[DCH3416]

Well, there is because it's wasteful. Wasteful of material, and finite resources that we in the US subsidize to keep fuel prices from being adjusted to what they would be relative to the rest of the world. Further roads now in modern society are better than they ever have been, especially compared to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Tires are better. You mean to tell me these days we need more capable vehicles compared to the land yachts and economy cars we drove back in the day? Can't forget a Buick park avenue V6 can be used to tow, and other folks in the world use things like priuses to tow trailers. And frankly I've gone down rough dirt roads in old civics before.

So yeah. Needless to say the practically argument is lackluster relative to the actual capabilities of most vehicles. I think folks are just overestimating their use cases which will cost us in the long run because you've financed yourself to death through the cost of ownership.

[yellowapple]

Alright, well as someone who routinely puts both the cargo-hauling capabilities and 4WD of his Tacoma to full use, y'all can pry my truck out of my cold dead fingers. Just because you can get away with not needing a truck doesn't mean I can.

[nucleardog]

No one's talking about erasing trucks from the face of the planet. They're talking about how to deal with and minimize the negative externalities. This is part of living in a society etc etc.

For the vast majority of people who own trucks, they're not using the cargo hauling or off road capabilities at all. That's an easy one, we shouldn't all be paying the cost of that.

At the other end, there are definitely situations where the job the vehicle is fulfilling is not "people transport" but "heavy thing transport". I don't think anyone's suggesting we start outfitting construction crews with Priuses (Priora? Prii?).

There's a whole spectrum in between that you likely fall on, and I can't really say much more than that without knowing what "routinely" or "full use" means there.

What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars. I can't see any justification for those at all besides "because I want to" which really doesn't seem like a good enough justification for putting people in danger.

As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions. From the data I can find[0], that's a similar increase in risk of fatality as someone doing something like 30mph in a 15mph school zone and hitting a kid. If I started driving 30mph through school zones "because I want to" or "because sometimes I'm in a hurry" they would put me in jail. Frankly, I don't think there's _any_ reason society would accept for me doing that. Certainly not after I hit and killed a kid. So why should we all accept it here?

[0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...

[yellowapple]

> What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars.

Which trims would those be? My SR is the absolute lowest-power trim option available to my knowledge, and even it readily handles towing loads (like the large trailer full of furniture that I hauled from Sacramento to Reno last weekend) that I wouldn't in a million years trust a sedan (let alone something smaller) to tow.

In any case, there's more to the equation than weight. Would you use your Japanese compact sports car to haul gravel? Or bags of trash? Or large pieces of furniture? I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification" - without needing a trailer, mind you.

> As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions.

"Full size" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

In any case, I can't find anything supporting the claim that pedestrians are twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck. More like +45% at most: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...

[nucleardog]

> I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification"

What I said was that I cannot see justification for trucks that are less, not, or barely more capable than smaller vehicles with fewer negative externalities. You're choosing to put yourself in that category it seems.

> Which trims would those be? My SR is the absolute lowest-power trim option available to my knowledge,

The Tacoma comes in "34 flavours" apparently, so... there's a few but looks like the SR with I4 is rated for 3,500lbs. That's 1,000lbs unbraked TWR and 3,500lbs braked TWR.

> and even it readily handles towing loads

Yes? I'm not trying to suggest trucks aren't capable of towing... I'm trying to suggest that other vehicles are a lot more capable than people seem to think and some of these trucks are unnecessary.

The manual for the Tacoma says towing above 2,000lbs requires an anti-sway bar and never to exceed 65mph. Under the same conditions, a Subaru Crosstrek has the same 3,500lb tow rating.

So if you can get by with the 3,500lb towing capacity, you don't need a truck for towing. You've proved the exact point I was trying to make. We are dealing with the negative aspects of truck ownership and there's basically no reason for it. In a society where people were more considerate, that vehicle would not exist. Why are we in this situation then?

> I wouldn't in a million years trust a sedan (let alone something smaller) to tow.

Right, that's why. Over in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere with all the extra safety regulations and everything else they're towing around giant campers with little 0.8L econoboxes without turning the highways into mad max, but somehow that just never made it over here.

In the past while I've hauled loads consisting of:

  - Concrete patio blocks
  - A hardwood king sized bed + headboard; kid's play structure; swingset; and a pile of flatpak Ikea stuff
  - A heavy hardwood hutch, buffet, large kitchen table, and four dining chairs
  - A kitchen's worth of new cabinets, a dishwasher, and related fixtures
  - A kitchen's worth of old cabinets, fixtures, and related construction debris
  - A bunch of yard debris from neighbours' yards after some storms
  - A bunch of lumber from the lumberyard
  - Probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting.

Are these things you'd trust a sedan to pull? Because I've been pulling them all with a sedan. And I live in a rural area, so _most_ of these trips are an hour and a half on the highway each way plus whatever urban driving I'm doing.

> Would you use your Japanese compact sports car to haul gravel? Or bags of trash? Or large pieces of furniture? I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification"

Again, I'm not saying trucks can't haul things. I'm saying they're not needed to haul things in many situations. Saying that you can do things with your truck is not justifying its existence unless they're things you _can't_ do otherwise. Right off the bat, the existence of trailers, cargo carriers, hatchbacks, etc basically addresses this. But sure, I'll play along.

