The author makes a correct observation (trucks are getting bigger to circumvent emissions guidelines, not solely out of ego), but fails to address the underlying market demand: as trucks have gotten bigger, they've also gotten "meaner"[1]. Emissions requirements don't require a truck to look like it's going to beat you up.
In other words: consumer ego (wanting to drive a big, mean looking truck) is an underlying pressure in the market, even if the sufficient mover for the current size explosion is emissions dodging.
How do you decide what looks “meaner?” This guy fixated on the Chevy Silverado design, but I don’t see what’s wrong with it. It looks more squared off and masculine, and less curvy and feminine, which is a design trend it shares with Apple’s latest MacBook pros. Is Google’s chrome book pixel mean? https://www.zdnet.com/product/google-chromebook-pixel/
I think what you’re actually observing is the counter-reaction to all cars looking like jelly beans due to aerodynamic styling driven by emissions regulations. A squared off looking car stands out in the crowd. I drive a Toyota 4Runner, which looks like an evil Japanese robot, partly for this reason (my wife hates the jellybean trend).
Where I live - which my wife still questions our decision - the giant mean trucks aren't just giant and mean, but they are outfitted with what sounds like a freight train horn, and many myriads of flood lights.
Nobody knows why this is, because most people live in subdivisions and not farms, where you might feasibly need giant mean trucks with flood lights. And yet the big mean, loud, bright trucks are quite popular.
I don’t have a “wrong or not” claim to make. Only that trucks are manifestly more aggressive looking than they historically have been. Whether it’s a reaction doesn’t really factor into it.
If you’re a pedestrian crossing in front of one of these or sharing a narrow residential street while riding your bicycle
you might feel it. Last time I felt this was when I was in a shopping center parking lot and someone, parked gangster style (facing the wrong way in a no parking zone), pulled out much too quickly (it’s a frigging shopping center parking lot) in front of me on my motorcycle.
The curb weight can rival a light armored Humvee. And the grill is very high, promising to plow you under the vehicle.
Add lifters, 20+ inch rims, battering ram grill attachments, and all black trim…then you’re looking at the grim reaper of vehicular death.
The "meaner" look isn't just about aesthetics, but about physical size, which is increasing. The MacBook analogy seems flawed because the change in the design of the MacBook doesn't actually make it harder for me to avoid killing pedestrians while using it.
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
---
I don't see any fix for this arms-race besides legislative. Bigger, more dangerous vehicles are threatening to smaller, greener vehicles, and we need to be greener.
While there are EV trucks coming, those EVs require like 3X as much battery materials as a normal-sized vehicles, and even normal-sized vehicles are too large for the dominant commuting use (single-passenger). That massive battery use is a concern since supply is constrained by real-world limitations.
Also, the larger vehicles create urban planning problems -- bigger vehicles means bigger lanes and parking spots, which hurts walkability. Again, we're back to climate change concerns.
But if you've got the money, the downsides of an oversized vehicle are wholly externalized to the other road users.
I don't really see any feasible way to solve this besides legislation. At the very least, large vehicles should be punished more heavily for highway infractions because they represent a larger risk to other road-users. Speeding in a truck is intrinsically more dangerous than speeding in a car - the larger mass, poorer bumper compatibility, and larger cross-section are a risk for others on the road.
But because of the culture war issue, no mainstream politician is going to ever have an adult conversation on the subject because it will come back to "why do you hate farmers/working men/whatever you latte-sipping urban liberal elitist".
For a very obvious case of this, observe changes in BMW vehicle designs. The new generation looks like it'll gleefuly ensure death of any pedestrian it hits.
And why is it the current trend in automotive (specifically, truck) fashion?
This is a weird indirection to introduce: of course it’s fashionable. The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
I used Jalopnik as a source, since they’re a well known car website. I’ll try to find additional sources; I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
For almost every single car model that has existed for more than 10 years, the old model is friendly, open, soft, "feminine." For the new one, the design language is angular, closed, hard, and "masculine." There's no way to say for certain why this is the case. In my opinion: aesthetic design of products reflects the id of the consumer. Our id has changed.
