• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1687 months ago

    Not surprising since car manufacturers lobbied to get them classed as light trucks to dodge the stricter emissions and safety regulations that apply to general cars. Then marketed the hell out of them as there is more profit to be made due to them not needing to comply with as many regulations. And now they are everywhere and are way worst than cars in almost every way.

    Funny how yet again the capitalist class chooses profits over any other metric leading to s shittier world overall. Almost like there is a pattern happening in every industry…

    • Funderpants
      link
      fedilink
      English
      667 months ago

      I heard a man once say, no shit, no kidding, that he bought his wife the biggest vehicle they could afford because she was a bad driver.

      • Chetzemoka
        link
        fedilink
        English
        257 months ago

        I knew a lady involved in a rollover accident in one of those old, flawed Ford Explorers back in the day. When she recovered, her solution to deal with her trauma and make herself feel safer on the road was…to buy an even bigger SUV with an even higher center of gravity.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      167 months ago

      And unfortunately there’s plenty of truth to this at least for those inside the vehicles. Driving my tiny hatchback in Texas can be really scary some days, the lifted trucks in particular have TERRIBLE visibility and simply can’t see sedans. Their headlights are often higher than the roof of most sedans. It’s so selfish and makes driving a worse experience for everyone else, propagating them too to get a massive light truck/SUV.

      My parents recently sold their sedan for a SUV soley for the added safety and I honestly understand where they’re coming from. If I didn’t trust my reaction times as well as I do I’d want the same thing despite it making the roads less safe for others in the process.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    447 months ago

    Unpopular opinion: For more than 90% of the population a car with an Otto engine volume of less than 1.5l is enough. Anuthing above should be taxed heavily.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      197 months ago

      Cars should be taxed proportional to the fourth power of their kerb weight, in line with the road wear they cause.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I’ve been a fan of little, simple vehicles for a while now. I have had a Geo Metro, Mitsubishi Mirage, and now I have a Suzuki Samurai. In all of these vehicles, I have had to deal with the same issue, when trying to get up to speed: The slowpokes in front of me. No matter how slow I go in my 65 hp little SUV, I end up waiting on someone in a much faster vehicle to get out of the way.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I drive a Prius and agree completely. It’s fuel efficient and extremely utilitarian. I can fit ten foot lumber in it, or my two big stupid dogs and our luggage for trips. Even when my wife drives like a maniac, we still get around 45 mpg. We typically end up passing slow moving vehicles on freeway on ramps, despite it having a maximum acceleration of 0-60 mph in about 10 seconds.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      This is 100% correct, and now they have put most people in an arms race as who buys the biggest one to feel “safer”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    277 months ago

    Also the rest of the world thinks we are weird and love giant cars now. We don’t really have much of an option for normal sized cars

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      107 months ago

      I wonder what the criteria for SUV is for these studies?

      I’m probably an outlier but I switched from a compact sedan to a compact SUV that’s 10 inches shorter in length, 4 inches higher in height, and 1 inch wider than my old car. They are about the same in weight, within a couple hundred pounds, and the new car is about 80g/km lower in emissions.

      I technically own an SUV but it’s not super different from a hatchback car.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        These aren’t the SUVs most people in North America are buying. They don’t even sell regular cars anymore just trucks and SUV monsters.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          Well, like I said, I’m probably and outlier, but they still sell a newer version of both my old compact sedan and my current SUV.

          That said, the current mid size pickups are more equivalent to a full size from 10-20 years ago and the continuing SUV lines are getting bigger for some reason as years go by.

          We just replaced my wife’s old mid SUV from 2017 for a 2024 and the 2024 is more equivalent in size to the model one size up in 2017.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        I have a VERY small SUV, and its much the same. Its just a little car with a little engine… and big tires.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      57 months ago

      I noticed the same trend here in the Netherlands so don’t worry too much.

      Pickup trucks are still a rare sight here though.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    177 months ago

    “How to make a car as big as possible without increasing the amount of space inside it.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    167 months ago

    If we are going to leave the carve out for SUVs and Work Trucks, we need to at least:

    A) repeal the tariffs on light trucks such as the Isuzu light truck.

    B) require a business licence to purchase these “work vehicles”, and require a CDL to drive them.

    That will reverse this trend tout suite.

