this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
80 points (97.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43745 readers
2041 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] lettruthout 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

SUVs have to be high on the list.

[โ€“] PunnyName 18 points 4 months ago

20th century for those

[โ€“] SpaceNoodle 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They're good if you need a vehicle that sits high and has a cargo capacity similar to a truck with a little more efficiency instead of torque.

[โ€“] ch00f 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

need a vehicle that sits high

Why does anybody need a vehicle that "sits high"?

[โ€“] Fosheze 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Because you need to handle terrain other than a clear road. When you live somewhere that regularly gets a foot of snow overnight then having a bit of extra ground clearance is a must for navigating that. You also want a bit of extra ground clearance if you need to go off road regularly. The last thing anyone wants is to be out in the boonies and crack their oil pan on a tree stump or something.

Of course, far more people buy SUVs and trucks than actually need them. Also lite trucks would have been the better solution for most people who do actually need them if the EPA hadn't killed them with poorly written standards. With the current wheelbase based efficiency requirements we're left with the choice between sedans that drag the undercarriage on residential speedbumps or a Landbarge 9000 toddler slaughter special with worse sight lines than an abrams tank and the (lack of) fuel efficiency to match.

[โ€“] shalafi 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the EPA hadn't killed them with poorly written standards

Thank you! I see so many people blaming the manufacturers for greed. No, the EPA killed the small truck. Perfect example of well-meaning laws paving the road to hell.

[โ€“] ch00f 1 points 4 months ago

Technically LBJ killed the small truck with the chicken tax. If nobody can afford to import reasonably sized European and Asian trucks, we're left with whatever the big three churn out.

[โ€“] Zahille7 2 points 4 months ago

I have a Santa Cruz. It's my little half-truck and it's badass.

[โ€“] SpaceNoodle 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Elderly people and people with certain disabilities can have difficulty entering and exiting low vehicle seats.

[โ€“] Today 4 points 4 months ago

And loading/unloading a car trunk.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

If you're in the <1% of SUV users that needs to drive through unmaintained trails or similar.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

But being high make them incredibly dangerous for other road users. If a normal car hits you, you break your leg, it sucks, but within a month you'd walk on crutches and within 6 month you'd be fine. A SUV hitting a pedestrian or a cyclist will break their pelvis or even their back which has a harder recovery and long lasting consequences.

These stuff should be banned