Hey, I know they are dumb, ugly, dangerous and annoying, but some people in Europe have micro penisses too! Oh wait, we have Porsche for that. Never mind, fuck off with those testosterone tankers.
We need to limit the size of cars that can enter our cities. Seriously.
It can also be done in an indirect way, e.g. by making smaller parking spaces and give fines to cars that exceed the shapes.
Some places are taxing / fining vehicles over a certain weight. That seems like a good solution. The fine should be proportional to the offender’s wealth/income though or rich people will just be able to ignore it.
Allow them, don’t ban.
BUT make owning one so expensive and annoying nobody wants to get one.
Extra taxes, extra costs, don’t let big gas guzzlers in city centres etc.
So, pass a ban that only applies to poor people and let the rich continue to do whatever they want still since they can afford the fine?
Nah, just ban them.
Extra Tax and Fees just makes it a poor people tax, and rich assholes will carry on as if nothing changes. A straight-up ban makes them not appear at all.
This is the better option. But, if you’re gonna do that, there needs to be some kind of program that allows people to sell their banned vehicle to the government for above market value so they can afford to purchase a comparable, but more suitable vehicle instead. Otherwise, you’re gonna have a bunch of pissed off people with six-figure, three-ton lawn ornaments crying about how they couldn’t have known their vehicle would get banned and it’s now useless.
Already a system done all across the world in everywhere but America, it’s called a Trade-in program.
Americans are paying 100k for these fucking things now. Taking out 10 year long loans to pay for it. And then crying about gas prices on twitter. Not sure cost will stop people. People are idiots.
Agreed, wasn’t it a ‘work truck’ heavy vehicle tax break after the fuel crisis in the 70s that created these monstrosities?
(Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m late for work.)
Close. I believe you’re referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for “heavy duty” trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of “crossover” vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a “truck.”
Close. I believe you’re referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for “heavy duty” trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of “crossover” vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a “truck.”
No, you’re entirely correct (though it was one of many factors, that being the largest)
AFAIK yes, that’s the loophole. If a vehicle is heavy enough then the law assumes it must be for “work” and thus some pollution laws don’t apply.
Car manufacturers noticed this and thus the massive “Sports” “Utility” Vehicle was born.
How can people stand to drive these. You are so limited with how you can navigate the environment with barely any benefit.
The excuse I’ve heard is that they want visibility because everyone else has tall ass jacked up trucks they need to be jacked up too.
With that mentality, we should fit all of our toddlers and preteens with stilts and hivis vests so these poor truck owners will see them over the massive hood.
True example of “race to the bottom”
The other excuse is that they want to be protected in a collision. And, there’s some truth to that. If you’re in a small car and you’re hit by a huge truck, you’re probably in a lot of danger. But, if you’re also in a huge truck you might not be hurt as badly. But that’s also a race to the bottom.
Are these trucks classified as cars or trucks in most EU country?
In Norway (EEA but not EU) they are trucks (due to weight and carry capacity), and require a C1 truck driving licence. Which helps keep the numbers low. Though there have been cases of importers downgrading the suspension to lower the maximum carry capacity to reclassify them so they can be driven on a normal car class B driving license.
In the USA (and I think Canada, and maybe Mexico) pickup trucks, SUVs and minivans are classified as “light trucks”. That’s a different category from cars. That exempts them from a lot of regulations that would seem like they should apply to every vehicle. For example, you’d think that every vehicle on the road would have to have their bumpers at the same height, otherwise when two vehicles collide their bumpers might miss. While it’s true that cars have to have their bumpers at a certain height, “light trucks” don’t have to follow that same regulation, and often have higher bumpers, meaning they go over the bumpers of cars and directly impact the bodywork. They also get away from having to follow emissions standards, etc.
I don’t know what EU regulations are like, but I really hope they prevent the US manufacturers from exporting that loophole to Europe. They’ll probably get away with classifying them as a kind of vehicle that requires the same license as a normal car. However, hopefully the EU will require that they follow other car-like regulations too, like bumper height, safety systems, etc.
