this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
404 points (98.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7215 readers
225 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 122 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Just gonna keep posting this

tfw your Silverado has worse forward obstruction visibility than an M1 Abrams MBT

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both hilarious and infuriating.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago

I love how they throw in a peterbuilt and an M1 Abraham for reference lol

[–] Spaghetti_Hitchens@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

This is posted in metric so it doesn't apply to the U.S.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And it doesn't even properly show how long and wide those vehicles are.

Truck and SUV size has gotten absolutely ridiculous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should make a version of the chart with model years included. I need a truck for work, but I'll be looking for a 90's or older next because the new ones are all too tall with no real utility benefit.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's past time to require a commercial driver's license to drive one and a business permit on file to buy one. Your average person can rent one when they need the utility of a truck bed.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or how about the more simpler solution of changing the emissions regulations so trucks and SUVs have to meet the same targets as all the other vehicles.

And if you really want to encourage things even more they could also remove the tariffs on light trucks while increasing the sales tax on large trucks and SUVs.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think in the truck culture the damage is already done. At this point we need to deal with the demand to have those kinds of trucks.

[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the hilarious irony is that modern trucks are often useless for hauling any decent loads because they're crew cabs and jacked up for no fucking reason. To purchase a truck with a large bed often requires a special order and weeks of waiting.

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Those fucking pussies all cry like a little girl when you point out what a useless waste they are, and then start inventing all kinds of reasons why they need one.

They are a recent creation; all the rhings you claim you need to haul with them are not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

At least, something more than a standard drivers license. A CDL covers things like air brakes or railroad crossing that aren't necessary for most of the vehicles in question. But a more graduated standard, absolutely.

[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I need a truck for agricultural purposes, but don't want to purchase a ToddlerKiller4000. Short of inventing a time machine and traveling back to an era of car-sized rather than tank-sized pickups, my options are pretty slim. Fuck me, right?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (5 children)

My whole family were farmers and one of my cousins jacked his truck up so much it could only pull one of his wagons...

People still give him shit, even tho it was like 20 years ago.

Point being, the stupid shit you see isn't even practical. The only point of giant modern trucks is helping men with low self esteem. And it doesn't even help them, it just makes them keep wanting an even bigger truck than everyone else.

Which is why they've been consistently getting bigger for decades.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's hilarious if you ever off-road.

They're really shit off tarmac driving anything through anything more advanced than a field. Too long wheel base, far too wide, shit turning cycle, too long nose, not enough weight on the rear wheels when not fully loaded.

You can run rings around them on an off-road track in a Suzuki Jimny or even a 50 year old Lada.

But obviously don't tell the truck people that. These are cars that are sold on the idea of being able to drive off into the wilderness at a moment's notice. Pointing out that's a lie, that they just spent too much money that if anything offers them less freedom than a conventional car, often results in an emotional reaction.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I love my Subaru forester. It is nice enough inside to drive 4 people comfortably but with the back seats down and a tarp spread out I can carry a good sized load of mulch, bales, etc. I was even able to cram an 8 ft ladder into it with the passenger seat pushed forward and the ladder laid out diagonally. I've even slept in it. It has enough clearance that I can drive it on really rough forest roads to trailheads. I'm a big guy and it is much more comfortable for me to get into vs something like a Civic. My dad liked it a lot because with his very weak legs he could easily sit in it and swing his legs in and out. He liked it so much he even bought one.

If I ever need a truck I'll save myself thousands of bucks by just renting one for those rare times. I've done it at Lowe's and it was a no brainer.

These are cars that are sold on the idea of being able to drive off into the wilderness at a moment’s notice.

I suspect that is the selling point behind the majority of Jeeps with winches you see on the road that probably have never left pavement.

[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I own an '01 3/4 ton suburban for boat and camper hauling. It's small compared to a stock 1/2 ton today. The top of their beds is almost at my roofline. All that size increase comes with very little gain besides dick measuring it seems. I will never understand why people buy them, especially for 60k+.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MudMan@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I guess in other climates it's different, but over here people get vans for that. Can I interest you in the concept of "what if your pickup truck had a roof and also wasn't grotesquely oversized?"

Although, I'm looking at this year's Renault Trafic and that front is actually starting to get concerning, tbh.

[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I have a minivan currently and they're so practical for the average American. Hauling stuff? Put the seats down, and your "bed" is longer than almost any pickup's, plus it's protected from the elements. Hauling people? Seats go up, and it will fit seven people. Even though you sit high up the grill is angled downward, meaning better visibility AND in a crash will throw the victim over the car rather than under (way better likelihood for survival). They also tend to get decent mileage compared to trucks. Hell they even make for a great camping vehicle: no tent needed, just throw a sleeping pad in the back with the seats down and call it a night. It's such a shame that they were branded as soccer mom vehicles, because a lot of folks buying trucks for their "practicality" would be better served with a minivan.

However! They are not good for: carrying loose gravel/soil/mulch/manure, transporting livestock, traveling on 4WD roads and other rough terrain, hauling a trailer, or moving stuff that's tall but cannot be tipped on its side. The carrying/hauling capacity is really low, the ground clearance minimal, and the carpet-like interior gets dirty really easily. These are not tasks that the average customer is going to undertake often, and I've creatively worked around many of these limitations in the past for one-off instances, but it's definitely not an everyday-use farm vehicle.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Plenty of agricultural stuff you don't want to share a roof with. And you want a hard bed that you can hose off.

