This video here explains one of the issues one minute in. Definitely worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh4H9qZ-_6Y&t=55
The way car companies are working around this legislation is why it’s so hard to find and buy smaller sized cars (like smart cars) even if there is demand. It also makes our community less safe for pedestrian traffic.
The sad part is that Europe is seeing a lot of SUVs too. Not as big as whzt we see in the US. But they are there. We also start seeing american style pick up trucks. Luckily, people pay more taxes for these kind of cars.
In Switzerland there was apparently some kind of loophole in the tax system which allowed you to register your pickup truck as a company vehicle (and pay less) even when you don’t have any company or if you are just working as a hairdresser…
I fucking hate these piece of shit cars. I will never not think that they all have to compensate for something.
Pickup trucks are fine. It’s the huge ones with giant cabs and useless beds that are just a fashion accessory.
“But muh work tools”, yeah just get a sprinter van like normal people. You can fit more, and you can close and lock it so your shit doesn’t get stolen out of the bed.
Sometimes it’s down to more than what the vehicle can carry, but what the vehicle can tow. A pickup with a 3.5 tonne towing capacity might be a far more useful vehicle than a van that can only pull 1 tonne for example.
Maybe, but the same “work pickups” you see everywhere also aren’t towing anything.
But the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter Van has a towing capacity of 5000-7500 pounds, or 2.5-3.75 tons, depending on configuration. That’s the same range as most medium pickups.
Large vans are often made on the same chassis as trucks, so they have the same transmission and maybe a slightly reduced towing capacity
I’m not decrying the abilities of a big van, I drive a 3.5 tonne Transit for work and love it. But we are comparing apples with oranges. I have a friend who owns a Nissan Navara. During the week it is onsite, dragging machinery around building sites. At the weekend it is a family car, taking the kids out etc.
I do admit though, not all pickups are used in this way and my mate is probably in the minority where he has a genuine need for a vehicle that can handle the extremes of work life and home life.
100%, you drive a vehicle like that and you are just screaming to the void “don’t look at my small penis and/or small paycheck”.
Same in the UK. Very curious how all over the world, governments created exactly the same tax loophole. I can’t think which highly resourced industry might have been involved in “advising” them
At least in Switzerland, people were really using them for work until a few days ago.
It was only farmers, carpenters or builders until it became a trend.
I guess the law was okay before but they never thought that someone would want to have such a huge vehicle just to get groceries 😅
They’re so fucking stupid. Worse in every way compared to normal cars, but they make idiots feel important, and car makers seem to prefer them.
Ford fucking discontinued the C-Max, a great car in my opinion, and replaced it with… Nothing? The Puma? It’s way smaller, while the Kuga is more expensive.
Oh and by the way, most of these SUVs are 2WD so they ridiculous in any kind of non-optimal road, let alone off the road.
The margins are why car makers prefer them. Crossovers are cheap to make, have fewer emission regulations, and they conveniently sell for higher prices.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=Fh4H9qZ-_6Y&t=55
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I can’t stand those idiot trucks that have a chopped-in-half rear bed so they can cram in an undersized back seat.
A truck is for moving shit. If you can’t fit a sheet of plywood in the back of your truck, your truck is a candy ass piece of crap powered by 100% small dick energy.
I call them vans with a 4 foot tumour.
I’ve seen trucks with 8’ beds and big crew cabs. They’re like 30 feet long, though
No issue with those. I’m talking about the pretend trucks.
deleted by creator
I think you’re expecting too much from the English version of Spain’s #2 newspaper.
Yep, can’t expect too much from El Pais
I wish wagons were more popular. They’re great for fitting all the stuff in for the family, but lighter and much better handling. I don’t know why SUVs became the thing, but I wish wagons would be a come-back. A Tesla wagon would be awesome.
Took me years to realize but “Crossover SUVs” are basically just Hatchbacks with slightly higher suspensions. Hell, manufacturers like Subaru literally use the same chassis as their sedans.
Which is slightly different than a station wagon but is close enough for the vast majority of people since the main distinction is more vertical storage capacity because of rounded edges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon#Comparison_with_hatchbacks). Which… definitely was an issue when I had to make multiple dump runs but never comes up in “real life” as it were.
Like, I hate that I drive a “SUV”. But when I was doing more or less everything I could to NOT buy one I eventually realized “A hatchback Impreza with a lift kit sounds perfect” was literally at the same dealership.
