Same thing is happening with electric vehicles. A gigantic EV kills a pedestrian just as dead as a gas powered one. And the huge batteries needed to move a huge EV negate any climate benefit.
The horse has been out of the barn on this one for some time now. Every major manufacturer has been pumping out monster SUV’s for years. Easy to blame the manufacturers but they build what sells for a profit. As soon as people stop buying them they will stop building them. Like with so many of the world’s problems, we are all great at pointing figures but not so great at admitting our own contribution to the problems or at modifying our behaviour in a way that would solve them. Most cars are driven with one person in them most of the time. We “need” at best a two seater but to avoid the inconvenience of finding an alternative the few times most of us require more we convince ourselves we can’t survive like a civilized human being without at least 5 and preferably 7 or 8. Until we are all prepared to take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that the real problem is us change will come slowly and very painfully.
As an avid commuter on an electric bike, rapidly approaching 15,000 miles, which eliminates burning 240 gallons of gas if you drive a Prius, I fully agree. Car bloat is horrible, and large SUVs and pick-up ( without tools on board) are the worst offenders of bike safety (along with BMW drivers for some reason). The crazy thing is I still feel better arriving at work on a bike despite the safety concerns. It is healthier mentally and physically. Perhaps people would get out of those giant hunks of polluting metal if they could just experience the quieter and more joyful alternative.
I'm going to spitball an idea here: Train your kids to behave themselves in the car, and then you won't need to space them out in multiple rows. This is a reason I hear frequently cited by parent friends who justify their purchases of huge new SUVs. They say their kids fight incessantly while driving, so they "need" the physical separation. I can understand the appeal. There are times when having 3 growing kids across the back row of my Subaru Outback is simply awful. They provoke and poke each other, resulting in chaos. But I also think that buying a massive, expensive, polluting vehicle doesn't truly fix the problem of them not knowing how to behave in a cramped space. It's better just to train them.
The reason vehicles have gotten bigger and heavier is, true, because the government mandated all these safety measures to protect occupants inside the vehicle. So no, we're not going to have smaller and lighter cars like the classic 1966 VW Beetle shown at the top—that world no longer exists and hasn't for over 50 years.
Strike one.
I find it interesting that there's such a beef about SUV's being "too big and heavy" when *every* EV weighs significantly more than their ICE counterpart. And, all that mass of big heavy batteries causes more wear-and-tear on the roadways—as well as more particulate pollution, because roadway particulate pollution is a function of VEHICLE WEIGHT and driving habits, not what engine is powering the drivetrain.
Strike two.
It's also disingenuous to preoccupy one's self with pedestrian deaths and injuries at the expense of the occupants of the vehicles who are involved in non-pedestrian accidents. According to the IIHS, in 2021 there were a total of 7,388 pedestrian deaths from vehicles, an increase of 13% over 2020. The NHTSA says in 2021 there were a total of 43,939 vehicle fatalities—and that's WITH all those car modifications made over the past 30+ years to improve safety. Should we sacrifice occupant lives by making lighter and less safe vehicles? The same safety measure fatality rate in 2000, extrapolated to today, would necessarily equate to another 3,000 fatalities at a minimum and likely double that if percentage reduction in safety measures equates to an equal increase in occupant fatalities.
Strike three.
What it comes down to is that there are far more distractions available in cars today with the increase in available technology, as well as more aggressive driving tendencies as roadways have become more crowded and collective societal anxiety skyrockets. Retrograding vehicle designs exchanges one problem for another as a zero-sum loss.
Same thing is happening with electric vehicles. A gigantic EV kills a pedestrian just as dead as a gas powered one. And the huge batteries needed to move a huge EV negate any climate benefit.
The horse has been out of the barn on this one for some time now. Every major manufacturer has been pumping out monster SUV’s for years. Easy to blame the manufacturers but they build what sells for a profit. As soon as people stop buying them they will stop building them. Like with so many of the world’s problems, we are all great at pointing figures but not so great at admitting our own contribution to the problems or at modifying our behaviour in a way that would solve them. Most cars are driven with one person in them most of the time. We “need” at best a two seater but to avoid the inconvenience of finding an alternative the few times most of us require more we convince ourselves we can’t survive like a civilized human being without at least 5 and preferably 7 or 8. Until we are all prepared to take a long hard look in the mirror and admit that the real problem is us change will come slowly and very painfully.
As an avid commuter on an electric bike, rapidly approaching 15,000 miles, which eliminates burning 240 gallons of gas if you drive a Prius, I fully agree. Car bloat is horrible, and large SUVs and pick-up ( without tools on board) are the worst offenders of bike safety (along with BMW drivers for some reason). The crazy thing is I still feel better arriving at work on a bike despite the safety concerns. It is healthier mentally and physically. Perhaps people would get out of those giant hunks of polluting metal if they could just experience the quieter and more joyful alternative.
I'm going to spitball an idea here: Train your kids to behave themselves in the car, and then you won't need to space them out in multiple rows. This is a reason I hear frequently cited by parent friends who justify their purchases of huge new SUVs. They say their kids fight incessantly while driving, so they "need" the physical separation. I can understand the appeal. There are times when having 3 growing kids across the back row of my Subaru Outback is simply awful. They provoke and poke each other, resulting in chaos. But I also think that buying a massive, expensive, polluting vehicle doesn't truly fix the problem of them not knowing how to behave in a cramped space. It's better just to train them.
This is laughable, yet again.
The reason vehicles have gotten bigger and heavier is, true, because the government mandated all these safety measures to protect occupants inside the vehicle. So no, we're not going to have smaller and lighter cars like the classic 1966 VW Beetle shown at the top—that world no longer exists and hasn't for over 50 years.
Strike one.
I find it interesting that there's such a beef about SUV's being "too big and heavy" when *every* EV weighs significantly more than their ICE counterpart. And, all that mass of big heavy batteries causes more wear-and-tear on the roadways—as well as more particulate pollution, because roadway particulate pollution is a function of VEHICLE WEIGHT and driving habits, not what engine is powering the drivetrain.
Strike two.
It's also disingenuous to preoccupy one's self with pedestrian deaths and injuries at the expense of the occupants of the vehicles who are involved in non-pedestrian accidents. According to the IIHS, in 2021 there were a total of 7,388 pedestrian deaths from vehicles, an increase of 13% over 2020. The NHTSA says in 2021 there were a total of 43,939 vehicle fatalities—and that's WITH all those car modifications made over the past 30+ years to improve safety. Should we sacrifice occupant lives by making lighter and less safe vehicles? The same safety measure fatality rate in 2000, extrapolated to today, would necessarily equate to another 3,000 fatalities at a minimum and likely double that if percentage reduction in safety measures equates to an equal increase in occupant fatalities.
Strike three.
What it comes down to is that there are far more distractions available in cars today with the increase in available technology, as well as more aggressive driving tendencies as roadways have become more crowded and collective societal anxiety skyrockets. Retrograding vehicle designs exchanges one problem for another as a zero-sum loss.
Great piece, Lloyd!
And with this added rant by the anti-car crowd, we plainly see that they all hate old people.
And I await the effort to connect the dots to tell me why. It should be amusing especially as Lloyd put the answer in his own hand.