Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

"Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings."

What? Do you have a source?

"People don't need SUVs. They provide like no advantage compared to a wagon to most people and endanger everybody else."

Can you pull a livestock trailer with a wagon? Anytime you get in any vehicle there is the potential that you endanger other people. Should we ban EVs? A Tesla S can weigh more than an F150...

"The analogy of the hot and cold person assumes the hot person is wearing a t-shirt and sweater, when in reality when you compare it to vehicles, it's more like they are wearing that gortex jacket from Seinfeld + 3 layers of sweaters."

Then the analogy still works well because the hot person still has clothes to remove. It's when people complain about being cold in the summer and don't wear heavier clothes while the warm people are already wearing the socially acceptable minimum. It's about approaching constraints.

View on HN

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fordauthority.com/2020/10/execu...

Not everybody needs to do those things. I have lived 28 years without owning a truck and will never need one. My father knows how to drive many sized trucks for work, but he never needed to own one. Trucks provide utility and to be clear, I singled out SUVs because they have basically no value for people buying them, except that it makes them feel safe because they aren't the smallest vehicle on the road anymore. Most are terrible off-roaders and if people need to carry more people they can buy wagons and vans.

Also, the EV remark. The issue is that SUVs are correlated with more deaths, including hitting peds at higher rates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_sport_utility_v...

If an EV car was correlated with higher deaths than other vehicles, that should be examined and we need to consider it.

> Most are terrible off-roaders

I always love revisiting the Canada episode of The Grand Tour where they tested 3 midsize SUVs and concluded that they’re neither sporty nor provide much utility.

"Not everybody needs to do those things. I have lived 28 years without owning a truck and will never need one."

But in a proposed world of no SUVs or trucks (read comment chain), there are some people who would not be able to perform their tasks. If we have to ban something, why not leave the most capable vehicle that provide coverage to the most people. I'm trying to get the original commenter to explain.

Also, aren't vans the worst pedestrian offenders?

And for EVs...

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/axa-insurance-claims-high...

https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-...

> But in a proposed world of no SUVs or trucks (read comment chain)

I think you've misinterpreted something. No one is suggesting banning trucks or lorries; only SUVs. They are not the same. Trucks, lorries, vans, buses, coaches, all provide meaningful utility. SUVs do not.

I thought that paper about morality did?

I will confess that I did not read the article on morality, since it is hidden behind a nag screen. I assume most other people did not and would not, and the commenter merely provided it for those more curious.

Generally speaking, I believe it is reasonable to only be arguing against the commenter, not the articles or papers they reference.

The commenter in question only mentions SUVs, and not trucks. So even if the article about morality did lump trucks and SUVs in the same category, that's not what the commenter is bringing to the table.

In that case their argument is even weaker. Just banning SUVs based on morality will cause those people to seek similar vehicles like vans and trucks, providing no benefit.

The article talks about "personal vehicles" repeatedly, starting in the first sentence, and makes it clear that it's talking about vehicles used for personal transportation.

What is the point you are trying to make? Many people only have one vehicle. So they might be pulling a heavy trailer some of the time but using it for personal transportation the rest of the time.

> SUVs do not

They do to many people, but not to most. Where do you draw the line?

Honestly I would argue that most SUV owners just want to own the biggest car ... if it would be anything else (safety, load capacity, comfort) you could get the same or better with a not-SUV.

But other large vehicles (trucks, vans) with those capacities have similar or higher pedestrian fatalities, so what would the benefit be?

Trucks serve a purpose if you need to carry (really) big loads on a regular basis (eg farming equipment). Same goes for actual off-road vehicles. None of these are applicable to vehicles that are only driven in cities.

I personally like the "Hochdachkombi" format (e.g. Citreon Berlingo) ... smaller than a SUV with twice the trunk volume (1000l compared to e.g. the 550l of a X3).