As for SUVs in general: a lot of it is people thinking they need a giant vehicle to carry their one child around town.
But the other aspect is… driving in a sedan sucks these days. You are surrounded by pickup trucks where the wheel axis is already at eye level. You have no visibility in traffic and are pretty regularly afraid of what happens if someone doesn’t stop.
Like I said, I drive a hatchback/crossover now. And that generally puts me at bumper height on a lot of trucks which… still means my visibility is shit but means I am less likely to get monster trucks driving on top of me.
The worst crossover I saw is the Ford Ecosport. It is basically a Ford Fiesta with higher suspension. It has nothing to do with a SUV, it is small, has 0 towing capacity, is 3000lbs, has a 3 cylinders engine, cost 30’000$ (in canada). The most useless and expensive thing. A Fiesta was half the price for essentially the same frame/car.
They took a Fiesta and made it heavier with worse handling. And they do it with every car now. It’s infuriating.
Honestly? I kind of liked the concept of it. I always thought it looked hideous (I mean, it IS a Ford…) but the size and height seemed good.
Also, I think that was mostly geared toward non-US markets where having the extra seats and the like are good but people don’t want to drive a hotel room on wheels.
That actually sounds pretty good to me. If the rear seats go down so I can put bigger stuff in the back, that’s a huge advantage over the weird trunk angles you have to work with in a sedan. I don’t need to tow anything, but a slightly higher ride is useful when I’m going out in the woods and need to clear rocks in the middle of the unmaintained road.
Except the price. That’s unnecessary.
The ecosport has neither trunk room nor rear leg room. The only way to get any amount of space is to put the rear seats down then you can fit some things.
Height is an advantage, but length is still surprisingly short. Plus ya know, no rear passenger room.
Hmm, you’re right. Needs a bit more length.
If you drive a Subaru Crosstrek you are not part of the problem imo. That’s a reasonably priced, highly functional compact crossover. The real problems are trucks, full-sized SUVs, and other “mall terrain vehicles.”
The Crosstrek has an incredibly short body. I wanted to get one but my head touched the ceiling with the seat fully adjusted. I’m tall, but not that tall.
I used to complain about the promotion of hatchback for cargo space because they were really a regular trunk turned vertically. Your Wikipedia link shows that well with the ~2008 Focus examples. If you compare the 2012+ focus, it’s a bit clearer because that generation offered a 5 door hatch alongside the 4 door sedan. I disliked the tradeoff of the large rear opening (with folding seats) because it came with a shortened trunk length and the sloped rear glass reduced total volume (compared to a wagon typically having more vertical glass and being longer overall than the sedan). However, the shorter version do have a purpose if you frequently park in the street or any other urban/dense lots. They’re easier to parallel park and less likely to get swiped in garages and such as people swing wide. They offer 4-5 seats, they offer a large cargo area, just not at the same time. That makes enough sense to me for vehicles living their daily duty as single-person vehicles.
That’s basically how my daily driving duty is now split between a small motorcycle and, for bad weather, a 4x4 (hi/lo) body-on-frame convertible 2-door suv smaller than a miata Geo Tracker.
In the other branch we already pointed out that the Fiesta/Ecosport were very much “european” SUVs as it were.
And yeah, I think it was the Yaris that didn’t have foldable seats and was just REAL shitty? But basically every modern hatchback/“crossover suv” has foldable seats.
I am no expert. But of the cars I have seriously researched in the past decade or so (Subaru Crosstrek, one of the Hyundai ICEs, Subaru Solterra, Hyundai ioniq5): they all have folding seats and all have comparable storage.
And from personal experience? When I have a LOT of cardboard to take to recycling or a lot of yard waste to take to the dump, the curvature and vertical issues are a bit annoying. Mostly in a “I guess I need to break this down more or pack this tighter” kind of way but it is still annoying.
But for doing ikea runs 8 hours away or picking up lumber or piping or whatever from the hardware store? Zero issues. Because I DON"T want heavy stuff stacked up to head level behind me when I might need to stop suddenly.
And for just heading into towns for groceries, clothes, random ass boxes, etc? I rarely ever even have to fold the seat down.
Which was mostly my point. There are definitely cases where the curvature and loss of vertical storage space are an issue. But, by and large, those are either incredibly niche or you actually have a good reason to own a pickup truck.