[–] MudMan@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (24 children)

The Trafic in particular has a separated cabin and the floor of that thing is pretty much one layer of sheet metal between the wheels. You're good on both counts.

It does smell... eh... agricultural inside one of those after a while, of course. It's kinda nostalgic for me at this point.

For the really nasty stuff people here just get a trolley to hook up to a jeep or a tractor and a bit of patience. Or, you know, sealed containers. Trust me, people do haul a lot of smelly stuff and I haven't seen anybody who owns an open bed pickup truck in my life. I know more people who moved stuff around with oxen than with pickup trucks. It works.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Japanese mini trucks are outstanding for true agricultural purposes. You have options for dump beds and completely removable (or flip-down) bed sides for super easy side loading. They’re cheap and super economical.

Crash safety is the biggest drawback, so true road-worthiness is iffy (depending on how much the cops in your area care about that sort of thing). But if you’re looking for utility on private property, these things rule.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blazera@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Yeah from what i could tell theres literally no small or mid size options currently

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Luft@lemm.ee 47 points 1 year ago (23 children)

In my experience, I’ve noted that truck drivers are on avg more likely to be shitty egotistical drivers.

I think it’s bc they have small dicks, and they feel safe in their giant metal death machine. Nice n cozy, perfectly ready to tailgate a Mazda MX-5

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Sadly, we cannot really ban them as they are utility vehicles that a small portion of the population needs. However, I still see freakin' ads that frame them as fancy cars.

Czech ad for Amarok V6
“The new Amarok V6. Pick-up truck for every day. Powerful and comfortable”

I suggest making it illegal to buy them without a registered company or have them in any color other than matte excavator yellow (for construction) or green camo (for hunting and forestry).

Yellow truck Camo truck

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I disagree on all accounts. Instead of banning/restricting trucks, we should instead make them less convenient and more expensive. So:

  • restructure cities to be transit and pedestrian first, not traffic first - see The Netherlands
  • charge vehicle registration fees based on curb weight, since heavier vehicles destroy roads more; multiply this by miles driven, less any documentation the owner has about driving on private land
  • charge an extra fee for vehicles falling net mpg targets; don't special case SUVs and trucks, just tax them (and have certain exceptions to the tax, like if you actually use the higher passenger capacity of minivans, have a farm, etc)

The taxes would go toward pedestrian and transit infrastructure to offset the lower efficiency and greater danger larger vehicles pose.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

If you can't put a flatbed or utility bed on it, it shouldn't be called a utility vehicle. They're just SUVs with the back opened up.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Why do people feel the need to have a $60K+ massive behemoth? 99% of the time if I glance in the bed it is spotless. It is probably only used for commuting and carrying groceries. It might haul a load of mulch once a year. The things are so high that if they hit a car they are going to ride up over the hood and crush you. At least my state finally got its act together and banned those goddamn frontend lifted trucks that made it impossible to see anything within 50 ft and guaranteed a deadly collision. Now I know someone will say "But I need it for my building job/farm/etc", you are the exception, the vast majority sold are not being used for that.

"reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash" Sounds like an arms race. Soon we will be driving armored personnel carriers.

It is bad enough they make them with ridiculously loud exhausts as bad as muscle cars and fart exhausts. Electric cars and trucks quieting everything can't come fast enough.

[–] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As someone who uses their truck as it's intended I can say your absolutely correct. I get comments from other truck drivers when they see the dings and scratches and they'll be laughing while I'm looking at their spotless $80,000 truck that the heaviest thing they haul is a gallon of milk. I hope they downsize these trucks some day soon because when mine goes I don't want a physically bigger one. These trucks also take up 4 spots everywhere they go for parking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A big part of the problem is that they just don't make small affordable trucks anymore.

The tiny little Ford ranger of the 90s used to be the cheapest car at a Ford dealership. The current ranger is only a couple inches smaller than the f150 and costs a couple grand less, if you can even find one.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Pedestrians should not be allowed outside without high vis, a helmet, and flashing lights after dark. Youngsters should never be permitted to be outside since they are invisible to motor vehicles.

[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

I threw this in another chat talking about this, but some of these vehicles have poorer forward visibility than a literal fucking Abrams tank.

[–] Radium@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Driven by the exact same douche bags hoarding the guns that are killing us

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Thank God cars didn't exist when the constitution was written. We could actually solve this with legislation.

[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Welcome to 30 years ago. This is the least new news I've seen in ages!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (10 children)

30 years ago you could get a normal size truck. Now you can't.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


American car buyers can’t get enough big, tall SUVs and trucks — but new data suggests that the downsides of this trend are growing increasingly deadly.

It also comes at a time when the auto industry is embracing bigger, more brutish designs for its SUVs and trucks, reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash.

There have been numerous studies and investigations examining how tall, flat-nosed trucks and SUVs are more likely to cause serious injury and death when they hit pedestrians.

Larger bodies and higher carriages mean pedestrians are more likely to suffer deadly blows to the head and torso, as opposed to the legs when struck by a shorter vehicle.

And front blind zones associated with large trucks and SUVs have contributed to the injury and death of hundreds of children across the country, studies have shown.

Recently, NHTSA said it would update its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), also known as the five-star safety rating, to include advanced driver-assistance system features like automatic emergency braking, blind-spot detection, and lane-keep assistance.


The original article contains 708 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

All hat, no cattle

load more comments
view more: next ›