[aejnsn]

> Bigger vehicles pollute more (engine, brake/tire particulates, and both engine and tire noise)

That’s a strange way of saying large vehicles are intended to do more work. I haven’t seen a Toyota Prius yet that can practically trailer a load of crops to market or carry construction equipment.

It’s also strange to me someone would mention tire particulate pollution in a grand comparison. The EV poster children wear through tires quicker than their comparable gasoline counterparts—softer tire compounds (road noise reduction) and weight.

> more likely and more lethal when they happen

Those also pay more for insurance.

[pwinnski]

Maybe 5-10% of the big trucks I see in and around Dallas, Texas, are doing anything that requires a truck. The rest are smooth and shiny, with empty beds, sometimes lifted, sometimes not, sometimes with garish aftermarket lighting, sometimes not, but empty beds and with usually one person in them.

I've got no problem with the landscapers and plumbers and electricians and farmers and so on getting a truck to support their work. They're paying the price, and they're relying on what the trucks can do for them.

I've got a problem with the 90% use case in my area, which is unsafe drivers driving unsafe vehicles unsafely, apparently for the image.

[Glawen]

As European, I always failed to see what is the use of a pickup truck. In Europe noone use them, we are using van like the Sprinter / Iveco daily. If your trade needs a flatbed you buy a sprinter with flatbed. They can also pull a trailer if you need. But mostly they are used by all trades in their normal design (box). Also, they don't consume a lot (7l/100km).

So what are pickup truck used that cannot be done by a sprinter?

[leereeves]

About half of the pictures of Sprinters with flatbeds that I saw on [1] have added side walls. I guess their owners found some use for a pickup so they made their own.

Between the two designs, I'd rather have a pickup. With a flatbed, I'd worry about things rolling/blowing off.

The fuel consumption is a separate issue; there are pickups that get good mileage. But that was (until recently) less of a concern in America because we had lower gas prices (and for the most part, the people who buy pickups don't worry about climate change).

1: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=sprinter+with+flatbed&iax=i...

[Glawen]

The sidewall are there to hold the load, you need also to secure the load by attaching it. Moreover they come with tilting mechanism to unload (sidewise or back wise). This I think is not possible with a pickup truck.

It is very useful when you destroy a wall, you can haul the brick to the junkyard, or if you bring sand in bulk for building a wall.

[acdha]

That’s not a strange way to say something, it’s not the same idea. A bigger vehicle always costs more - you have more mass to move, stop, and many parts need to be stronger for those reasons.

That can be justified if you actually need to do something which a smaller vehicle cannot do - nobody expects a cattle rancher to pull a trailer behind a Prius! - but the vast majority of the larger vehicles Americans are buying will never be used for something which requires that extra capacity. The extra bling added to justify those price tags makes them worse for the ostensible reasons people buy them, too - who’s going off-roading with premium rims and delicate flair?

This is the classic externality problem: people are buying massive trucks and SUVs for emotional support reasons which would be an amusing personality trait except that they’ve reversed a half century of road safety improvements and the pollution they generate affects billions of people other than the buyers.

> It’s also strange to me someone would mention tire particulate pollution in a grand comparison. The EV poster children wear through tires quicker than their comparable gasoline counterparts—softer tire compounds (road noise reduction) and weight.

This similarly is arguing against a different point: my statement was simple fact - bigger vehicles pollute more, no matter whether that’s a large EV full of batteries or an oversized truck.

This is a famous drawback to EVs, along with the CO2 used to create them and the mining for battery components, and one reason why both environmentalists and urbanists are careful to say that the future should be more transit, bikes/scooters/etc., and walking because the model of everyone driving themselves everywhere in a private vehicle is inherently unsustainable. EVs solve the downsides of cars the same way that methadone solves opiate addiction.

> > more likely and more lethal when they happen > Those also pay more for insurance.

Again, this isn’t the point. Insurance can’t resurrect a dead person and it pays nowhere near the cost of lifetime impacts for people who are seriously injured. If they’re lucky, victims will get enough to pay for their immediate medical bills - the rest, often majority, of the cost is fobbed off to society just like all of the other negative externalities of driving.

[colpabar]

they also drive like fucking assholes, wear down the roads more, and make driving significantly less safe for everyone, especially the pedestrians who are unfortunate enough to be around them.

> That’s a strange way of saying large vehicles are intended to do more work. I haven’t seen a Toyota Prius yet that can practically trailer a load of crops to market or carry construction equipment.

More work you say? Great! It's odd that all the big lifted trucks I see are never hauling anything. It's almost like most of the people who drive them just like having a big truck and don't have any actual need for it.

[aejnsn]

> wear down the roads more

Blame your state DOT. Those trucks pay much more in taxes based upon their gross weight rating when they tow/haul. Costs of doing business.

> all the big lifted trucks I see

Nobody lifts a truck conspicuously to do more work, this somewhat compromises the suspension’s ability to handle load. A lot more people would know this if they knew anything, other than some anecdotes, about the topic they want to regulate.

[colpabar]

You seem to be arguing under the assumption that every truck in existence is "working" 100% of the time, and that no one buys trucks unless they need them for work. This is not the case. If a job requires a truck, so be it. I'm not that naive. But what I, as well as the rest of the people you're responding to, are arguing is that there are a lot of people who buy trucks just because they're "masculine", and that it doesn't make economic sense.

[acdha]

> Nobody lifts a truck conspicuously to do more work, this somewhat compromises the suspension’s ability to handle load. A lot more people would know this if they knew anything, other than some anecdotes, about the topic they want to regulate.

This seems very confused: nobody in this thread is talking about people who are actually hauling heavy loads. It’s about the people who buy a huge truck and use it as their daily driver but never use the full bed capacity except going to Costco/Walmart.

[trs8080]

Doesn't seem like the person you're responding to is talking about vehicles "hauling crops" - rather, the lifted "rolling coal" vehicles that have been an integral part of rural masculine culture for some time now.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rolling+coal&tbm=isch

[aejnsn]

Anecdotally, I haven’t seen a diesel that dumps soot in a long time. It would seem the kids with deleted emissions systems and smoke tunes have given up near me. Sorry this small group has affected your perception of the proper use case and larger group.

[colpabar]

Can you provide any kind of source on the "proper use case" and "the larger group"? It would be nice to have something to reference other than your personal anecdotes :^)

[bediger4000]

The proportion of pickups that have ever carried a load is pretty small. Trucks may be intended to do work, but the majority never do.