We got here because fuel economy requirements are tied to the size and type of vehicle, and so it’s easier to make and sell larger, less efficient vehicles.
Why make a smaller vehicle with a smaller margin that requires more engineering time to reach fuel economy standards when you can sell a larger, often more expensive vehicle that has the same fuel economy as last year’s model?
Consequently they have become best selling vehicles because there are increasingly fewer small vehicles on dealer lots to purchase.
Wow, what great consumer choice! The capitolists are only making the goods consumers want and cutting out the fat. Theres literally no strings attached! What an amazing system we have. /s
That explains why manufacturers focus on making these vehicles, but not why people aren’t buying cars. There are many cars available to buy, less so than before, but still plenty.
My guess is it’s that people are too susceptible to marketing. Some people see huge vehicles as a status symbol, and parents see them as safer.
A long time ago, I saw a documentary about how marketing changed. Vehicles (and everything else) used to be marketed in a matter-of-fact manner listing off capabilities, features, and specs. Now, marketing is mostly about emotions and convincing people to buy products to “express themselves.” That’s how they got the “anti-establishment” hippies to start spending money on colorful vehicles, new fashion items, etc.
I’m sure marketing has a significant impact, but let’s also look at Ford as an example. They are ending production of all passenger cars except the Mustang, and will now only produce trucks, SUVs and other larger vehicles. I’m sure other manufacturers will follow along, reinforcing the trend of buying larger vehicles by limiting choice.
I just traded my 7 year old corolla for a suv (mainly because of awd for winter driving) This much larger vehicle has better fuel economy than that little car.
We should make a distinction between full sized SUVs and small to medium that are more like tall cars
I upgraded from an older Civic to a Subaru Forester and improved my gas mileage! I also got all wheel drive, lots of modern technology and a vehicle more suited for poorly maintained roads. Most importantly, as a larger guy with bad knees, it’s a world of difference in head and leg room. As a guy with two teenagers, it’s an actual four-seater car. I never want to go back to cars where I need to contort myself to get in and out, and worry about how uncomfortably cramped the back seat is for my passengers …. Tesla, I’m talking to you too.
So, I also upgraded to a larger vehicle, but I’m hoping this article focuses more on excessively large vehicles
I don’t really agree, cars are for moving people around. People can move themselves around. Trucks are for moving things, they’re tools. I have a truck, I need it. Not all the time, but enough of the time that I have one. It doesn’t make sense for me to have 2 cars so I just drive it. Although I do agree they’re getting too fucking big. I’ve got an older heavy duty pickup truck and the thing is the size of a new “small” pickup, it’s a bit absurd.
Unfortunately SUVs are very popular here also, though they tend to be a bit smaller than in the US, and I even saw a few pickups, in a country where you definitely don’t need one…
TLDR or TLDW: the government did it by making incentives for suvs and trucks. Cars are regulated harsh for efficiency while suvs and trucks are exempt.
This made profit margins for suvs and trucks large, and smaller cars are almost non-existent.
People (Men especially) think their status in life depends on their vehicle. They just can’t get over the idea that bigger is not always better. It’s how you use it that matters.
In all seriousness, vehicles have been a status signifier ever since they were created and everyone loves to say that they are better(richer) than the Joneses next door. Being bigger and taller than others is viewed as good in society and in vehicles.
Its not exclussively their fault. There have been years of propaganda from big auto corporations where the only way you can be a productive and resourceful man, is if you own a pick up truck. One truck commercial basically claimed if you buy their truck you immediately become more dependable, resourceful, and attractive, which ulitmately implied it would increase your chances of finding a partner.
Yeah, I did a double-take on the headline and point of the article, seeing the Civic as the first on the list.
I’m not sure I agree with most, but I’m not counting: certainly they have a point.
I live in a part of the US where big cars are less common, but I’m truly amazed at the number of people driving full sized pickups as a regular car. I mean, I also think they would be useful a couple times a year but they look damn inconvenient every other day.
Just yesterday, I was walking around our town center with my kid, and we had a bit of a debate about whether a certain truck was parked on the sidewalk, or if there was a valid parking spot it was too big for and too poorly parked
In Australia you have to pay registration per vehicle even though you can only drive one at a time. This means people will buy a big vehicle that they might need occasionally instead of having a big one and a small one.