Agree. As for the history, wagons were popular in the 70s, but the minivan really took off in the 80s. This led to a perception that Minivans weren’t masculine, so there was a big boom in SUVs which had the volume and utility of a Minivan, but were more manly.
It doesn’t really matter if you get a larger SUV, you’re still shorter than the jacked up F150+’s and such. We have a car and a 17yo 4Runner (and I try to use it for hauling more than kids and going on more terrain than asphalt), but even the 4Runner is dwarfed by most things. Almost every thing I park it near is larger at this point. Heck a 4th gen 4Runner is within inches of the dimensions of a current Ford Escape, it’s crazy.
If you’re curious, it is because wagons are classified as passenger vehicles and SUVs are classified as light trucks. Wagons are held to higher emissions/safety standards than SUVs, making them less profitable to produce in the US. So most automakers steer clear. They don’t want to accidentally compete with their own most profitable products by selling a less profitable one that better-matches what consumers need.
Also fuck Tesla.
Chuck Testa? Nope, fuck Tesla.
Wagons and minivans - which are great substitutes for SUVs - have a negative stigma because everybody’s parents had one and people don’t want to feel old.
Hopefully the same thing will happen to SUVs.
You’re probably right but wagons can be cool now.
No need to convince me, I love my v60
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Can’t really claim better efficiency at that point
Still more efficient than the same thing in boxy SUV form.
I was talking to someone last year and doing 100mph in a 5.0 V8 Mustang he was getting better mpg than 70mph in a Kia Soul (about 25). Make an aerodynamic wagon and you’re golden.
Anything’s cool I’m the 100k plus grouping…
The Mercedes looks tolerable, although it wouldn’t be the car I would choose for that price. The Audi is downright hideous. I would rather pay half as much to get both a Miata for when I want to have fun and a truck for when I need the cargo space.
Huh my parents had a Bronco, don’t like that style. Also had a minivan, very good vehicle that I would get for family life.
Not quite a wagon but I love my Honda Fit, it sips gas, handles surprisingly well for a car in its price range and it’s amazing how much stuff you can Fit into the little guy
My old Mazda protege was basically that with a foot longer trunk. It was perfect size.
I’m just glad they’re bringing back small trucks. I don’t want a small-penismobile, I want a vehicle I can throw some lumber and such in on occasion.
Which is why I love my Hyundai Santa Cruz. Sucker can tow 3500lb but can get 35mpg highway
Aw man I miss my Volvo wagon. I should have never sold it. I would love to get another used one but I would have to pay triple what I sold it for to get it back these days, prices are just insane since they stopped making anything decent years ago.
Buying a car nowadays is a freaking nightmare, I hope mine lasts many more years
There isn’t a single new car out that I want to own more than the equivalent discontinued model.
I was with you on everything until that last sentence.
deleted by creator
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
https://www.newsweek.com/its-hard-find-small-car-us-thats-not-going-change-soon-1808174
Also the average length of car ownership before buying something else is about 5 years, but the average loan duration for a new car is 7 years.
The car market in the US is just screwed.
My Honda Civic was built in 2008 and it’s fine. My car before that was a Nissan Sentra and it lived 22 years. Drive them until they are piles of rust kept going by duct tape and raw anger, and try not to shed manly tears when they are crushed into a cube.
I am sorry car, but this is a good death.
My 2006 Civic was a lemon. I had to replace it after only 10 years
Only the lower end “economy” Hondas are super reliable. Honda’s higher-end models tend to use newer and less well-vetted engineering while the basic models all rely on older tried and true technology. I learned this the hard way with my 2006 Accord V6 which was a blast to drive, but like yours only lasted about 10 years before it started having serious and very expensive problems.
that’s insane, I have a 2005 toyota corolla with zero interest in getting a new car.
Those that do loans are much more likely to have negativity equity when trading in. Which is already proven with those who have terms longer than 4 years. This means on trading in, the borrower is looking at an increased car payment on top of the already higher average transaction price of $35,000. If you put money down, default on the loan and lose the car, you’ve quite literally given away money.
It’s true the average loan is 7 years, but within the last few years there are 10 year (!) loans are available. This helps bring down an $800 payment. But that interest is gonna suck if you don’t get a very low rate.
Those that pay off their loans tend to keep their cars for 10 to 12 years. Assuming the car doesn’t catastrophically fail. Which anecdotally happened to our family. 1.6L Ford EcoBoost defect killed the engine 2 years after a 4 year loan was paid off.
