Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck, including families with kids (which e.g. in Europe manage to get just fine with a regular car, not even a SUV).
Maybe they just like it. The assumption seems to be that if they didn't have anyone to impress they would buy a Honda Fit because it is better (by some definition of better). Even if they are just buying it to impress people, who cares? Let them do what they want.
> if they are just buying it to impress people, who cares?
The buyer cares. And if the buying is detrimental to more than the buyer himself (eg wastes resources, harms the environment, overtaxes infrastructure), then it makes sense for others to let that buyer know how they actually feel.
But I agree with your suggestion that it is entirely possible for a truck buyer to have reasons other than those supposed by the author.
So fine then with a huge, shiny, lifted F-350 that the owner drives 5km once per week to the ice cream shop? Or is your largest issue perhaps "redneck culture"?
And anyway, US trucks are just a peculiar form of luxury car. Case in point the Toyota Hilux, which is Toyota's famously sturdy workhorse truck, is not even sold in the US. Instead they have the Tacoma, an entirely different construction.
It is built around consumer comfort features and impressive specs instead of being rugged, easy to repair and inexpensive.
Anecdotally the Tacoma is huge, and horrible off-road. There are other tradeoffs, like softer suspension, which you want in a passenger car for comfort, but not in a vehicle used for hauling and going on difficult terrain.
>US trucks are just a peculiar form of luxury car
No, not really. You can get one fully loaded, or get a bare bones work truck. Thing is there are no "luxury" makes for trucks, but more often there are trims of different models. A F-150 Raptor is certainly a luxury model for status signaling (or just to have the nicer thing for those who can afford it). The XL Model is far from a luxury vehicle.
As far as I recall the most expensive two purchases a family makes are the house and car. So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU. Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen.
I don't think we can be confident that social signalling is the major factor here.
>So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU
Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either. Not to mention in the US tons of regular working class people buy tracks, when people with 2x to 10x their income in Europe don't.
>Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen.
> Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either.
Sorry I've missed a step. In your first comment I thought you meant buying a truck was people status signalling that they were affluent. If you don't think that, what do you think is being signalled?
Above I'm answering to the propose explanation that basically "Europeans don't buy them because they can't afford them", so my comment should be read as:
"nah, it's not that, as people with higher disposable incomes *in the EU* don't buy such trucks either".
I just left out the "in the EU" there, to be implied by the context I was replying to.
That said, I didn't mean to imply that "buying a truck was people status signalling that they were affluent" in the US.
Just that they think (or made to think) they need it, and that they culturally like the extravaganza - same way many in the US think they need bigger cars and sneer at European sized cars.
I think the biggest reason is that trucks are less practical in Europe.
European streets are often narrower and parking spaces smaller. Many trucks that are popular in the US are so heavy that you may not be allowed to drive them with a standard license. You need a truck license, which may be valid only for a few years and have stricter standards. And due to the climate, you are more likely to have to protect the cargo from the elements, which shifts the balance towards vans. But vans are not very convenient in daily use.
I think this is an area that highlights one of the huge differences between Europe and the US that isn't obvious at first to most Europeans. Outside of commercial messaging that you may see in TV show, or Country Music vehicle, it's not that common for people who have a truck to use it as a status symbol any differently than they would with a car.
In practice, a lot of working age Men own a light duty pickup (f-150, Silverado 1500 or smaller types like the Ranger or Colorado) when you get outside of the Cities for the utility. It's basically needed if you live in the country and want to be self-sufficient. While you may see these on a farm, more than likely a farmer would need something more heavy duty to pull anything serious.
People with Boats can usually get away with hauling it with a light duty truck, whereas people with RV's usually will have something more heavy duty.
They are far from status symbols, and often people will have old trucks (beaters) that are paid off and will use when it's practical.
I'm a software engineer and I have a Tacoma. I've found it useful for hauling things to and from lumber stores (I also do wood working and most of my own house projects). It was incredibly useful during PNW winters when it snowed or iced over roads completely; one was so bad my partner got stranded on our metro train and I had to go get her. Going across the mountains in my truck has also been quite nice compared to when I had a hybrid sedan.
