[fumar]

This is a breath of fresh air. Modern pick up trucks post-2017 are giant vehicles with high danger to pedestrians. They are often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of one human.

Good overviews of the truck https://youtu.be/aEq-vTLimrQ?si=fS-UhjndoWuxwBip

https://youtu.be/1OgN_qctcGs?si=nEysWQHzafRpxfRp

[Aurornis]

> They are often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see them in pristine condition on city streets

When I was off-roading and traveling a lot of dirt trails with my truck I would also wash it, wax it, and keep it in pristine condition when I got back home.

What did you expect? That we’d leave the mud on it forever, never wash it, and all of the side panels would be bashed in? If you’d climb under the truck (as I do for oil changes) you could see a lot of scrapes and dings from rocks, but I avoid damaging the side and front because that’s very expensive to repair.

Anyway, most of the trucks sold today aren’t sold in the off-road trim. They’re sold with features like lower clearance air dams up front for better fuel economy, on-road tires for better road noise and fuel economy, and commonly in 2WD trims. A new F150 can get 25mpg on the freeway even without the hybrid option.

I work remote so my truck isn’t used for commutes. I frequently haul things in the bed. I off road with friends.

Yet that doesn’t stop some people from making snide remarks about driving a truck. Some people love being angry at truck drivers and imagining they’re all just making irrational choices. They won’t be happy until we’re driving to Home Depot or UHaul every other weekend to rent a truck or trailer instead of parking one in our driveways.

It doesn’t stop them from calling me up and asking for help moving furniture when they need it, though. :)

[ricardobeat]

You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which things should be evaluated.

It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed. Millions of school pickups happening on massive trucks - and SUVs - are not ceasing to happen because you loaded your own with a pile of grass. People buy them because they’re “safer”, comfortable and look good. This is coming from research data for years now, and not only in the USA.

It can be hard to relate to changes happening at societal scale that don’t affect your own microcosm, but how else can we be aware of it, and act on, if not through data, averages and trends?

[toast0]

Let's be honest. I only rarely use most of the features of my vehicles.

What's worse? A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat?

I have a truck, because I find it more convenient to have a truck bed anytime I need it, than to have to arrange to borrow or rent one. The bed doesn't get used often, but it's also a reasonable vehicle for driving solo or with one passenger; two in a pinch. Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have, too. Unfortunately, the single cab, 6-ft bed small truck market disappeared, and I got this one used with too big of an engine, so the mileage is poor... when I had a 4-cylinder small truck, mileage was better, but I don't drive that much anymore anyway.

But, I have lots of space, so I can keep a car for transporting a car pool in comfort, a PHEV with good mileage for longer trips that don't need anything special, a small truck for doing small truck things, and an old van with removed back seats that's fun to work on and can carry things that shouldn't get wet when it's raining. The van visibility towards the front is even better than the truck, because it's cabover, but visibility to the back isn't as good... None of those modern pillars that make it hard to see out the sides though.

[rtpg]

> What's worse? A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat?

It's more "what's worse? A huge truck with worse visibility, alone, or a car that has better visibility, safety features, and less likely to kill someone in an accident, driven alone".

Obviously if the bed or the back set were the only swap, none of it matters.

And like... yeah there's the calculus of how often you use it etc.

[messe]

> A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat?

A not in use back seat takes up far less space in a sane car than a pick-up truck with a bed.

> Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have, too.

At the expense of others. And good luck seeing a small child in front of it if you're driving in a moderately pedestrianized area.

[toast0]

My s-10 is 190 inches long by wikipedia. A same year Honda Accord is 189.5–191.1 in long. The accord is marginally wider.

Driving alone in my s-10 takes the same space as driving alone in an Accord if I had one. And it's easier to see around or through the S-10, so everyone gets more visibility.

The S-10 hood height and length is more than an Accord, so there may be some additional risk there, sure.

Either way, a cabover design like the linked vehicle should appeal. Better visibility to the front, and less wasted space.

[dkh]

You know, for someone who clearly is a bit triggered (reasonably) by dealing with whatever stereotypes and judgements people make about trucks and truck owners, their post is quite positive and respectful. Your reply to it is not. It seems like your argument is “the data indicates a statistical likelihood that someone judging, assuming, or stereotyping will still be accurate.” The factual inaccuracy of prejudice is not the problem with prejudice, the prejudice is

[jychang]

I fail to see how prejudice against waste is a problem.

Prejudice is a bad thing- for things that people can't change, like their race or age. Prejudice against people making bad or wasteful decisions is a good thing.

[dkh]

No, prejudice is bad, full stop. By definition it means to judge someone for something before you actually know for sure that they have/do the thing that bothers you. It doesn’t matter what the thing is, that’s not the problem or the point. The point is you can’t, or shouldn’t, view or treat someone as though they have some quality you dislike when you don’t actually know about this individual and only know that a high percentage of them do. You can’t judge an individual this way! If you hate waste (as do I) and you feel trucks contribute to that and that a majority of truck owners don’t make use of their trucks, then great! Speak about it exactly like that. But you can’t simply take any truck driver and say “that individual is wasteful” without knowing.

You can’t do that any more than you can assume my friends and I are criminals and drug dealers because at some point we decided to use Telegram as our primary messaging app, or like ICE can assume anyone standing near a pro-Mexico protest is an illegal immigrant, you cannot attribute a quality to an individual without having actual knowledge of it.

[ricardobeat]

> You can’t judge an individual this way

But nobody is here to judge individuals. It’s the other way around - the discussion is around behavioral trends and data, they were the ones bringing in personal anecdotes to counter it. The point is to look at the behavior of of the general population and its impact, not trying to prove that anyone in particular conforms (or not) to the overall trend.

[jpk]

The point is you can't reliably tell if someone's choice of vehicle is wasteful unless you get to know them a bit. Snap-judging someone's entire lifestyle in the second it takes to recognize a make and model isn't constructive.

[simianparrot]

You can't know it's waste until you know their actual use of it.

Like another comment says, prejudice is bad -- full stop.

[cycomanic]

I fail to see the prejudice?

The OP said, I quote:

> This is a breath of fresh air. Modern pick up trucks post-2017 are giant vehicles with high danger to pedestrians. They are often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of one human.

That's not a prejudice that's literally how they are marketed and used to a large extend.

The second poster said, he is not using it that way, sure fine nobody said that _everybody_ is using a pick up truck this way, however as the reply to the other post said, there is ample research that the majority of pickup trucks are never used offroad and hardly ever have anything in their bed. Why did the responder feel triggered? And let's not ignore the fact that people driving pickups on the road does have a cost for everyone else, they reduce safety for everyone not in a pick up as well as pedastrians and cyclist, they have poorer milage so are contributing unnecessarily to climate change...

Now as to the point of all prejudice is bad. That's a pretty strong statement. Are you not judging people by their actions? If someone walks around with a swastika (sorry for godwins law, but you made an absolute statement) on his sleeve, is it prejudice to judge him?

[Qwertious]

If prejudice is bad full stop, even to entirely freely chosen actions, then it's wrong to criticize people for writing prejudiced comments - after all, you're being prejudiced against prejudiced comments, and being prejudiced is wrong.

(Please note that criticising nested paradoxes of tolerance expires after one use per conversation.)

[scott_w]

In the UK there was also a loophole that allowed them to be treated as a business expense when bought by sole traders. Many a hairdresser bought a pickup over the years.

That was changed so adding rear seats meant you could no longer class it as a company vehicle (the setup that was most common).

[hungmung]

> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed.

Just want to point out that big pickups are really about the hauling capacity, it's not like their beds are much bigger than a modern Ford Ranger. An F250 can safely pull 10 tons, and a dually F450 can pull 20t. Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you need a big truck.

[Too]

What's a reasonable scenario where average citizen need to haul 10, let alone 20 tons, on such regular basis that they need to own that capability themselves? Just rent or hire help. I would imagine that to also require special driving license, even if the car technically can handle it? We are not talking about professional use here, for that, use as big of a truck as you want.

[thelastgallon]

They need it to take their 20 tons of artisanal tomatoes and sourdough bread to farmers market. For backhoe and other heavy equipment that they rent on a daily basis. They help their friends and family move, with the 6 x 12 utility trailer add on, which can be daisy chained. They have large families with boats, jetskis and canoes that need to be towed for fun activities. Haul lumber and tons of stuff from homedepot for the DIY remodeling projects, once again helping friends and families. Volunteering on nextdoor to helpout Ukrainian and palestinian refugees, helping charities with food, clothes, tires, furniture donations and donations of upto 20 tons of gold bars. Helping friends and family buy/sell and resell antique furniture, audio equipment and plasma TVs, lots of trips to and from self storage. A big pickup truck also helps build a big house with a massive garage with its own DIY repair shop. Also, lots of friends with other pickup trucks that get stalled need towing help. Beer, lots of beer for weekend sports watching. Hunt hogs and bring meat home. Most importantly, it helps get away from wife to help a friend/family, which is the killer app.