Speaking anecdotally here, I wonder if the banks are trying to push those super long loans, too. I bought my car last year, have excellent credit, and put 50% down. The only loan I was offered was an 8 year loan when I wanted 4. Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible, and it was much faster than the 4 years I asked for.
Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible
As a general FYI for anyone who reads this comment, be aware that bank loans front load the payment of the interest, and the payment of the principal is done on the back end.
So you have to pay off a loan very quickly to avoid the majority of the interest you would pay for that loan.
Finally, if you pay extra to try to finish a loan off early, make sure any extra amount you pay is marked as “principal only”. Banks are supposed to always apply any extra to the principal, but a lot of times they apply the extra to the interest, unless you explicitly tell them not to.
In this case, I had a deal that had no penalties for early payoff, so in my case, paying off my car in 1/8 the time saved me 7 years of interest with no serious downside. Unless you count credit scores being BS and paying off loans early technically not being ideal credit management.
Fair enough, but I wasn’t actually talking about early payoff penalty. I was speaking to the payback schedule that the loan company has you reimburse them with.
You pay your loan back on a monthly basis. In the earlier years, each monthly payment goes (for example) 80% to interest owed, and 20% owed to principal. Usually around the last fiveish years mark, your payment is applied 10% interest, 90% principal. The bank/loan giver makes sure they get their profit from offering you the loan in the earlier years. In other words, each monthly payment by you is NOT going 50%/50% interest/principal.
Don’t get me wrong though, its ALWAYS good to pay off your loan early, from a total $ amount paid when you are done point of view. But if you take ten years to pay off a fifteen year loan, you’ve paid off most of the interest owed already, where if you pay off a fifteen year loan in five years you’ve paid less interest owed, % wise.
(The time frames I mention above is estimates for sake of this discussion, YMMV for your actual load, but the principal of what’s being said is valid.)
Not all cars are bought with loans though.
Then those data points will have 0 for their loan years and it should bring dowm your average years.
Are those data points even included in the set?
The opposite is also possible: those bought with loans are probably bought new, and would be expected to be held onto for longer. Older cars are cheaper and are probably bought more with cash. They probably also kick the bucket / are re-sold more quickly.
That has to be the case only in the US.
Not really. Even in EU the cars are getting bigger even if not as fast as in the US.
Some year ago the small city cars were smaller than the today version.
Would you rather make more money per unit product or less money per unit product?
well yea, that’s obviously why they do it.
doesn’t make it good.
Change the laws. If it is a truck you should have to get a CDL, have to go to weight stations, cant drive on the parkway etc. If it is a car it should have to follow the emission rules cars have. There is no point in having standards if we make exceptions so big you can drive a cough…sports utility vehicle…cough through.
Edit: of course we can pretty much end the pickup market tomorrow if we provide free therapy for men with a micropenis.
I am sure car companies spend a ton of money lobbying politicians to never do this.
Fine whatever. I will start leaving notes in the bed of gas guzzling pickups that say “sorry about the micropenis you feel you need to compensate for”
that would be a great way to undermine your entire cause.
some people just prefer larger cars, and pivoting to some bizarre comment about their genitalia is an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with the issue.
and pivoting to some bizarre comment about their genitalia is an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with the issue.
I was just about to say the same thing to the person you were replying to.
Immature responses doesn’t convince anyone of anything.
Oh woah is me. The small dick energy crowd won’t be on my side. Oh woah is me woah is me.
If it is a truck you should have to get a CDL, have to go to weight stations, cant drive on the parkway etc.
Literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You clearly don’t know what a CDL is, don’t understand the function of weigh stations, and for that, actual trucks that require them have had emission systems for a long time now.
You clearly don’t know what a CDL is
Could you give the rest of us a quick education on what that is?
2 secs with Google would show you it’s a Commercial Driver’s License. Used for Commercial Vehicles which have a gross weight of over 26k lbs, or required to tow a trailer over 10k lbs GVR. But I’m sure you already knew that. Weight stations are for weighing vehicles that qualify as CMV’s and / or that are subject to the FMCSR’s, hence the 3 little red lights in the back of them, but again, you knew that.
For those that (actually) didn’t know, there ya go.
2 secs with Google would show you it’s a Commercial Driver’s License.