The alternative is that for every delivery of goods I would need to pay an $80 fee (and I do these with pretty regular frequency; that's about 2x what it takes to fill up my tank). We'd need to be more careful of not going out during storms or when there's even moderate risk of winter storms. I would need to plan trips across the mountains much more in advance. There's a lot of other things that'd probably change too, including how we do road trips.
I'm a bit judgy of people who have a truck that clearly don't do truck things with it, but of all my friends that have trucks I don't know anyone who isn't. All that to say, I roll my eyes when I see statements trying to steelman who should morally own a truck.
Tacoma's have a reputation for being the stereotypical choice for actual recreation or practically though haven't they? Relatively small, reliable, pragmatic if you're already in a position to use it.
Do you think you'd feel the same if someone in approximately your situation got something like a 2024 Silverado with a laughably large grill, much larger and more expensive? To me there's practically I wouldn't even second guess, and then there's everything beyond that, but I'd be curious what a truck owner thinks.
My grandfather's always had a truck, but it's always been something the size of a Canyon or Tacoma, and with that he's never struggled with any of the relatively large crap he hauls around.
I think most people are just reacting to "redneck" culture. I don't really like it either, but I think people should be able to do what they want. Including buying a truck they don't need or taking an unneeded trip to Paris to visit museums and art galleries.
I'm not sure that's the case. I don't think people are responding to the "redneck in a pick-up" stereotypes as much as that "pavement princess" owner trying to "cosplay" truck culture stereotypes.
Sidenote - I'm finding my vocabulary pretty lacking now that so much stereotyping is done in images and memes.
I've heard this sentiment before. My truck has a rack on it and I've never needed to weigh it down to navigate icy or wet terrain. Maybe that applies to full size trucks more than Tacomas?
Unlikely it's a huge truck problem, as it was also true of small pickups used as company vehicles in Northern Europe -- in the wintertime, they'd keep bags of sand in the back, or the rear would slide around.
To be fair, a Tacoma is the closest you can get to a Hilux in the US, which is a completely practical vehicle around the world. The OP seems to be going after the oversized full size pickups.
The world is a big place with billions of people each living their own unique life. Only one of those is yours. If you find no use for a truck, then by all means don't own one.
The article literally shows two examples of ads for trucks, one advertising utility and one signalling...
The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. It doesn't imply that is the only reason, just that it's an increasingly _common_ one.
> The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling.
Marketing has driven, rather than responding to, the change in consumer goals.
I think specifically the criticism was leveled at the F150, given the comparison to a significantly smaller less-impressive looking truck yet still had the same size truck-bed in it.
>The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats.
F150's come with multiple cab/bed options depending on the year. Yes, some have short beds with cabs, others have Long/standard beds with cabs (enough to put a 4x8 piece of plywood in the back). Some come with short beds and no cab. Long beds with no cabs.
That and the F150 isn't even a big truck, it's literally classified as "light duty". If you're trying to signal for _excess_, you aren't buying a F150.
Where I'm at, this is true. The F-350 is for signaling, F-150 is a decent utility vehicle (that allows for decent city driving). People actually use the all-in-one hauling, towing, and off-roading-in-comfort F-150 & Tundra here.
If we're talking about what I assume you mean to be beefy utility vehicles (Utes, we call them in Au, Americans seem to call them trucks from what I've heard).
I mean let's be honest, more often than not, if you're not buying a ute with a bog standard metal tray and little extras, it is for signalling.
Because the more "luxury" ones, with a hard top, with a thick plastic, painted body kit, and bullbars - compromise heavily on actual usability, and are way less useful than a standard ute with a tray
I thought a “Ute” was specifically a unibody vehicle with an open area in the back for cargo. Most typically the Ute is adapted from a sedan or coupe. There have not been many Utes in the states. Notable exceptions include the recent Subaru Baja and earlier Chevy El Camino. Some trucks have started to use unibody chassis but this is a relatively new development: Honda Ridgeline, Ford Mavericks and Hyundai Santa Cruz.
Maybe I’m just old fashioned and have an appreciation for imported Commodore Utes. It seems language has changed:
Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term "ute" in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries.
Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck, including families with kids (which e.g. in Europe manage to get just fine with a regular car, not even a SUV).