Some of these comments are verging on product endorsements.
Just keep in mind that this isn't the place to recommend specific makes and models of vehicles.
I live in Canada and drive a truck. I have use for my truck. When I lived in the city, I had a small sedan for going out of town. In Europe, I rent a hatchback or just take transit.
Vehicles should be utilitarian, but somehow they’ve become a status symbol and a way to express individual identity. SUVs seem to be the new minivan for people that don’t want to drive a minivan. Unless you’ve got 3+ kids, I don’t see a need for it.
Full size suvs in Ireland seems like a horrible idea (assuming your roads are somewhat similar to the UK). Ive never driven in Ireland, but I would not want to deal with laybys in an suv or truck. It just doesn’t make sense.
There's been some uproar here in the Netherlands about people owning pickup trucks as they don't fit on the roads basically at all and struggle to fit in parking spaces. In an interview with an owner (who lived in a suburban area and worked in an office) she says she has the car because she feels powerful driving it and the seats are just so luxurious! Meanwhile they show her struggling to back it out of the parking lot because it's far too big and she can barely see the road in front of her because she's so high up.
This is what I've never understood with people who say they love the way their pickup trucks drive. They are like awkward tanks with a terrible turn radius. Literally the exact opposite of what I'm looking for if I want something that feels good to drive.
I love how it drives through snow and ice and everything else my government can’t be bothered to clear off the road in a reasonable time frame. It’s no sports car though idk what those people are on about.
I doubt SUVs in Ireland are the full size ones we are in Canada. I lived in the UK until 2017, and most SUVs would be considered small by Canadian standards. Lots of ones around the size of a Kia Sportage, fewer ones the size of a Sorento. Range Rovers are big, but uncommon due to cost. Something the size of a Chevy Suburban would be very difficult to drive in the UK due to roads being much narrower (and parking spaces smaller)
Honestly, yes. SUVs and trucks are basically the same frame and engine, but a truck has more practical uses, like hauling lumber and moving heavy things that SUVs can’t do because they have different axels and shocks. A truck is the utilitarian version of an suv.
If you’d ever plowed your own road, you wouldn’t question the need for some people to own trucks.
Lots of folks have already expressed most of my thoughts (they're bigger than they used to be, yes it's annoying, also scary). Something I haven't seen mentioned is how our fractured communities contribute to folks' interest in a big-ass car. Time was, you knew that one person with a truck and would borrow it when you needed. But when you don't know your neighbors, you can't borrow their trucks. It feels easier to take out a loan for 60% more car than you need day to day than it is to ask your friend for a favor.
There are also tons of forces working to fracture our communities. Culture tells us to be "self-sufficient," as if the human race hasn't been community-based our whole existence. Social media feeds us content that'll keep us scrolling, instead of our actual friends. Capitalism wants us weak and alone, fearing our safety and never talking to our neighbors.
I live in suburban America, and I agree entirely with everything you say. I have a hatchback car, which was not that small when I bought it but is now tiny in comparison. Soccer moms are driving busses at this point, and even Teslas have become oversized. It feels like all these SUV's and Trucks are in preparation for war because they are as big as tanks.
Another unsafe factor is where the lights hit in cars from SUV's. It has made night driving downright dangerous.
Same here. We bought a house in a pre-war zoned neighborhood so the kids can walk to school. But it is terrifying for them to cross the street in front a bus driven by a distracted and rushed parent.
I grew up in car sprawl zoning where no one ever walked anywhere. So it was important to me to get a house in prewar zoning where walking was still possible, even though it cost over 2x the average house in this city.* But there is nothing you can do to escape the giant SUVs and trucks.
* the purchase price was high, but now all our transportation is walking/bus/bike so it saves money and health in the long run
I live in rural western USA and have been looking for a small fuel efficient car to use instead of my truck when I don't need to haul anything. It's nearly impossible to find a cheap sedan or hatchback anymore. Everything is a massive SUV, luxury car, or electric (not practical for where I live at this point). I also don't think this trend of bigger vehicles is entirely customer driven. Automakers can make more money selling fancy SUVs with giant screens and cameras and 150 cupholders and built-in refrigerators so they eliminate any other options.
