The reason large cars are popular in America is because Americans want to and can afford to buy them. This is due to a number of factors beyond this "loophole", including advertising, cultural norms, the fact that a third of Americans are now obese and can't fit in smaller cars, a safety arms race, and a number of other things.
Perhaps americans prefer larger vehicle because of infrastructure design, public policy, and advertising campaigns, not because the desire is just innate?
It makes sense that you'd want a larger car when you live in a place that is designed for driving and everyone else is doing it too. Give people other viable options, like walking,cycling, and transit, and I guarantee that they will pick them instead because they are more pleasant and convenient.
I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either. The two most desirable and expensive cities in the United States (SF and NYC) are largely built this way.
>I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable and bikable places either
The problem is that the walkable / bikable places are so few and far between that they're gobsmackingly expensive. Even on a FANG salary, getting a reasonable place in one of the few walkable neighborhoods is beyond what I'm willing to pay these days.
If you want more than 900sqft for your family, trading a 15min walk for a 25min drive just makes so much more sense with how American cities are laid out and how much competition there is over the desirable places.
There are efforts being made, it will just take time. Can’t move almost a century of car centric public policy on a dime. Vote with your dollars and feet.
Or… there is a minimum amount of space required to park an SUV. Those who have enough space opt for SUVs, those who don’t buy compact cars.
Like try driving a huge SUV on narrow German village roads or parking in the tiny parking spaces there. Or try weaving though heavy NYC traffic or finding a new parking spot when you need to move for alternate side parking. It’s nearly impossible in an SUV, but an SUV is an objectively better car choice if you don’t care about efficiency or sporty handling.
or the danger it imposes on more vulnerable road users, or the negative externality of huge vehicles littering neighborhoods
What I struggle with is how it's socially acceptable for people to ignore all of these negative externalities. Just another example of Moloch winning: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. For some reason we scorn people who drop litter, but air pollution is totally fine
The difference between littering and air pollution is pretty easy to understand. What’s the alternative to littering? Holding on to your trash for a few minute until you find a garbage can. What’s the alternative to air pollution? Giving up all of our modern conveniences and rearchitecting our entire society. Without air pollution, we likely could not sustain our current population levels, so a number of people would have to die too.
Imagine society’s collective lifestyle was predicated on littering 100 candy bar wrappers per person. In such a scenario, I don’t think many people are going to get worked up over someone littering 105 wrappers.
Taking this analogy a little further, I always find it strange when people that litter 90 wrappers get mad at those that litter 110.
The solution is to equalize the death-probabilities. Let Corolla drivers roll some appropriate number of dice, perhaps on a monthly basis. Whenever your dice come up all sixes, the government sends you ammunition, to be used under the landwhale-hunting exemption. Kinda like jury duty, but more fun. You just need to set the probabilities correctly. Slowly ramp them up like interest rates until SUV adoption softens.
Motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians get extra shots.
Living in a walkable place is not mutually exclusive with driving. I live in one, I have a car, all my neighbors have cars and/or trucks. You can use Google's Street View and check out SF and NYC, there are plenty of cars there too. That's because your options are not more pleasant and convenient for everyone, I'd guess.
Sure people can still have cars in walkable places because not all trips are going to be better without a car. That doesn't mean that people owning cars in walkable areas are going to use them for all or most trips. They probably don't drive to the corner store 2 blocks away to pick up a six pack or drive across the city to the office to pay $30 when transit takes less time, costs 1/6th the price, and doesn't require them to sit in traffic with their hands on the wheel.
I am not seeing anybody arguing that people owning cars use them for all trips even in non-walkable places. But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. I have a train and a bus stations nearby, it's still a 5-10 min walk, not counting waiting for the train/bus. I'd estimate if I just wanted to go somewhere right now via transit, I'd be on board in 20-30 minutes, if I took my car, I'd be 10-20 miles away by then. But all this is besides the point of cars being big, even if there had been the magic transit of your imagination, which really was so fast and cheap, it would not reduce the size of the cars people bought. Bigger cars are more desirable, this is why they are more expensive. Americans are richer than most peoples, they can afford bigger cars.
> But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station.