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      227 months ago

      Yeah but short term that would be worse for the environment, interestingly enough:

      “Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually.”

      https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/

      Do also note that estimated life cycle CO2 for BEVs are lower but not significantly so than ICE vehicles. The numbers do however improve significantly as we move to a more carbon neutral energy grid. Without construction improvements that reduce emissions the cap is at around 1/3 the total pollution for a BEV vs ICE. IF the electricity is produced and delivered without any CO2 costs.

      The only real, long term, solution is to rethink transportation. Or some groundbreaking new battery tech.

      • Funderpants
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I want to point out that the author of the article you are citing is not an environmental scientist or a climate change expert, but an economist with an interest in the field. The article is not a peer reviewed piece of work, it is more or less equivalent to a blog piece with citations. She is not citing peer reviewed research as far as I can tell, but instead a series of linked ‘studies’ (including drafts and organizational white papers) of questionable scientific value.

        After reviewing, I would not be inclined to put much if any stock in her analysis.

        Here is a peer reviewed article for nature, that finds BEVs are actually much , much lower in CO2 production even during pre use than ICE vehicles.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y#Fig3

        • @[email protected]
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -157 months ago

          Thank you for your review. I don’t really agree with your criticism though since your main arguments against the linked article can easily be abused to discredit anything that hasn’t been studied in the exact form discussed. We will never have scientific papers on every possible dimension and perspective on a problem and as such understanding will need to be built by engaged members of society connecting dots in good faith and debate about it as you and I do now. There is nothing inherently bad about a blog with citations.

          I also notice how what you link is not at all equivalent. They add in the infrastructure needed to supply vehicles with the fuel they consume, which is of course a valid addition. That addition then offsets the difference in production by adding on disproportionately more to ICE vehicles. What we then end up in is that we still see that building BEVs is still not going to solve our crisis. But they are for sure better than ICE, and this isn’t something I nor the article disputes. My claim that it would be worse for the environment short term also holds true because the gain for the environment only comes after the production cost increases has been offset and, as the paper you linked added, gasoline infrastructure can be decommissioned.

          The paper you linked also doesn’t look into Lithium nor Kobalt which are problematic to say the least, if not from a CO2 perspective. Nor does it say anything about the feasibility of an even more rapid phase out (because a phase out is happening right now, and rather rapidly at that, we can’t go much faster without other significant risks).

          In summary, the article and the linked paper are not in conflict, from my reading.

          • Funderpants
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The paper I linked doesn’t look into all possible aspects because it’s a peer reviewed scientific work, which unlike blog posts tend to have narrow scopes and aren’t written to debunk every aspect of random peoples thoughts on the topic.

            The long and short of this is that people need to be much, much more discerning in which information to trust and which to disregard. The author of your article had a Ph.D. , they could seek to publish their research in serious journals, but they’d need to actually do the hard work of finding reliable, evidence based , peer reviewed sources to do that. Instead we get a blog post the links out to other blog posts that link to yet more blogs, occasional draft papers, and decidedly non scientific works.

            If I were to trust this author writing in this medium, why not trust anti-science fossil fuel interests who use the same mediums and communication strategies?

            Are you familiar with the concept “the medium is the message”?
            For me, it’s a big no thanks, especially on important issues like the adoption of BEVs.

            • @[email protected]
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -67 months ago

              I fully understand the need to filter out information as being to much of a burden to actually verify/dispute. And I don’t think any less of you for sticking to the safest material in terms of trust, i.e. peer reviewed papers in acclaimed publications.

              But at the same time we can’t really wait around for consensus and full understanding of every matter before making informed decisions either. Now, once again, I’m pro BEVs, I just don’t see them as the solution to climate change because even with 100% BEVs our planet can’t sustain personal transportation as it works right now. I haven’t written anything here with the intent to discredit BEVs, I’m just trying to steer focus to what I consider more important issues to craft policy and solutions around. Like personal transportation, wasteful consumption and more.

              If you’re asking why I trust this author more than others it’s because they seem to argue in good faith, the cited sources aren’t horrible. The opinions aren’t hyperbolic or presented without any nuance. It doesn’t ring any of my warning bells that causes me to outright dismiss.