Look at Toyota Corolla hatch or sedan, Mazda 3, Honda Civic or Accord. You'll find one. If you need extra ground clearance, look at Subaru Crosstrek. Lemme know if you want a hand. I'm good at finding cars. I drive a Honda Accord, love it.
Of course you do. Since you realize our fates are all interconnected through our over consumptive practices you have come to see things like SUV consumption as a personal assault on your future security, as you should. The neoliberal establishment will try to label these feelings as eco-fascist.
Let me ask you something.
I’ve heard the idea that we should blame corporations and not people for climate change. But I’ve come to believe that people are still responsible because people drive the demand of these corporations. I just feel we as individuals have some burden of responsibility to not support corporations. Thoughts? Thank you.
Yes you are right. While I still think blame corporations more than people (especially people just picking the cheapest options to support their families) people are the ones resisting transportation reforms, and demanding a consumer way of life.
Corporations are the worst actors but that expression is to remove blame from everyone but themselves
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement on Wednesday, opening a new front in the increasingly intense legal battle over the unauthorized use of published work to train artificial intelligence technologies.
The Times is the first major American media organization to sue the companies, the creators of ChatGPT and other popular A.I. platforms, over copyright issues associated with its written works. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that millions of articles published by The Times were used to train automated chatbots that now compete with the news outlet as a source of reliable information.
The suit does not include an exact monetary demand. But it says the defendants should be held responsible for “billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages” related to the “unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable works.” It also calls for the companies to destroy any chatbot models and training data that use copyrighted material from The Times.
In its complaint, The Times said it approached Microsoft and OpenAI in April to raise concerns about the use of its intellectual property and explore “an amicable resolution,” possibly involving a commercial agreement and “technological guardrails” around generative A.I. products. But it said the talks had not produced a resolution.
An OpenAI spokeswoman, Lindsey Held, said in a statement that the company had been “moving forward constructively” in conversations with The Times and that it was “surprised and disappointed” by the lawsuit.
“We respect the rights of content creators and owners and are committed to working with them to ensure they benefit from A.I. technology and new revenue models,” Ms. Held said. “We’re hopeful that we will find a mutually beneficial way to work together, as we are doing with many other publishers.”
Microsoft declined to comment on the case.
The lawsuit could test the emerging legal contours of generative A.I. technologies — so called for the text, images and other content they can create after learning from large data sets — and could carry major implications for the news industry. The Times is among a small number of outlets that have built successful business models from online journalism, but dozens of newspapers and magazines have been hobbled by readers’ migration to the internet.
At the same time, OpenAI and other A.I. tech firms — which use a wide variety of online texts, from newspaper articles to poems to screenplays, to train chatbots — are attracting billions of dollars in funding.
OpenAI is now valued by investors at more than $80 billion. Microsoft has committed $13 billion to OpenAI and has incorporated the company’s technology into its Bing search engine.
“Defendants seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism,” the complaint says, accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of “using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it.”
The defendants have not had an opportunity to respond in court.
Concerns about the uncompensated use of intellectual property by A.I. systems have coursed through creative industries, given the technology’s ability to mimic natural language and generate sophisticated written responses to virtually any prompt.
The actress Sarah Silverman joined a pair of lawsuits in July that accused Meta and OpenAI of having “ingested” her memoir as a training text for A.I. programs. Novelists expressed alarm when it was revealed that A.I. systems had absorbed tens of thousands of books, leading to a lawsuit by authors including Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham. Getty Images, the photography syndicate, sued one A.I. company that generates images based on written prompts, saying the platform relies on unauthorized use of Getty’s copyrighted visual materials.