The bit that’s so perplexing is that in north America they are not “cars” but “light trucks” , yet they can be legally driven on a normal “car” driving licence.
Here “light trucks” are a separate, expensive, license, which is usually only taken for occupational reasons. Which is a good thing, since weight (and securing loads etc) has a massive impact on road safety.
Yeah, I seem to remember that it was lobbying by farmers that had something to do with it. Like, farmers who used light trucks on their farms wanted to be able to drive to down in those trucks too without needing to get a special license. But, that might be wrong. Either way, it smells like corruption to me. They should either be cars and have to meet all the standards applied to cars, or be trucks and meet the standards applied to trucks. Allowing them to avoid the fuel efficiency standards and safety standards applied to cars, while also avoiding the special driver’s license needed for trucks is unfair (or even dangerous) to everyone else on the road.
Under 3.5 tons they’re cars
3.5 tonns maximum total capacity right? Or net weight?
So a 3 tonne truck that can haul 1 tonne of goods for a total of 4 tonnes gross weight would be a need a truck license
Exactly
Came back to my car the other day to find one of the trucks parked to me. Could barely squeeze into my car then it was 2m longer than my car and so much higher i literally couldn’t see a thing to drive out.
Had to creep forward but i had zero visibility until my driver window was past the front of the truck. It then stuck out the space so much i needed a 3 point turn to get around it due to cars parked opposite.
I was at end of the row so had to turn across it to get out. Just totally unsafe for anyone not inside it!
Wish we didn’t have these big stupid things in Canada. Every dumb asshole you could ever meet has one and they all drive and park like the dumb assholes that they are.
As an American construction worker, I’d much rather have HiLux than these monstrosities. It’s ridiculous. No need for this shit.
The worst part is you can’t see children and teenagers walking Infront of them. Which means you can’t see normal cars Infront of you either. They are essentially worse than semi-trucks because they have slanted hoods, mirrors and better designed visibility and laws.
Part of why these monstrosities are possible is that pickup trucks, and most SUVs, are regulated as “trucks” not “cars” and so they don’t have to follow all the same safety rules as cars.
There are some that actually have a camera in the front so you can look at a camera view of what’s in front of you and blocked by the monstrous hood. I suppose that’s good, but it seems like if they have to put a front-facing camera in a vehicle, they’re admitting that the view out front is so obstructed that the vehicle shouldn’t be legal.
If they do have a camera, that camera works only under 10-15mph, above that it’s disabled.
Ok, and?
Also out of Japan as well, please. We definitely don’t need these, especially in pedestrian- and cyclist-heavy areas. (I have seen hummers trying to drive some streets in Tokyo and it’s insane).
A Hummer in Tokyo?! Honestly that’s impressive, considering the width of most non-main roads there. But still, why would one need such a car in such a place? Tokyo works even better without a car at all, imho.
No one needs it and it’s inconvenient. Some people with money import foreign cars (particularly around Roppongi/Akasaka/Meguro in Tokyo)
I wish I could ride my bike like a Scythed Chariot and destroy all these death machines that have the gall to ride on the bike path.
I mean fuck! I hate cars and pretentious drivers so goddamn much. The only thing they have to do to accelerate is push a pedal once with less effort than moving a feather of a newborn chick, yet they for some reason consistently claim the right of way, or get it by law even. Topsy-turvy society.
“I reduced the insolent crowd of carriages which cumber our streets, for this luxury of speed destroys its own aim; a pedestrian makes more headway than a hundred conveyances jammed end to end along the twists and turns of the Sacred Way.” ―Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar (1903–1987)
.jpg)
You see a few of them here-and-there in Korea these days. They’re extra infuriating here because they don’t fit in most parking spaces and they’ll straight-up turn a lot of two-way roads into one-way. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with something in the bed. Purely for show.