[ricardobeat]

That’s what some peoples’ lives look like in Instagram. Good one.

[conductr]

Let’s cut to the chase here and flip this around. You tell people how often they need to be using the bed or towing things before you would accept their decision to buy versus rent as reasonable?

I go through periods where I tow weekly for months. Then I also have periods where I may tow nothing for 6-12 months. I rented for a bit and it was a huge pain in the ass for many reasons not to mention fairly expensive, can be so expensive to make paying the high price on a truck worth it.

If, as I suspect, you have never had the need to tow. Or do not live a lifestyle by trade/hobby that occasionally necessitates it, just say you can’t relate to the problems and inconveniences that renting poses and quit pretending nobody has thought of this before.

[cosmic_cheese]

Your case sounds more justifiable, but there is definitely a threshold of use below which buying extra utility doesn’t make a lot of sense, and I believe that a large number of Americans in particular sit under this threshold.

I feel that even with my current vehicle, which is an AWD electric compact SUV — it’s a great, highly capable car but in practice I’ve found that I’m practically never coming close to approaching the ceiling of its capabilities, which makes it feel wasted on me. I could get by just fine with something like a Bolt or e-Golf or a fossil fuel counterpart like a Fit and so once my lease is up I’ll probably be “downgrading”.

[bluGill]

You cannot rent a truck with a bed. Try it - nearly all rental 'trucks' have storng use restrictions such that you can't use them as a truck. even home depot trucks are for taking your purchases home and can't be used for other truck work. Even if you can use it, they often check the condition so if what you haul will scratch the bed you are out of luck.

if you manage to navigate that and find a truck that will work - the cost is so high that you are money ahead owning your own truck after rediculasly few rentals.

[troupo]

> Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you need a big truck.

That you can probably rent.

"I may need to haul a non-trivial load once 10 years from now" is hardly a justification for buying one

[bluGill]

you probably cannot re&t such a truck. Home depot and all rental cars places have a no towing clause in the contract. Uhaul only tows the own trailer by concract.

the few rent for towing places are rare, and charge high fees such that it is cheaper to own your own truck.

[troupo]

Searching "rent a truck to tow":

- Enterprise https://www.enterprisetrucks.com/truckrental/en_US/towing.ht...

- U-Haul https://www.uhaul.com/Truck-Rentals/Pickup-Truck/

I'm sure there are plenty more + services for towing.

[Aurornis]

> You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which things should be evaluated.

I was pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You cannot conclude that a truck never goes off-road by observing them on city streets. That was your claim, and I explained why it didn’t make sense. I also explained why trucks are not primarily sold as off-road vehicles anyway.

> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed

If you read the “studies” that make these claims they use two tricks:

First, they specifically exclude a truck defined as a work truck.

Second, they redefine “using the bed” to some arbitrary threshold, like hauling a large load of loose dirt or hauling something over so many hundred pounds.

If you actually believe that truck owners aren’t putting anything in the truck bed, you’re out of touch.

But why does this one point trigger you so much? If I showed you a similar study that the majority of people with back seats rarely had more than 2 people in their cars, would you become similarly enraged at the people buying 5-seat cars instead of a compact 2-seater?

If I showed you a study that the majority of people rarely use more than 200 horsepower would you start getting triggered by all of the 300, 400, or even 500 horsepower cars so wastefully driving around?

There’s something about pickup trucks, specifically, that makes a vocal minority irrationally angry and triggered. It’s a funny meme to watch because so many comments in this thread are absolutely sure that they understand the situation but they don’t understand basic facts about how you can’t tell if someone goes off-road by judging the condition of their paint, or that using a truck for work purposes doesn’t render it visibly damaged in a way that they can see. They just see trucks, get triggered, mix it with misleading “studies”, and come to believe odd conclusions like “truck drivers don’t use their beds”

[xocnad]

Why are you triggered by the vocal irrational minority? You seem quite defensive for someone who is confident and comfortable in the the truck they own and how they use it and maintain it.

[nwienert]

Not them, but I find that people who take out political frustration against non-political things quite annoying.

For example, when Tesla was blue-coded, way more comments here were highly forgiving, if not outright glazing. They became red-coded, and suddenly you’d see tons of highly technical reasons they sucked. You can gut yourself into coming up with many reasons this isn’t true, but it’s definitely true.

Trucks have gotten this since the beginning.

It’s not that it’s triggering, it’s just more annoying to have to waste a lot of time reading things that are clearly therapy for the poster more than any sort of interesting opinion.

[01100011]

It's getting harder to find good online discussions devoid of bias and emotions. With user moderation, control goes to those with the most time to waste online, meaning the least happy, productive and social.

[rayiner]

> There’s something about pickup trucks, specifically, that makes a vocal minority irrationally angry and triggered

Because of the cultural coding of pickup trucks, versus say sports cars that might get just as bad mpg.

[ricardobeat]

> I was pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

This discussion is pretty much done, but I just wanted to note that I’m not the original poster you were replying to.

> You cannot conclude that a truck never goes off-road by observing them on city streets. That was your claim, and I explained why it didn’t make sense.

No, the claim is that the majority of them are not going off road, not any particular vehicle (yours included).

I enjoy cars, and driving a large pickup is fun. I also happen to think they are not appropriate vehicles for the majority of people, should not be a default option, take up way too much space, and make city roads significantly less safe. This is not an emotional response, just an opinion. If your use of a pickup makes sense I don’t think anyone has a problem with that.

And yes, I also agree that 200hp+ ICE cars are wasteful, and even if they are an EV, most people should not be driving something that powerful as it also has an impact on road safety. Similar thing: you enjoy cars, drive well, and own an SRT? Great, have fun! Should the average driver have one? Hell no.

[tapland]

People using their trucks for truck stuff know most others don’t. They don’t have to make shit up

[kubectl_h]

> It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners rarely ever use the truck bed.

I'm not here to defend brodozers, but you cannot possibly prove this statement. That a _pickup truck_ isn't hauling the majority of the time it is on the road is not some new thing. But of course there are more pickup trucks on the road than ever, so if you argument is aggregate time of all pickup trucks not doing truck things is the highest its ever been is certainly true, but you'd probably have to go back to before the 80s for that number to actually be meaningfully different per truck.

[jakelazaroff]

Not sure what you mean by "prove this statement" but answering questions like this is exactly why organizations do consumer research. To wit [1]:

> According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

[Aurornis]

The hauling figure is useless without specifying what they mean.

Usually these “studies” redefine hauling to mean something specific like hauling loose dirt or something extremely heavy.

If you can read a quote claiming 2/3 of truck owners don’t “put something in the bed” more than once a year then and not realize that something is wrong with these statistics then you’re missing something.

[jakelazaroff]

The question is not whether they "put something in the bed" — it's whether they use the bed in such a way that the trunk or back seat of a smaller vehicle would be unsuitable.

[Aurornis]

There’s a quote from some consulting firm that goes around claiming 2/3 of truck drivers don’t “put something in the bed” more than once a year.

It’s a laughable claim for anyone who thinks about it for more than a second.

The way they usually get to these numbers is by redefining what “hauling a load” means to be something extremely heavy or for loose fill materials. So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the lumber yard it wouldn’t count.

[ricardobeat]

The company in question has been doing their survey for two decades. It’s a private data set, but has been reported on by multiple serious news outlets which will have their own data scientists looking over the data, e.g. Axios: https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history

You can also verify the data is coming from real drivers, by searching for “New Vehicle Experience Study” and seeing all the posts from users who receive the survey and think it’s some kind of scam.

[cosmic_cheese]

> So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the lumber yard it wouldn’t count.

Even if that’s the case, the truck owners doing this probably don’t need a full size truck. A 90s-era small truck or maybe even a kei truck would suffice, and yet more often than not the trucks in question are the likes of F-150s.

[wyre]

Agreed, unfortunately small trucks are increasingly harder and harder to find. A 90s truck also won’t have the amenities that a modern truck has.

I think if they are just hauling mountain bikes, they could get a small hitch installed and purchase a high-quality bike rack. A roof rack can carry 2x4s very well.

[orbital-decay]

That's what hauling means to me, though.