              And as closing I have no issues with your dismissal of the source and I don’t even think we’re in disagreement.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            167 months ago

            I’m not a bot! I’ve tried to reduce this comment down by removing some text. Here’s my summary:

            “Scientists can’t be doing everything everywhere at once so we should believe capitalists when they pull numbers out of their asses”

            I’ve reduced this comment down by 89%!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        167 months ago

        If Americans wouldn’t be so allergic to public transport, it’d be way easier to move away from the whole concept of personal vehicles (except bikes and scooters of course).

        • bluGill
          link
          fedilink
          -37 months ago

          Most of those who appear to be for it only are for it for the ability to shovel money to various interests, and don’t care about useful transit. Amtrak has run study after study, instead of taking the first and building whatever. NYC builds massive stations and so can’t afford more than short new subway sections.

      • Justin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        97 months ago

        Yeah, the solution is not taking the car for every trip, and having car sharing available so you don’t need to manufacture so many cars.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 months ago

        As others have pointed out, your linked article doesn’t have any scientific weight and is hardly a source of truth. But even if it is correct, it is still better to move pollution outside of cities. There are no reasons to continue using ICE vehicles.

    • R0cket_M00se
      link
      fedilink
      English
      97 months ago

      Let me guess, you live in a city and forget that not everyone lives in a city?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        Have you been to cities in North America? Full of massive trucks and SUVs for no good reason. Look up marketing.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -117 months ago

        I used to live in the middle of nowhere and walk 1 hour to the nearest shop. But an EV or walk. No excuses.

        • R0cket_M00se
          link
          fedilink
          English
          37 months ago

          Damn, that’s crazy that you have the time to so seriously inconvenience yourself so you can feel good about this.

            • R0cket_M00se
              link
              fedilink
              English
              07 months ago

              What’s actually crazy is that you think electric vehicles don’t have an environmental impact. You sound like a 1990’s era climate activist trying to switch to plastic bags because paper is killing trees, not realizing your solution is actually just as bad and/or worse.

              You get all huffy and high and mighty like you’re making a difference but you’re not, you’re just performing activist theatre and acting like we are all murderers for having an hour commute by car. Sorry we don’t all live in downtown LA.

              Also, just so you’re aware, manufacturing and coal cause more climate issues than the rest of us combined, trying to save the planet by getting individuals to switch to EV is like trying to clear your 2TB hard drive by deleting text files instead of the hundreds of gigabytes of 4k videos. There’s bigger issues here but you’d rather get recreationally angry.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      We would also have to get rid of tires to do that, tires pollute a lot. And roads too, heavier vehicles wear out roads faster, and asphalt requires petroleum products to produce.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        Tyres don’t pollute air that much and their particles are big enough for simple filters. Also many roads are made out of concrete instead of asphalt these days.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          They pollute more than you think, and using concrete is very rare in certain parts of the world. Outside of elevated roads I’ve never seen in used in my area or any part of the northern US.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 months ago

            Well, the post is about the UK and concrete is slowly growing in numbers here. It’s also worth noting, that even if there’s a slim asphalt layer on top, many roads are made of concrete and other stuff inside. Asphalt is usually added to improve wet weather performance of the road.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -87 months ago

      ICE is here too stay. It’s pure gasoline usage that will probably fall out of fashion. Toyota is experiencing with ammonia based engines that cut down on emissions almost entirely.

      • Brawler Yukon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        107 months ago

        The only benefit of ICE over BEV is quick refueling, and that only matters if you’re roadtripping.

        The solution is fast-charging BEVs. Edmunds just released a roundup of EV charging times, and showed that with some Hyundais/Kias, you can get 100 miles of range juiced up in 7-8 minutes. Obviously, yes, that’s still slower than dumping some dead dinos in your gashole and taking off, but it’s still pretty quick.

        With further technological refinements over time and infrastructure built to give you something to do during 15-20 minute charges, road trips will be perfectly feasible without ICE and will actually probably be more pleasant.

        • Hypx
          link
          fedilink
          -17 months ago

          Except fast charging quickly degrades the battery. For people without home charging access, this is the key issue. In reality, BEVs won’t catch on. Between the cost, weight, and other problems of the battery, it is a doomed idea and a repeat of the early 20th century. The future of transportation will involve a chemical fuel, whether it’s ICE or fuel cell powered or whatever. It has to mirror the functionality of existing cars completely, or it won’t work.