I’ve often wondered if this has an effect on wildlife. If we perceive the front end of a truck as “meaner”, does that apply to deer as well?
Curious if there is any data on the likelihood of hitting a deer with a truck vs a sedan. I assume this would be difficult to capture as areas with higher chances of hitting a deer are also the areas where drivers are more likely to be behind the wheel of larger trucks.
Deer don't avoid cars because their visual system shorts out when they see a light source shining directly in their eyes[1]. You could make the truck look exactly like a mountain lion and it probably wouldn't save any deer.
Truck design used to be such that you pretended to be a working man. Now, you just show everyone how big a jerk you are. There's an entire brand of truck rims that are just called "Hostile". Anyone who would buy such a thing should just be followed everywhere by the cops. http://www.hostilewheels.com/
I think the article would have done well to also discuss America's general lack of vehicle safety inspections. There's a reason people don't drive around in lifted pickups with ridiculous wheels in Germany.
I dunno about meaner… (that's a personal feeling) there was a time cars acquired a bug-like appearance and depending on people some fear bugs more than others and could be interpreted as “meaner”; however it was mostly just an ‘organic look’ trend. To many others bugs look cute, so...
Lots of people don't like bugs, but I've never heard someone describe a bug as "mean" in the sense that "mean" is describing the appearance of these pickup trucks.
I guess you could say "big mean bug," but that's because "big mean" is a separate idiom in US English for "nasty looking." But we're talking about an aggressive aesthetic, which is both separate from nastiness and purely human in origin (unlike a bug that provokes a disgust reaction in someone).
"Bigger trucks pose a greater hazard to pedestrians and smaller vehicles"
It's an arms race.
I used to live near a couple who were both doctors in the ER and they both drive the biggest trucks that they could find because they saw that people in large trucks tended to be fare better in accidents.
I have a small sedan for myself and a smallish SUV for my wife and kids. I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
Or, instead of the "fuck you get mine" mentality that I hate about living in the USA, maybe we could try to drive more safely and defensively with a sedan that doesn't roll over and has nice crumple zones?
That is great. Until you get smashed by a truck and you/a family member get seriously injured.
I don't drive a truck but my family has been in life threatening accidents and my parents both drive massive vehicles. All Black Secret Service like SUVs. I cant really blame them.
Sedans are gonna be gone in a few years. Ford already culled thier lineup of regular cars and all the other sutomarkers are working on that too. Trusks are also way more profitable than cars and thats another reason there are so many of them.
try living in the south, these behemoths are everywhere and i feel like same way, feel like it is unsafe to drive my sedan near those big trucks. I think i'll invest in an semi truck, that'll show people who the man on the road really is.
So when F150 lightning gets 5 star rating, it's within class. If you hit an overweight dumptruck you're going to have a bad time. Luckily dumptruck drivers know how to drive and that rarely happens.
However if you're in a ecobox compact, if you hit that dumptruck you're literally flat. If you hit one of the new electric vehicles which weigh in the area of 7-9000lbs. You're going to have a bad time.
If you were to properly measure safety rating not within class. It basically is just a measurement of size. So why do they do this? Clearly misrepresenting safety of smaller vehicles? It's entirely a political decision.
Bigger vehicles are more expensive. Transportation is one of the highest costs to society. So you dont want everyone driving the biggest vehicles. You want to adjust society so they choose smaller vehicles. The total cost of ownership to society is thusly less and you produce more wealth for your own people.
You can see where it's going. Private ownership of cars will remain, some people need full time access to personal transportation. However there's lots of people who really just need to be brought somewhere.
Municipalities can offer autonomous electric vehicles that say an elderly person can jump into and get to their destination much like a taxi at much lower cost than a taxi. The cost per trip is going to be measured in cents, maybe dollars with inflation? The cost of transportation to society dramatically decreases. We will be significantly wealthier.
> You’ll be happy to know that pickups are actually more dangerous for their driver. Mostly because they’re more likely to spin out or roll over.
Just a consideration: Would integrating 5-point harnesses and an rollover cage into these trucks help to mitigate this problem? (I am of course aware that the latter would make to truck even heavier)
Really not an issue with modern stability control. There is still a higher chance of rollover from pure impact, but again, the bigger the truck is, the more likely you will be fine.