A rack mount on a normal European-sized car is perfectly sufficient for a couple bicycles, I have one, and a trailer for my enduro motorcycle, or a fridge, or anything else I occasionally transport. Anything bigger and I'll rent an actual truck.

[goosejuice]

> So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the lumber yard it wouldn’t count.

If that's all you're doing, anything more than a Maverick is overkill. Bike racks and wood delivery are a thing. Shit you can fit a mountain bike in the back of a sedan. I see people doing this at trailheads all the time.

Those suburban moms don't need a Yukon to take their two kids to soccer practice either.

[lucumo]

> So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the lumber yard it wouldn’t count.

I don't know how long a 2x4 is, so I don't know about those. But in the summer holiday period (so now) you see a lot of these running around: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thule_(11834033554... Even on surprisingly small cars.

I dislike the whole "justify why you like X" thing. People can always find the flimsiest of reasons why they want to prohibit things they don't like and then demand others justify why they should get to keep what they have. Just simply liking something never seems enough for those fighters against joy.

I really don't like pick up trucks. I also think most of their practical uses can be achieved with other vehicles. But that shouldn't concern me. If the owner of the car gets joy out of it, then that should be enough. I don't have to like what others like, and they don't have to like what I like.

[wyre]

>If the owner of the car gets joy out of it, then that should be enough.

For most things, yes, absolutely! However, considering the dangers of huge trucks it is very valid to have concerns about them. An exaggerated analogy: if the owner of a gun gets joy out of free firing it into the air that should be enough.

[jakewins]

Respectfully, if you don’t know how long a 2x4 is, I think it would be very reasonable to look this up, as it will make you much better equipped to make this argument.

I generally agree with what you are saying, and frequently haul 2x4s without my truck - but the solution to that is a long flatbed trailer, not a Thule hitch attachment.

[scott_w]

Exactly, because my car can do that. You can put your shopping in the flatbed but you wouldn’t claim you were “using” the flatbed or “hauling” a pint of milk and a load of bread…

I meant, you could, but I’d laugh in your face.

[rco8786]

> That we’d leave the mud on it forever, never wash it, and all of the side panels would be bashed in?

That's exactly how we always did it growing up.

[esskay]

> A new F150 can get 25mpg on the freeway even without the hybrid option.

As a non-American it's super weird that this is considered a good thing. That'd be considered utterly atrocious in most parts of the developed world.

I completely get that a truck is absolutely the best tool for the job for many people. But it's pretty obvious the OP was pointing out the people who own a truck and use it to get from home to their desk job.

[vineyardmike]

As an American, I think 25 is absolutely abysmal.

It's not good in 2025. The fuel economy of a modern sedan (eg. a Toyota Camry) is around 50. It's just this one poster who is defending trucks saying it's good.

[Aurornis]

The average fuel economy for cars on the road right now is around 25mpg.

You can also get a 40-50mpg brand new sedan here if you want, but they serve different purposes.

You can also get a hybrid F150 that gets better mileage.

You can also get a fully electric F150 that doesn’t use any gas at all.

I was trying to make a point to counter the silly assumptions throughout this thread, such as the person who keeps claiming trucks are “incompetent” at being normal vehicles.

[troupo]

> You can also get a 40-50mpg brand new sedan here if you want, but they serve different purposes.

They don't. Your average truck is hauling a person from home to work to grocery store to home 10% of the time. 80% of the time it's parked. 90% of the remaining 10% is also covered be a sedan

[FabHK]

As a non-American, I operate in l/100 km, and have no idea what 25 mpg is...

[ben_w]

Assuming I used the correct gallon (US!=UK), I think it's 9.4l/100km

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

25 isn't good? That's what my tiny sedan used to get and I sold it not even 5 years ago.

[esskay]

No, not even close to good.

I'm having to convert to US gallons to Imperial here but...

My old ICE car was getting approx 50mpg (which is approx 41mpg for you) and was considered poor for its age. My new one (hybrid) is 60mpg (approx 50mpg for you).

For a fairly modern car (e.g under 10 years old) in the UK you'd expect at least 40–50 MPG (UK) / 33–42 MPG (US), and even that would be considered on the lower end. Most modern cars are either electric or hybrid here these days so you'd expect 60–100 MPG (UK) / 50–83 MPG (US).

[hedgehog]

Few modern gas cars will get over 50 US MPG in city usage. 35 MPG is probably a better estimate for the hybrid fleet which is still much, much better than gas cars of a decade ago.

[kristo]

My 2011 golf gets 40mpg real world mileage. Tiny engine, but I don’t need to impress anyone with my car

[_kb]

A Toyota RAV4 (the best calling ICE car in the world) is about half that. They do a hybrid model that’s lower still.

The Toyota Corolla (second best selling) is then lower again.

US cultural perceptions on fuel efficiency are bonkers.

[nsriv]

Genuinely terrible, a 15 year old Civic handily gets 35mpg highway, a 2025 non-hybrid gets 47+.

[uxp100]

A 2025 non-hybrid gets 47+? I don’t think so. That’s pretty close to the EPA rating for the hybrid model.

[ben_w]

15 year old, so c. 2010.

I can easily belive it, though the closest Civic mpg report I found was for a 2012-14 model:

  What is the fuel economy, Honda Civic IX Hatchback 2.2 i-DTEC (150 Hp)?
        4.4 l/100 km
        53.46 US mpg
        64.2 UK mpg
        22.73 km/l

- https://www.auto-data.net/en/honda-civic-ix-hatchback-2.2-i-...

I had use of a Renault Megane for a bit, it was getting something a bit better than that: https://www.auto-data.net/en/renault-megane-iii-phase-ii-201...

American cars just aren't at all efficient by anyone else's standards.

[xboxnolifes]

25 is terrible highway mileage. When I (USA) had a pickup truck as my daily commuter for a few years 5-10 years back, I got ~22 mpg on "city" roads, and >30 mpg on highways. And that's not considered good.

[dhruvrrp]

My sports sedan gives 25 mpg, and my parent's Toyota hybrid SUV gives 58 mpg.

[rayiner]

My 2019 subaru forester only gets 27 mpg.

[idiotsecant]

This is a deeply emotional response to someone making the completely obvious point that the vast majority of trucks are grocery haulers. That's not opinion - it's statistics.

[kristo]

Nobody wants to tell you you can’t buy a truck, but the rest of us shouldn’t bear the negative externalities of every person who wants to buy a truck - especially when the facts show most of those people would be served (practically if not emotionally) just as well by a smaller vehicle.

Why should we subsidize truck (and SUV) ownership? They ruin roads, are vastly more dangerous, require wider lanes, have worse visibility of pedestrians, pollute more, are louder, and take up more space than other options. Yet we don’t make SUV owners pay for any of that. We subsidize their gas, their road repairs and expansions, their car insurance, their storage space, their car payments, not to mention ignore the injuries, deaths and discomforts they cause.

My 2011 VW Golf gets 40mpg… so I’m not very impressed by an F150 that 99.9% of the time performs the same job (carrying one person and no cargo) getting 25. (Even if this isn’t your experience, the facts show that for most people it is)

You should be free to make your own decisions! I support you in that. I can believe that your lifestyle justifies owning a truck, even though that doesn’t generalize to most SUV owners. I just don’t want to pay for other people’s lifestyle decisions. It’s like we have socialism for truck owners, but market capitalism for people who need healthcare

[madaxe_again]

My truck is used purely and solely for truck shit - getting in and out from where we live, which is absolutely impassible with anything other than a high 4x4 with mudder tyres, and hauling everything from trees to gravel to water to batteries - there’s almost always something substantial in the bed.

It gets washed maybe twice a year, as it ends up filthy within 20 minutes anyway - and the panels all have scratches and dents from forging through brush.

For car shit, I have an (electric) car which I park on the main road.

The idea of waxing my truck is up there with the idea of waxing my legs.

[adw]

25mpg is still insanely, obscenely profligate when a reasonable vehicle (say a Renault Clio) gets somewhere between 50 and 70. That will make some people angry and it’s hard to see that as entirely irrational.

[raddan]

I completely agree and I personally consider it ethically wrong to buy an ICE at this point in time. There’s still a premium to pay for an EV, but the excuses are rapidly evaporating. What this tells me is that for all the lip service people give about the environment, fundamentally most people don’t really give a shit.

[scott_w]

In the U.K. I see many pickups owned by hairdressers (judging by the livery) in suburban areas. Something tells me they’re not transporting generators around with them…

[01100011]

People addicted to online forums love to comment and upvote posts which trash talk trucks. People who own and enjoy trucks are busy leading fun and productive lives and can't be bothered to waste their time with online arguments.

