a small truck gets shitty gas mileage AND can't carry anything or tow anything while a huge truck still gets shitty gas mileage but can get a job done.
You seem to think government regulations disfavor larger pick-up trucks?
It's not that big pickups are being "regulated down", but that they have been "regulated up"...
What I want to know is why are BIG pickup drivers the biggest assholes on the road? In my daily commutes it is invariably such a vehicle that rides my bumper when I'm already at least 7+ mph over the speed limit. And don't even get me started about the way they drive when the road is icy; it's all GET OUTA MY WAY!!!
No kidding. I think it's three times in the past month I've been going around (the inside of) a blind curve, and some idiot in huge truck comes around from the other direction, and he's well over the double yellow line. I'm onto the shoulder and practically scraping a rock wall to avoid an accident.
If you're 7mph over the limit and another driver prefers to be 10mph over, that makes YOU the asshole if you stay in the left lane. I commute at various velocities all the time, and if the guy or gal behind me wants to go faster, I get out of their way. They're not causing me any hardship. The dipshit with 10 cars on his ass because he's going "x" mph above the limit, next to his twin in the next lane is my biggest complaint. I'll be glad to share the road with you guys, but GTF outa the left lane if you're not keeping up with the rest of the left lane traffic. If there's a big gap in front of you, and 10 cars behind you...guess who the problem is?
Because they can. It's why semi drivers are the biggest assholes. If I was driving an M1 Abrams I'd be the biggest asshole on the road. Hell, I'd get a bumper sticker that says, "WE BRAKE FOR NOTHING!" and keep a crowbar for leveraging compact cars out of the treads.
Anyone driving faster than you is a maniac and anyone driving slower is an idiot. Thus you are simultaneously a maniac and an idiot when you drive no matter your speed.
People like their trucks big. I know that comes as a shock, but it’s true.
Goverment, progressives, people who attend expensive cockctail parties, and Reason (but I repeat myself) hate big trucks.
People don’t like high prices, of course. But the people who hate big trucks are in charge of regulations and push ever more useless tech into those cars.
Most truck drivers would prefer a 1960’s style diesel engine with no electronics and seatbelts as the only safety devices to the crap that we have to choose from today. That’s what the market would deliver, at half the price of what we actually pay.
"Driving a large pickup or SUV increases the likelihood you'll kill or injure someone; its thirsty power plant… spews more air pollution and greenhouse emissions,"
Driving while using your phone increases the likelihood you'll kill or injure someone much more--probably by a factor of at least 10 compared to driving a truck.
My new truck has better mpg by 150% to 200%.
Piss off.
Driving while using your phone increases the likelihood you’ll kill or injure someone much more–probably by a factor of at least 10 compared to driving a truck.
And phones are getting ridiculously huge too!
I think it's a new Toyota but don't quote me, but there is a new car that is just all screens. No dashboard. Just screens. You can play games and do all kinds of stuff.
That won't be too distracting
I think pickup trucks are huge as a marketing device, since the main market is blue collar working men. A bigger truck is more useful for towing and hauling, and is a means to show your manliness status vs. other men.
"The libertarian case for banning MAGAt trucks"
Before we ban them, let's try un-distorting the market first, eh?
didn't say that anywhere in the article LMAO. They said instead of letting the free market run its course, the government put in regulations that artificially increased the tendency to skip smaller size pickups. You really should read articles occasionally, literally you are saying the opposite of what is in the article lmfao
I drive a big gas-guzzling truck because: a. I use it for hunting and fishing here in Texas. b. I can easily afford the 10 miles/gallon gas price. c. It annoys petty, pseudointellectual, hormonal wokescolds. Hell, I even changed the exhaust so it’s louder than usual, just as an extra F.U. I also bought one for my son recently. Don’t worry, I will pay for his gas too. Enjoy, dingbats! Go be judgemental somewhere else.
Jesus tittyfucking Christ on a pogostick Greenhut, you post an article about large trucks and the complete disappearance of small trucks in the US and can't be fucking bothered to find the particular regulation? How fucking lazy are you? Specifically, it was the change in CAFE standards during the later Bush years that included vehicle footprint and not just class in the allowed emissions calculations. So smaller trucks which weren't significantly more efficient than larger trucks given the same general body shape were effectively outlawed from the market entirely and as the automatic rises in CAFE standards occur, the problem gets worse and worse.