Modern F150s come with Advacetrack sport mode for TC/Stability that essentially lets you hold a slight drift angle if you want without letting the rear get out of hand - it monitors yaw, tire speeds, throttle e.tc.
Thank you for sharing this. I always loved that song (and most Rush songs, to be honest) but I never knew this was based on a short story! This entire website is a great read as a Rush fan.
Modern passenger pickups are only safer from a sociopathic perspective. The rate and quantity of property damage and persons maimed or killed is increased substantially when modern passenger pickups are out driving around in polite society.
The fraction of that damage and injury borne by the occupants of that vehicle, the only people with the power to make the decision to use that vehicle, is reduced.
The volume of damage, injury, and death borne by everyone else increases by multiples when a modern passenger pickup enters the mix.
You are fully correct, except for the moralizing aspect. Its not about being sociopathic - it is about being realistic. There is no way to enforce politeness in our society.
Higher mass means in a collision you "win" and have smaller accelerations than the other vehicle.
Larger potentially means even in a single-vehicle accident, there is a greater distance to decelerate over and things are less likely to intrude into the vehicle.
The IIHS, which systematically tests vehicles in simulated crashes, says:
> A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences. The part of the vehicle between the front bumper and the occupant compartment absorbs energy from crashes by crumpling. As a result, the longer front ends of larger vehicles offer better protection in frontal crashes. Heavier vehicles also tend to continue moving forward in crashes with lighter vehicles and other obstacles, so the people inside them are subject to less force.
Even if it was, they could be objectively worse. For example, because they are more likely to be involved minor accidents. (Think of the well-known example of low-weight births having better survival rates for smoking mothers.)
According to the IIHS, trucks had worse occupant fatality rates throughout automotive history until about 10 years ago, but have had lower rates than cars since then.
> I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
It's same for me - one really starts to double think choice of next car when someone clearly distracted, on the phone etc. stops in perpendicular street and huge ass grill or bumper is at the level of your eyes when looking at side window.
>both drive the biggest trucks that they could find because they saw that people in large trucks tended to be fare better in accidents.
People don't generally consider that the bigger cars are more likely to be in accidents in the first place even if they come out of it better. Ireland would have much smaller cars than the US but much better traffic record.
So bigger == safer -- isn't giving a nuanced story or understanding. For sure though bigger == less fuel efficient.
I looked into this in detail one time and my fermi estimate was that, if we banned trucks entirely, it might optimistically save like 40 pedestrians a year. It's clearly not worth bothering, just on the grounds that it would be politically expensive, and it's also pretty clearly not utilitarian either.
> In brief, Obama-era fuel regulations incentivized automakers to build bigger trucks.
I read a similar thing, many years before Obama, about the rise of SUVs - that emissions standards were tightened for cars, but not for 'light trucks' and SUVs could dodge the standards by claiming to be light trucks.
So this isn't the first time automakers have responded to tightened emissions standards by selling more products that aren't subject to them.
The article also claimed US vehicle makers had the quiet support of a lot of people in government, because Japanese automakers were kicking their ass at making sedans - but due to market differences and import tariffs [1] the foreign manufacturers weren't as competitive in the truck market. As the rise of bigger and bigger vehicles was bad for emissions but good for US automakers, legislators turned a blind eye to it.
Yep I remember Subaru specifically moving the outback to a light truck platform for this reason, years before Obama. I suppose bill Clinton was being blamed back then
You can't say it's definitely not ego. You can say there are regulatory issues that incentivize larger trucks, but if people didn't want them, they wouldn't buy them. Their mere availability doesn't explain it. It's a statement vehicle, that's how it's marketed. It's masculine, it's imposing, and it has the excuse of utility to assuage fears of appearing vain (a stereotypically feminine trait).
It can be other things, too: it can be useful to move shit around, it can be safe relative to the car you pancaked, it can lug your family around, it's the result of poorly thought out regulations. But it is also a vanity purchase. It's not bad as the justifications people would make when they bought Hummers back in the 2000s, but it's closer to that than a sheer calculation of utility and efficiency, which should be obvious because they don't have to be that goddamn big to move things around.