[kristo]

Because they are subsidized by the rest of us. That’s all we want to stop.

[api]

Vehicular elephantiasis is largely the result of perverse incentives from emission regulation. Make something big enough and it fits into different more lax categories. The way we do emission and mileage standards might do more harm than good unless you’re an oil company.

[mitthrowaway2]

Maybe, but it's clearly worked it's way into fashions as well. The F-150 lightning doesn't have to worry about emissions categories, but it's just as elephantine as the rest, including a child-killing vision-obstructing front hood and grille whose only purpose is to enclose a frunk.

[dyauspitr]

I like that’s the lightning is giant. I don’t particularly like small, low to the ground vehicles.

[arijun]

Your comfort shouldn’t outweigh the safety of pedestrians. There is a reason those cars do not pass regulations in Europe.

[dyauspitr]

I’ve driven plenty in Europe. Those small cramped roads can’t handle big vehicles and parking anywhere is non existent or highly inconvenient. I bet that’s the main reason European cars tend to skew smaller.

[benregenspan]

But why is that? Is there any chance it's at least partly to protect yourself from everyone else in giant cars?

[renewiltord]

I have a Subaru Forester. When I drive a sedan everyone shines their headlamps into my face. I parked my Forester behind a sedan and drove back and forth. My lights were not in their cabin.

So other people drive in a way that is not compatible with my driving because I don’t want headlamps in my cabin. Occasionally there’s a lifted truck behind me and it brightens my cabin.

In those moments I fantasize about placing retroreflectors all over my rear seat headrests but then I pull over and let them past and the moment passes.

Besides, a HN truism is “Yield to gross tonnage”. I liked that. It makes sense that HN users who believe that if you’re big others should get out of the way also get large cars.

“The cemeteries are full of people with right of way” so smaller vehicles should get out of the way of larger vehicles or risk death. It’s a good lesson. Can’t say it’s false.

[mitthrowaway2]

I guess there should be rules about the height of headlights. It seems like exactly the sort of safety and compatibility problem that standards exist to solve.

[MagnumOpus]

It is obviously true.

What is also obviously true is that road damage scales with the fourth power of vehicle mass, and that therefore vehicle taxation should increase at a similar power, so that the drivers of the 3-tonne trucknutted Canyoneros stop freeloading on the community.

[masklinn]

… and that’s why I bought a Marauder MPV to go get groceries.

[cosmic_cheese]

Nothing less than a decommissioned Abrams tank will do for taking little Billy to school!

[adastra22]

Also the arms race of collision survivablity. I have no interest in driving a big truck, but with all the other big trucks out there I’m seriously tempted just for my own safety…

[Spooky23]

The big trucks are not evaluated for safety to the same standard as other vehicles. They aren't rigged with exploding gas tanks anymore, but the feeling of safety is mostly psychological.

[adastra22]

That’s not the safety risk. The safety risk is not being in a big truck and getting hit by one. It’s not so much to do with the vehicle’s safety features as to (1) mass; and (2) height of the cabin.

[Spooky23]

That’s part of the issue. The safety ratings of a pickup truck do not incorporate the risk of the front end causing fatalities in collisions.

The feeling of safety is part of that - drivers think they have better visibility due to seating position. They are also more likely to roll and spin out than other vehicles.

[adastra22]

Causing fatalities to the other drivers and pedestrians. This is, unfortunately, a selfish incentive that works against the common good.

[pantalaimon]

The only logical next step is the mini-tank

[masklinn]

I've been looking at the GTK Boxer since it was first announced. The modularity means you can bring the kids to school then swap the rear module for one more suited to transporting raw materials, you just need a garage equipped with a 15t crane to do the swap at home in just a few minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_WblYc4xk

[miningape]

Just wait until 2050 when we all have our own killdozers [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

[20after4]

The killdozers will all be self driving with no passengers and we will be the target. This will surely come to pass long before 2050.

[adastra22]

How did I never hear of this? That was an epic read, thank you.

[sneak]

It isn’t an arms race, as being in those bigger vehicles only feels more safe; it isn’t actually any safer.

[adastra22]

It is much safer to be in a big truck hitting an another big truck, than in a small sedan hitting a big truck. Physics of momentum beats out safety features. Actual studies do show this: it is safer for the occupant of the truck in a two-vehicle collision.

More trucks on the road make the chance of fatalities overall higher. You often find articles saying that fatalities go up when you introduce a truck, and that is true. But that's because trucks are more likely to kill pedestrians or drivers of smaller cars, NOT because of risk to the truck driver. []

It would be better if there were fewer trucks on the road. But if everyone else is buying a truck, it becomes your selfish incentive to do so as well, for the safety of your* family. It is a tragedy of the commons situation.

[*] The exception is single-vehicle accidents, e.g. rollovers. Those are riskier and more likely for the driver of a truck, but also less of a concern in suburban driving.

[iambateman]

I think that’s part of it, but also about 30% of men apparently have a nearly-unlimited budget for buying the biggest truck.

[kube-system]

Maybe we’ll see that change if the recent CAFE changes stick. I think the big bill passed recently set CAFE fines to zero.

[KevinGlass]

The primary purpose of a pickup truck is gender affirming care for men in an increasing confusing world.

[hereme888]

Yea, it's not like men have a natural preference for tools, liking to repair things, cool toys to carry on the back, or think "why get a mini-cooper when I can get an F-150 to carry my hunting gear, tow the boat". It obviously all culture-imposed gender preferences.

[viraptor]

> it's not like men have a natural preference for tools

A proven preference they're born with and unrelated to the culture they grow up in? Please do link to that study!

[hereme888]

You don't need to study if grass is green or water is wet, but you're welcome to study why.

[viraptor]

If you don't question the basics, you will miss they grass is not always green, depending on environment https://www.australianplantsonline.com.au/imperata-rubra-jap... https://www.oztrees.com.au/product/austrostipa-scabra/ So yes, sometimes you need to study that before assuming that what you usually see is natural rather than shaped.

[hereme888]

Adults should have the ability to understand abstract examples. Of course I've been outdoors and observed the grass is literally not always green.

[monkeyelite]

those are the trucks that people who buy trucks like. This truck is designed to appeal to people who don't buy trucks.

[rcpt]

It's also because of CAFE standards.

[fragmede]

Those effectively don't exist anymore. The fine multiplier was reduced to zero, so there's no penalty for violating the standards, retroactive back to 2022.

[SilverElfin]

> I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of one human.

It’s about having one vehicle that can do it all. Maybe you’re noticing when there’s one human but you don’t really know how else that person is using the vehicle at other times. Trucks can haul people, things, do road trips, etc. pretty well.

[toomuchtodo]

You Don't Need a Full-Size Pickup Truck, You Need a Cowboy Costume - https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz... - March 15th, 2019

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42638394 - January 2025

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21631704 - November 2019

Ray Delahanty | CityNerd: Rural Cosplay is, Unfortunately, A Thing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q_BE5KPp18

(Americans buy trucks out of emotion and cosplay, not realized utility and rational TCO, based on the evidence and data)

[jcgrillo]

I'm shopping for a truck atm because I need one. I am pretty routinely overloading the towing capacity of my Land Cruiser, and a decent flatbed pickup would obviate the need to hook up the trailer most of the time. Being able to tow/haul 3-4cord of firewood logs in one go would be super convenient, I'll use that capability at least once per year.

And if you're thinking "why not just rent?" I'll ask when was the last time you saw an equipment trailer rental with a winch capable of hauling logs up onto it?

Paradoxically, at least in the context of this thread, my motivation to own a truck is safety and efficiency. A 12 valve Cummins pulling the GCVWR of a 1994-1998.5 3/4 ton Dodge will get right around 10mpg and do it safely.

[toomuchtodo]

I admit there are many of you out there, and have no problem with folks who need a truck for truck use cases. That's what trucks are for. I take issue with those buying them for non rational use cases (status, etc), "Pavement Princess" vehicle duty cycles.

[Aurornis]

> Americans buy trucks out of emotion and cosplay

This is a hilarious take for anyone who has spent any time living outside of a big city.

Yes, there are some people who buy trucks because they want one but don’t actually use the truck features.

Generalizing to “Americans are cosplaying” is just trolling.

[toomuchtodo]

Study Claims That Most Pickup Truck Owners Don’t Actually Use Them For Truck Stuff - September 2023

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/most-pickup-truck-owners-...

https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history

[Aurornis]

You’re spamming this same study throughout the thread without realizing that is uses a different and much stricter definition of “hauling” than the average person.

