Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

"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-...

View on HN

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 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.

> 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com