Disclaimer: I drive a Honda Fit. These trucks could turn me into paste. I'm irritated that I have to consider upsizing just to ensure my infant son survives a collision with a vehicle whose driver can't see in front of them. But I confess my car is a vanity statement, too. I bought it because I won't have to go to the shop as often (fingers crossed) and I won't have to buy another car for good long while. But it also has the vibe of being smart and urbane. Americans very much buy their cars based on image.
Also currently driving a Fit. I didn't own a car (of my own) for several years as my partner had one that we shared. When that ended and I bought a fixer-upper house, I initially wanted to buy a small pickup - think of the old S-10 or the older style Rangers and Tacomas - because it seemed to fit my needs:
- Rarely need to transport more than myself and one passenger
- Frequently need to pick up lots of supplies or drop off junk at the dump
- Drive in the city with lots of parallel parking/stop and go traffic
But used versions of those trucks were either quite old and/or still demanding quite a premium due to scarcity. All newer trucks were bigger than I needed, seemed to be focused on cab size over bed size, and a lot more expensive than what I had in my budget.
Instead I just got a Fit for under $10k cash. I've transported a full sized door and can even squeeze in a sheet of plywood or drywall if I cut them down the middle before loading. Most everything else is no problem. For the rare occasions where I need to haul something bigger, I just rent a truck for the afternoon.
I'd still love a small truck to make these trips easier, but I'm not currently willing to spend more or get something huge.
Also, I'm bummed that they stopped selling new Fits in the US. Great little cars.
I drive a Honda CR-V, and the thing that bothers me is that, even in an SUV, I CAN'T SEE AROUND THESE THINGS. I almost got hit pulling out of a parking space because you literally can't see past the front end of these monsters without sticking your nose out of the space.
I was traveling down the interstate not long ago, and had one of these new trucks to my left, and a semi tractor to my right. The front end of the truck was a FOOT higher than the semi. (These trucks has all the design finesse of a brick with a cutout for a bed.) I presume that the auto makers justify the ridiculous sight lines with all-around cameras and warning sirens or something.
I've long been a "hey, you do you" kind of person when it comes to vehicles and emissions, but I really, really resent this trend. I think it creates unnecessary hazards.
Also, have fun with paying for the gas, and good luck finding parking spaces.
This is a massive problem at street corners in many US cities, too. Massive trucks end up parked within a few feet of the street corner, and there's no way to see around them without pulling out into the road several feet. At that point... if there's a car coming, it's already too late.
I'll also frequently see massive trucks parked on the street that block all or most of the adjacent bike lane, further proving that a bike lane next to street parking is nothing more than a death trap.
But God forbid we give up any of our free street parking in US cities.
An idea for a regulation would be to measure the ratio of maximum weight of living things that a vehicle can transport / weight of vehicle when empty, and make this ratio grow progressively bigger.
The ratio is probably around 0.1 today on average (just an intuition, I don't have the actual numbers), and ideally it should be close to 1, or maybe over 1.
For an ebike for example, it's around 3.
Moving 2-5 tons of metal to transport just one human being is positively insane.
Honestly I think coming up with ways to get people to want smaller cars is the way to go. I don’t drive a big truck and I don’t understand the decisionmaking that goes into buying one. I’m hesitant to make rules that apply only to other people doing something I don’t understand.
My car can happily seat 4 adults (so let’s say 250kg) and weighs a touch over 1000kg, so the ratio is 0.25. 0.1 would mean that a car that seats just 4 adults weighs 2.5 tonnes, which seems extreme?
The average weight of a mid-sized sedan is about 1,500kg, and the average weight of all American cars is closer to 1,900kg. A 4-seater close to 1,000kg is exceptionally light by modern standards. The Mazda MX-5 is a 2-seater which is famous for being lightweight, and it also weighs a few kg above a ton.
Also going off maximum human capacity isn't great in context, as the average car journey has <1.5 occupants. Not to mention if this was codified, car manufacturers would simply put folding seats in the trunk.
