[post-it]

This is, respectfully, corporate propaganda. Consumers buy the vehicles that are available and advertised. It's in the best interest of manufacturers to convince/compel consumers to buy larger, more expensive vehicles with higher margins, and that's exactly what they're doing.

[amluto]

How many CAFE compliant “light trucks” do you see around?

CAFE is a great example of a well-meaning regulation failing because the people who developed and approved it didn’t think through the obvious consequences.

[ambicapter]

"It's your fault you didn't expressly disallow what I ended up doing to get around what you asked me not to do"

[readthenotes1]

If you make a game someone's going to play it.

Allowing light trucks to turn the SUVs and replace sedans is not an "unintended consequence"--it's either stupidity or graft (not xor).

There are several laws that are "wtf -- is this the best we can do?"

[anvuong]

Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[traderj0e]

How can that be if they all offer extensive lines of small and efficient cars that a good number of people drive? Besides, collusion doesn't seem likely given the amount of foreign competition. The majority of Americans have made it clear that they want bigger autos, at least with the usual gas prices. Sorry if that's corp propaganda.

Separately I've heard emissions laws blamed for large sedans losing to small SUVs and trucks due to double standards, but I doubt it would've made a difference, even though I personally prefer large sedans.

[scq]

Ford no longer makes traditional passenger cars. They now only sell SUVs, trucks, and sports cars.

You can see this if you go to https://shop.ford.com/showroom/ and select sedan or hatchback in the left filters. No results.

[traderj0e]

It's a small exception that wasn't selling well before anyway. Even the police fleets switched to SUVs.

[stickfigure]

If gasoline is more expensive, customers will demand more efficient vehicles.

We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese small cars practically took over the market in the 70s and 80s due to gas price shocks. It can happen again.

[Certhas]

If gasoline is expensive because of carbon taxes, people will vote for a party that tells them that climate change is not a problem, and that, if they win, gasoline will be cheap again.

[stickfigure]

You can say the same about CAFE standards, or anything else government does? This is a silly argument.

[sneak]

The reason so many people buy huge trucks in the USA is specifically because heavy machinery (above a threshold) is exempt from such standards.

[Certhas]

It's not. If you actually talk to lobbyists and political experts they will tell you that people react very differently to policies that on paper have the same effect.

Mandating efficiency for new cars doesn't obviously hit you int the wallet every time you fill the tank.

I mean, this is obvious. Energy price increases caused by the Russian war contributed to dozens of governments to get voted out. Yet no one has even run an attack and based on a government supporting efficiency standards. Of all environmental policies, mandating efficiency standards must be the hardest to attack by your opponents.

The fact the fleet targets were implemented in Europe by the European Parliament against the wishes of member state governments, including the German one, tells you everything about the politics of this.

[debo_]

Tell that to the literal constant flow of old men I see driving pristine F150s in the metropolitan center of the Canadian city I live in.

[asa400]

They probably won't buy Honda Civics, but they (or their children, more realistically) might buy the electric equivalent of an F150 if the market produces one that can fulfill what they perceive their needs to be.

I just bought a (small, hybrid) truck because I need to do some truck stuff. I 100% would have bought an electric if the market produced one with comparable capability and competitive price, but we're not there yet, and I don't have Rivian money (yet! lol maybe someday).

My point being: there is still a huge demand for trucks from both a capability and culture standpoint, and very little supply of a cost-comparable product that doesn't take gas or diesel. Rivian is around double what most people want to pay, and the F150 Lightning was marketed poorly and had bad towing/hauling range compared to gas/diesel equivalents.

I'm not here to defend "truck culture" but I do believe that if you offer people a better product, they will figure it out and buy it. An electric truck with 400+ miles of towing range, an onboard 2kW+ inverter, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and fast charging for the same price as a comparable gas F150 will sell. Unfortunately the battery energy density and EV supply chain economies of scale aren't there yet in North America.

[United857]

  U u u

[Teever]

> We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV.

But we are. I don't want to turn this into a political slap fight but it became apparent to me the extent in which people are swayed by advertising when I read an article that talked about how one party in the US was concerned that the other was going to win an important seat becase the other party had done a recent spending surge on ads in last few days before election day and they were concerned that they couldn't match it.

That article right there forever changed my view of the average person on the street. In a highly polarized campaign and political environment with months to years of knowing who the candidates and policies are and they can still be swayed by millions in TV and radio ads? Like it sounds like these people could literally be on their way to vote for a candidate and then switch their mind at the last second because they hear an ad on the radio as they're pulling into the polling station.

That's absurd -- but it's real.

People are completely enthralled by advertisements to the point where they'll buy a stupid truck that they can't fit anywhere, that they need a ladder to climb into, that has terrible sight lines, simply because advertising tells them to.

[nradov]

Nah, it's not real. Your claim isn't supported by the data. Political advertising can help a bit at the margins but in the 2016 Presidential election the losing campaign spent about twice as much on advertising as the winner. Very few voters were swayed by last second radio ads.

(I would support a Constitutional amendment to restrict campaign contributions and effectively overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision.)

[Teever]

Again, I don't want to get into a political slap fight here, I want to keep this on the subject of advertising.

It sounds to me like you're confusing the magnitude of advertising spending with effectiveness of advertising techniques.

Some people have found more effective ways to advertise to people, we know all this, it isn't uncharted conversation territory. We all know about micro-targetting based on personalized data, dominating certain niche mediums like AM radio to target people when they're driving and coordinated pushes with people in industry.

