90% of the people I know with big cars use them because they have jobs, hobbies, or interests that require the transportation of materials and equipment that would be difficult or impossible to transport in a small car, or because they live somewhere that requires a vehicle robust against difficult driving conditions. I don’t think “big=safe” is a super popular reason to get a big car, especially given the cost difference vs a commuter car or whatever.
Anecdata for anecdata, I've never seen 90% of big cars on the roads around ever regularly carry more than one passenger at a time to/from a desk job (or a meal commute) that doesn't need any large hauling ever.
"Big=safe" may not be smart reason to get a big car, but it's absolutely a common ("popular") one in the US today. Just looking at how cars are advertised, there's basically two main marketing pushes "just look how safe it keeps your family" and "just look at the hobbies it could let you do that you probably won't actually do but think you will", and yes that second one is a pretty equally common reason people buy them, but both messages get about equal air time in the US and seem common in reasons people buy them.
I realize I'm very dismissive of people buying them for "hobbies/interests", but over-buying capacity based on "perceived need that doesn't actually exist" is a trap that also makes the roads less safe and should be regulated.
> but over-buying capacity based on "perceived need that doesn't actually exist" is a trap that also makes the roads less safe and should be regulated
This kind of thinking (all expenditures to account for tail-risk demand scenarios is an evil source of inefficiency that must be eliminated) is making society perilously fragile.
Buying optionality is a great idea and people don’t do it enough.
Am I hauling crap from Home Depot every day? No. But two or three times a month I need to move a bunch of stuff, be it lumber, mulch, or doors. So I have a vehicle that can do that, because not having that capability would cost more per month in rental or delivery fees than having that capability costs me.
If more people had to rely on rentals for those types of projects the demand would be higher and the rental costs/delivery fees cheaper. It's a different but related tragedy of the commons that many "common services" such as delivery services from hardware stores got worse as more people did it themselves.
Obviously everyone's needs are different and everyone thinks their own needs are special, so there's not an easy immediate fix and it would need to be a culture change.
> I don’t think “big=safe” is a super popular reason to get a big car, especially given the cost difference vs a commuter car or whatever.
Counter-anecdote: that's exactly the reason given by a lot of people I know who like SUVs, especially. Maybe alongside "it can carry lots of stuff", but sometimes all on its own.
Nah, they mean it. FWIW (maybe nothing?) I'm pretty sure it's only ever been women who've told me this—but then, men I know all drive trucks if they are into that kind of thing, and I've never heard one name safety as what sold them on trucks. Maybe if I knew men who drove SUVs they'd say the same thing.
Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't. I'm tired of being menaced by extremely clean and pristine pickups that never seem to be loaded with anything more challenging than laundry or groceries.
Now and again I spot an old style pickup (when they were a similar height to a sedan) and they're conspicuous by how petite they look relative to the current offerings (while still having abundant bed space).
> Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't.
I buy things specifically so I don’t have to compete with other people during times of scarcity, such as the last 18 months that just happened.
Renting sucks if you do anything regularly or like to put work into improving anything (like your car or house).
I don’t want to live a life of peonage where I don’t own anything and am at the mercy of other people’s resource allocation decisions whenever I want to do anything.
You're taking this weirdly personally, and ignoring the contextual point about large numbers of pickups that are never used for any kind of work, as well as the other point about older pickups having equivalent amounts of bed space without being so massive.
I’m speaking from the first person, not taking it personally. I’m just explaining why ownership is often superior to rentership. Otoh, your comment seemed very personal and emotive:
> Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't. I'm tired of being menaced by extremely clean and pristine pickups
This sounds like you feel persecuted by truck drivers.
I’m not sure the observation about bed space is really true, except maybe insofar as modern safety regulations require more empty crumple space in the front of the car.
I don't feel persecuted by truck drivers, I just have an unpleasant number of close encounters with such vehicles as a pedestrian. Far from thinking they're persecuting me, I think they are simply not paying attention.
Is this unique to truck drivers? In my experience, the worst and most unsafe drivers usually drive cheap commuters, not pickups.
Also, to preempt a repeat, last time there was a thread on HN about saving pedestrians by banning pickup trucks, I ran the numbers and a very optimistic estimate for number of pedestrian lives saved by replacing every single pickup with a commuter car was like 200 people per year.
By no means, SUV drivers and boy racers are also serial hazards where I live. What's a bit different with those is it's easier to make eye contact with drivers in SUVs and sedans. Many modern pickups tend to be elevated to the same height as vans (especially if the suspension is lifted), but unlike vans and minibuses they still have a long front hood, which offsets any benefit from the increased elevation while still making it hard for pedestrians to make eye contact with the driver.
This is a worry factor for people with kids, walking a dog etc., because while the pickup driver may well notice people of adult height, anything below shoulder level is effectively invisible in close-up situations. Most unpleasant close encounters don't come from a speeding vehicle but going in a straight line, but drivers turning right on red or at a stop sign and focused on traffic coming to their left, while ignoring the existence of people trying to cross the street to their right (and sometimes to their left too, because they're gazing into the middle distance and literally overlooking people nearby even though the pedestrians have the right of way).
200 pedestrian lives a year seems like a lot to me, even 100 seems like an excess loss. If you factor in cyclists (though many cyclists are their own worst enemies) I think the number might swell.
You should come and see my kid's school during drop off and pick up.
The number of soccer moms driving Escalades and other oversized SUVs in their high heels would heal your misconceptions about large car ownership in the US.
It's not big as much as tall. Going from my truck to a rental car is a vulnerable change! My truck is inefficient and big, but we keep it because it can carry both our kids and our dog.
I've lived in areas with serious snowfall and icy road conditions that you have to deal with 4-5 months out of the year, most of my life. These small, lightweight, weak EVs are a bad joke in that context, they'd be useless.
NYC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Detroit, etc. have some terrible Winter weather for example. You can't safely, effectively navigate Winter weather in NYC in a vehicle like the Chery QQ Ice Cream. At best it'd be good ~2/3 of the year.
> These small, lightweight, weak EVs are a bad joke in that context, they'd be useless.
[citation needed]
Power is not the limiting factor in icy road conditions, traction is. While a heavier car is easier to get moving due to increased normal force, it's equally harder to stop. The actual difference makers are snow tires so you have more traction, and electronic stability control/antilock brakes so you never lose traction.
From what I understand, upgrading a 2 wheel drive EV to a 4 wheel EV isn't a horribly hard thing to do.
Driving on snow/iced doesn't require power, it requires good tires and an understanding of how to drive on snow and ice.
I do wonder if the engine in it could get up Seattle hills though, my family's old Geo Metro had problems, so something with a fraction of the power could prove problematic.
This. Regulating seasonal snow tire/chain usage in areas with lots of snow/ice is imperative to reducing collisions and improving safety. That and decent infrastructure for clearing snow in a fairly timely manner.
All seasons can't and _wont_ cut it in some areas, and having tires that only work 3/4s of the year for traction is dicey at best.
Source: I drive a Miata in winter up in Saskatchewan
Even with back-seats being used, bring back the station-wagon:
The 90s Buick Estate (a behemoth of a wagon) was 9 inches shorter than the Kia Telluride (one of the smaller 3-row vehicles in the US) and seated 8 (though it would be 7 today because front-row bench seats appear to be disallowed except in pickups).
The Estate's contemporary Ford Taurus Wagon could also seat 7 (though two adults in the 3rd row is not comfortable, it worked for short drives in a pinch) was almost 20 inches!! shorter than a Suburban/Escalade.