The ratio is tricky. We don't really need vehicles to potentially carry more people -- we need folks to buy smaller vehicles.
If we try to penalize people for buying a two-seater truck, they'll just buy an even bigger extended cab with more seats. This is pretty much the exact kind of metric game the article cites as causing these giant trucks in the first place -- companies were penalized for building small fuel-inefficient trucks, so they just built big fuel-inefficient trucks that weren't penalized as much.
Wouldn't make much sense to restrict it to living things in the case of a truck though, since they're specifically designed to haul things other than passengers. Seems like a good heuristic apart from that though.
We own two vehicles, a tiny (4 seater) car and a larger (7-seater) MPV.
On the odd occasion that either I or my wife need to drive a car into town and don't have to take the family too, there is simply no way either of us would ever voluntarily choose the larger vehicle for the simple reason that it's much, much harder to park it.
The little car will happily fit in every single car park space known to mankind. It fits into car parking spaces that aren't even real spaces, too. It's the single best feature it has.
It's got a tiny engine, and is hopeless at accelerating hard - particularly up hills - but who cares? It gets up to four people from A to B in relative comfort and great efficiency. It cost us $10k, brand new.
Could it be that we should talk about setting higher taxes on more expensive and/or larger-engined vehicles? Downsizing our vehicles might be a way to help save the planet without compromising on personal mobility.
Not everyone's vehicular requirements are satisfied by a vehicle which is optimized for transporting human bodies to and from town. Many of us have professional or personal requirements which require e.g. the ability to move heavy equipment. I couldn't do 80% of my hobbies if I drove a Mini or something.
>Could it be that we should talk about setting higher taxes on more expensive and/or larger-engined vehicles? Downsizing our vehicles might be a way to help save the planet without compromising on personal mobility.
Don't fall for the Oil Lobby's trap of blaming individual consumers for Global emissions issues.
Not the person you're responding to but yeah, the Fit was the Honda Jazz. Sadly it has been discontinued. I'm not sure anyone makes a comparable car (must have fold-flat seats that also flip up for transporting taller items).
This seems like a classic example of taking one small part of a larger trend that agrees with the viewpoint you came in with, and massively overinflating its impact.
Trucks have been getting bigger since long before 2008, including light trucks. The Ranger's platform was ancient by the time it was retired -- it was going to go regardless. It does seem that the author has correctly picked out one of the many factors pushing things in that direction, but also during the time frame in question (2008-2020) overall American vehicle fuel economy increased (see the EIA's total energy consumption report). I realize that wasn't the direct point the author was making, but it seems like an important note.
The author's weird insistence on the "own the libs" snark really takes away from the impact of what this could have been -- a reminder of the importance to consider unintended consequences when rulemaking.
Readit News
In other words: consumer ego (wanting to drive a big, mean looking truck) is an underlying pressure in the market, even if the sufficient mover for the current size explosion is emissions dodging.
[1]: https://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-talk-about-truck-design-righ...
I think what you’re actually observing is the counter-reaction to all cars looking like jelly beans due to aerodynamic styling driven by emissions regulations. A squared off looking car stands out in the crowd. I drive a Toyota 4Runner, which looks like an evil Japanese robot, partly for this reason (my wife hates the jellybean trend).
Nobody knows why this is, because most people live in subdivisions and not farms, where you might feasibly need giant mean trucks with flood lights. And yet the big mean, loud, bright trucks are quite popular.
If you’re a pedestrian crossing in front of one of these or sharing a narrow residential street while riding your bicycle you might feel it. Last time I felt this was when I was in a shopping center parking lot and someone, parked gangster style (facing the wrong way in a no parking zone), pulled out much too quickly (it’s a frigging shopping center parking lot) in front of me on my motorcycle.
The curb weight can rival a light armored Humvee. And the grill is very high, promising to plow you under the vehicle.
Add lifters, 20+ inch rims, battering ram grill attachments, and all black trim…then you’re looking at the grim reaper of vehicular death.
Yes, they are designed to look mean.
https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/2020-gmc-sierra-hd-desig...
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
---
I don't see any fix for this arms-race besides legislative. Bigger, more dangerous vehicles are threatening to smaller, greener vehicles, and we need to be greener.