Maybe its like this for because our infrastructure has been built around the assumption that you can park your car right in front of your destination AND doesn't have good transit oriented development/frequent enough service. If you had to walk 10 minutes to park your car and or circle the block for 10 minutes waiting for a spot to open up and the trains and busses ran every 3 minutes and didn't get stuck in traffic, the time would balance out differently
I am looking from the point of view of physics. Transit runs buses and trains, each making frequent stops to load/unload passengers, and, busses, at least, obey the same traffic laws the cars have to obey, e.g. they cannot run red lights or drive against traffic on a one way street. Even not counting the suboptimal route, a bus will always be slower than a car, it's just physics. Trains might travel faster since they don't use roads but their routes are even less optimal because the railroad is a giant nuisance on top of being expensive so you are likely to spend more time getting to/from a station than you can win on a faster travel.
But I see that your suggestion is actually to degrade the infrastructure to the point that you need to spend a lot of time to park. That's quite an "improvement".
> busses, at least, obey the same traffic laws the cars have to obey, e.g. they cannot run red lights or drive against traffic on a one way street. Even not counting the suboptimal route, a bus will always be slower than a car, it's just physics.
Have you ever sat in traffic? I used to commute downtown Portland and driving took 1 hour during rush hour but taking the bus took 30 minutes AND I didn't have to park AND I got to read instead of curse at other drivers. Driving will always be faster when traffic is good but as we all know, traffic gets pretty bad in most places and would be much worse if it wasn't for alternative transit modes. Here is a good example of this working: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
Watch that video and then tell me driving is still faster because of physics
> But I see that your suggestion is actually to degrade the infrastructure to the point that you need to spend a lot of time to park. That's quite an "improvement"
Yes actually. I want wider sidewalks, bike paths, parklets, gardens, housing, and shops over automobile parking infrastructure for people who don't even live in my neighborhood.
I watched a video of several seconds of a bus driving past cars stopped at a red light, then the bus stopped and video cut off. I wonder what happened? Could have all these cars passed the bus? Hmmm, would not get upvotes on Reddit, would it? So yeah, physics still rule out reality outside Reddit as far as I am concerned and Google maps seem to agree with me. What was your Portland route, I can check it out too.
Do you really think all of those cars passed the bus? I have been on that route and I can tell you that the likelihood of that happening is 0. Also, the buses have priority signaling so they never have to wait at red lights for long
The route in Portland was downtown to approximately 42nd Street and powell. The bus drives on bus only roads and crosses a transit only bridge so it beats cars sitting in bumper to bumper traffic every time
Yes, the cars appear to be waiting on the red light and not in a jam. Google maps shows 14 min by car and 28 min by transit between SE 42nd Ave and Powell Blvd to the Pioneer Courthouse Square. I imagine there might be times when car traffic is impeded to the point it takes 60 mins, but Portland buses with dedicated lanes are not everywhere, they have the same problem as trains: the routes are limited and getting around Portland on transit is extremely slow in general.
I am getting 12-28 minutes to drive during rush hour and 27 minutes to take the bus. The car travel time also doesn't factor in walking to the parking garage (10ish minutes when I lived there) and was typically longer than what Google maps is predicting.
You are right that the routes are limited and that's it's a problem. However, this isn't because cars are better, it's because we built the city for cars. It's pretty telling that given all of the hostile car-centric infrastructure, buses can still be competitive to driving. I was resistant to taking the bus at first but then once I tried it, it was the obvious choice for me.
Buses are competitive to driving because they are subsidized, obviously. Poor or frugal people will choose a bus because they either cannot or don't want to afford a car. Ill people also might not be able to drive at all. This is why you don't see private buses. If they really had been competitive on their own, businesses ran them for profit.
And what would be an example of such a neighborhood? The afore mentioned SF and NYC do not appear to be so, other, often mentioned in such thread locale, Tokyo in Japan appears to be also quite large too (Tokyo proper is 850 square miles).
Compare a car-centric city like Houston to city center designed before cars. The entire historic center of Siena with a population of 30,000 people and hundreds of businesses fits in the space of one highway interchange in Houston[1].
There's more worth going to within a 10 minute walk in Siena the there is within a ten minute drive in Houston.
