cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/319198
I got a lot of push-back on a comment I made here about how bigger trucks/suvs are the primary cause the increasing pedestrian death-rate in America so apparently more people need to see this video.
I’m a huge NotJustBikes fan, but I hate how this, of all his videos, is the one that gets the traction in forums.
I mean, sure, big trucks suck – but it’s not as if small ones don’t! The fundamental cause of all these deaths (and a bunch of other big problems, to boot) is cities being designed for automobiles to the exclusion of everything else, and quibbling about the size of them is nothing but a distraction.
It’s a good intro into more anti car and urbanism forums. This video is catchy. Why not? If somebody liked it they can watch more of his content.
When’s the last time you saw a “small” truck? Even the “small” ones like Rangers and Mavericks outsize the F150 from a couple decades ago.
I continue to maintain that trucks should be restricted to industrial and agricultural use and/or be prohibitively expensive for noncommercial purposes.
If it is significantly more dangerous to other people, put stricter licensing requirements on it! It is totally logical to require a commercial license for trucks that are disproportionately killing people in the hands of typical drivers.
Presumably by “small trucks” you mean ones that are restricted by the same regulations as cars are. Even if we had very good infrastructure, large trucks would still be less safe than ones with safe bumpers and clearances and less mass. I don’t think someone can say one way or the other that large trucks would not still be a problem. So it’s perfectly reasonable for people to be concerned about large trucks, both in the fantasy world that you’d like this discussion to be taking place in, and here in the real world.
I would love to see a smaller auto company advertise more to the lazy American than the status symbol American. We might get some more quality trucks like old pickups again back in the day.
Best if you target station wagons and small pickups to teens, so when they get olders they’ll adjust again to more practical things when the old gen does out
I would love to be able to get like a little Ford Ranger or like my step-dad’s Datsun. It’s not too much truck, still functional; not flashy and fancy. I’m a millennial, I can remember when trucks were tools, not fashion statements. It boggles my mind that you basically can’t find a truck for less than $50,000 because they’re all tricked out luxury vehicles.
We need a Kirkland brand car or truck. No frills.
ford has trucks in a trim level they call XL, which have no frills. Best “feature” is that you can power wash the inside… not because it’s made to do that, but because there is nothing you could damage doing it… Ranger XL is at $27k if you take it with no upgrades or addons…
Citynerd has a good related video as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIy5uv5-VrE&pp=ygUPY2l0eW5lcmQgdHJ1Y2tz
By the way, in the traffic engineering profession, this is what we call level of service A. A road with 4 lanes in each direction with no apparent traffic on it is definitely the highest and best use of urban space. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Omg my sides lol
This video is recommended on Tournesol:
[+49🌻] Not Just Bikes: These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing UsDo you think this video should be more recommended ? If so, please compare it on tournesol to improve its ranking
tournesol.app is an open-source web tool created by a non profit organization aiming to evaluate the overall quality of the information in web videos in order to fight against misinformation and other dangerous content with the help of collaborative comparisons.
To know more about it, see https://tournesol.app/about
I’m a bot made by a community member not related to Tournesol organization. Feel free to reply, my owner is watching…
Ya I have a big ass truck. I need it. It’s not my primary vehicle. I have a couple more efficient cars we use for daily stuff. But I use it for what it’s made for - hauling, business needs, and camping trips etc. But I hate how the front end is designed to make it hard to see what’s directly in front of you below the hood. I am extra cautious about keeping an eye out. But it’s dangerous.
That’s said, many newer vehicles have Pedestrian crash avoidance mitigation (PCAM). Should be required by law to be standard by now.
Pedestrian crash avoidance mitigation (PCAM) sounds great and all, but it still entirely misses one of the main points of the video about how cars have legal standards to follow regarding bumper heights, yet trucks are exempted. This has allowed truck bumper and hood heights to get out of control, which endangers the life of other drivers as bumpers only work if they line up horizontally. Trucks are literally being manufactured to keep the driver safe at the cost of everyone else on the road.
Had this convo a while ago, and afterwards I thought: why do people need these big ass trucks, when for decades we’ve had powerful enough trucks that did the same things newer giant Rams do? Like people gave been hauling work equipment, farm supplies and campers long before they got as big as they are now.
They do it better, and if you were doing it before, and have the means and opportunity to upgrade on quality of vehicle capacity, you take it.
But do they need to be so huge? Like I’d figure that after so many years and advancement in technology they could make a way more powerful engine that’s the same size as older big trucks. And now a lot of them just have gigantic cabs with even shorter truck beds which confuses me
I remember when a 6 foot bed was considered “wimpy”-- not a work truck. Now they all have them. It’s weird that trucks weight 8k pounds now. They haul more stuff, though. You used to have to modify a truck to tow more, with bigger brakes, and maybe a turbo. Campers sure are big now. ATVs are all side-by-sides now, so they’re almost as big as a car. So maybe rich people need bigger trucks for their bigger toys, but I think the chicken came before the egg.
