[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.)

[simianparrot]

I can't be prejudiced after reading their comment. Prejudice would be dismissing their comment because their nickname contained a word I assume means they're not worth listening to, as an example.

[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.

[convolvatron]

I regularly rent a Mitsubishi 20' flatbed with 1T lift gate for around $75 a day incl fuel. they don't bother doing the walk around since its 80% dents anyways.

[bluGill]

I wish I could find a place like that. I don't need a nice truck but that is all I've found.

[SoftTalker]

And towing anything is also forbidden. Yes there are commercial rentals but they are priced substantially more than the trucks at Home Depot or other consumer rental places.

[conductr]

When I was renting more often, I found Enterprise had pick-up trucks and you can tell them you will be towing during the RSVP (I think it may be a small extra fee, but mostly they want to make sure they get you a truck with a towing hitch). I still use this option if I need more than my half ton can handle (thankfully not very often). I wouldn't use the bed for anything as they are always nice new trucks and any wear would be extremely obvious and I'm not sure if they will charge me. I will rent a trailer from Uhaul instead, another layer to the inconvenience.

[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.

[bluGill]

Most enterprise locations are no towing. Most uhaul trucks are the same despite that webpage. When hou find otn that can tow the costs are so high that it is almost always cheaper to own a truck you drive empty 95% of the time. You have to run your own numbers but everytime I run them for me I can't justify a car and renting a truck when I need one. (I mostly ride my bike)

[ricardobeat]

That might be a side effect of everyone owning a pickup, so demand is low.

In the Netherlands you can easily rent a transport van or truck for €30+/day. Owning your own would never be cheaper, especially as road tax is based on vehicle weight.

[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.

[asats]

And it's a self reinforcing downward loop as those deteriorating online spaces then completely drive away everyone with anything better to do

[master-lincoln]

There is no discussion involving humans that is devoid of biases. It's in our nature. Important is trying to get aware of them...

[01100011]

Right. Not quite what I'm saying.

Take away the user moderation and you still have bias but you lose the feedback loop. You level the playing field between folks who live in their basements and folks with more balanced lives.

[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.

[mlyle]

The Telo appeals to me. I've resisted getting a truck because I like a smaller vehicle and don't want to have undue impact and because I've listened to arguments like this before.

But I was offroad last weekend. I move sheets of plywood a couple of times per year and either need to beg my wife to help or sit around waiting at Home Depot for the truck to be available. I have stuff to move for robotics comps that I'm always barely able to get there by cramming it in my car + begging a couple of parents to help out. Dealing with the bike rack is hard. Ordering things like Ikea furniture for delivery is expensive, latent, and not exactly low impact iself.

Yah, 90% of the time I need a car, but 10% of the time I need a little more and there's enough friction around making it work that I would pull the trigger on something like this.

On the other hand I don't think I could say "frequently" to any of those questions.

[jakelazaroff]

Two thoughts here:

1. An ideal society would be structured such that you wouldn't need to buy a truck you use as a car 90% of the time. But that society doesn't exist here, and you shouldn't feel guilty about living by incentives you didn't create. Maybe you do need a truck!

2. But we're not talking about people who compromise to make 10% of their trips more convenient; we're talking about people who never use their truck for truck things. A car would be better choice for them 100% of the time, yet they still drive a truck.

[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.

[scott_w]

Or do what I do and drive an MPV, which are bloody excellent for getting my TT bike in with its excessively angled aero bars!

[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.

[Tostino]

The Thule hitch attachment was responding to GP saying they throw their bikes in the bed of their truck.

[kgermino]

it does depend a lot on what you buy it for, but obviously 8' is a good benchmark.

But honestly... at 8' I'm not sure why you're bothering with anything (unless you're getting a lot of them), i usually just threw 8 footers in my Honda Fit and closed the hatch.

[foobarian]

Ironically most pickup truck beds are shorter than 8' and most likely a 8' piece of lumber would have to lay diagonally sticking out over one of the edges.

Still good for occasional piece of furniture, lots of lumber, or plywood.

[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.