NYC, London or Tokyo also work as examples since traffic moves at a snail's pace. It's trivial to beat a car on transit and a moderately fit person could jog faster than a car there.
Google maps shows 29 min by car and 46 min by transit from HND to Skytree (these are few things I know in Tokyo, 5 hours by foot, btw) so I would not trust something you read on Reddit, much less in a community called literally "fuckcars", seems that it might be exaggerating to support its bias.
Same with Siena (I picked just random points "Hotel Athena" and "Farmacia Ravacciano" as they were highlighted on the maps) 17 mins by car, 26 mins by transit (though walking is faster than transit and biking is faster than car, apparently you cannot drive through the city, very progressive).
Change the time to rush hour in Tokyo on Google maps and the commute is the same. Cars are great if there is no traffic and you can park, which is something we can't just engineer ourselves out of without supporting other modes of transit.
> 17 mins by car, 26 mins by transit (though walking is faster than transit and biking is faster than car, apparently you cannot drive through the city, very progressive).
Walking is almost as fast as driving and biking is faster? Not sure how this proves your point, sounds like it is working as intended
My point is that transit is never faster than car, obviously if you close the streets to vehicles you can make places reachable only by foot. You can as well ban bicycles and biking won't be faster than anything. That is also the easiest way to fix a the daily HN thread about cars being too big and scaring cyclists:)
> My point is that transit is never faster than car, obviously if you close the streets to vehicles you can make places reachable only by foot.
This just isn't true, everything breaks down and driving becomes much slower during rush hour due to inherent limitations of, you guessed it, physics.
See my other comment about my rush hour bus commute in Portland, the bus was faster than driving because of dedicated bus lanes. Driving is only fast if there isn't traffic AND there is ample parking close to your destination.
That is obviously not true. Try driving through central London or central New York during rush hour. Subway will be much faster. Jogging will be faster for a moderately fit person.
Siena bans traffic out of necessity, not just on a whim. There simply isn't space for cars.
A walkable option is convinent, but it is only one aspect of what ppl look for. Can you show, anywhere in the world, an affordable walkable option that would also include: (1) Big private house with a backyard (2) access for trucks (3) close to nature (4) quiet.
You can get all of those things in walkable cities. SF and NYC have single family homes with back yards in walkable neighborhoods, they are just really expensive.
Also all neighborhoods have truck access, including fully pedestrianized streets.
Yea this article makes it sound like the loophole is the primary reason but I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor. Anyone can google the top 5 SUVs sold in 2022. None of them are over the 6,000 pound gross weight limit to be counted as a track. All of them over grown significantly in physical size over the past decade.
American family sizes have steadily dropped for many decades so the editor’s mention of millennials and family sizes contributing to demand for large vehicles is nonsensical.
Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact.
I know one person who did as well but these are tiny percentages of people that can’t possibly be affecting these macro trends.
That tax deduction requires having a business. The general population only knows the bare minimum to file their personal taxes, not how to create a LLC to take advantage of tax breaks.
I'd like to see the US jack up gas taxes, and then at the end of the year, refund most of it as an equal amount per adult. That would create some serious incentives to cut down on driving or even give up cars entirely, while not becoming a cash cow for the feds.
This is clever gamification but probably most of the players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary and the only option for local + regional travel. The effect would be to limit their quality of life, either by deferring access to money for basic expenses, by limiting access to employment, or by discouraging children's access to recreation and socialization opportunities. There are similar arguments against VMT taxes
How about we tax cars as property, based on Blue Book value and modulated by income bracket, and maybe even by specs like weight and fuel economy? Some states are already doing at least a basic version of this. And instead of giving the money back, we can fund fare-free municipal bus and rideshare programs
It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle.
In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Kids can use bikes to get around, families' second cars can be glorified golf carts. Enviro-winning.
I agree about the desirability of free mass transit. To take a case in point, Tallinn (Estonia's capital) instituted it for residents (only), the idea being to get people to undo bogus out-of-city residences and return to the city's tax rolls. The last I read, it's working nicely.
> are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle
As an urban US taxpayer, I'm totally on board with fairness, revenue sharing (rural communities still receive full education, health, etc), and making sure every one has some kind of chance in life. In short, I really want "the greater good" for everyone.