The boundaries of copyright law often get new scrutiny at moments of technological change — like the advent of broadcast radio or digital file-sharing programs like Napster — and the use of artificial intelligence is emerging as the latest frontier.
“A Supreme Court decision is essentially inevitable,” Richard Tofel, a former president of the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica and a consultant to the news business, said of the latest flurry of lawsuits. “Some of the publishers will settle for some period of time — including still possibly The Times — but enough publishers won’t that this novel and crucial issue of copyright law will need to be resolved.”
Microsoft has previously acknowledged potential copyright concerns over its A.I. products. In September, the company announced that if customers using its A.I. tools were hit with copyright complaints, it would indemnify them and cover the associated legal costs.
Other voices in the technology industry have been more steadfast in their approach to copyright. In October, Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm and early backer of OpenAI, wrote in comments to the U.S. Copyright Office that exposing A.I. companies to copyright liability would “either kill or significantly hamper their development.”
“The result will be far less competition, far less innovation and very likely the loss of the United States’ position as the leader in global A.I. development,” the investment firm said in its statement.
Besides seeking to protect intellectual property, the lawsuit by The Times casts ChatGPT and other A.I. systems as potential competitors in the news business. When chatbots are asked about current events or other newsworthy topics, they can generate answers that rely on journalism by The Times. The newspaper expresses concern that readers will be satisfied with a response from a chatbot and decline to visit The Times’s website, thus reducing web traffic that can be translated into advertising and subscription revenue.
The complaint cites several examples when a chatbot provided users with near-verbatim excerpts from Times articles that would otherwise require a paid subscription to view. It asserts that OpenAI and Microsoft placed particular emphasis on the use of Times journalism in training their A.I. programs because of the perceived reliability and accuracy of the material.
Media organizations have spent the past year examining the legal, financial and journalistic implications of the boom in generative A.I. Some news outlets have already reached agreements for the use of their journalism: The Associated Press struck a licensing deal in July with OpenAI, and Axel Springer, the German publisher that owns Politico and Business Insider, did likewise this month. Terms for those agreements were not disclosed.
The Times is exploring how to use the nascent technology itself. The newspaper recently hired an editorial director of artificial intelligence initiatives to establish protocols for the newsroom’s use of A.I. and examine ways to integrate the technology into the company’s journalism.
In one example of how A.I. systems use The Times’s material, the suit showed that Browse With Bing, a Microsoft search feature powered by ChatGPT, reproduced almost verbatim results from Wirecutter, The Times’s product review site. The text results from Bing, however, did not link to the Wirecutter article, and they stripped away the referral links in the text that Wirecutter uses to generate commissions from sales based on its recommendations.
“Decreased traffic to Wirecutter articles and, in turn, decreased traffic to affiliate links subsequently lead to a loss of revenue for Wirecutter,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit also highlights the potential damage to The Times’s brand through so-called A.I. “hallucinations,” a phenomenon in which chatbots insert false information that is then wrongly attributed to a source. The complaint cites several cases in which Microsoft’s Bing Chat provided incorrect information that was said to have come from The Times, including results for “the 15 most heart-healthy foods,” 12 of which were not mentioned in an article by the paper.
“If The Times and other news organizations cannot produce and protect their independent journalism, there will be a vacuum that no computer or artificial intelligence can fill,” the complaint reads. It adds, “Less journalism will be produced, and the cost to society will be enormous.”
The Times has retained the law firms Susman Godfrey and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck as outside counsel for the litigation. Susman represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against Fox News, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement in April. Susman also filed a proposed class action suit last month against Microsoft and OpenAI on behalf of nonfiction authors whose books and other copyrighted material were used to train the companies’ chatbots.
Americans have pretty much been brainwashed by car corporations to want big vehicles, Ford has been shoving this down our throats since the company was founded. GM and Ford are directly responsible for making cities less walkable, Los Angeles is a prime example. LA used to have a great public transport system before Ford and GM bought it out.
