Fraudulently categorizing huge, lethal consumer vehicles as "light trucks" also doesn't help.

I had to buy a new TV a few years back and I remember I took it out to the car with the sales guy and he said "Oh I don't think it'll fit". Told him to hold on, folded the seats down and that baby fit perfectly in there. Idk if it was the size of a sheet of plywood, but it was big, the box and all. Guy was legitimately impressed. Meanwhile yep agree, people get these super duper manly family trucks and can't fit a few suitcases in there anymore. People mortified of admitting they need a van and have to feel good by driving a truck.

The car sized arms race. People believe the only way to be safe on the road is by driving the biggest car, which means the next one is the largest, and the next.

Bluntly, I think it's a selfish take. "Well everyone else in the accident may die but I'll be alive"

Never understood this one. Bigger car = more likely to hit stuff.

As a Miata driver I agree. It's nerve wracking and where I live monster trucks are the norm. Some of them can't even see me.

Same, my family heard I bought one and immediately told me how stupid I was. That I'd need new batteries and would be sitting on the side of the road.

When reality is that we charge at home once a week, it's $6 in electricity to do a full charge, and we're nearing 30k miles with no degradation on the battery that we can see.

You probably haven't the most straightforward take here. The amount of people here trying to convince me (themselves) they bought a large car for safety...

While true, I also want to reinforce that we at the same time do force our underprivileged to drive by not building out walkable cities and supplying good transit options. No one should be forced to drive at all. In the post I am talking about the privileged who are out buying new cars, but at the same time there is a whole industry who preys on poorer people convincing them to get 10 year car loans with crazy high interest and tells them it'll be good for them. So it's a complex issue, but I'm still annoyed that they are choosing large gas guzzlers in both cases.

Hybrids and EVs are not hugely more expensive, especially when the F150 is the most popular vehicle in America and it is not a cheap vehicle. Factor in the fuel and it's no contest.

I remember there was a time where my car-brained friends convinced me that it takes more gas to start a car than let it idle for 5 or more minutes. Now, I'm sure that was rooted in something, but looking at it now I just don't see that as being true with start/stop engines.

I see the same thing, there's a place near me where I walk by and I see people on smoke breaks sitting in their car, turned on, smoking with the windows open. I just cannot fathom this. Gas is how much a gallon and you're just idly burning it while out there so you can listen to the radio? I don't understand sitting you car car at all, there are benches and places to go, maybe it's a no smoking thing, fine. But why turn the car on at all??

There is actually, it is called "crash compatibility". When everyone drives small cars or roughly the same sized cars it's considered crash-compatible, meaning the cars will crumple correctly. With everyone driving 2-ton tanks now though that's more or less gone out the window, as you driving a reasonable car compared to someone who was convinced that they needed a military vehicle to pick up groceries, theirs will win. I'm definitely not defending that though, because it did kick off this arms race, where now it's "Well I killed everyone else in this accident, but I survived" when before it was simply "Everyone (probably) survived"

Your comment meanders through so many propagandized items I don't know where to begin. There's like, 12 separate points you hit and none of them go together, it's just a brainddump of everything you believe to be true.

More than anyone likes to admit is safety features. If you want a unibody alloy vehicle with 11 airbags you’re gonna need a bigger outside profile to accommodate the same interior volume.

This is called the car sized arms race, the idea that bigger cars = safer. The problem is crash compatibility, which we have lost due to the larger cars. It's not that small cars are unsafe, it's that when you have an F150 smash into the front of it when it's 3x the mass and has the frontend the same shape as a brick wall, they're no longer crash-compatible. By making cars larger the manufacturers have quite literally artificially made smaller cars less safe.

And the aging population experiences increased suffering stooping to get into compacts or mid size sedans. And the aging population is driving farther into their age.

The solution isn't that older folks should be more comfortable driving. The solution is that we should have cities/towns that don't force our elderly to drive. We should be pushing for transit and walkability so the elderly can move around without needing to get behind a wheel in the first place.

And the infinitely rising housing market is pushing everyone to live out in the sticks where you need a car that rides higher to accommodate rutted out dirt roads.

Agree, which is why we should stop buying places that require a car. Do the math on if you live in the sticks how much it would cost to commute into the city. Those high rents can be negated, especially with today's gas prices. I also think we as Americans demand way way way too much living space, we do not need a McMansion, but that's another conversation.

And the poorer you are the older your car tends to be so the more biased you will tend to be towards what’s still rolling 20 years after manufacturing (surprise, it’s big vehicles with big engines or Hondas and Toyotas).

This is completely unfounded, prove to me that bigger car = longer lifespan. I still see sedans from the 70s and 80s on the road.

And even if all that didn’t matter, people might abstractly care about gas prices or getting an electric but they can’t afford to buy a car that’s good on gas because of their limited funds on hand or creditworthiness

That's my point, that if you take into account the cost of gas even a slightly more expensive EV or Hybrid is going to save you much more down the road.

anyone who thinks they might want to move a couch will pick the truck.

This is my #1 annoyance with truck owners. "What if you gotta move something"? Ha gotcha you idiot, I can move stuff! You know what I do? I rent a truck. It's 20 bucks at uhaul or home depot. Seriously, twenty dollars. I go, I move the couch, I drop the truck off, I return the truck. I've done the math, if you think spending 50, 60, 100 grand on a truck is worth it because you have to move a couch, you need to sit down and do the math. It is not. I've done the math, for you owning a truck to be worth it compared to renting you need to use it for hauling/towing/moving minimum twice a week. If that's what you're doing, then congrats you need a truck. If you aren't literally moving something every week or more, then it was a waste of money. "We need to haul or kids stuff". False. You need a van. "We are outdoorsy" Great, you need a van or a hatchback.

Fun fact time, auto manufacturers have a higher emission standard for smaller vehicles. This is the cafe standard, and it requires being under a certain emission amount. They lobbied successfully for the "light truck" exception, which was meant originally for Farmer Dan who has his truck who needs to haul hay around daily shouldn't have to suffer. So Congress passed it, and surprise surprise auto manufacturers suddenly start marketing more trucks, and a brand new concept called the "SUV", on - you guessed it - a light truck frame. American's haven't chosen the trucks, there's no safety reason, it was 100% marketing from auto manufacturers to convince you that you need a light truck because thanks to that exception, they are cheaper to manufacture. You do not need a truck. Auto marketing has spent billions convincing you that you do.