The way it's worked out is urbanites like me unwillingly subsidize sprawl. Thru extortion, deceit (h/t Robert Moses), and tantrums. Some kind of acknowledgment of this parasitic (codependent?) relationship would be nice. Instead, the recipients hate us. Worse, they think they're carrying us.
The USPS is subsidised for the boonies and that's just fine by me. In wider comparison to urban service levels, perhaps health care is the most glaring gap nowadays ?
Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.
Spending the extra money from increased fuel and vehicle sales taxes on public transport would be great for city dwellers in general.
Reduced minimum cost of living for the poor, less traffic for those who drive for a living or have no choice or are willing to pay for luxury.
Rural poor would struggle, they'd need support through another means.
I don't like the idea of extra tax complexity when it could just be an adjustment to headline rates though. Too much admin and potential for benefits cliffs.
Are teslas really the most inconvenient to have in Tokyo?
They’re not small which definitely counts against them, and their weight may play against the stacking garages some folks have, but IIRC having a car in Tokyo requires justifying that you have an off-street parking spot so it seems well suited for EVs.
It's mostly the size. I cycle a lot and Teslas are noticeably bigger/wider than most domestic vehicles, which means they don't fit in a lot of smaller side roads.
There's more inconvenient vehicles out there, but those are the ones I see most frequently.
They are, but from what I’ve seen there are idiots getting US-style pickups in Europe these days.
The stupidity threshold is just higher, because European countries are not designed for vehicles this long or wide so your want for the bloody things has to exceed the sheer inconvenience they are for you (I assume whoever buys these cares nothing for the inconvenience to others), and the money pit they are in fuel and maintenance (as they’re uncommon I’d also assume most garages can’t handle them).
Eh, I think want is a strong word but you're right. Americans are conditioned through predatory advertising to assume the only safe car is a big one, and the only mark of masculinity is size.
Chubbiness of my fellow patriots aside, our commutes suck. Plush seating, ample leg room, and a corpulent selection of infotainment amenities help ease the pain of a 30 mile or more slog through traffic.
A good piece of evidence supporting this view over the article's is that many things are bigger in America than other developed countries, loophole or no loophole.
Take houses — Americans are richer than Europeans, and spend some of that on houses that are significantly larger than European houses.
Sweden has a very different climate than most of the US. Compare houses in Maine or Minnesota to Sweden. The answers to most questions in that article can be answered by visiting Colorado or Virginia or most places.
If you take the average kms driven in America of ~23,000 km per year and you take the already high and heavily carbon taxed gas price where I live in Canada of ~1.50 cad per liter then the gas cost to do those kms in a prius would be around 1,600 cad a year and the cost to do those kms in an f-450 super duty would be around 6,000 cad per year. 4,400 dollars canadian a year ( which is only around 3,200 USD) is not a big enough spread to overwhelm other, more valuable (to the consumer) considerations.
It doesn't help that the well intentioned policies mentioned in the article have effectively bifurcated the market in small and very big, removing consumer choice for smaller (but still large) vehicle designs (i.e. I would love to buy a modern small truck or a hatchback approaching station wagon size, they don't really exist.)
The correct conclusion to me seems to be that, given the physic situation drivers experience on the road, it's foolish to continue pushing on fuel efficiency as we are and instead we need to focus on making the road physics situation unpalatable to these kinds of vehicles to lower their value to consumers (with the added benefit of increasing road safety because the things that make the physics situation unpalatable to huge vehicles are in the same design real as all the stuff people like not just bikes on youtube push that will also make the city more walkable and bikable aka livable).
Mini now makes several different models including SUVs, but the Mini Cooper remains a very small car (shorter than the original VW bug) with a wonderfully roomy front seat that is perfectly comfortable for my 6'2", 300-pound ass. I've read a 6'8" guy recommending it for people his size.
The trade-off is that the back seat might as well not exist. I keep mine folded down to make a two-seater with lots of legroom and cargo space.
not true for trucks at least, smaller pickups got killed by these regulations. Ironic that there are so many people in cities complaining about how big trucks are now when it was stuff they voted for that caused it. Companies still make them, they just can't be sold in the US anymore due to regulations
Pundits consistently underestimate how much income Americans make and how high living standards are compared to the rest of the world. Americans earn a lot of money, hence can afford bigger things in general, likes big homes or cars.