While there are EV trucks coming, those EVs require like 3X as much battery materials as a normal-sized vehicles, and even normal-sized vehicles are too large for the dominant commuting use (single-passenger). That massive battery use is a concern since supply is constrained by real-world limitations.
Also, the larger vehicles create urban planning problems -- bigger vehicles means bigger lanes and parking spots, which hurts walkability. Again, we're back to climate change concerns.
But if you've got the money, the downsides of an oversized vehicle are wholly externalized to the other road users.
I don't really see any feasible way to solve this besides legislation. At the very least, large vehicles should be punished more heavily for highway infractions because they represent a larger risk to other road-users. Speeding in a truck is intrinsically more dangerous than speeding in a car - the larger mass, poorer bumper compatibility, and larger cross-section are a risk for others on the road.
But because of the culture war issue, no mainstream politician is going to ever have an adult conversation on the subject because it will come back to "why do you hate farmers/working men/whatever you latte-sipping urban liberal elitist".
But there are also the dudes who get fake testes to hang from the back of their trucks, eh?
E.g.
2023: https://www.autojakal.com/2022/04/2023-bmw-7-series.html
2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_7_Series_(E65)
2002: https://images.iconfigurators.app/images/vehicles/reference/...
2012: https://cfx-vrf-main-imgs.imgix.net/2/4/f/1e950ff3b9d6acc23e...
2022: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/licensed-image?q=tbn:ANd9...
https://www.wapcar.my/news/bmws-big-grilles-are-the-tastes-o...
So the reality is 180 degrees opposite to what your claim is.
Or to be more precise: a current trend in automotive fashion is a larger grille, and some blogger framed that tendentiously for clicks.
This is a weird indirection to introduce: of course it’s fashionable. The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
I used Jalopnik as a source, since they’re a well known car website. I’ll try to find additional sources; I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/2020-gmc-sierra-hd-desig...
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
For example, consider the Mazda Miata -- perhaps the most "feminine" car imaginable.
1990s: https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1997_ma...
Now: https://cdn.drivingline.com/media/21637/drivingline-2016_maz...
For almost every single car model that has existed for more than 10 years, the old model is friendly, open, soft, "feminine." For the new one, the design language is angular, closed, hard, and "masculine." There's no way to say for certain why this is the case. In my opinion: aesthetic design of products reflects the id of the consumer. Our id has changed.
[1] https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/why-do-deer-get-tr...
I think the article would have done well to also discuss America's general lack of vehicle safety inspections. There's a reason people don't drive around in lifted pickups with ridiculous wheels in Germany.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I guess you could say "big mean bug," but that's because "big mean" is a separate idiom in US English for "nasty looking." But we're talking about an aggressive aesthetic, which is both separate from nastiness and purely human in origin (unlike a bug that provokes a disgust reaction in someone).
It's an arms race.
I used to live near a couple who were both doctors in the ER and they both drive the biggest trucks that they could find because they saw that people in large trucks tended to be fare better in accidents.
I have a small sedan for myself and a smallish SUV for my wife and kids. I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
I don't drive a truck but my family has been in life threatening accidents and my parents both drive massive vehicles. All Black Secret Service like SUVs. I cant really blame them.
This is one of the weird things which makes the US an outlier among other highly industrialized nations.
Everyone knows that's not happening anytime soon.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 - arguing that SUVs are immoral.
International produced a line of pickup trucks that might suffice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_XT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenworth_W900
Or Peterbilt 379 (Optimus Prime)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterbilt_379
Dead Comment
So when F150 lightning gets 5 star rating, it's within class. If you hit an overweight dumptruck you're going to have a bad time. Luckily dumptruck drivers know how to drive and that rarely happens.
However if you're in a ecobox compact, if you hit that dumptruck you're literally flat. If you hit one of the new electric vehicles which weigh in the area of 7-9000lbs. You're going to have a bad time.
If you were to properly measure safety rating not within class. It basically is just a measurement of size. So why do they do this? Clearly misrepresenting safety of smaller vehicles? It's entirely a political decision.