          • Brawler Yukon
            link
            fedilink
            English
            47 months ago

            Terrible take.

            Solid state batteries will get figured out well before useful non-polluting chemical fuels, rocketing BEVs beyond ICE’s wildest dreams.

            • Hypx
              link
              fedilink
              -17 months ago

              Solid state batteries don’t exist yet. It’s the classic “magic batteries from the future will solve everything” argument. Meanwhile, a sensible path to zero emissions exist now, provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels. At some point, refusal to accept this option is its own form of climate change denial.

              • Brawler Yukon
                link
                fedilink
                English
                47 months ago

                Solid state batteries don’t exist yet.

                So you start with this, but then…

                provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels

                Why do you think we’re magically going to find zero emission chemical fuels but aren’t going to make solid state batteries? I mean, aside from your being a pretty obvious fossil fuel stooge?

                • Hypx
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -17 months ago

                  We already have that ability. In particular, we can now make hydrogen from electrolysis at vast scale. Derivative fuels, such as ammonia, are also doable.

                  Your problem is that you are being brainwashed by the battery companies. You think magical batteries exist when they do not, but are stuck in the early 2000s when it comes to competing technologies.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        87 months ago

        There is no large well of ammonia that we can use for fuel. Transforming green electricity into a liquid fuel, whether hydrogen, ammonia or something else invariably results in large efficiency losses compared to battery technology.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          I doubt battery production is easier than creating ammonia fuel. There’s tons of chemical manufacturers available domestically.

        • Hypx
          link
          fedilink
          -2
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Batteries are not a sustainable solution. For vehicles the size of SUVs, they are a disaster. In reality, the vast majority of transportation will be powered by some kind of chemical fuel. If you must have electrified vehicles, then you should look at trams, trolleybuses, light rail, etc.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 months ago

            a btter pint would be to bring how batteries don’t work for Semi, planes, and boats. We can easily live a world with out suvs, but wee can’t get by with out freight shipping

    • MeanEYE
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -127 months ago

      And entire world’s economy would drop by 100%. World is not ready to transition into EVs, and most likely will never be. In my opinion what Toyota is doing is the right approach. Higher quality ICE engine which can directly burn hydrogen. They already have the engine, just need to push it hard enough so R&D pays off. Hydrogen is expensive and hard to make (in terms of efficiency), but it’s infinitely more scalable than batteries, and cleaner too. But with higher popularity price will drop.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        77 months ago

        It also has the disadvantage of being harder to fill and harder to contain (not dangerous, exactly, but hydrogen tanks generally leak.)

        • MeanEYE
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -27 months ago

          All of that can be fixed. But one thing that can’t be done is improve energy density of Lithium batteries. Simply put they are too heavy for the amount energy they store, have issues in cold weather, prone to mechanical failures, etc. Even if high pressure tanks are more expensive, we could start with lower pressure ones and work our way up as technology improves. Simply put it scales better.

          • FuglyDuck
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Unless you’re talking cryo, it’s practical density is not great at all. And if you are talking LH, you’re insane.

            It’s not just a question of the mass of the fuel itself that matters- it’s also all the mass of everything needed to contain it, and when you account for that, the low pressures of gas stored hydro is a joke (and the reason we haven’t created hydrogen cars, Toyota isn’t doing anything that hasn’t already been done,) and LH tanks are… a bomb waiting to go off when Karen is late for the kid’s hockey game,

            That said there are other battery technologies coming down the pipeline that don’t rely on lithium. Sodium ion, for example, or there’s the “old” work horse in space- the nickel-hydrogen battery.

            Energy density can be designed around- they’re doing it with lithium cells, and with hydrogen ice. Lithium isn’t offensive because of its energy density, it’s offensive because of how the lithium (and other rare earths) are sourced. NH2 batteries don’t have that problem as much. Nickel and iron are both much easier to extract and recycle than lithium- and the other compontemt is hydrogen gas with some some KOH mixed in. The other primary advantage of NH2 batteries is their recharge cycle count is north of 20k- an order of magnitude more than other batteries (and the reason nasa uses them.)

            So there may be some changes to habits, and it might be necessary to use hydrogen ICE in trucking and other long haul transport. But EVs for consumer vehicles are where it’s going.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        57 months ago

        Latest figures are that green hydrogen accounts for 0.04 percent of total hydrogen production.