Americans are also notorious for spending their money and not having experienced the destruction of private property during WW2 and communism are sitting on a larger pile of inherited wealth.
The median income is just 20-30% higher compared to Europe.
I believe this has to do with how the cities are designed in some sense. For most places in the US, you need to travel so many miles to get basic stuff including your groceries. This means people would have to prefer convenience more than shorter trips. SUV looks like a good option from that standpoint.
The problem is that the US have relatively few cities proper, in the European meaning of the word. If you live in NYC, most of the time you don't need a car, and a ton of people here don't even own one. If you look at, say, Houston, it's a whole different business.
It's definitely better than America but I think that's an overly rosy view of European cities. Yes the capitals and a handful of the biggest cities are like that, but most of the minor cities have poor enough public transport that a car is still close to a necessity for most of their population.
I live in Germany and even minor cities that probably nobody outside Germany even knows about (like Brandenburg an der Havel, Magdeburg and Halle) have very decent public transit to the point that you don't really need a car to live in any of these.
Not discussed here is car seat and seatbelt requirements. If you have multiple children in car seats or boosters, you’re going to have a hard time getting more than one in the backseat of a sedan.
There are sedans that can have three child seats installed on the backseat.
See [1] and [2] for examples.
Note that the second link is to an Australian site, so may be using car seats that are not available in the US.
Here's a unit, not available in the US, that fits 3 kids in the back of a Fiat 500 [3]. They have a 4 seater [4] that works in a Honda Civic and similar sized cars.
1. Where's the reverse facing seat for infants? Ive had one installed in my car since '16 and Ill continue to have one for another three years (legally anyway. I hate them and Ill probably chuck it in two).
2. There are tons of car review sites touting three cars seats side by side. I own one of these cars. They don't actually fit. Not in real life. Think of it like the McBurger commercial on TV. In real life... bleh.
3. A big car solves many problems other than transporting three kids. Ive only put 2800 miles on my SUV this year, but:
- Ive driven six (six!) people on two >600 mi journeys.
- Ive loaded it with all the tiles and flooring needed for my remodel
- picked up 2x4s and the like
- taken my neighbors kid's to the theater with my family many times
In what sense are minivans “better” than SUVs such that this question is relevant? I could imagine some have lower bumper heights (safer for pedestrians) but they’re definitely getting higher. One imagines they are broadly comparable in terms of weight.
(Personally I find minivans have more utility, but I don’t feel like I’m doing something “right” by owning one instead of an SUV).
Minivans do have more utility in the hardware store since they open up more, but modern "SUV"s are dressed up minivans and get similar millage as an SUV.
So I really don't understand minivan love paired with SUV hate (mid sized ones anyway)
Indeed, and when I was looking to buy my SUV i was gravitating towards the minivan version of my SUV. But it didnt come with AWD, and my wife insisted on it despite my protests.
In fact the minivan would have been more practical, but environmentally indistinguishable. The minivan has the same engine my SUV has and, to my eye anyway, has a larger frontal area.
A custom $1500 set of car seats for a small compact is unreasonable. Good luck fitting three normal car seats in any of the sedans in that first link. It’s difficult enough in a _full size truck_.
I have friends (not soccer moms) who often transport a lot of people for activities (like shuttles for whitewater paddling). A number of them use minivans and don't like how the options have decreased relative to 3-row SUVs which they think are relatively less practical cars for their purposes. (And I tend to agree.)
The market optimizes for what people will buy, not what they like. If people begrudgingly buy 3 row SUVs instead of minivans, the bean counters count that as a win.
There are still 4 minivans on the US market, and really I don’t think there’s space for any others to sell successfully. The ones that exist are damn competitive for what they are, and they still don’t sell well.
>There are still 4 minivans on the US market, and really I don’t think there’s space for any others to sell successfully. The ones that exist are damn competitive for what they are, and they still don’t sell well.
Oh I don't really disagree. The Sienna and Odyssey seem like good vehicles. I'm less familiar with the remaining American(?) models.