I’n never sure though that the initials a person is using is for the same thing that comes up as the first item on a Google search, so I like to ask the person instead.
But I’m sure you already knew that.
I wouldn’t have bothered asking if I did.
but again, you knew that.
Not sure how I pissed you off, but I really didn’t know.
For those that (actually) didn’t know, there ya go.
As someone who didn’t know, thank you.
You must be lots of fun at parties.
Boring…sorry you were shortchanged down there.
Shortchanged on what? Reality?
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
From the article…
“SUVs and crossovers were traditionally less fuel efficient and more expensive, but that’s not the case anymore. Engine and technology advancements have leveled those drawbacks. SUVs and crossovers are now just as fuel efficient and offer more hauling capability as similar-sized cars for about the same price in many cases,”
So, who do I believe?
“Engine and technology advancements” can also be applied to smaller cars so that doesn’t really move the needle anywhere.
I think it’s quite obvious that unless you discover how to break the laws of physics, the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
Be interesting to know how much different the two were, if the difference was minimal, or very large.
If it’s minimal, and you need the carrying capacity, then it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to own a SUV.
If it’s not minimal, yeah then it’s better just renting an SUV size vehicle when you need to carry something of large capacity. Unless you need that capacity each and every day, then it would be cost prohibitive to rent versus own.
There’s nothing to not believe, look up the fuel averages. My wife’s Escape averages 40mpg.
Interesting that this is focused on the UK and mentions Europe. I (like other commenters) expected this was about the US market before I read the article.
That would mean they were subject to EURO emissions regulations.
I’ve noticed a huge uptake in big American trucks here in Europe. I hate it!
Same here. They need a higher tax unless it’s actually a work vehicle.
Even then they shouldn’t be allowed imho, a van is a much more practical work vehicle and is actually designed to be practical for work. A van sits 2 or maybe 3, not sacrificing a huge amount of space for backseats and an extra set of doors. There is usually one or two big sliding doors, which don’t require a lot of room to open but provide a lot of access. They don’t have a huge nose with a giant engine. The nose is kept as small as possible, so the space is maximized whilst the vehicle size is minimized. The driver position is designed to have maximum visibility, the vehicle is expected to navigate relatively small spaces, with other people also working there, so you need to see as much as possible. Two big doors in the back give plenty of access and usually can be closed in a way larger cargo can stick out of the back (within safety limits). Usually there’s also a roof rack, with some trades permanently mounting stuff like ladders and conduit. Large long items can be securely transported there. All other cargo is inside, not exposed to the elements or theft. The metal panels are kept flat, this again maximizes space whilst minimizing vehicle size. The panels are also very easy and quick to repair, as damage is expected being a work vehicle. The places with the most chance of damage usually have blank metal bars, when damaged they can be repaired or replaced easily and cheap. Vans overall are way more practical, cheaper to own and operate and actually designed with a working life in mind.
The whole big trucks are for work argument doesn’t fly, they are super impractical for actual work. Maybe a pickup truck from the late 80s or 90s filled the role as a mix between work vehicle and daily driver better. Which could be useful for rural people which wouldn’t have to have multiple vehicles. But not today.
Boring coloured SUV is the British car landscape now. The motorways are depressing enough but it’s a grey scale dystopia now.
Exactly the same in Australia.
I thought it was at first too. In the U.S. (at least, here in Texas) I feel like the bigger offender is all the lifted trucks, coal-rollers, etc. Not sure how bad muscle cars are but they’re also very prevalent. Seems like every 5th person in my city has a Mustang or Charger with a muffler delete.
The US transitioned to SUVs and trucks a long time ago now, so those emissions are already built in
Have you seen the number of fannies driving about in Audi SUVs these days?
They are and carbon emissions restrictions between Euro 5 and 6 didn’t change for gas cars. Carbon emissions are directly linked to fuel economy, it either comes out as CO or CO2, that study didn’t mention other emissions because it would have shown that more modern SUVs emit less than 10 years old cars because Euro 6 is more strict for the rest. If comparing diesels the difference is even greater.
Heck, with the deterioration of the emission equipment the more modern SUV is probably better for carbon emissions and it’s only on paper that the older vehicle is better.
I think it’s beyond time to get rid of the “light truck” classification for suvs.