[masklinn]

This demonstrating the average person is an idiot who never needed a truck because their “hauling” can be done with a sedan or even a compact car.

Which is rather the point.

[kortilla]

From that own study it shows more than half are using it at least “occasionally” for “hauling”.

I’d like to see the study on what percentage of people use all 4 seats in their car so you can dunk on people who buy 4 seaters next.

[master-lincoln]

You make it sound like it would be unreasonable to dunk on people wasting our society resources. Why not hit on people driving 4 seat cars when they drive alone most of the time? If it affects me it should be normal that I voice an opinion. Those cars use public space, roads, bridges that are affected more the heavier your car is. That also drives up the motor power needed which in turn increases public air pollution.

[troupo]

> This is a hilarious take for anyone who has spent any time living outside of a big city.

People outside of big city need big trucks about as often as people in the city.

Source: lived in the middle of nowhere in North Carolina.

Living outside of big city doesn't mean you're immediately a farmer who needs to haul tons of forage or lumber. The absolute vast majority of people don't.

[giraffe_lady]

I live in a big city and two children under 10 have been killed by large pickup trucks within a half mile of my home in the last five years. Two that I know of anyway, because I'm acquainted with the families. One had been modified with a "bull bar" making it more dangerous to pedestrians.

And 80% of americans live in urban areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullbar

[Ray20]

>based on the evidence and data >Evidence and data show that cake taste better than bread, why are they starving? Let them eat cake

I really wonder what kind of world people live in who write such articles and what kind of world people live in who seriously read them. It's hard to believe that they live among us, there must be some separate island in the ocean or something like that where they can write their articles in complete isolation from the rest of the world.

[toomuchtodo]

Ehh, vehicle affordability rapidly accelerating away as the middle class evaporates solves the problem if people can’t make financially rational choices themselves. As of this comment, the average price of a new full-size pickup truck is around $64,000, while the average price of a new mid-size pickup truck is about $42,690. This is before tariff impacts are baked in. Doesn’t include operating costs (fuel, insurance, maintenance), putting monthly payments around $1k/month (at least). Let them drive studio apartments around I suppose, if they can get financed and not repo’d in the near term.

Would you cry for me if I wanted a Lambo but couldn’t afford it? You would not. This is different? Everyone is entitled to wildly conspicuous consumption? I argue no.

[Ray20]

>affordability rapidly accelerating away as the middle class evaporates solves the problem

But that complete bs. Vehicle affordability is not in any danger, average price of a new pickus trucks depends on the amount of money the population has. Even if the middle class completely disappears, people will just drive cheaper pickups.

>Would you cry for me if I wanted a Lambo but couldn’t afford it?

But they could. And that the reason why "the average price of a new full-size pickup truck is around $64,000"

[toomuchtodo]

> But they could. And that the reason why "the average price of a new full-size pickup truck is around $64,000"

Car Repos Hit Levels Unseen Since 2008 Financial Crisis - https://www.pymnts.com/transportation/2025/car-repos-hit-lev... - March 27th, 2025

Late Car Payments Hit Highest Rate in More Than 30 Years - https://www.pymnts.com/loans/2025/late-car-payments-hit-high... - March 6th, 2025

St Louis Fed FRED: Average Amount Financed for New Car Loans at Finance Companies - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DTCTLVENANM

I’ll see if I have access to the Cox Automotive pickup truck specific repo stats as soon as I’m not mobile. Based on the auto loan delinquency and repo rates, the evidence is fairly robust that people cannot afford these price levels. They get off the lot with the vehicle, certainly, that’s super easy due to easy credit, but then the clock starts ticking on when the car gets repo’d.

(~100M Americans are sub 700 FICO subprime, 33-40% of consumers depending on credit reporting agency providing the data)

[monkeyelite]

> Americans buy trucks out of emotion and cosplay,

You don't need anything besides tent and food!

Every person buys almost everything for emotion.

[jakelazaroff]

Sure, but large trucks come with a ton of very negative externalities.

[monkeyelite]

The original comment is just about how "irrational" it is.

And truck owners pay more - for the vehicle, for tires, for registration, for gas, etc which are all taxed by the public to reflect their greater usage of public roads.

You would need to argue that trucks have a disproportionate impac. For example, if I commute 2 hours to work in an Accord, is that a greater negative externality than owning a Truck a commuting 15 minutes?

I suspect the answer is no - a truck is some small multiple of a smaller vehicle.

What I see in this thread is that the narrow demographic here is merely expressing a preference - they don't like trucks, and they wish that could be imposed on others. Ultimately, you need to convince your fellow men in an election.

[amarshall]

Small multiplier, I think not.

Pickup trucks weigh about 1.5x as much as a sedan (comparing Camry to F150). Due to the fourth power law, they should be taxed about 5 times higher than a sedan simply for road maintainence. I don’t have the numbers, but I doubt that is so. Toll roads typically charge per axle, and as below, gas tax is probably only about 2x. Ironically, EVs should pay more tax for maintenance since they are usually quite a bit heavier—though the OP truck is still ~600 lb lighter than an F150.

Fuel economy is about half in a pickup vs. a sedan, so they pollute that much more. Gas tax obviously scales here, but do the other taxes? Does gas tax go towards remedying the pollution impact at all? I don’t know.

Then there’s the safety impact on pedestrians and other vehicles. I don’t have numbers here, sorry.

[toomuchtodo]

Right, carbon emissions, excess deaths incurred on others, etc.

[kortilla]

This is one of the dumbest takes I’ve seen on trucks. It attacks a straw man.

If you buy something for one of its features and don’t use the others, it doesn’t have anything to do with cosplay.

This is like saying people who buy electric cars should just buy race car driver costumes instead. Unbridled ignorance.

[jakelazaroff]

Most race cars aren't electric though? That analogy makes no sense.

If you buy a product that comes with a ton of negative externalities and then don't use the single feature that distinguishes it from other products, people will rightly judge you.

[modernpacifist]

> Most race cars aren't electric though? That analogy makes no sense.

No, they aren't. I attend a significant amount of track events as a driver and I will see maybe 1 electic car every few events. Besides the lack of charging infrastrucutre at most race tracks, the one positive of instant torque/power is significantly outweighed by their overall mass and significant heat generation.

The latter tends to result in a Tesla S being unable to last more than 20 minutes at Laguna Seca or Sonoma before the battery pack overheats and reduces power output requiring the car to exit the track.

[kortilla]

Electric cars have great acceleration. According to this thread that’s just pointless cosplay.

[modernpacifist]

The comparison breaks down since, in race car terms, the great acceleration isn’t enough to offset the negatives that make electric cars poor race cars. So in a sense it is pointless cosplay. Even the acceleration might be working against itself since the great acceleration comes at the cost of the battery pack expending more energy, contributing to heat build up.

This isn’t to say the heat problem couldn’t be managed, but one of the biggest issues with race cars generally is heat management so starting from a platform with a unique and significant heat problem isn’t ideal. Then the weight and overall longevity of the battery pack comes into play.

To tout the acceleration without discussing the drawbacks involved in delivering it or the practicalities of leveraging it suggests that it’s such a great feature that the drawbacks either don’t exist or don’t matter.

[jakelazaroff]

They also produce no tailpipe emissions and tend to have a lower carbon footprint, more storage space, a quieter cabin, no "hump" for the driveshaft, etc. There are lots of reasons you might choose an electric car other than the acceleration.

On the other hand, a truck's single distinguishing feature is the bed.

[pixelpoet]

> Unbridled ignorance.

Ironically, I don't think ignorance means what you think it means. It simply means not knowing something; it's not, for example, an attitude in itself.

[kortilla]

It means exactly what I think. This dunk on truck drivers based on seeing them in the city is ignorance. Trucks are multimodal. Seeing them in one mode does not mean they aren’t used for another.

[amluto]

A lot of modern “trucks” are pretty crappy for actually hauling anything. A few months ago I had the pleasure of loading some furniture into an Escalade. The outside is huge, but the inside is remarkably small. The height of the interior floor is also ridiculous, so it’s extra difficult to lift anything into the vehicle. I don’t think most full size pickups are a lot better.

Also, check out the underside of most of these monster vehicles. The approach, breakover, and departure angles may be awesome, but that’s only because the definitions assume uniform height transverse to the driving direction. If you drive these things over any substantial bump that the wheels don’t go over, the differential will bottom out. Oops. This means that, for many practical purposes, the height of the vehicle and the absurd suspensions don’t buy nearly as much capability as they might appear to.