Bigger vehicles are more expensive. Transportation is one of the highest costs to society. So you dont want everyone driving the biggest vehicles. You want to adjust society so they choose smaller vehicles. The total cost of ownership to society is thusly less and you produce more wealth for your own people.
You can see where it's going. Private ownership of cars will remain, some people need full time access to personal transportation. However there's lots of people who really just need to be brought somewhere.
Municipalities can offer autonomous electric vehicles that say an elderly person can jump into and get to their destination much like a taxi at much lower cost than a taxi. The cost per trip is going to be measured in cents, maybe dollars with inflation? The cost of transportation to society dramatically decreases. We will be significantly wealthier.
Just a consideration: Would integrating 5-point harnesses and an rollover cage into these trucks help to mitigate this problem? (I am of course aware that the latter would make to truck even heavier)
Modern F150s come with Advacetrack sport mode for TC/Stability that essentially lets you hold a slight drift angle if you want without letting the rear get out of hand - it monitors yaw, tire speeds, throttle e.tc.
http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadand...
The fraction of that damage and injury borne by the occupants of that vehicle, the only people with the power to make the decision to use that vehicle, is reduced.
The volume of damage, injury, and death borne by everyone else increases by multiples when a modern passenger pickup enters the mix.
Larger potentially means even in a single-vehicle accident, there is a greater distance to decelerate over and things are less likely to intrude into the vehicle.
The IIHS, which systematically tests vehicles in simulated crashes, says:
> A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences. The part of the vehicle between the front bumper and the occupant compartment absorbs energy from crashes by crumpling. As a result, the longer front ends of larger vehicles offer better protection in frontal crashes. Heavier vehicles also tend to continue moving forward in crashes with lighter vehicles and other obstacles, so the people inside them are subject to less force.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight
There is some simple actuarial data there on their page, too, which shows there's a marked advantage but it is less than it used to be.
Pounds That Kill: The External Costs of Vehicle Weight
"Heavier vehicles are safer for their own occupants but more hazardous for other vehicles"
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/591f304fa5790aa5cc8df...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
Pickup trucks are getting larger and becoming a hazard to pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/passe...
Not only will the bigger object experience less F=ma acceleration in a collision, it will also have a stronger frame and deeper crumple zones.
> I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
It's same for me - one really starts to double think choice of next car when someone clearly distracted, on the phone etc. stops in perpendicular street and huge ass grill or bumper is at the level of your eyes when looking at side window.
People don't generally consider that the bigger cars are more likely to be in accidents in the first place even if they come out of it better. Ireland would have much smaller cars than the US but much better traffic record.
So bigger == safer -- isn't giving a nuanced story or understanding. For sure though bigger == less fuel efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
Is there actually an indication that larger cars are more prone to accidents or are their drivers inherently more aggressive and accident prone?
I read a similar thing, many years before Obama, about the rise of SUVs - that emissions standards were tightened for cars, but not for 'light trucks' and SUVs could dodge the standards by claiming to be light trucks.
So this isn't the first time automakers have responded to tightened emissions standards by selling more products that aren't subject to them.
The article also claimed US vehicle makers had the quiet support of a lot of people in government, because Japanese automakers were kicking their ass at making sedans - but due to market differences and import tariffs [1] the foreign manufacturers weren't as competitive in the truck market. As the rise of bigger and bigger vehicles was bad for emissions but good for US automakers, legislators turned a blind eye to it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
It can be other things, too: it can be useful to move shit around, it can be safe relative to the car you pancaked, it can lug your family around, it's the result of poorly thought out regulations. But it is also a vanity purchase. It's not bad as the justifications people would make when they bought Hummers back in the 2000s, but it's closer to that than a sheer calculation of utility and efficiency, which should be obvious because they don't have to be that goddamn big to move things around.
Disclaimer: I drive a Honda Fit. These trucks could turn me into paste. I'm irritated that I have to consider upsizing just to ensure my infant son survives a collision with a vehicle whose driver can't see in front of them. But I confess my car is a vanity statement, too. I bought it because I won't have to go to the shop as often (fingers crossed) and I won't have to buy another car for good long while. But it also has the vibe of being smart and urbane. Americans very much buy their cars based on image.