Especially since they aren’t even light any more. Compare a Ford Ranger from the 1990s or early 2000s to the current generation and it looks like a toy. The current generation of light trucks and SUVs are bigger than full sized trucks and SUVs from 20 years ago.
The “light truck” segment is in comparison to the big semis or tractor trailers, which are medium or heavy duty trucks, and often require a commercial driver’s license to operate.
For example, the typical school bus or fire truck is classified as a medium duty truck.
Heavy duty trucks generally include things like cement mixers or dump trucks.
The light truck category is incredibly broad (everything from zero to 14,000 lbs. My point is that the current crop of light trucks are verging closer to the top of that category than they historically had been even within that category apart from its increasing presence in the mix of consumer cars.
https://www.badgertruck.com/heavy-truck-information/truck-classification/
An f350 can get that heavy, but 99% of the pickup trucks you see aren’t even half that weight.
There’s an interesting corollary to this in the school bus world. Beginning in 2004, the EPA started imposing emissions standards on diesel engines and the standards have become increasingly stringent over the years. The standards govern the allowed amounts of NOx (nitrous oxides) and particulate matter to be emitted, but the units measured are per-horsepower-miles, meaning that an engine with twice the horsepower is allowed to emit twice the NOx and twice the particulate matter amounts, which has led to bus engines that have much more power than their counterparts from twenty years ago did - despite this added power being largely unnecessary for hauling kids around at relatively low speeds.
And importantly, the EPA diesel engine standards do not in any way govern CO2 output, so today’s school bus fleet is emitting far more of it than twenty years ago.
More interestingly, the emissions equipment which prevents particulate matter from entering the atmosphere does so by burning more fuel. This makes the engines emit even more co2 than they would without the emissions.
Are you sure about that? I think possibly you’re thinking of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) which most engine manufactures used to handle the initial 2004 standards (which did not include particulate matter standards) but which is not really used any more. The main things used today are DPF (diesel particulate filter) and DEF (diesel exhaust fluid).
I’m not a diesel mechanic or anything, I just know what I know from owning a school bus (from 2003, yay!) and researching the emissions issues.
Yes I am sure about that. When the diesel particulate filters clog up with soot, the ECU triggers post injection events so that extra diesel fuel will burn in the exhaust raising the temperature of the diesel particulate filter and burning the soot out. These events cause your miles per gallon to decrease significantly.
Hey don’t hate on factory 600+lb-ft diesels so many great engine swaps in my OSB pickups future.
I don’t remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.
Yes! It’s called Jevons paradox
Wow it is like induced demand but for resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Thank you!
This isn’t an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.
Yep, providing exemptions for vehicles under the weight threshold where a commercial driver’s license is required is dumb.
Could you elaborate? Edit: I see, other people mentioned in the thread about the lobbies and efforts to mask emissions.
I can confirm. In 2023 despite having LED lightbulbs - we consume 7 more watts per hour per lightbulb than the average lightbulb did in 1546.
The lights back then probably weren’t very bright were they?
But they used very little electricity, almost none
They also did jack shit for illumination, so…
The average light bulbs in 1546 definitely did jack shit that’s for sure.
Yeah considering they didn’t discover electricity until the 1700s then they didn’t even invent one that lasted long enough to be practical until 1879.
That’s the joke isn’t it? Just for historical context Michaelangelo completed the Last Judgement on the Sistine chapel in 1541, so like 5 years before 1546, and I don’t think he had flashlights to help him with the lighting.
Vacuum cleaners are the classic example, IMO.
When introduced, they were supposed to make cleaning rugs take less time, freeing time and effort for other activities, but instead housewives just cleaned their rugs more often.
Would means rugs are quite a bit cleaner now, so I would say the vacuum did its job.
Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.
led comes to mind here with this explanation. extremely more efficient then most other light sources. but because it is so efficient we see led being used everywhere. and almost never turned of because people say it barely uses any power. also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more. (similar what they did to the old light bulb)
also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more.
Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?
What if instead we had Less Cars and more Public Transit?
Sure! But that’s not a silver bullet.
Decarbonization is a multi-prong solution and switching everything over to public transportation would take decades. It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds. Investing in public transportation, bike infrastructure and electrifying our cars are all necessary for our goal to lower green house gasses.
Perfect is the enemy of good
It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds.
It took the Netherlands what, 20 years? There’s also countless examples of cities just deciding to have better public infrastructure and then acting on it.
