No, trucks are useful, but a massive modern pickup truck is much less useful in the urban context than a standard pickup truck from 30 years ago. The bed size has remained the same, the outside envelope of the vehicle has ballooned massively.
> You should get better transit so less people have cars.
Toronto has a very high (for north america) transit mode share
It provides a deep-dive video into the history of how we got to the situation we're in today with American cars exploding in size. It actually has its origins in Obama-era legislation for emissions standards that made an exception for "light trucks". SUVs are legally classified as light trucks so the industry has massively pushed these tanks onto the consumer promising more safety.
It has led to a dramatic decrease in public safety and pedestrian deaths that is unique to the US. One contributor to these deaths is literally parents running over their own children in their own driveways. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY.
The video goes over the visibility issues with these trucks, how our safety regulations fail to account for them (light trucks only need to be tested in collision with other light trucks) and also covers how modern trucks have the same carrying capacity as pickup trucks from 30 years ago (the main thing that's increased is the hull and cabin size) while being harder to use for actual work since the bed is higher offer the ground
This is a much longer running issue than the Obama administration.
Market distortions favoring heavy trucks include:
* The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), enacted in Congress in 1975 under the Ford administration in reaction to the Arab oil embargo, with its tiered structure on passenger vehicles vs. trucks.
* The "Chicken Tax", tariffs on light trucks enacted by Lyndon Johnson as a reaction to French / West German tariffs on chickens. While much of this trade war was repealed, the light truck tariff never was.
* Section 179 tax deductions, which are biased in favor of heavy vehicles. As I understand it, this particular deduction was inserted into the tax code via the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 under Reagan, for the purpose of aiding small businesses that might rely on such.
So it's been, from my perspective, a fairly non-partisan desire from all of US politics, with protectionism as perhaps part of the goal, but perhaps due to other goals that had unintended effects.
Personally, I think that government regulations can only explain so much. Even with the market distortions, trucks tend to be rather expensive compared to smaller vehicles sedans, and that's before factoring in the bad gas mileage. My presumption is that America's vastly more rural landscape contributes just as much to the preference for trucks as government policy.
I do surmise from articles, though, that the above US policies have impacted the ability for lighter pickup trucks to entering the market. I suspect that some smaller pickups, like the small "kei trucks" that seem to have a bit of a following in the US even with all the regulatory hassle, would be much more present if a lot of these protections were removed.
I wish I could buy a cheap ford ranger from 1990 just to have for home improvement things. Go pick up furniture, sacks of dirt, lumber. These massive trucks are just so expensive and gigantic.
Massive trucks are useful for construction when they are used for construction. The ones that are used for leisure are the trucks the poster was likely referring to.
If you need to use a truck daily for work an F-150 is an awful choice. The beds of these things are the same size or smaller as pickup trucks from 30 years ago while the bed is also much higher off the ground making it more impractical to regularly load on and off. The bed is only 37% of the truck! The main thing that's increased the size of these trucks is an increase in hull width and cabin size.
According to this study, most F-150s on the road are not used for work
I wish I could examine your brain to understand how you think "Massive trucks are useful for construction" is a good counterargument to people using them as daily drivers.
No city ever builds transit infrastructure to tempt people out of their cars, they make the experience of driving shittier and shittier to force people off the road, all the while lambasting drivers for making the city dirty and dangerous.
That is a false question. They both have their place. Depending on what you are doing sometimes a van is better, sometimes a truck is better. I wouldn't want some chemicals in the van with me, but the ability to have everything inside the van that walk in also has advantages.
Not really... Most F150s have a 5.5' bed which is pathetically small. You can't fit a sheet of plywood or a 2x4 in there without having the tailgate down. You can only really buy full-sized long box trucks if you're part of a fleet program.
Most professional builders drive big Savannah vans, which can not only carry full sheets of plywood, but also keep them dry. Plus, the front blindspot is less than one meter.
> You can only really buy full-sized long box trucks if you're part of a fleet program.
This is why the folks I know personally who are actually in the position to need to haul dimensional for work all seem to drive white pickup trucks that they bought from resales of leased fleets.
The _useless_ short bed trucks are driven mostly by young men who were too eager to pile on the personal debt in a show of vanity.
> Massive trucks are useful for construction.
No, trucks are useful, but a massive modern pickup truck is much less useful in the urban context than a standard pickup truck from 30 years ago. The bed size has remained the same, the outside envelope of the vehicle has ballooned massively.
> You should get better transit so less people have cars.
Toronto has a very high (for north america) transit mode share
I'm not disagreeing smaller trucks are normally better, but massive trucks are useful unlike cars.
Toronto has good transit for North America, but there are plenty of ways to improve it.
