[ke88y]

> Really unfortunate situation as these fit a lot of use cases that would previously require something as big as a gas guzzling Ford F150 otherwise.

What about the Ford Maverick? The only issue is that the bed is fairly small, but it looks like these minis have small beds and low towing capacities as well? And Ford makes a hybrid version.

(Don't misunderstand: I'm not arguing against relaxing the rules in Oregon.)

[nluken]

The Ford Maverick is better than most modern pickups, but still misses the mark. As you mentioned, the bed is significantly smaller than a 1990 Ranger despite being 6 inches longer[1]. Honestly the biggest issue I have with these vehicles is their height, which is a known hazard to pedestrians[2]. The Maverick doesn't fix that issue.

[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36651899/sizing-up-the-20... [2] https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2022/03/pedestrians-incr...

[d0gsg0w00f]

I have questions about the pedestrian article. The article states that almost 3/4 of all vehicles sold are light truck or SUV. So wouldn't it just be statistically more likely that for ANY accident it would be a taller vehicle?

[nluken]

The actual paper discussed in that article isn't just comparing frequencies of accidents, but rather using them to calculate the odds that a given vehicle type causes a pedestrian accident in a variety of scenarios. In doing so the author determined that these vehicles were overinvolved in accidents relative to their frequency on the road.

[tgtweak]

The sales of the Maverick have really made a compelling case for an even-smaller truck that is one size down. I don't even think ford thought it would sell that well. The Maverick is still a giant truck compared to these.

[7speter]

I thought the whole appeal for the maverick was that it was a hybrid truck that you’d be able to drive around a city (Ford marketing, itll be fine to drive anywhere probably)?