I can (and I have) transported four fridge size PA speakers in that car and still have some space on top for monitor speakers. All while still fitting on tight parking places in the city and using 8l / 100km (30mpg?).

"None of these are applicable to vehicles that are only driven in cities."

Unless you're a contractor/handyman that needs to haul things like drywall, lumber, water heaters, etc. So there are some professions in the city that may require larger vehicles. Also, sometimes those farmer still have to drive into the city for things anyways, like for medical care.

I am not going to refute those EV claims! To be clear, you are talking to a person who is in a brand new sector of the transportation industry. I have somewhat of an interest in seeing people not drive in major metropolitan areas anymore. I am coming from a biased position where I believe people should not be driving as a first choice, unless they live in an area where its not economically viable to provide large scale public transit or bike lanes, like rural & suburban areas.

You are saying, why not ban cars? But not all SUVs are created equal. They aren't all RAV4s or CRVs. If you look at the new land rover defender, its unclear how people can even see out of that monstrosity. Its enormous and has insanely bad visibility and is HEAVY. That thing would destroy other SUVs, let alone cars. A ford explorer from the early 2000s is flimsy compared to these new SUVs.

> But in a proposed world of no SUVs or trucks (read comment chain),

I suggest YOU read the comment chain.

No one is suggesting that. We're suggesting that these not be used as passenger vehicles by consumers, not that businesses that actually need them give them up.

Where is the distinction? I certainly don't see businesses mentioned anywhere before your comment.

What about farmers that don't operate as an LLC? How about people that have livestock as a hobby? Or other hobbies that involve trailering, like race cars?

Then what are the SUVs being replaced with? Is it strictly cars? And what kind benefit do we see if SUVs are still allowed by some, but not others?

"Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings."

What? Do you have a source?

Doubling down on the livestock angle? I thought you were trolling.

Can you pull a livestock trailer with a wagon?

I see now that domestic livestock logistics is a passion of yours. Surely you have sources to tell us how many F-150s it takes to get our bacon to the local Wal-Mart.

Please read the comment chain. If you ban SUVs and trucks, there is a segment of the population that will be negatively affected by not having the ability to perform their tasks. The question was way ban SUVs and not cars - that eliminates the energy mismatch and allows the most people the utility they need.

I'm asking that person if they've thought of these details when they made their comment.

> What? Do you have a source?

Ford.com

Car options include mustang and The GT. So no more focus, fiesta, fusion, Taurus or others.

IMO, that’s basically no car options. Plus, the Mustang is basically not driveable for many month in WNY.

Why is it not drivable?

If an option does exist, then perhaps the comment should have said they elimited cars from their offerings.

>Why is it not drivable?

Long winters with heavy snow fall and icy road conditions. Sure, some folks drive them year round. But the number of rwd cars on the road when snow is on the ground is nearly zero.

Also, the mustang is a 2dr coupe. Whether or not it is capable, most folk do not want to deal with car seats/strollers in a coupe. It's also not a car marketed towards families.

I just find it hard to believe there is much demographic overlap between folks that purchase a mustang vs a corolla or accord.

tl;dr - Due to targeted marketing and preconceived notions, the only people buying mustangs are those that want them. It's an entry level sports car.

"Long winters with heavy snow fall and icy road conditions. Sure, some folks drive them year round. But the number of rwd cars on the road when snow is on the ground is nearly zero."

Eh, I grew up driving an old caprice in the mountains of PA - no anti-lock, no traction control, not even posi-trac. My current truck is RWD only, although I don't live in the mountains anymore. While FWD can offer a slight advantage, I don't think it makes much of a difference as long as you have the proper tires and make smart choices.

So it is drivable.

I think it's more that the people who own the nicer trims of those cars try to save them from the salt or people who can't drive. Not to mention that RWD cars are already a minority of the vehicles on the road, except for 99% of the time the trucks you see will be in RWD.

Yeah, it's definitely more of a single person's car, or a second car for a family without small kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com