More than 20 years, peak car ridership occurred in the 1970s which was close to 80% of urban transportation done by car. That number is now down to 19% of all urban transportation done by car.
Amsterdam also had backing from the public to transition to bike and public transportation.
Absolutely we should invest in public transportation! And you are right that cities have decided to create public transportation, and then did! But it took a decade plus to plan, build and implant the new system. That’s also ignoring the millions and billions of dollars needed.
Id like to have more public transit than I currently have which is none.
Please clap lemmy
“But there’s no profit in that. Why would we do that?”
- the people with all the power
But there is profit in it. Public transit can be a revenue generator that at least pays for itself as opposed to roads that are nothing but a huge cost over its lifetime.
And then there are the second-order effects of better economic activity in the areas around metro stations, a healthier populace that is less of a burden on the healthcare system, and overall higher happiness, which makes for better workers. It’s just that it can take a decade or two to see these effects come to fruition.
But politicians rarely see that far out.
That’s not how the calculations for streets work. National economy is pretty darn complex and streets are paying for itself in a lot of countries.
Source: Trust me bro.
Public transit literally pays for itself, no “darn complex” calculation required.
Do you go to work for free?
As a cyclist, COVID lockdown was bliss. No vehicles on the roads, just other cyclists out for their hour of exercise. It was literally mind blowing how different the roads felt.
And get rid of all those union jobs?
Why are you promoting a fallacious idea?
Why are you disregarding my idea without providing any effort or ideas of your own?
Because they can’t, and running purely on ignorance.
It seems like the growth of trucks should play a big part of it, too. When I was young the majority of vehicles on the road were cars. Where I’m at, at least, it seems like the majority of people are driving trucks with a large minority of crossovers, and the occasional 10 year old car.
A big part of this is also that the auto industry is increasingly steering people to buy big, expensive, profitable trucks over smaller, saner, more reasonable vehicles (that they earn less profit on).
It’s not just that consumers “want” these vehicles. Consumers are being pushed to want them.
There’s a reason Kei-style trucks basically do not exist in the US – because they’re cheap and useful and the automakers thus dare not allow them.
Vehicles classified as light duty trucks in the US are also not subject to such strict emissions standards. Many crossovers are classified as light trucks despite being the same platforms as sedans, but because the classification is different the crossover can cut costs the sedan can’t at the expense of emissions. And because of this for a while now “light trucks” have composed the majority of vehicle sales in the US.
It’s confusing that vehicles get favorable treatment from the EPA simply for being taller. Sounds like industry lobbying happened to me since SUVs are conveniently also well known for having the best profit margins.
You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.
The more I read about them, the worse it gets.
It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency.
It’s like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues.
The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don’t actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example – they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny.
People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer – but that isn’t really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly.
The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you’re in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn’t matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms.
And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse.
Of course, the entire appeal to “safety” is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops.
Yes, because free market capitalism has been working out great.
I think you assumed that comment said something it didn’t.
Regulations literally brought us to this…
Regulatory capture brought us to this.
deleted by creator
Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this.
You really blame the companies for following the law as written?
deleted by creator
Enforcement is also the EPA’s responsibility, not the companies.
And you can’t enforce the ‘spirit’ of the law. That’s not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused.
Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system.
Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence
I’d honestly say it’s a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we’re seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won’t solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles.
deleted by creator
Someone pointed our interesting loop in US legislative about trucks and how producers are making their cars bigger to escape small trucks hard mile/gas / size quotas + lobbying of car makers to keep the trend going because bigger car = more profit. I wonder how big they can get them before them trucks can’t drive in single line. Is there something similar to SUV by any chance?
anyone who buys an SUV is a stupid fucker. there are other types of cars that have just as much unnecessary seat space in them. if you bought an SUV I’m talking directly to you and I’m calling you an idiot to your face. on the internet.
My Ford Taurus isn’t going to get into the Uintas or Wasatch range. Getting rid of my SUV will really hurt my wifes ability to release rehabilitated animals.
But, I don’t want to be a stupid fucker. What should I get after I get rid of my SUV?
Subaru hatchbacks are great off road and have about the same capacity as most SUVs.
100% agree. I’m a handyman and drive an outback. People are usually surprised when I open the hatch and it’s full of my tool boxes.
Pretty low clearance but maybe we can get some beavers in there.
I was being snarky originally but you could have a point there.