No. I just mean that it would make more sense to pay a fee to drive any car rather than rego for each. That way you could have a small car for around town and a bigger car for when you need to go further afield without having to pay two lots of registration fees.
This logic is usually beat out by the existence of rental services. Is a couple hundred bucks a year to rent a truck when you need it really more expensive in the long run than owning and fueling $50,000+ truck year round?
Trucks have been bestselling models for literally decades.
It’s because there’s a 25% tariff on importing trucks. It was put in place nearly 60 years ago by Lyndon B Johnson; it’s called the “chicken tax” because the excuse for passing it was as a retaliatory tariff against France and Germany taxing American factory farmed chicken.
Because of the chicken tax, fairly few foreign car companies in the US sell pickups.
And because being a “best selling” model is good marketing, truck makers generally sell very few models of truck. For example, the best selling vehicle right now is the Ford “F series”. So that’s the F150, F250, and F350, in all of their assorted trims. There’s a couple other models they sell - the Maverick and the Ranger - but most of the trucks Ford sells are F series.
So a truck driver has been much more likely to drive a F-series for decades than a car driver was to be driving a Civic.
Don’t forget the insane fuel efficiency calculation that rewards larger, less efficient trucks over the smaller more efficient ones we used to have. It’s the reason even an f150 is gargantuan compared to ones of the past.
Mind if hijack your comment to clarify a doubt I have?
In the early 2000’s I had an acquantaice move to the US, somewhere in California.
After driving a typical american car for about six months, that person came to Europe, bought a hot hatchback, bolted on it every aftermarket part available for the car, had all the mods approved by the manufacturer and imported it, which awarded them a very high power/low consumption vehicle when compared with the standard american market, and I was told all the money spent was recouped in a few years.
I’m going to point one that hasn’t been mentioned. Infrastructure.
Highways, roads, streets have way too many lanes that are way too wide. This encourages drivers to drive faster. Faster driving makes overall the roads and vehicles to feel more dangerous, because they are. People’s response is to want and acquire larger, heavier an faster vehicles that make them feel safer in those hostile roads.
This is what contemporary urbanism is talking about when they say that infrastructure determines behavior. You can alter people’s behavior by changing the shape of infrastructure.
The problem in most of the western world is that the answer of authorities (heavily misled by car and oil industry) has been to make more lanes that are wider. In the false belief that this would make roads safer. When in reality the result is the opposite. Other measures like police enforced fines, speed limits, etc. Are also useless to mitigate the lack of safety and carry a huge set of problems with them like systematic discrimination and endemic corruption.
The answer is to make narrower lanes, with fewer lanes in densely populated area, less parking, traffic calmed and car traffic banned zones. Protect bicicles and pedestrians with concrete traffic segregation. Impose aditional fees and taxes for vehicles above a certain weight and parking space take up. Those things will signal people that it’s fine to drive a smaller, slower vehicle, it’s fine to use public transport instead. Along with more public transport options available.
I get what you’re saying, but have you ever driven in Italy? The lanes are terrifyingly narrow compared to the UK, but the drivers are far more reckless!
Bikes are actually greener than walking, because if you need to move, they allow you to have a greater daily range for a not much higher footprint (more efficient and 3 times faster).
It’s also really green if you die riding one in places where it’s completely unsafe to ride one like where I live. You eliminate your carbon footprint completely!
I’m talking about running stop signs, gunning it at yellow lights, not using turn signals, using turn signals but not turning, swerving into bike lanes and flinging open their doors without looking.
Infrastructure like protected bike lanes and robust public transit so fewer people feel the need to drive are great, but bad driving is bad driving.
I lived somewhere with trains half my life ago, it was very nice. I have no trains or buses or sidewalks or even a shoulder on the road. Just fast two-lane curvy backroads with a ditch on the side.
You say negligible, but what you mean is negligible on a scale of the CO2 emissions we are used to. Human body CO2 emission is just as negligible on that scale.
Ill do some quick maths: According to the first source on google, an average human burns 3kcal/min walking and 5kcal/min biking at 15km/h, which is about 3x as fast as walking. Considering that, we arrive at a difference of 1.33kcal/min by walking instead of biking. Estimates suggest 1.3g CO2-equivalents per kcal for average consumption (much lower for vegans), so thats 1.73g CO2/min. 100kg CO2 for bike production would take 57,800min of walking, thats almost 963h. An average bike will probably be used more so I guess you are right and bikes are indeed more efficient than walking :D
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.