I also don't know enough to meaningfully speculate why 3-row SUVs took over from minivans for fairly similar use cases even though they seem less effective in a lot of circumstances. Part of it is probably image--especially for some male drivers--but I lack the data to have a strong opinion.
Most of the “SUVs” in the US market are really just minivans disguised to look masculine. It took a few decades for manufacturers to realize that this is what people wanted- the rugged looks of a 4x4 with the people transporting ability of a minivan, and no wasted expense or weight on offroad ability. The VW Atlas for example is made specifically for the US market, a 3 row front wheel drive minivan that looks SUV like.
It was pretty funny 20 years ago before this was realized- big SUVs had low range transfer cases, skid plates, lockers, air suspension, and tons of other expensive and complicated offroad hardware. The people buying and driving these had no idea what those parts were for, and only found out they had them when they would accidentally activate them on pavement and get an expensive repair bill.
RAV4 and HR-V came out in 1990s, somehow I doubt doubt they had any off-road equipment installed in the base even of the 4WD trims. Very few people looked for off-road capabilities indeed, this is why the unibody "crossovers" exploded in the 90s as they are more practical than station wagons (which almost disappeared since then) and minivans in many cases.
The first generation RAV4 has a center diff lock, and a good amount of ground clearance, but the vehicles I was talking about are mostly full sized premium SUVs loaded with expensive gadgets like the Lexus LX, VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Jeep Grand Cherokee, etc. Now all of those companies make similar sized vehicles with less offroad equipment.
I don't get why anybody that has operated a sliding door would choose a 3row SUV. It's just so practical and you don't have to worry about the kiddos door dinging anyone.
Yup. I can squeeze the kids in the Golf... if my eldest doesn't use her booster.
I can put them in the Sorrento.... But I have to buckle her into her seat belt while shes standing holding the boosted. Then I have to lift them both to get them i to position.
We want a new car. We were going to buy a Sienna hybrid. But they're ridiculously priced, unobtainium and, frankly, not that big. So Im looking at a low milage Expedition Max or convincing the wife for a Sprinter.
Love the Golf, but honestly, the hatchback versa's space efficiency impressed me more than the golf. It's significantly smaller than the golf, but its tall, has a smaller engine bay and very thin doors.
It was easier to pack my firstborn's stuff in it than the Golf. We got rid of it for the Sorrento when we got rear ended when my daughter was four days old. Then I decided I'd get the heaviest vehicle I could then afford - the Sorrento.
Yeah, why not allow for 3-row wagons and the return of 3rd rows with reversed seating? It seems like an easy win for some families who have to choose between an SUV or van.
Dumb weight for one. Structural design for another. Everything in between the teo axles has to be very strong since it keeps forces generated by the road from ripping the car apart.
On top of that, outside the axles, you're in the automobile's crumple zone - ie it's deliberately designed to fold in itself to absorb the blow of impact.
I don't like putting my mother in law on my SUV's third row - I'm loath to put my kid
You can get two car seats in pretty much any not tiny car. Three or more, sure. Are 3+ children families really that common in America? They're pretty rare in the UK now due to childcare costs and the fact that housewives are rare.
Back in the 1980s Toyota started making super efficient cars that hardly ate any gas. So Detroit had to start going along with the idea. Cars back then got a lot more gas mileage than they do today even though the engines were not as sufficient but they did so because the cars had much lighter weight than they do today.. cars today are heavier per volume because of all the safety regulations. The safety regulations were pushed through Congress based on media scare propaganda about traffic safety and car crashes and so forth. But who paid the media to put out all that propaganda. That led to safer but heavier cars that consumed more gasoline? I have an idea. I think it was the oil companies that paid the media to put out scare propaganda about automobile safety and then they paid the politicians to pass the laws to make cars a lot safer and heavier.. that caused the price of gas to go back up
They talk about SUVs the size of the Ford Expedition, which certainly sold well, but smaller SUVs like the Ford Explorer, Chevy Blazer and Jeep Cherokee that are more similar to the crossovers our roads are jammed with today sold even bigger number and continued to grow in popularity.
