Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 651 posts

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#611

Post by mcv »

GiorgioG wrote: post #589
mcv wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that currently people are buying an F-150 when it's not fine for them. People are buying them instead of Fiat 500s because in a Fiat 500 they feel less safe in between all those giant F-150s. Maybe you should look around a bit through the rest of the discussion here, but lots of people are pointing out that those F-150s exist because they don't have to meet the same requirements as the Fiat 500, which…

> The problem is that currently people are buying an F-150 when it's not fine for them. In your opinion. > Also, apparently, US fuel efficiency rules seem to encourage larger cars, which are less fuel efficient. I'm not sure where you get that idea from. We're generally less sensitive to fuel economy because gasoline in the US is cheap - because it's not taxed to the hilt (I'd be happy to pay higher taxes for univers…

> I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

From this very discussion. Read what some other people here write.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#612

Post by seanmcdirmid »

zamnos wrote: post #397
ElFitz wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So American drivers are aggressive towards those they think to be poorer than them? Why do you think that is? (genuinely curious)

America's really big. The part I'm in, ebikes are en vogue, with people giving up cars to get ebikes, and car drivers give them right of way. I'm sure elsewhere in the US it's different yet again.

Same here in the PNW. Except e-bikes are also en vogue to get stolen by our fentanyl addicts.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#613

Post by chrisco255 »

smolder wrote: post #570
chrisco255 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to actually carry passengers in your truck, you want 4 doors and a full back seat. The new Tacomas are great trucks, because it's practical to carry cargo or people in them. Old single cab Rangers, Luvs, Tacomas, etc, were fine, but not as broad market.

If you need to carry passengers, a truck probably isn't the right choice. Four doors and a bed make for an oversized and inefficient vehicle for hauling either people or cargo alone. You say "broad market", I say "ill suited for most tasks."

> If you need to carry passengers, a truck probably isn't the right choice. Four doors and a bed make for an oversized and inefficient vehicle for hauling either people or cargo alone. You say "broad market", I say "ill suited for most tasks."

It's a fine choice, as long as the truck has 4 doors. And the super cabs don't really affect gas mileage much at all.

When I was growing up, my dad had one of those tiny Rangers. There were 3 of us kids. My dad was a part-time plumber and also built our house when we were younger. We'd make regular trips to Lowe's or whatever with him when my mom was working. There weren't even 4 separate seat belts. It wasn't really safe, and it was a tight squeeze that was only possible because we were quite young. Anyways, many reasons why you sometimes need to do both.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#614

Post by seabird »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #602
seabird wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rollovers are also extremely bad, and vehicles like the Tahoe have a ~25% rollover risk as assessed by the NHTSA. It's simple physics! More than anything, you need to just not be in the accident in the first place. Buying a vehicle with dogshit braking and handling characteristics so you can "win" in a crash you could have just avoided is dumb, especially when you consider that you carry that increased rollover tende…

> Buying a vehicle with dogshit braking and handling characteristics so you can "win" in a crash you could have just avoided is dumb, Not really sure how you can avoid someone drifting over the line at you...

By doing everything you can to not get in a head-on. Ditch it, land it in a yard, etc. Just about the only thing I wouldn't do is dump it in a flooded ag ditch, but that's a situation most people don't find themselves in. If you're in a city where you have literally nowhere to go, nobody is going fast enough to the point where the size differential between the vehicles is going to matter unless you're in something exceptionally small.

There are multiple times where I've had to drive on the shoulder to avoid people out of their lane and they would have been a hell of a lot scarier than they were if I had to do it in an SUV/truck. I've been in multiple fairly severe vehicle accidents and I can tell you from first-hand experience that you're not appreciably safer in an SUV.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#615

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

foldr wrote: post #524
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need for strawmen. This comment was specifically in regard to bikers riding outside of provided bike lanes, which I've seen happen in L.A.

I think we’re trying to figure out what conclusion you draw from that. Do you think the cyclists are doing it just to annoy you? If not, then why? Isn’t it likely that the dedicated cycling infrastructure is less adequate than you assume?

I don't care why they're doing it. The case I witnessed involved a generously wide bike lane with excellent visibility, and bikers deliberately riding outside it and blocking traffic. Do they all do it? No. But it happens.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#616

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

apendleton wrote: post #554
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NO. They're leaving the infrastructure we ALL paid to build for them vacant, and blocking that which we paid for to accommodate motorized vehicles.

We all paid for the roads too ("we" includes cyclists), and we paid for them to accommodate any vehicles that are legal to operate on them, which in most jurisdictions includes bikes.

But cars can't drive in bike lanes. Therefore cyclists enjoy EXTRA privilege at all taxpayers' expense, which I'm fine with. But if cyclists aren't going to use them, they should be removed and the space reclaimed for ALL vehicles (including bikes).

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#617

Post by kalleboo »

chrisco255 wrote: post #610
kalleboo wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone has one, it's not a status symbol iPhones somehow manage to be a status symbol even with 50% of the US population owning one

Really, iPhones are status symbols, in 2023? Do people turn their head to look at you as you walk down the street, because you own an iPhone?

Kids are bullied and excluded for not having "blue bubbles" and men are told "swipe left if you have green bubbles" on tinder.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#618

Post by bombcar »

chrisco255 wrote: post #609
bombcar wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many users here would have a heart attack and die to realize how many semis on the road are entirely empty (deadheading) and how many are filled way below capacity. Most truck owners I know use their truck as a truck quite often. But that’s more rural; maybe everyone in a city commutes in an F150 for absolutely no reason at all.

> realize how many semis on the road are entirely empty I'm sure semis are empty after they've dropped off a load at a destination and there is no commensurate return load back to where they came from. But given that semis are very expensive to move down the road, both from a human resource cost and an energy cost, I suspect the market is far better at optimizing that than you or I or any central operator could do. E…

It’s something like 33% are deadheading.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#619

Post by everdrive »

foldr wrote: post #494
robertlagrant wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How outrageous, they want to use the infrastructure like they're people? If you apply this to walking as well, you'll see how silly it is.

There are lots of roads in the US where there’s no sidewalk and you have to walk along the edge of the road if you’re a pedestrian. What’s silly about this? In general, it is perfectly legal to use roads for cycling and walking (though I'm sure there is some variation between jurisdictions).

It's silly because it's often dangerous. A lot of these roads are busy, and the speed limits can be 35-50 MPH. For better or for worse, drivers are just _not_ anticipating pedestrians on these sorts of roads, but some people have no better choice.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#620

Post by fortuna86 »

masklinn wrote: post #471
fortuna86 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US isn't even on the top 10 list of worst / most aggressive drivers. They at least respect lanes as drawn on the road.

> They at least respect lanes as drawn on the road. Sometimes anyway. Ignoring lanes when making a turn (e.g. drift out on a multi-lane turn) is sadly common.

[dead]
Post reply on HN