[matwood]

I wouldn’t consider an Escalade a truck, just a luxury SUV. A Hilux/Tacoma, Tundra or F150 are trucks. And they pretty capable of doing all the things. My Tundra might be one of the best cars I ever owned.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Rule #1 of driving offroad is that tires contact the ground, not other parts of the truck. If you see a bump, drive over it; don't straddle it.

[amluto]

What fraction of modern light trucks do you suppose are ever driven in a technically competent manner off-road, even once, by their original owner?

I bet a larger fraction, albeit still small, are driven around construction sites with crud on the ground, with a driver who pays approximately no attention to what they’re driving over. In which case a monster suspension with a dangly differential is probably less appropriate than a low vehicle without any dangly bits in the middle.

(I’m obviously excluding trucks that are used a loading docks. If you are planning to load and unload at a loading dock, you want your truck to load and unload at loading dock height.)

[GiorgioG]

This. I have had a 2016 F-150 since late 2017 - I'd never owned a truck before. I can go get mulch, take an entire bed-load of stuff to the dump (couches, mattresses, etc). When we go on vacation within driving distance (usually up to 500ish miles for us, we can bring more or less anything we want without concern for space. We took my wife's SUV 2 weeks ago on a 700 mile trip (her mid-sized SUV is much newer) and we had to pack very carefully compared to when we take the truck. Our son plays ice hockey, his hockey equipment stinks (yes it gets aired out...he's still a stinky teenager), but it's never an issue because with the truck, it's not in the passenger compartment. We live in the south but drove to Pittsburgh through 2 snowstorm there and back...lots of SUVs stranded on the road...my 4x4 F-150 made it through without any trouble. When my father in law passed last year, we moved all of his things out of his apartment with my truck. I let my neighbors borrow it when they need to move something large. The only thing that sucks about it is parking in store parking lots. That and buying a newer (not brand new) costs 2x what I paid for my 2016 in 2017. I've toyed with getting rid of it for something smaller, but it's just too versatile for me to give up.

[rco8786]

> Maybe you’re noticing when there’s one human but you don’t really know how else that person is using the vehicle at other times.

95% of big trucks I see on the road have one person in them and beyond my anecdotal experience we know statistically that most vehicle trips involve 1 person. It's not super hard to extrapolate from there.

I'm not even particularly "anti" truck, though I do think the increase in size and weight has gotten totally ridiculous.

[bix6]

Except that one vehicle is completely incompetent for its primary use 99% of the time :)

[culi]

In a sane society "knowing someone with a truck" is all you really need. In a highly individualistic society "having a truck just in case" is the dominant precept

[NoLinkToMe]

Fully agreed. Although to add, I literally never met someone with a truck, and in fact never owned a car myself either, but rented a car and also ranted a van plenty of times during a move, even with a driver.

Same reason I don't own an airplane, I just rent one with a driver if I go on holiday trips.

Big caveat: I've always lived in a (capital) city of my country and I have no kids yet.

But by and large I think renting for the 3 day a year use-case makes more sense than owning 365 days of the year, even if you have no friends to rely on.

[SkyPuncher]

If you tow anything, renting is not an option. Rental contracts almost always prohibit towing or restrict it to only 1st party trailers.

[mlhpdx]

This. I learned as much when I was clobbered by a distracted teen and my SUV ended up in the shop. I use it a lot for moving people, things and towing (like daily). Nobody would rent me a SUV and allow me to tow with it, only commercial truck rentals at ridiculous rates.

And for the truck driver haters three things:

- Are you speaking from experience or projection? Stereotyping doesn’t work. After owning a large SUV for 25 years I can say with conviction that the price is worth the utility to me. No question. - I would LOVE to also own a small electric scooter for small trips. The cost and poor quality have put me off for years but it’s inevitable I’ll end up with one soon. - Our next sedan will be electric as well, and probably weigh more than the SUV.

Truck owners aren’t idiots or evil.

[NoLinkToMe]

Eh perhaps if you rent a recreational vehicle from a company that caters these cars 90% to tourists . I've rented plenty of cars for towing, even with the trailer, from the same company. There are lots of companies that specialize in renting out vehicles for moving, construction etc. There is a market for everything.

[amelius]

In most places in the 1st world you can rent a truck if you need one *

For other times, use a car.

* a truck is just a car that misses a roof over the back part of it

[bArray]

> * a truck is just a car that misses a roof over the back part of it

Respectfully, a truck is not just a car missing the back part of it. It often has a lot more power, is lifted, has off-road springs, larger wheels, low and high speed gear box, roll cage for the front cabin, raised air intake - the list goes on.

Most people, though, do just need a car with a removable back.

[amelius]

In any case, the "truck" from the article doesn't seem to have all that.

[mullingitover]

I own a truck.*

*It’s stored at Home Depot and whenever I need it, I just pay them $19 for the hour or so that I use it.

[mckn1ght]

I did this for a while. You’re leaving out some ancillary details: time driving to and from home depot to pick up and drop off the truck, needing a truck and no rentals available, picking up a rental truck and there’s some issue with it, something happens out of your control that requires more time with the truck but you can’t extend the rental… all things i’ve encountered.

At some point the number of times i needed to use it picked up (hah) which multiplied these inconveniences enough that it became worth it to just pick up (hah) a used truck.

I use it exclusively for hauling work, but that usually entails at least one trip without a load, which may lead people to incorrectly judging me for driving it unnecessarily.

[Ray20]

>In a sane society "knowing someone with a truck" is all you really need.

Yes, yes, we all know. "You'll own nothing and be happy". Fewer and fewer people believe you.

[SilverElfin]

You don’t know that. You’re making assumptions. But even if that were true, so what? Maybe it is important to that person’s quality of life to have the truck for weekend adventures or chores.

[stouset]

If this were the case, you’d see more trucks with wear and tear on them and fewer with five years in and pristine paint jobs. Most people buy trucks as a lifestyle choice, not as a practical one.

That’s not to say there aren’t real uses for trucks, or people who use them for their designed purpose.

That’s also not to say people should be required to purchase only vehicles that meet their basic transportation requirements. People drive sports cars even without ever going out to a track.

Trucks (and full-size SUVs) specifically push some pretty crappy externalities onto other road users, so it’s not exactly crazy to be annoyed with people who buy and drive big trucks a personality trait.

[Aurornis]

> If this were the case, you’d see more trucks with wear and tear on them and fewer with five years in and pristine paint jobs.

You can tell how few people in this thread have any idea how light off roading or hauling works.

Driving your truck down a dirt road or putting something in the back of it doesn’t destroy the paint job. You can have a work truck and keep it nice.

[stouset]

Sorry, but I have driven off-road and you inevitably get dings, nicks, and scratches from gravel, tree branches, and random detritus.

I know people that use their trucks for hauling for work and they are never pristine. They don’t look destroyed. They look used.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I'm sitting here smh. Everyone in my (rural) neighborhood owns a pickup truck. Except for the one dude who towed a skid steer with an Escalade. Those trucks are often towing trailers, hauling messy crap, etc. and don't look any different than any other truck on the road.

Hell, I just unhooked a horse trailer less than an hour ago and the year-old truck that was hauling it looks like it just drove off the showroom floor.

[SkyPuncher]

> If this were the case, you’d see more trucks with wear and tear on them and fewer with five years in and pristine paint jobs.

I generally beat the crap out of my truck and the exterior looks just fine.

It's really not hard to avoid damaging your exterior. In fact, you have to have a total accident or be completely negligent to cause actual damage. Stuff goes in the bed of the truck. The bed had a bunch of nicks and dings in it, but you're not going to be seeing that while casting judgement.

Heck, go take a look at the work trucks. Find something like a welding truck, an electrician, or a plumber. These are all trucks that people literally use every single day for work, tossing stuff in and out of the bed. They just don't look that beat up. That's because it's just not that hard to avoid completely destroying your vehicle.

[kortilla]

>If this were the case, you’d see more trucks with wear and tear on them and fewer with five years in and pristine paint jobs. Most people buy trucks as a lifestyle choice, not as a practical one.

No you wouldn’t. Off-roading, hauling things, and towing trailers does not require destroying the finish or exterior of the truck in any way.

[cosmic_cheese]

Yep. Trucks that actually get used as trucks look like it with dings, scratches, and scuffs because they’re tools, not toys.

Ironically they’re also often old small models that owners have been keeping running forever because they’re cheap to fix, practical, and easy to park unlike their embiggened modern counterparts.