I think the number of reason is cheap fuel compared to Europe, marketing, infrastructure and norms. We don’t have old cities with narrow streets like Europe does. Our suburban homes have space for a large car. Our cars were always big.
SUVs have grown in popularity in Europe too. In Germany it feels like it’s becoming the new standard car class, every brand seems to have an SUV as their most popular model.
Please note that what's called SUV in Europe is quite different from the average SUV on US roads. A vehicle in the sub-compact segment consuming less than 5.5 liters of gasoline per 100 km is something else than a Grand Cherokee.
The loophole enabled car makers to produce SUVs but ultimately the consumers who still had a choice between fuel efficient sedans and SUVs, overwhelmingly chose to buy SUVs.
Sure, in the same way that when I'm trying to lose weight and want a snack I will make a choice between a celery stick and a cookie, or I can forestall the choice by not having a cookie in the house in the first place. The story of Odysseus and the sirens.
Except in automotive we have options that taste like cookies with all the benefits of celery sticks: hatchbacks and wagons with great cargo capacity, ride quality, driving dynamics, and fuel efficiency. In America we go with the unhealthy cookie even though the healthy one tastes the same, because we don't want to look gay or poor
I daily a sports car and am shopping for an old Bronco I don't need. Come from a family and community where everyone owns a body-on-frame truck or SUV. I'm just stating the facts
Yeah, people are quick to call regulation, but the consumers continue to have the choice. It's not like they're obligated to buy a car that's so tall you can run over a child without noticing.
And then again, other countries have lower limits on the weight of vehicles you can drive with a regular driver's license.
> It's not like they're obligated to buy a car that's so tall you can run over a child without noticing.
We're stuck in a race to the top.
Intuitively, a larger car is safer: if two differently-sized cars are in a crash, the big one will win while the small one suffers greater damage. In the modern age of safetyism, that means that if I'm on a road surrounded by larger cars, I also must by a large car in self defense. Thus, everybody keeps upping the ante, buying larger cars.
(FWIW, I don't subscribe to that approach. I favor a nimble and agile car to allow me to avoid a collision in the first place.)
Nope. I own a truck (mostly because I do some light forestry work a few times a year that a smaller utility vehicle can't handle) and they're generally perfectly fine for driving. American parking lots are a good deal larger than what you'll find in a dense urban European city.
Additionally, the newest models have had 360 degree cameras for a few years now since they're cheap to add and mark up the price by a bit. An inexperienced driver will have an easier time parking one of those than a standard sedan without.
It is profoundly stupid to own a pickup truck if you don't plow snow, need to haul things off road, or regularly tow recreational vehicles.
With that said, the higher trim models are easily the most comfortable vehicles to ride in that you'll find. I'm 6'4", and I can sit in the back seat of a modern crew cab truck without slouching and leg room to spare. Most smaller cars I can't even do that in the driver's seat.
You only need that if driving commercially, but the real barrier to entry is a training program before any carriers will take you seriously as a professional driver.
For reference you can drive 60ft of recreational nonsense in most states with a basic license.
The old struggle between the Dreadnought and the Battlecruiser rears its ugly head again. It's amazing how such different things can run into the same human idioms.
The intent of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was to make all passenger vehicles in America more fuel efficient. But auto lobbyists convinced regulators to make a subtle change to the bill’s text. While efficiency standards for cars would be written into the law itself, the standards for trucks were to be set by regulators at the Transportation Department.
In short, because SUVs are built on a truck frame and are considered trucks, they are not held to the same fuel standards as cars.
If the infrastructure in the US gave less space to cars, cars would be forced to stay relatively small. If we in Europe also had huge roads everywhere, no pavements, no cycle paths etc, we'd also have much larger cars.
Create more small, local neighbourhoods with everything needed in them. Make sure everyone has a grocery store, a school, a doctor's office, and green space like a park within walking distance.
The rules penalized larger cars, but but equivalent sized SUVs. They also mandated a lot of new safety stuff that is heavy: airbags, side impact protection, pedestrian crash stuff, crumple zones, cameras, etc.
So this basically killed off wagons, which were what people actually wanted to drive. My last three cars have gone from 2500 (1998) to 2750 (2016) to 3300 (2022) despite being basically the same size and same function.