        • MeanEYE
          link
          fedilink
          English
          07 months ago

          Because there’s no demand for it. Currently production is very dirty but the engine itself is green as it gets. As the demand shoots up government can and probably will stimulate green production of hyrdogen. Point is, once you have hydrogen car there’s no upgrade path needed anymore. Initial ICE engines were of poor efficiency but it got better. But we have to pick technology which can scale with demand. Batteries are simply not it, especially when it comes to big transporters like boats and trains. You can’t use batteries on those. Even trucks are problematic as battery weight significantly reduces amount of cargo.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    107 months ago

    Despite being someone who is a huge SUV fan and who adores off road cars such as G class, Toyota Land Cruiser, Ineos grenadier, I genuinely hate to see them as “cars for shopping” in the city driven by women with blonde hair who has no idea what a differential is. SUVs belong to off road or long trips, not to cities where they have the highest fuel consumption.

    PS: tbh, cars don’t really belong to cities anyways

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 months ago

        They have the frame of a truck, but the spirit of a minivan. Almost everyone with an SUV would be better served by a minivan, but they are just scared to be seen with one.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          37 months ago

          Pulling an RV trailer with an SUV is usually easier to do than with a minivan.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A report by the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) showed SUVs now represented a majority of the new car market (51%), and the average LDV weight had reached an all-time high of more than 1.5 tonnes.

    Automotive companies market SUVs intensively as they provide the most profit: they are sold at premium prices but have a proportionally lower manufacturing cost.

    The authors of the report called for governments to place restrictions on vehicle sizes to reverse the SUV trend.

    The reduction in emissions from the motor industry has been driven by an uptake of electric vehicles (EVs), which reached 15% of market share in 2022.

    The report also said markets with strong growth in this area, such as China and Europe, had the largest annual energy efficiency improvements of close to 6%.

    Dan Sperling, the founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, said: “Reversing the trend toward bigger and heavier vehicles is key to achieving more sustainable mobility.


    The original article contains 409 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 60%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      I don’t fully understand why SUVs are more profitable. What makes them worth more than a minivan or wagon for instance. I know premium versions of both those vehicle types exist (actually I’m pretty sure some of the only new wagons you can buy today are from premium German brands.)

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -107 months ago

    Almost everyone advocating for a ban on SUVs has never ridden in one. Idk, decrease their emissions maybe? Size is not the main problem.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      I’d wager most people have been in one considering how common they are, doesn’t make them any less terrible. Size is definitely a problem, they are very space inefficient, and quite dangerous. The center of gravity is very high, and because the front end is high up, anyone hit by it is more likely to end up under the vehicle. The solution is to lower them down to make them safer, and replace them with safer and more efficient vehicles like station wagons and minivans.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -27 months ago

        They are safer than buses or vans. Clearly you and your family suffers from lack of SUVs

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          I literally just told you two things that make them more dangerous, what makes them safer?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -37 months ago

            From chatgpt:

            Size and Weight: SUVs are generally larger and heavier than smaller vehicles, providing increased mass and momentum, which can contribute to lower injury risk for occupants in the event of a collision.
            
            Elevated Seating Position: The elevated driving position in SUVs enhances visibility for drivers, reducing the likelihood of accidents and improving overall road safety.
            
            Advanced Safety Features: Many SUVs are equipped with advanced safety technologies, including multiple airbags, stability control systems, and advanced braking systems, which collectively enhance overall safety.
            
            Robust Structural Design: SUVs often have robust structures and frames, incorporating reinforced pillars and side-impact beams, providing better protection in the event of a crash.
            
            Crash Compatibility: In collisions between different-sized vehicles, occupants of the larger vehicle (such as an SUV) may experience lower injury risks due to the energy-absorbing capabilities of their vehicle's structure.
            
            Versatility in Driving Conditions: SUVs are designed to handle a variety of driving conditions, including adverse weather and rough terrain, making them a safer choice in certain situations.
            
            Family-Friendly Design: Many SUVs are designed with families in mind, incorporating features like spacious interiors and additional safety features tailored for transporting passengers, especially children.
            
            Towing Capacity: SUVs often have higher towing capacities, making them suitable for towing trailers or other recreational vehicles, and manufacturers design them with stability in mind for such activities.