No way you paid 19k for a new 2012 Ram. My 2013 Ram 1/2 ton cost me about 22k (used) in 2016 and had an original sticker price close to 50k. As much as I like it, I am now realizing it's too small. We bought a small farm a couple years ago and I'd like to rent some equipment but am shut out because they require a 3/4 ton to safely haul it.
"in 2016" - You'd already experienced the mass of the inflation.
Google Search "2012 dodge ram original MSRP"
$21,975 - $47,850 MSRP.
On sale/clearance $19K isn't completely do-able.
So don't complain and go buy a 3/4 ton truck?
GM (UAW) was bailed out and lied about repaying after using TARP money. Now after striking the average pay is $32 an hour for almost $70k a year to work on an assembly line. You WILL buy a big honkin truck or GM will be forced in bankruptcy and you WILL bail them out again. Whether you own one or not you'll pay for a huge UAW pickup.
Only made possible by UN-Constitutional [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
Is it time yet for the people to insist their law over their government be upheld.
We are doomed.
lol because people (mostly dudes) like big ass trucks they drew when they were kids. I'm too cheap for that and drive a 2016 corolla, but I guess if you have the cash go for and admit your pecker is even smaller than your brain lmfao, me and my hog will be content in the corolla.
Much of your analysis is excellent. The headline contains a serious flaw. Claiming trucks are "ridiculously" large assumes the right to determine what size is reasonable.
I live on a small island in the Philippines. I drive a 2011 Suzuki Carry. Small pickup that's called a "multicab" in the local jargon. I think it's about 900 kilos? 649cc three cylinder engine, fuel injected, 5 speed manual, hi/low 4WD. I have owned pickups in the past when I still lived in the US. Full size 1973 Chevy, compact 1977 Datsun 620, even a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit pickup. This Suzuki gets 45mpg even with the A/C. Mostly it's basic transportation. I got tired of using a motorbike. But I can haul with it. I think it's rated for up to 750 lbs.
I had a Isuzu P'up back in the late 80's. I thought it was a great truck. Got great gas mileage, had a manual transmission with a 2.8L engine, and cost was affordable.
features a large and useful bed
What a novel idea.
Let’s not forget Almighty Governmnent and Muh Roads, which around here (red suburb of blue coastal area) have endless potholes that give moon craters a run for their money.
I drive a sedan, but I kind of get why so many people around me have pickup trucks. It’s not so much ‘driving’ around here as it is ‘automotive slalom.’ It would be nice if they could fix seemingly more than one road a year, though. Or build them so they don’t just fall apart months after being patched/repaved.
"Driving a large pickup or SUV increases the likelihood you'll kill or injure someone; its thirsty power plant… spews more air pollution and greenhouse emissions," according to a report last year in Bloomberg
Really, this has been known...checking notes..since SUVs became popular in early 2000s.
Now, do EVs - small in size; but large in mass. They also don't pay gas taxes so they use the roads for free
Hello sock. Kill yourself. And your master.
I drive a big gas-guzzling truck because: a. I use it for hunting and fishing here in Texas b. I can easily afford the 10 miles/gallon gas price c. It annoys petty, pseudointellectual, hormonal wokescolds like yourself. Hell, I even changed the exhaust so it’s louder than usual, just as an extra F.U. to pretentious people like you. I also bought one for my son recently. Don’t worry, I will pay for his gas too. Enjoy, dingbat!
Please tell me you have the huge truck nuts hanging from the hitch. I fucking love that.
Mongo like rape.
Rednecks are assholes towards you, Lynn, because you are being an asshole towards them.
Eat shit and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
You might as well paint “I’m an inbred, uneducated MAGA chud” on the side of it.
They usually have a gun rack, a #FJB, and a bunch of MAGA stickers. I love those guys.
The only people who think that’s bad is left wing nutcases like you.
How many guns do you own?
Was that before or after you had sex with them?
Little toxic psychopaths like you love talking about your feelings.
Real men don’t.