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

The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#81

Post by Paul-Craft »

BobbyJo wrote: post #44
Paul-Craft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many years will that take? Hint: more than we've got, if we want to have a prayer of avoiding more than 1.5 degrees of warning. Just read for yourself here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 > “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.” Ain't happenin', and th…

"If I can't run a marathon then why leave the couch?"

Where did I say we shouldn't do this? Was it perhaps in this comment where I said we should do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610696

My problem is in calling this a "fix." It's not a "fix." It's an incremental step, at best, and one that will make no difference unless we have massive, worldwide action.

Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the comment guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#82

Post by Paul-Craft »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #50
Paul-Craft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many years will that take? Hint: more than we've got, if we want to have a prayer of avoiding more than 1.5 degrees of warning. Just read for yourself here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 > “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.” Ain't happenin', and th…

> Only massive, worldwide action will save us. Being apathetic at home isn't going to inspire others to do better. And there is no one silver bullet. The mess was made by many bad choices. It will take many better choices and laws to turn things around.

This isn't apathy. It's real talk. If you don't like it, I don't know what to tell you. I explicitly said we should do this in another comment. My problem is with calling it a "fix."

My best suggestion is that if you invent a time machine, go back to about 1950 and see if you can nudge events in such a way that the climate crisis doesn't happen.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#83

Post by smackeyacky »

latchkey wrote: post #78
smackeyacky wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they not sell the Ford Fiesta any more? Mazda2? Great little cars and surprisingly quick.

> Ford Fiesta Retired: https://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/ > Mazda2 4 door

What a shame. The supermini class cars were awesome.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#84

Post by latchkey »

smackeyacky wrote: post #83
latchkey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ford Fiesta Retired: https://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/ > Mazda2 4 door

What a shame. The supermini class cars were awesome.

I really wish the Smart cars would come back.

The plan now is just to get a ICE Mini. Then sell it in a couple years once the Mini-E comes down in price and goes up in mileage.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#85

Post by jawmes8 »

TexanFeller wrote: post #31

I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…

Those little trucks with long beds are awesome. On a related note, people here in Hawaii have been importing Japanese kei trucks like crazy!

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#86

Post by TexanFeller »

malfist wrote: post #60
TexanFeller wrote: post #31

I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…

> regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient This isn't true. The regulations set a minimum allowed MPG is based on size. Manufacturers have decided it's cheaper/easier to build bigger vehicles with worse MPG, than build the previous size with better MPG.

Manufacturers are just following the incentives created by the regulations. Government policies very frequently backfire and create perverse incentives and unintended consequences, hilariously illustrated by the Cobra Effect and the Great Hanoi Rat Massacre.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#87

Post by [deleted] »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #59
paulryanrogers wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they really get the same milage? Or are they just subject to a less stringent efficiency standard? Higher ground clearance is usually associated with less fuel efficiency.

The Honda HRV might -- it's now the "mid-sized" SUV. The CRV has now upgraded to the full-sized and is the basis for the Acura luxury models. The HRV is the size of the old CRVs. I doubt the new/ current CRV would get a similar mileage, but could see the HRV doing so. Toyota offers similarly sized SUVs (e.g. the CH-R), and those come with hybrid options.

[deleted]

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#88

Post by doubled112 »

Dig1t wrote: post #70
doubled112 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I thought hatchbacks had hatches. Really though, a wagon checks all of the boxes an SUV does other than the need to be bigger and higher Room for the kids, the cargo, and the dog. Decent interior. Good ride quality.

SUV's can tow, which is a very useful feature if you have a family and also need to tow something. I have been needing to tow an excavator for the past few months. Renting a truck to haul the excavator back and forth gets extremely expensive, like $200 per day for just the truck, not counting the trailer or the excavator itself. Making tools, like a vehicle that can haul, more expensive just hurts middle class DIYers…

If you need a truck, you need a truck, and there's no argument from me. SUVs do make sense for a lot of situations too.

Edit: I've seen exactly zero SUVs pulling trailers in my life though. Mini vans, yes. Trucks, yes (wish they were cheaper). SUVs, somehow I'm not seeing them. Everybody I know with an SUV considers it a car.

Towing though, sometimes I wonder if we're just too cautious. It doesn't take a Ford F-teen-thousand to pull a little something.

Before SUVs were everywhere, cars could tow. Admittedly, old trucks weren't near as capable as new trucks, and some of those old cars were just different bodies on truck frames.

A Jetta with a trailer is pretty standard around the Irish country side, I'm told. I've seen people pull 1000s of pounds behind a 2000 VW Jetta, which is a pretty small car. I'm not saying it'd pull that excavator, but I've seen a dump trailer on one.

I tried to find some towing capacity numbers for my 2013 diesel Golf Sportwagen. Some places say 3500lbs for a braked load. I found a lot of "not recommended for towing" in North America.

Did they build the Euro version better? Some safety standard that holds back the US? Maybe it is lawyers?

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#89

Post by prepend »

kgermino wrote: post #30
prepend wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are. They also have a higher center of gravity and are more likely to rollover, but in genera SUV drivers are much more likely to survive crashes than car drivers [0]. But I think it’s hard to generalize as there are many safety factors and there are some cars that are safer than some SUVs (I survived a Chevy avalanche t-boning my Saab 9-3 that totaled both cars and had both avalanche driver and passenger taken…

*safer for the occupants. They’re much more dangerous to others around them due to higher and more aggressive front ends, more weight, and less ability to see people around you.

That’s an interesting point. It’s hard for me to find data on the extra danger that may exist for other drivers.

As it stands now, there’s not much you can do about what other drivers drive but driving a huge SUV seems to improve your survival chances.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#90

Post by prepend »

ericmay wrote: post #35
prepend wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frequently have a train of thought for “why so many SUVs” and then remember a line from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” speech [0]… “ it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive.” This specific speech chang…

A better observation than “maybe they’re scared to drive or have a good reason for getting a very large vehicle” would be: why does society force people who don’t want to or who are scared to drive into the drivers seat of a vehicle in order to participate in society?

That answer seems simple to me, because cars offer a lot of freedom to move and do things.

As a society we can choose to completely urbanize, and some countries and regions do that pretty well. There’s not too much to choose from in the US to live car free, but it’s possible if someone really doesn’t want to drive.

Post reply on HN