The only thing I’ve seen people haul with these (in Europe) is their own overinflated ego. That’s all they’re for it seems.
that one way becomes a no-eay real quick when they meet somebody who calls their bluff
How are they legal then? Sounds like either those streets should have limits against trucks and the trucks should be categorised as such or they shouldn’t be legal at all.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with something in the bed.
That’s usually the case here in the States as well. Not to mention how high the bed sits! You have to lift stuff to shoulder height to load the damn things, lol. They’ve become caricatures of trucks at this point.
If nobody buys them, then they’ll exit the market. American companies value profit.
I think there is a certain percentage of the population that is a problem everywhere.
At least trucks are useful for farmers and construction workers. What you need to focus on is making your transit network better so nobody needs a small car at all, and these trucks are only used by the few people who need a big truck.
These are actually useful, working vehicles appropriate for European streets:
This, is not:
these trucks are only used by the few people who need a big truck
Did I miss your sarcasme or are you not connected to reality?
These truck should only be used by the few people who need a big truck. That is a small minority of people.
Right. They should only be used by the few people that need them. But the reality is there are a lot of people with no business owning a big truck driving them in places that big trucks have no business being in
Back to my point: fix tranit so more people don’t think they need to drive. Small cars are still vastly more dangeious than transit.
I’ve known plenty of people in southern US states who drive trucks for purposes that don’t require trucks. They’ll never choose public transit over their trucks, no matter how good it is.
…Though, realistically, that’s not exclusively a truck issue. If one can just step outside and get into their own car and be immediately en route to their destination, on my their own schedule/convenience, it’ll be hard to convince them to choose a less convenient mode of transportation.
Are you sure they wouldn’t use transit? Or is it just all the transit they have ever seen is so bad they wouldn’t use it and they have no vision of what could be - but if somehow you built they great transit they would use it?
I’m very confident that they wouldn’t. However, I suppose it’s possible that I’ve never seen transit that could be so good that people would choose it over their own vehicles. What would that look like?
I suppose a few of them might do it if there’s free coffee on board (or beer, but that would be chaos lol) and it ran on VERY convenient schedules.
People in the US place a LOT of value in convenience, so the public transit system would have to offer something that outweighs that. Do you know of any examples?
should, yes.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
farmers use tractors. construction workers use vans. nobody here uses big trucks.
You mean serious farmers and construction workers are better off with an american style “truck” (60% comfy family and passanger space, 40% bed for your construction stuff) than with a van or a “classic” truck (two seats and a big bed for all your stuff)?
That will depend on what they are doing. a lot of construction crews need a seat for everyone on the crew, and the small bed is enough. The reason trucks cabs have got much larger as we no longer accept people riding in the bed of the truck, or in front with no seat belt. This is overall for the better, but either the truck needs to be longer or your need a shorter bed.
lol
deleted by creator
Not the same seating capacity though. Also, it’s hard to tell, but it seems like there’s a difference in bed widths?
Edit: Could someone help me understand the downvotes? The seating capacity is just an objective fact, so was it the speculative difference in bed width? Or something else? (Sometimes I have difficulty understanding people)
What do you need the extra seats for?
This may sound dumb, but I honestly don’t know how to answer that, lol. The first answer that comes to mind is “for passengers to sit in,” but that just seems too obvious. Is there more to the question?
I only ever see smaller trucks here; it doesn’t seem to be a problem to only seat two people. Don’t the American trucks have more seating because they’re doubling as family cars?
The weight capacity of the truck on the right is much higher than the light-duty truck on the left. Jobs that require trucks of that capacity tend to require more workers, so it makes sense to seat more passengers.
The truck on the left might be more comparable to something like the Ford Ranger (the older generations). Many of those were single-cab (i.e. no back seats) models, but some of them would have two tiny, uncomfortable “jump seats” as back seats.
You’re not completely wrong though. I have known some workers who would also use their trucks as family cars if it was their only vehicle.
deleted by creator
The only people who can afford these 100k€ rams and f150s are rich assholes. Farmers drive around in their toyota hilux or ford ranger that is small in compariaon to these massive american trucks and all of the construction workers use vans.
