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

641–650 of 651 posts

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#641

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

deaddodo wrote: post #635
foldr wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Except that I gave a specific example (Washington Blvd) which has a notoriously well maintained and accessible bike lane 30ft away; to give a specific example of the entitlement I was referring to.

And the example I was thinking of was in Brentwood, on San Vicente if I remember correctly.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#642

Post by dredmorbius »

dang wrote: post #631
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing repeatedly. If you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it…

Four years of second chances isn't enough?

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#643

Post by worthless-trash »

daemin wrote: post #536
HWR_14 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bigger vehicles are "trucks" and smaller vehicles are "cars". They have different standards. So while a small Japanese truck may have more efficient than a larger truck, it is legally a very inefficient car. This is also why SUVs exist, they are legally trucks for fuel efficiency/etc.

I read an article recently about the growth in sales of such "trucks" in Australia. In there people were complaining that the existing parking spaces aren't big enough for these vehicles, so there should be a review into parking regulations to make spots bigger to accommodate them. In my mind I would like to see the opposite happen, and instead have a review into these "trucks" to see if they are actually what we wan…

I have seen some of them prevent people from fueling their vehicles at local service stations. The current sizes are not compatible with size expectations.

I want to say there was a Ford which had a fuel port on the rear of the vehicle which had to position the car further forward than usual, blocking the traffic exit while filing up the vehicle.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#644

Post by deaddodo »

foldr wrote: post #639
deaddodo wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that I gave a specific example (Washington Blvd) which has a notoriously well maintained and accessible bike lane 30ft away; to give a specific example of the entitlement I was referring to.

But then why do you think the cyclists are not using it? Again, do you think they are doing it just to annoy motorists? This doesn't seem plausible on the face of it.

I can’t answer for what’s going on in their heads, but why do you immediately assume everyone has good intentions? Maybe they didn’t like the traffic in the bike lane and wanted to move faster, maybe they had a chip on their shoulder, maybe they are simply oblivious to the world around them, I don’t know. I can just say that I could literally turn my head and see dozens of cyclists on the bike lane riding with zero issues. The fact that he couldn’t do the same means the problem is his, not mine and the other hundred+ people they were impeding.

You seem to be missing the entire point. This isn’t about the 999 cyclists that use the lane, as expected; but mostly go unseen. It’s about that 1 cyclist that acts in a completely entitled manner being the one everyone sees.

Just go re-read my original post that you downvoted, I wasn’t blaming cyclists in general. My point was an occasional entitled cyclist (who 100% exists, just like entitled cagers and motorcyclists) gives a bad name to all cyclists because the good ones go mostly unseen.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#645

Post by foldr »

deaddodo wrote: post #644
foldr wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then why do you think the cyclists are not using it? Again, do you think they are doing it just to annoy motorists? This doesn't seem plausible on the face of it.

I can’t answer for what’s going on in their heads, but why do you immediately assume everyone has good intentions? Maybe they didn’t like the traffic in the bike lane and wanted to move faster, maybe they had a chip on their shoulder, maybe they are simply oblivious to the world around them, I don’t know. I can just say that I could literally turn my head and see dozens of cyclists on the bike lane riding with zero i…

It seems weird to me to think of this in terms of good or bad intentions. The cyclists presumably want to get to their destinations as quickly and easily as possible. In some cases that means going on a road.

Bikes are allowed to go on roads, so I don't really understand why this annoys people. I guess if you really don't like it you should advocate for legislation to change the rules.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#646

Post by robertlagrant »

foldr wrote: post #525
robertlagrant wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context was rush hour Washington Boulevard. I'm not rushing to accuse anyone, and I'm not the one thoughtlessly ignoring the context.

The context was cycling on rush hour Washington Boulevard, which isn't absurd if it's the easiest route to your destination, any more than walking down a road is absurd if you don't have an alternative.

The context (sigh) here is that I'm saying "like they're people" is not a good argument. Drivers are also people. It's not an argument. I don't know why the topic keeps drifting off this.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#647

Post by tgtweak »

eric-hu wrote: post #283
tgtweak wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people register them out of state for this reason - Minnesota and Arkansas being the two go-to (also for bypassing vehicle road-readiness inspections...).

Does that work if people don't live in MN or AR?

Correct

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#648

Post by deaddodo »

foldr wrote: post #645
deaddodo wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t answer for what’s going on in their heads, but why do you immediately assume everyone has good intentions? Maybe they didn’t like the traffic in the bike lane and wanted to move faster, maybe they had a chip on their shoulder, maybe they are simply oblivious to the world around them, I don’t know. I can just say that I could literally turn my head and see dozens of cyclists on the bike lane riding with zero i…

It seems weird to me to think of this in terms of good or bad intentions. The cyclists presumably want to get to their destinations as quickly and easily as possible. In some cases that means going on a road. Bikes are allowed to go on roads, so I don't really understand why this annoys people. I guess if you really don't like it you should advocate for legislation to change the rules.

The annoyance is that they have a car free road 30ft away, while the cars do not have a bike free road.

It’s well understood that bikes can impede traffic. The world accepts this, especially on a normal day. It’s why we build special lanes for them (in addition to their safety concerns). But if you have your own special infrastructure, just for you and you’re using the other infrastructure, adding 15-30mins to hundred’s of people’s daily commutes for your convenience, that’s the literal definition of entitlement.

Yes, you’re allowed to do it; just like I’m allowed to get into the elevator and press all of the buttons for my own joy. In either case, we are assholes to most people.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#649

Post by foldr »

deaddodo wrote: post #648
foldr wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems weird to me to think of this in terms of good or bad intentions. The cyclists presumably want to get to their destinations as quickly and easily as possible. In some cases that means going on a road. Bikes are allowed to go on roads, so I don't really understand why this annoys people. I guess if you really don't like it you should advocate for legislation to change the rules.

The annoyance is that they have a car free road 30ft away, while the cars do not have a bike free road. It’s well understood that bikes can impede traffic. The world accepts this, especially on a normal day. It’s why we build special lanes for them (in addition to their safety concerns). But if you have your own special infrastructure, just for you and you’re using the other infrastructure, adding 15-30mins to hundre…

>It’s well understood that bikes can impede traffic.

I haven't seen this myself. Here in London there are lots of cyclists on the road, and it doesn't seem to interfere with car traffic. It's relatively dangerous to the cyclists, of course.

Re: Rural Americans are importing tiny Japanese pickup trucks

#650

Post by foldr »

robertlagrant wrote: post #646
foldr wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context was cycling on rush hour Washington Boulevard, which isn't absurd if it's the easiest route to your destination, any more than walking down a road is absurd if you don't have an alternative.

The context (sigh) here is that I'm saying "like they're people" is not a good argument. Drivers are also people. It's not an argument. I don't know why the topic keeps drifting off this.

Being a person is a good prima facie argument for being allowed to access public infrastructure. There may be countervailing considerations, but you didn't provide any (other than by apparently suggesting that it was somehow absurd for people to walk on roads).

But I'm not the author of the "like they're people" comment, so I'm not particularly interested in defending that particular line of argument.

Post reply on HN