I can run faster than the TTC streetcar
2 replies →
Here's a video I wish I could make every American watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
It provides a deep-dive video into the history of how we got to the situation we're in today with American cars exploding in size. It actually has its origins in Obama-era legislation for emissions standards that made an exception for "light trucks". SUVs are legally classified as light trucks so the industry has massively pushed these tanks onto the consumer promising more safety.
It has led to a dramatic decrease in public safety and pedestrian deaths that is unique to the US. One contributor to these deaths is literally parents running over their own children in their own driveways. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY.
The video goes over the visibility issues with these trucks, how our safety regulations fail to account for them (light trucks only need to be tested in collision with other light trucks) and also covers how modern trucks have the same carrying capacity as pickup trucks from 30 years ago (the main thing that's increased is the hull and cabin size) while being harder to use for actual work since the bed is higher offer the ground
This is a much longer running issue than the Obama administration.
Market distortions favoring heavy trucks include:
* The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), enacted in Congress in 1975 under the Ford administration in reaction to the Arab oil embargo, with its tiered structure on passenger vehicles vs. trucks.
* The "Chicken Tax", tariffs on light trucks enacted by Lyndon Johnson as a reaction to French / West German tariffs on chickens. While much of this trade war was repealed, the light truck tariff never was.
* Section 179 tax deductions, which are biased in favor of heavy vehicles. As I understand it, this particular deduction was inserted into the tax code via the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 under Reagan, for the purpose of aiding small businesses that might rely on such.
So it's been, from my perspective, a fairly non-partisan desire from all of US politics, with protectionism as perhaps part of the goal, but perhaps due to other goals that had unintended effects.
Personally, I think that government regulations can only explain so much. Even with the market distortions, trucks tend to be rather expensive compared to smaller vehicles sedans, and that's before factoring in the bad gas mileage. My presumption is that America's vastly more rural landscape contributes just as much to the preference for trucks as government policy.
I do surmise from articles, though, that the above US policies have impacted the ability for lighter pickup trucks to entering the market. I suspect that some smaller pickups, like the small "kei trucks" that seem to have a bit of a following in the US even with all the regulatory hassle, would be much more present if a lot of these protections were removed.
I wish I could buy a cheap ford ranger from 1990 just to have for home improvement things. Go pick up furniture, sacks of dirt, lumber. These massive trucks are just so expensive and gigantic.
Massive trucks are useful for construction when they are used for construction. The ones that are used for leisure are the trucks the poster was likely referring to.
If you need to use a truck daily for work an F-150 is an awful choice. The beds of these things are the same size or smaller as pickup trucks from 30 years ago while the bed is also much higher off the ground making it more impractical to regularly load on and off. The bed is only 37% of the truck! The main thing that's increased the size of these trucks is an increase in hull width and cabin size.
According to this study, most F-150s on the road are not used for work
https://www.powernationtv.com/post/most-pickup-truck-owners-...
Cranes are also useful for construction, doesn’t mean every fourth house on my street should have one
I wish I could examine your brain to understand how you think "Massive trucks are useful for construction" is a good counterargument to people using them as daily drivers.
Transit is the alternanive for daily drivers not cars.
No city ever builds transit infrastructure to tempt people out of their cars, they make the experience of driving shittier and shittier to force people off the road, all the while lambasting drivers for making the city dirty and dangerous.
The experience of driving in cities is inherently shittier as cities get larger.
How truck is more useful than a van like ford transit?
That is a false question. They both have their place. Depending on what you are doing sometimes a van is better, sometimes a truck is better. I wouldn't want some chemicals in the van with me, but the ability to have everything inside the van that walk in also has advantages.
Most people buying massive trucks (at least in the US) aren't using them for construction.
Also, somehow other countries in the rest of the world seem to get by just fine without these massive trucks.
Not really... Most F150s have a 5.5' bed which is pathetically small. You can't fit a sheet of plywood or a 2x4 in there without having the tailgate down. You can only really buy full-sized long box trucks if you're part of a fleet program.
Most professional builders drive big Savannah vans, which can not only carry full sheets of plywood, but also keep them dry. Plus, the front blindspot is less than one meter.
I don't disagree about transit though.
> You can only really buy full-sized long box trucks if you're part of a fleet program.
This is why the folks I know personally who are actually in the position to need to haul dimensional for work all seem to drive white pickup trucks that they bought from resales of leased fleets.
The _useless_ short bed trucks are driven mostly by young men who were too eager to pile on the personal debt in a show of vanity.
I do know quite a few people with expensive trucks who insist they "Need one" that I rarely see doing work with them.
Ah yes, trucks with empty beds are clearly being used for construction. Not like pavement princesses are a thing.
So get those people on transit and leave trucks to people who use them as trucks.
I don't understand why you think I disagree with that.
1 reply →