You are literally the only reason they should exist. One does not need such a car in suburbs or cities.
Just require a commercial license/insurance for vehicles that large (and up)
You’ll have a lot less people who don’t need them
The older (until 2003 ish) Impreza can hold a whole ass washer/dryer/oven/dishwasher in the back no issue then they made it too round. I remember helping someone move and they had a stupid “truck” but could not get the bed cover off so me and my snoopy looking car moved all the appliances (3 trips) while the “truck” moved boxes and flat furniture.
Edit to add:
If you want to have a better chance at offroad with a subaru invest in a good skidplate and if really needed they have a higher clearance model. I have been places in them that the brodozers get stuck in seconds.
Even an older model SUV like a Honda CRV will take up a lot less space than its modern counterpart. Station wagons can be sexy too if that’s your style.
While parent is extreme and minimizes that some people have legitimate needs… You do raise another interesting point… You have an SUV and a Fullsize Sedan. I’m sure you have your reasons but it’s an amusing anecdote.
A station wagon is easier for moving animals, more space than a small SUV - it’s lower to the ground (huge plus if you have to lift them in, easier for them if you are leading them up a portable ramp).
The trade off is you can’t do soft sand, cross deeper streams etc, but IMO animals don’t need to be released far off track, to me it’s worth the trade off.
People driving heavy terrain in wilderness around here use small jeep like cars. Even US army used use them back in the day before monster trucks became a thing.
Edit: I meant small variants. Not the big size ones.
What about BEV SUVs?
Suzuki Ignis is stupid then?
Kinda yeah, why not buy a hatchback instead? The Suzuki being taller will inherently have more wind resistance, hence worse gas milage and Co2. Unless you absolutely need the extra ground clearance, which very very few do, it’s stupid.
It is taller but it’s overall still a small car and also very light. It also uses battery to help with acceleration a bit (mild hybrid). I don’t think just because it’s taller it automatically makes it worse. There must be other factors to consider too.
And the reason I personally don’t like hatchbacks is because I’m quite tall and I don’t like sitting low as it feels uncomfortable to me and makes getting in and out of a car pain in the ass… especially when parking near other cars with little space to open the door.
I don’t think just because it’s taller it automatically makes it worse.
It makes it get less mpg/range. Also Less “safe” as the higher center of gravity will mean taking emergency maneuvers “swerving to avoid collision” more difficult and the chance of rollover more likely. These are just facts.
And the reason I personally don’t like hatchbacks is because I’m quite tall and I don’t like sitting low as it feels uncomfortable to me and makes getting in and out of a car pain in the ass…
I’m 6’5 and understand where you’re coming from but, your comfort is basically bad for the environment in a small minute way is my point. I’m sure it’s still more efficient then 99% of cars in general by the sound of it though.
You’re the asshole here. There’s SUVs and crossovers (aka short SUVs), almost zero sedans are manufactured these days thanks to the dumb ass govt and cafe. I don’t even want nor have**** an SUV, but judging people for having something you don’t want is ignorant and foolish. People pick from what is available for the most part. Giant cheap ass SUVs are easier to find than a small sedan that gets 4 mpg better mileage and that’s the govt’s fault.
I have an SUV thst weighs 2,000 pounds and has a 1.3 liter engine, it seats two, you need to stop being a dumbass and sell your gas guzzling car because it absolutely has more wasted seats and a larger engine.
Who said it’s unessasary? You? Speak for your own needs. What about the utility part? Where are you putting large bulky items? How about many bags of top soil? Trash going to a dump maybe?
It’s amazing how pathetically ignorant you are to think your needs line up with everybody elses. There are FAR more cars on the road than trucks. You’d know that if you actually lived in this country. People buy trucks because we need them, do you think we just LIKE paying more at the pump or something? If I could get away with some hyper fuel efficient thing you don’t think me and my wallet would love that especially at today’s bullshit gas prices?
My wife’s Small SUV/CUV averages a little over 40mpg, you have zero legit complaint against them. They’re also no bigger than cars ever were, they just sit SLIGHTLY higher. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
Removed by mod
There is also that pesky light truck exemption the USA has held on to for decades.
I wonder if something similar comes into play in the European market as well.
Yep. If exemptions required a CDL there would be far fewer exempt vehicles being made.
Let’s not point the finger at anyone for having stupidly big cars cough 🤧 US cough 🤧