For actual towing capacity it’s a physics problem. Do they have to be so big, for the performance they provide, yes. Can we make do with lower performance and therefore smaller trucks, sure, but good luck convincing people that’s what they should buy.
American individualism taken to its logical conclusion
‘Us’ meaning Americans, right? The people who must put ‘Literally’ into a sentence to make it plain that the meaning of the word is the meaning of the word without any comprehension of what they spout?
I had a family from Texas visit for a couple of weeks. They were shocked when they saw our car - it has a 1.2L engine and CVT.
At home they have high performance vehicles… of course, they did find it very important to TELL everyone about this. I didn’t bother asking them WHAT they needed these vehicles for - I’m sure that a 1.2 litre engine could drive around Texas (ours has done a good 600,000 km already and still runs like new).
Yet they still managed to get everywhere they wished to go, and decent speeds, in decent comfort.
Probably for less than 10% of the cost.
It’s stupid Americans that are Literally Killing Us.
The number of people in these comments who didn’t watch the video is astounding. He literally meant the entire world because in the last few minutes of the video he talks about how things are also spiraling out of control in Europe:
Regardless, looking at the best selling SUV models worldwide in 2021 they’re made by the Japanese, Germans, and South Koreans, so no, it’s not “stupid Americans” killing us 🙄
It’s 50% stupid Americans killing us.
I guess that’s a point - however, Americans are the leaders for having the BIGGEST cars and possibly the thirstiest guzzlers.
I do think the BIG CAR trend is probably more related to marketing and toxic masculinity.
deleted by creator
What’s with these kinds of cross-posts that only serve to split the discussion?
Here’s the “original post”: https://lemmy.one/post/484936
Lot to unpack here:
So first of all, I actually linked to the same discussion on Beehaw in my post description, though if we want to be really semantic, you and I both linked a copy on our respective instances. Here’s the actual “original” hosted on beehaw.org https://beehaw.org/post/794713
Second of all, I am actually an active participant in the discussion over there where I originally linked this video.
Third of all, that Beehaw post is about an NPR article, not the Not Just Bikes video.
Lastly, I only even saw that discussion on Beehaw because I was using a different instance than my usual. A large portion of Lemmy users are on lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works, which Beehaw defederated from, so those users will never even see the discussion, let alone be able to participate in it. Beyond that, many users on federated instances are browsing subscriptions, and they may not be subscribed to Beehaw’s News, but they may be subscribed to one of the popular video communities.
EDIT: It looks like I’ve ratioed the post on Beehaw anyways, which furthers my point that this has more visibility than their News post.
So my family has two trucks. We run a ranch in a rural area and we use them a lot. I also use my skid steer and tractor multiple times a week. That said, if we can be more economical as a whole, great. But electric vehicles are ignoring the mining and shipping costs of batteries and there’s no way an electric truck can haul what I need to now and there’s no viable solution for electric farming or construction equipment. Also, wasn’t it found that about 70% of pollution comes from shipping? And wasn’t more that 90% of pollution from the top 100 companies in the world? So why are a small part of consumer vehicles the problem? Or is it just more conscionable people to offload on?
So? You have a narrow use case that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed here. Every time SUVs clogging cities is discussed you people come out “but how will I run my farm”.
People running farms or similar businesses have been using pick-ups and other utility vehicles since times immemorial. I don’t know if you’re lying about the farm or not, frankly it doesn’t matter, it shouldn’t be any of your business whether or not suburbia is using massive trucks to ferry their kids to and from school.
Actually they’re actively hurting you. Because manufacturers now target people who won’t ever use them as utility vehicles, you can no longer buy basic cheap reliable pick-ups. They’re all swollen with plastic bodywork that won’t hold up to farm work, all the pointless faff inside is adding weight that’s actively hurting your fuel efficiency whilst again making it less rugged.
The target audience is now an urban/suburban dweller who will lease it for three years and swap for a newer one, so everything is now less repairable when something goes wrong 6 months after the warranty runs out.
Plus now you’re paying a luxury tax.
Really I fail to see how your life has been improved by the SUV invasion into cities.
Personally I think you’re disingenuous and making a strawman argument because you like your lifted truck that’s never seen mud.
Did you watch the video? None of those things are terribly relevant to its thesis.
By that logic, consumers should quit conserving water and recycling. Agriculture uses around 70% of all freshwater globally and 20 corporations produce over half of all the plastic waste in the entire world.
The video actually specifically stated SUVs have the second greatest increase in emissions by sector.
Most of all plastics recycling is a lie and aluminum is now excluding anything with shrinkwrap or adhesive labels. Where I live, we can pay extra to recycle, but they dump it in the same truck and take it to the same landfill because they can’t get anyone to pay enough to truck it out.
It’s not a small part of consumer vehicles in the USA anymore.
Don’t have to ban gas trucks but there shouldn’t be special breaks that incentivezes car companies to push them on people.
Battery mining and shipping should definitely be accounted for. But oil also requires extraction and transportation.