- Rarely need to transport more than myself and one passenger
- Frequently need to pick up lots of supplies or drop off junk at the dump
- Drive in the city with lots of parallel parking/stop and go traffic
But used versions of those trucks were either quite old and/or still demanding quite a premium due to scarcity. All newer trucks were bigger than I needed, seemed to be focused on cab size over bed size, and a lot more expensive than what I had in my budget.
Instead I just got a Fit for under $10k cash. I've transported a full sized door and can even squeeze in a sheet of plywood or drywall if I cut them down the middle before loading. Most everything else is no problem. For the rare occasions where I need to haul something bigger, I just rent a truck for the afternoon.
I'd still love a small truck to make these trips easier, but I'm not currently willing to spend more or get something huge.
Also, I'm bummed that they stopped selling new Fits in the US. Great little cars.
I was traveling down the interstate not long ago, and had one of these new trucks to my left, and a semi tractor to my right. The front end of the truck was a FOOT higher than the semi. (These trucks has all the design finesse of a brick with a cutout for a bed.) I presume that the auto makers justify the ridiculous sight lines with all-around cameras and warning sirens or something.
I've long been a "hey, you do you" kind of person when it comes to vehicles and emissions, but I really, really resent this trend. I think it creates unnecessary hazards.
Also, have fun with paying for the gas, and good luck finding parking spaces.
I'll also frequently see massive trucks parked on the street that block all or most of the adjacent bike lane, further proving that a bike lane next to street parking is nothing more than a death trap.
But God forbid we give up any of our free street parking in US cities.
Dead Comment
The ratio is probably around 0.1 today on average (just an intuition, I don't have the actual numbers), and ideally it should be close to 1, or maybe over 1.
For an ebike for example, it's around 3.
Moving 2-5 tons of metal to transport just one human being is positively insane.
Make gas expensive and keep it that way, regardless of the political cost.
Massively increase insurance rates for bigger cars. Again, this would have to be done through laws.
Tax vehicles based on weight.
Effect a radical transformation in culture that changes what people value.
Which of these are most doable?
Also going off maximum human capacity isn't great in context, as the average car journey has <1.5 occupants. Not to mention if this was codified, car manufacturers would simply put folding seats in the trunk.
[0] https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2021/featur...
The Yukon SUV that Arnold Schwarzenegger drives weights over 2.7 metric tons (6k pounds).
The Tesla truck is announced to pass the 8,500 pounds mark, or around 3.8 metric tons (!!)
If we try to penalize people for buying a two-seater truck, they'll just buy an even bigger extended cab with more seats. This is pretty much the exact kind of metric game the article cites as causing these giant trucks in the first place -- companies were penalized for building small fuel-inefficient trucks, so they just built big fuel-inefficient trucks that weren't penalized as much.
Dead Comment
On the odd occasion that either I or my wife need to drive a car into town and don't have to take the family too, there is simply no way either of us would ever voluntarily choose the larger vehicle for the simple reason that it's much, much harder to park it.
The little car will happily fit in every single car park space known to mankind. It fits into car parking spaces that aren't even real spaces, too. It's the single best feature it has.
It's got a tiny engine, and is hopeless at accelerating hard - particularly up hills - but who cares? It gets up to four people from A to B in relative comfort and great efficiency. It cost us $10k, brand new.
Could it be that we should talk about setting higher taxes on more expensive and/or larger-engined vehicles? Downsizing our vehicles might be a way to help save the planet without compromising on personal mobility.
Don't fall for the Oil Lobby's trap of blaming individual consumers for Global emissions issues.
Trucks have been getting bigger since long before 2008, including light trucks. The Ranger's platform was ancient by the time it was retired -- it was going to go regardless. It does seem that the author has correctly picked out one of the many factors pushing things in that direction, but also during the time frame in question (2008-2020) overall American vehicle fuel economy increased (see the EIA's total energy consumption report). I realize that wasn't the direct point the author was making, but it seems like an important note.
The author's weird insistence on the "own the libs" snark really takes away from the impact of what this could have been -- a reminder of the importance to consider unintended consequences when rulemaking.