No, I wouldn't fill my back seat up with gravel. That would be stupid and also horribly inefficient. Gravel's heavy. I pay the guy $50 to use his dump truck to dump 10 or 15 yards on my property instead of making 15 trips with a trailer or 30+ with a truck bed. Thankfully I've yet to run into a situation in my life where I suddenly and unexpectedly need to transport a half a yard (max for the top trim Tacoma's bed capacity) of gravel with no time to just go get my trailer. Is this a thing that happens to a lot of people?

I do haul bags of trash with my car. Every week when I take the trash. Sometimes in the trunk, but sometimes in a small hitch mount cargo carrier.

Yeah, I've moved furniture with my car. Sometimes I need to take a couple pieces off to get it in there. There's a lot of space but the trunk opening's just not that tall. Can get a lot of Ikea boxes in there! At one point I went down to Home Depot for a 4x8 sheet of plywood and I had to pay them $2 to cut it in half lengthwise so I could get it in there. Generally though if I were trying to move furniture I'd either use my wife's hatchback (larger trunk opening's kinda helpful, managed to shove a fridge in there the other day) or, y'know, just use the trailer. Again I find in my life it's pretty rare that I suddenly and unexpectedly need to haul large pieces of furniture.

> without needing a trailer, mind you.

I'm really not sure why this is a benefit. Even though I'm probably moving around more stuff that many people, the vast majority of my driving is still not hauling furniture around. I don't need to pay the costs in space, weight, or fuel economy for the capability to haul stuff when I'm not actively hauling stuff--I just take the trailer off. Much like I don't drive around day-to-day in a 27ft box truck because I occasionally move between houses... I go borrow one from U-Haul. (Which also has trailers and trucks.)

> I can't find anything supporting the claim that pedestrians are twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck.

Here's a meta-study saying +50%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/

This was the newer study that was sourced from, though I mixed some numbers up: https://www.justintyndall.com/tyndall_pedestrian.pdf

+68% for "trucks" and +99% (where I got twice as likely) for "full-size SUVs". Given most SUVs are built on truck frames with similar bodywork and styling, I'm not sure what the distinction would be.

But sure, instead of 2.0x or 1.7x or 1.5x we can call it 1.45x. A 45% increase in risk of death as a pedestrian, an increased likelihood of being hit in the first place due to worse visibility, an increased risk of death in a collision while driving because physics, increased pollution in the air I breathe... totally worth it.

[yellowapple]

> Under the same conditions, a Subaru Crosstrek has the same 3,500lb tow rating.

While not being all that much smaller than a Tacoma, aside from length. And the tradeoff for that shorter length is that you lose out on a bed.

> I pay the guy $50 to use his dump truck to dump 10 or 15 yards on my property

And if you don't need 10 or 15 yards of gravel?

> Sometimes in the trunk, but sometimes in a small hitch mount cargo carrier.

So in other words: either stinking up your interior or reliant on an extra piece of equipment. If only your vehicle had a built-in exterior storage compartment.

> There's a lot of space but the trunk opening's just not that tall.

One of the perks of a pickup is that the "trunk" is infinitely tall. I don't have to cut boards or disassemble furniture or what have you. I don't need a trailer, either. I just need ratchet straps.

> I'm really not sure why this is a benefit

A trailer is an extra burden that's best avoided if possible. It complicates maneuvering, it's an extra set of lights and (possibly) brakes to maintain, it imposes different chain control requirements when driving in ice/snow (very relevant where I live), some places impose different speed limits when towing, etc. You also need someplace to park it when you're not using it, which ain't always possible - that, or you need to rent one, which means extra costs, and extra time/fuel to go to U-Haul or whatever to pick it up and drop it off.

Meanwhile, I just put stuff in the bed and call it a day.

> Again I find in my life it's pretty rare that I suddenly and unexpectedly need to haul large pieces of furniture.

Cool. Meanwhile, for me it's a monthly occurrence at minimum. If it ain't for me, it's for a friend or family member.

> This was the newer study that was sourced from, though I mixed some numbers up: https://www.justintyndall.com/tyndall_pedestrian.pdf

An interesting conclusion of that study, to your point, is its claim that replacing all "light trucks" (pickups, SUVs, minivans) with "cars" would reduce yearly pedestrian fatalities by almost 500. And yet, that'd be less than 7% of the approx. 7,500 yearly pedestrian deaths - which suggests to me that blaming big(ger) vehicles for any significant uptick in pedestrian fatalities is a red herring.

> an increased likelihood of being hit in the first place due to worse visibility

My Tacoma has significantly better visibility than any comparably-new sedan I've driven.

> an increased risk of death in a collision while driving because physics

That's the opposite of correct: https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight

[nradov]

Oh please. Everything is "wasteful" to some extent. Unless you're living in a mud hut with no climate control and walking everywhere then your virtue signaling is pure hypocrisy.

If the concern is fuel usage then let's raise the fuel tax. Moralizing and telling other people that they like the wrong things isn't going to accomplish anything.

[DCH3416]

Sure. I don't disagree. Where the line starts is when it starts to affect me fiscally. When I in the tax paying public have to pay for fuel subsidies, pouring wider roads, excess land use for parking lots. It's one fuel crisis away from being a serious problem when all these folks financing $40k trucks need a bail out from uncle sam.

And then you can get into in the US high cost of medical when one of these ego chasers mow down an otherwise productive member of society.