[SilverElfin]

> Trucks that actually get used as trucks look like it with dings, scratches, and scuffs because they’re tools, not toys.

Not really. Lots of people use trucks and keep them in pristine condition too. Beds have liners now to keep them looking new. And you aren’t getting random dings on the outside unless you drive into things.

[bix6]

I do know that because I see the same trucks driving around my neighborhood with Jerry cans and recovery boards 7 days of the week!

Best case you’re looking at 28.5% weekend utilization which isn’t that bad, much better than the 1% I joked with, but how many people do you know taking an offroad adventure every single weekend?

So what? Yeah I don’t really care. It’s mostly hilarious watching them try to park.

[SilverElfin]

Does it have to be an off road adventure specifically? I feel like most people will want to get two vehicles in their family that can do many things, since that’s what they have room for, rather than more. A truck could be used for off road stuff but it could also be used for taking kids and gear to their games, or for a weekend camping trip, or just for commuting. It can do whatever you need without needing to rent a different vehicle or borrow from a friend or whatever. That’s peace of mind and flexibility. I don’t even own one but I do appreciate that aspect.

[bix6]

Why do you need a truck for that? A cross over can do all that.

[stouset]

> Trucks can haul people, things, do road trips, etc. pretty well.

Yes, as can most vehicles?

[SilverElfin]

Not to the same ability. Sedans and mid size SUVs have far less space, and also less ground height. If you’re traveling on gravel roads or camping, most sedans and smaller SUVs aren’t ideal. If you have kids, space fills up quickly even for small trips. If you’re moving something larger (like drywall or a TV) it may not fit at all in a smaller vehicle. Even most full size SUVs also have less space than a full size truck (even one that isn’t one of the larger models).

[fumar]

The argument Telo makes is that you can have high utility in a smaller vehicle designed well. I was my own GC for a site-built home and sub contracted out many parts of it. I did it while owning a 2 door Mini SE. Only twice did I need to rent truck from my local Home Depot to haul some unwieldy and heavy debris. Most stores will deliver what you need (lumber, large pipes, insulation, etc) because consumer trucks are rarely large enough. I would not have been able to load any significant amount of lumber into an F250. That leaves large vehicles for recreation or family space. I hope car manufacturers rethink vehicle packaging now that EV motors and batteries allow for different confirmations like putting the motor in the wheel hub.

And, the sub contractors - the ones doing the work (immigrants) - they had a wide variety of vehicles. I took note that some had Camrys, Prius, old Golfs, small picks ups like Rangers, and some older mid size trucks that were visually heavily used. Else, they used commercial trucks or vans. When did I see the prestigious full cab F150s or Silverado RTs? When I originally interviewed GCs which is when I noticed they drove their clean and new trucks.

[mlhpdx]

They did a good job maximizing wheelbase given the small size, which is very important for safe and comfortable towing. I look forward to their launch and some real-world reviews and drive tests.

[gdudeman]

The vast majority of dirt roads are fine. I put hundreds of miles on my 1996 Honda Civic hatchback in the Cascades with no problems many years ago.

If the road existed in the 1990s, it's quite likely accessible by a mid-size SUV. Similarly, if families of 4 could go camping with cars from 1950-2000, you can today as well. In fact, you can get more compact tents, etc. today.

Trucks and huge SUVs come in handy if you want to bring lots of modern toys like gigantic prestige coolers and 4x4s.

[stouset]

I have multiple times driven a Mustang Mach E (a heavy, very low ride height EV) out to a friend’s property an hour off of anything resembling a road, down multiple dirt switchbacks into the bottom of the Yuba River canyon.

Vehicles these days are shockingly capable.

[jnwatson]

You can do all those things with a vehicle half the size. Modern F-150s are industrial vehicles. They weight 5000 pounds. They and their large SUV cousins are a menace to pedestrians, normal-sized vehicles, and the road itself.

[stn8188]

The other day, I was just remarking how my minivan makes a better pickup than most pickups for most tasks. For years I've wanted to get another truck (had an old Dakota that I had to sell when kid #3 was on the way). Practicality reigns, though, and I'm extremely satisfied with the usability of the van.

[cosmic_cheese]

Getting a cheap minivan with an ugly, worn out interior that’s been through the rigors of family and ripping the seats out seems like it’d be a great cost saving hack for a number of businesses that people often buy trucks or small commercial vans for.

[qingcharles]

The people I know with pick-ups don't use the bed half the time "in case it rains today" and have to tow a covered trailer to haul anything that wouldn't like to get wet.

[lo_zamoyski]

Let’s not play this game.

The main objection is the buffoonish size. Look at trucks in the 1990s and compare the size.

There is absolutely an element of clownish machismo involved.

[SkyPuncher]

> Look at trucks in the 1990s and compare the size.

If you actually compare similiar configurations, you'll find basically no difference in size.

Compared to a 90's F-150, a modern f-150 is

* 1" wider

* Either 0' longer or 1' longer depending on the exact configuration

* 1" taller

* Nearly 1k lbs less heavy (lots of weight optimization in the past ~35 years)

[silisili]

I agree generally, but blame the makers I guess. One important thing to remember is bed length. Trying to haul plywood or 2x4s with a 5 ft bed is a joke, and not easy with even a 6 ft bed.

The old, small rangers used to have a 7 ft bed option! I believe the longest you can get today is 6. So if you want a longer bed, you're kinda forced into the full size fold.

I don't know how well they'd actually sell, but it'd be neat if they at least offered something maybe a hair bigger than maverick sized with a 7 ft bed.

[Vinnl]

Where I'm from, people often own a car for their commute to work, and rent a van when they're moving. Their regular car is way less of a hassle for other people than the van is, but that's okay, cause the van is just for a few days.

[SkyPuncher]

I now own a truck. I’m actually regretting not getting a bigger/heavier duty one. The biggest limitation is payload capacity. Payload is anything that puts weight on the vehicle - occupants, dogs, gear, food, supplies, bed covers/caps, etc. You must legally be under payload capacity or you can risk fines or liability in an accident. A lot of people are willing to push these limits, but cops pay a lot more attention to people towing/hauling.

If you want to actually tow with your truck, you need to allot a good portion of your payload to trailer weight (and hitches) that rests on the truck (tongue weight). This can range from 200lbs to 1k+ lbs, but is typically in the 500 to 600lb range for something like a boat or travel trailer. It can easily go higher if you load the trailer up with stuff.

A typical light duty truck might have 1500 lbs of payload capacity. Four people and their belongings can easily add up to 800lbs. Add pets, bikes, travel gear, food, etc and your suddenly well over 1k lbs of payload. You literally have no capacity to tow anything but the smallest of trailers.

So what do you do, well you get a bigger truck. You don’t need it all of the time, but it just doesn’t make sense to own a vehicle that cannot legally handle a family road trip.

Before people say “rent”. That comes with its own major set of issues. The biggest being little to no ability to tow with a rental vehicle. Most rentals flat out prohibit towing (even if technically capable and equipped). Those that do allow towing, generally limit it to 1st party trailers (U-Haul truck can only tow u-haul trailer).

[Marazan]

The typical number of times an American non work truck is used to haul a load each year is zero. Same for using it's bed capacity.

[freshtake]

I don't think this generalization is quite fair. I'm sure this is true for some folks and their social circles, but for those of us who engineer and know our way around a Home Depot, the capacity is a game changer. I used to have to rent or borrow trucks for my projects.

Not to mention Christmas trees, moving, helping friends out, etc.

[Marazan]

Depending on the survey 63-to-75% of truck owners use it for towing once a year or less (i.e in reality never). So yes, the majority do not use it for towing.

To be fair I'd misremembered the load carrying figure and the load figure for 1 time a year or less is 32-35%

https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history?trk=feed-de...

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

[culi]

Yes this has actually been studied. Though I don't have a link on hand I remember the numbers being quite stark

[Aurornis]

> The typical number of times an American non work truck is used to haul a load each year is zero.

If you specifically exclude work trucks and define “haul a load” as filling up the bed with loose dirt or gravel or something then I could believe this.

I haven’t put a cubic yard of anything in my truck bed this year but hauling a cubic yard of anything is a rare occurrence for someone who isn’t doing landscaping.

But you have to really stretch the definitions if you believe that people never put anything in the bed to haul.

[wyre]

If you’re not hauling a cubic foot then why need a truck?

[ggoo]

Hm, sounds like you don't really need a truck... The world is racing to +4C and you're over here defending 25mpg gender affirming care mobiles - you're on the wrong side of this one buddy.

[jonplackett]

I wonder what this is like for driver safety though - not a lot of crumple zone in that nose!