The point is that advertising works. It works disconcertingly well.

This is why people buy stupidly impractical automobiles that they don't need.

[sneak]

Which is it? If your first claim is true, why do we need to amend anything?

They seem like mutually exclusive claims, to me. Am I missing something?

[traderj0e]

If you don't want to make this about politics, use a product advertising example instead of politics which is not even comparable.

Advertised products will sell more, but only to a certain point. Like someone who wants an SUV and knows nothing else might buy the one from Chevy instead of Mitsubishi because of advertising.

[testing22321]

> customers will demand more efficient vehicles

The problem is those vehicles don’t exist, because the manufacturers only want to build the high margin gas guzzlers.

Look at fuel economy of US made vehicles vs those in Europe. It’s beyond a joke.

[traderj0e]

Whatever your standard is for an "efficient" vehicle, more efficient things than those 15-20mpg trucks or SUVs do exist in the US. Every automaker sells a serious car that gets at least 30mpg combined if gas-only, or like 50mpg if hybrid.

[testing22321]

The really wild part is you think that’s good.

You’ve never driven a BYD because your government blocks them. You’ve also never driven a fuel efficient car because they hardly exist in the US

[traderj0e]

I didn't say it's good, I said it's more efficient than those small SUVs and trucks that 2/3 of the US drives. Ie most Americans are deciding against efficiency.

Btw EVs and plug-in hybrids are fairly common here too. What we don't have is the entry-level all-petrol cars that do 50mpg because they're like a 1L 3-cylinder turbo, which seem to be common in western Europe at least. But also idk if those are as affordable in those countries as the cheapest cars are affordable in the US. Like the UK's best selling car, Ford Puma, costs more than a US Prius which isn't considered an entry-level car here.

[nradov]

Bullshit. There are many competing auto manufacturers. No one is compelled to buy larger, more expensive vehicles. There are smaller, cheap vehicles available to those who want them. If I want a little penalty box like a Hyundai Elantra or Nissan Sentra the local dealers have base models in stock and ready to sell today.

Larger vehicles are more comfortable, safe, and practical (for anyone who doesn't need to worry about parking issues). It doesn't take advertising to convince consumers about that, it's just reality.

[post-it]

A Hyundai Elantra of today is significantly bigger than it was ten years ago. It also used to be the second-tier model above the Accent, which was discontinued.

Ditto with the Sentra and the Versa.

This is my point exactly.

[jagraff]

Large vehicles are safer for the occupants of the vehicle, however they do increase danger for pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles in a collision. There is a reasonable argument that reducing vehicle size would save lives overall

[sneak]

This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way.

[Supermancho]

> This is a myth. Larger vehicles are not safer for their occupants; they merely feel that way.

I'm pretty sure it's not, because physics. A tank is safer than a bike for the poilot, when there is a collision. This data is a little muddled, but follows common sense.

Large SUVs and Pickups: These vehicles have the lowest occupant fatality rates, averaging 14 deaths per million registered vehicles for SUVs compared to 48 per million for sedans. Large luxury SUVs often register statistically zero deaths in specific three-year studies.

[nradov]

Nope, not a myth. While the data is noisy and there are some confounding factors, the IIHS driver death rates show a clear correlation between larger size and fewer deaths.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...

[Tangurena2]

Domestic manufacturers used to build & sell compact pickup trucks. Nowadays, the only pickups on the market are huge fatmobiles. The profit margin in trucks is much higher than the profit margin on passenger cars.

[nradov]

You can buy a Ford Maverick compact pickup truck from your local dealer today.

The profit margins on larger trucks are higher precisely because that's what consumers want. No one is forcing them to buy those vehicles.

[satvikpendem]

Compare the Maverick to a Japanese kei trucks, they so impressed the current president that he signed an executive order allowing them, if they're manufactured in the US.

[fuzzfactor]

Good example of what they have in Japan right now.

The Maverick is quite sizable compared to the original Ford Ranger too, which was still bigger than the regular Japanese trucks that were all over the US after oil skyrocketed the first time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukmzZ5DXBqQ

[linkregister]

Pedestrian deaths, including children, have risen in lockstep with light truck adoption in the United States, while they have fallen in countries without this phenomenon.

[stickfigure]

It isn't about weight, it's way stupider than that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU

Tall grilles are a purely aesthetic choice. We could create safety standards for pedestrian impacts and end this inane trend. And still drive trucks!

[adrianN]

The VW Up electric sold really well but was discontinued.

[ndisn]

You can’t convince (almost all) consumers to spend money on something that they do not want.

[post-it]

Of course you can. And for the rest, you just discontinue the product they want so they have no choice.

[tyre]

You can, but it’s easier to convince them to want something that they don’t need or is actively harmful.

[adrianN]

You can make them want things. Ad money is what powers some of the most successful companies.

[sneak]

Car insurance. Low flow showerheads. Fuel-inefficient vehicles. Electric dryers. Electric stoves. Appliances that don’t last. Lawn care.

Taxes. Social Security.

The list is gigantic. Your claim could not be more false.

[traderj0e]

People want car insurance because it's a law, low-flow showerheads if water is expensive, and electric appliances if gas is expensive or outlawed. And some want fuel-inefficient vehicles because they like them and gasoline isn't very expensive, while plenty of other people opt for MPG.

[iso1631]

That's the entire point of the trillion dollar advertising industry