[kimixa]

Not as much crumple zone as you might think in a "traditional" truck if most of the space is full of a solid metal block

[disqard]

You're both right!

I noticed the lack of a "crumple zone" the instant I saw the image.

...and a moment later, I also realized it's usually a solid engine block that sits there. I shudder to think of what actually happens when that zone "crumples".

Back to the Telo MT1, it's great that they redesigned it from the ground up, around it being an EV -- it's like the Phelps Tractor having reins, and then somebody asking "why does it need to have reins if there's no horse?"

[Spooky23]

Don't shudder, learn about it.

The engine is designed to move based on the design of the frame rails and mounts -- it is pushed under the passenger compartment, absorbing and deflecting more energy.

I'm sure the Telo is designed to modern standards and would perform similarly. I'd be more worried about expensive damage to the vehicle in less personally dangerous collisions.

[gdudeman]

This would be my concern. A fender bender hits the wheels on this thing and suddenly you're doing major surgery to repair it.

[spiderfarmer]

Decades of research, innovation, crash tests and rule changes have been put into improving safety in head on collisions. It’s not like you’re the first who wonders what will happen with engine block. It’s designed to go down.

Although I don’t know about American trucks. I think they are meant to wreak havoc on every single person involved.

[cjblomqvist]

My neighbour designs the crumble zone on Volvo's heavy duty trucks. They at least spend a shit ton of effort (continuous, multi-decade) on making anything hit by the truck having as little effect as possible (at least).

Quite a challenge with heavy duty trucks shipping tens of tons of stuff, but anyway.

[apparent]

> ...and a moment later, I also realized it's usually a solid engine block that sits there. I shudder to think of what actually happens when that zone "crumples".

I believe the engine drops down and the rest crumples inward, at least in theory.

[Abishek_Muthian]

There's a nice Jay Leno video on this truck with the founders as well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw250Va1JFo

[nodesocket]

The risk to pedestrians is pretty much a non-factor in this. It’s going to come down to business / agriculture adoption where I see the largest market opportunity. Think service technicians such as HVAC, plumbers, construction. If these can make financial sense in terms of ROI and cost of ownership then Telo can make it. Currently the base price of $41,500 is a bit on the higher end, though of course will save dramatically on fuel and maintenance over industry standard vans and light trucks.

[roncesvalles]

It fully misses the main reason people buy trucks in the US -- to signal where they stand on the political spectrum.

[kortilla]

>They are often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of one human.

If you off-road with a truck and keep it clean afterwards, this is exactly what it looks like on the street.

[65]

You could have written this exact comment on the Slate Truck announcement post.

[TimTheTinker]

> This is a breath of fresh air.

But for $41,000? To me that's an automatic nope... I can import a used Kei truck that works just fine from Japan for less than $10,000.

[sneak]

This is the originally unintended side effect of regulation that applies to cars.

Americans generally don’t want tiny vehicles. The option that leaves them is trucks and, increasingly, SUVs.

[ujkhsjkdhf234]

I want a tiny car. The problem is that road design is unsafe so people buy bigger cars so they are safer when they get into an accident. I've seen the aftermath of a Chrysler Fiat getting into a collision with an SUV and lets just say the Fiat driver had much worse day than the SUV driver.

[andrepd]

It's a failure of law and regulation that those things are even allowed. Their existence is a direct attack on the freedom of third parties.

[carlosjobim]

You only need a Pentium 3 machine to read and write on Hacker News.

[NoLinkToMe]

I don't think you thought this one through... if anything you're making the opposite point you're (I believe) trying to make.

I'm writing this on a macbook air that sizes up to <2.5% of the weight and volume of a desktop computer you're describing (screen, case and peripherals). It's also idling at about 2-3 watt, which is also <10% of the computer you're describing. It also produces much less sound, it's entirely quiet.

So size, weight and power usage and noise are way down.

The idea that I'd use a pentium 3 instead is ridiculous for these very reasons (heavier, bigger, noisier, using more energy), even in private use, and especially in public use.

It's also the reason why bigger, heavier, noisier and more energy-consuming cars, are also ridiculous to many people, particularly those not driving them and having to face them in the public sphere.

[sneak]

Having a CPU sitting idle doesn’t cause massive externalities.

[topato]

I don't get it, is the joke, 'stating the obvious'?

[carlosjobim]

Why is it wrong to have a powerful vehicle if you don't always use it for tasks demanding that power, but it's okay to have a surplus of power for low-demanding computing tasks?

[crote]

Same reason I don't want to have dinner in a restaurant next to someone trying to cut their steak with a chainsaw: at best they are being incredibly obnoxious, at worst they are going to maim me. Just because it is better for your once-a-month weekend lumberjack trip with the boys doesn't mean it is an appropriate one-size-fits-all cutting tool for day-to-day use.

Contrast that with someone having a needlessly powerful computer. How does that impact the rest of the world? Not at all, it only impacts the owner's wallet. Someone's needlessly-powerful computer has never killed a child, or taken up four spots in public. Heck, it'll even downclock when idle, so there isn't even any extra power use to be worried about!

[scubbo]

Because accomplishing the same task with a more powerful (i.e. larger) vehicle is a) more polluting, and b) more dangerous for other road users; two things that are not true for a surplus of computing power.

[monkeyelite]

Are you sure your house is the minimum you need? It's looking a little bit nicer and more spacious than others.

[scubbo]

Nope, it's not! It's more than the bare minimum I need, and also larger than an appropriate moderate size (let's not shift the goalposts here) because - unlike a vehicle - operating a larger-than-appropriate home is _barely_ more polluting, and no less dangerous, so my indulgence has negligible negative externalities.

Thanks for playing! Wanna try again?

---

For anyone else reading this, the issue that monkeyelite's comment had was the false equation of "it is good to prosocially take others' safety and comfort into account when making choices about personal behaviour and consumption" with "one can never use or consume any more than the bare minimum". This is a classic approach that the American right uses when criticizing any prosocial policy - the immature that the only choices are selfish indulgence and bare austerity. It's possible to be comfortable and even lavish while being a considerate member of society. Using/consuming/polluting less is always good _in isolation_, but can and should be measured against the benefit that it accrues to you _and_ the externalities imposed on society.

The obvious counter-argument there is "I don't care about other people, I want my big truck, and I don't care (or, I actively like) that it endangers other people". Which, well - if that's your viewpoint, you're welcome to hold it, and others are welcome to judge you for it.

[uncletaco]

Because by and large the apps and programs you are running on your computer requires lots of resources just to open and allow you to do your low-demanding tasks.

[daymanstep]

You can do it with a raspberry pi.

[rambambram]

Did that for a couple of years. RPi4 as my daily driver (including image creation and video editing).

https://www.heyhomepage.com/?module=blog&link=1&post=4

[dyauspitr]

I find no problems with them being giant. I drive a F150 Lightning and since it all electric I love that it’s big.

[yahoozoo]

The things you listed are _why_ people buy them. If they wanted something smaller, they would go with a Toyota Tacoma or a Nissan Titan.

[jama211]

People by and large don’t really know what they want, they purchase based on vibes and manipulation. If people in general really wanted these trucks they’d be more popular outside of America. The truck has been a boiled frog, slowly growing in size and people haven’t realised it. Also Americans in general have a bit of a cultural issue with ego, individualism and all that, which doesn’t help.

[cosmic_cheese]

Even Tacomas are larger than they used to be. One day not too long ago when I was running errands I came across an early 2000s Tacoma (before they got bumped up to midsize trucks) and was almost dumbfounded, because it’d been so long since I’d seen a truck that size. It’s a great size, but nobody makes them like that any more.

I’d like a small truck for DIY house projects in a suburb, but even the “small” Ford Maverick is nearly a foot longer than a 2000 Tacoma and the 2025 Tacoma is about two feet longer, both of which would be awkward to park and maneuver on the tight streets around here. Their increased height is dangeorus with all the kids running around, too. So, well, I don’t have a truck.

The Telo and maybe Slate are the first two modern trucks that I could realistically consider. Hoping for an R3T that’s sized similarly to Rivian’s upcoming R3 (which is comparable in size to a VW Golf) but that’s probably not going to happen.

[TimTheTinker]

Why not import a Kei truck from Japan?

[cosmic_cheese]

Can’t legally register them in my state for now, would need to register it in a neighboring state, which is a lot of trouble for a 25+ year old vehicle.

[neogodless]

Titan is full-sized. You mean the Nissan Frontier.

Still those have basically caught up with full-sized vehicles from ~15 years ago..