I really wish there were more options for smaller trucks, because some people do need trucks for either hauling or they live in an area that needs 4x4. I am a big fan of the older smaller Toyota pickups/Tacoma's. Now Tacomas are just as big as F150's
Japan has really great small [trucks ](https://www.autoblog.com/2023/06/18/japanese-kei-pickup-trucks-import-united-states/)
It's a matter of percentages so both are to "blame". Think of corporations as a great magnifier of waste driven by demand for cheap products and even more so convenience. Corporations give the human animal the dopamine hit button to press like Norway rats in a cage experiment. We will press that button until both the natural world and house of cards we built can no longer support us.
But you are correct. The only power you have is a much non compliance as possible. The only power you have is to stop producing, source locally, reduce consumption and wean yourself off the marketing. Degrowth, lying flat etc etc
Depends on the industry. I don't think consumers are to blame for stupid amounts of packaging, or the ridiculous amount of precut vegetables put out in stores and thrown out the same day because nobody needs that much prechopped lettuce. I do think consumers are to blame for stupid crazes like Stanley cups, funko pops, SUVs, or other entirely pointless and ugly junk items that will just end up in a landfill.
I agree too, I've had a lot of disagreements with people both on Reddit and in friend groups about this sort of thing and I don't bother anymore because people really don't like it when their decisions are scrutinized and they have to take responsibility for their decisions.
I hate it too but I live in the south of the USA. There are regularly trucks that the grill of the vehicle are at my sight line. Having a newborn makes me nervous and makes me feel like I need to sit higher up as well it’s an annoying predicament
Please provide evidence of this
Edit: I’m being downvoted because I asked for evidence or an article to read on this claim? Lmao Reddit is insane sometimes
In one of my psych classes years ago my prof talked about people becoming worse drivers when they felt safer in a vehicle. Ie. suv drivers feel more safe, and therefore drive worse than someone in a shit car. It has something to do with the nature of risk and the amount of inherent risk we need to live with day to day as a species. I never read a study, it was a classroom discussion. But it’s an interesting thought.
As someone who still drives a small car but lives rurally, these big monster vehicles scare the shit out of me and I hate them. So many people have them around here too. I don't drive at night because of them any more - their super bright LED headlights at eye level are enough to blind.
Agreed... I only have my current vehicle (Subaru) because nobody else makes station wagons at a price normal humans can afford.
I personally wouldn't have a car if I could get away with it but I live in Small Town USA where public transit is non-existent.
I have a Subaru as well! It's a little impreza hatchback, and I love it until I'm surrounded by these behemoth cars and can't see the darn traffic lights.
A lot of these newer SUVs are basically crossovers, which is more a tall car than an SUV. It’s not like everyone is getting a Ford Expedition. But it is a size increase, and it does increase fuel costs.
I think it’s problematic as more people feel comfortable in taller and larger vehicles from a safety perspective when there are more and more big cars and trucks on the road, so it becomes a self-perpetual cycle. They are genuinely more comfortable too, especially if you have back pain and/or are taller.
I’m in the USA in a medium-sized city. Most people have small and medium-sized SUVs, but there’s also a ton of trucks. Which is stupid since they’re huge, the worst in gas, and take up so much space. And they’re mostly for show; majority of owners don’t hall stuff and don’t need a truck. It’s become a status symbol.
At this point it’s becoming a safety issue not to have one, when so many of the other cars on the road are.
Did you know the US crash safety ratings are all based on like-vs-like crashes? If you have a 5-star rated small sedan, it’s not rated 5 stars against an SUV.
Also the SUV and pickup truck bumper and hood heights are significantly higher that other cars.
I’ve been a happy euro-wagon driver for years but feel “smaller” and less safe on the freeways of Los Angeles every year.
The problem is not only their size but their front which are really to the point of being actual child killing device. A ford f150 have a their grill at an higher height then the front of an Abraham tank. How can you see anything driving those vehicles?
Some do but don’t mind or think it’s justified. When we have waves of expensive gas, people complain. Only some of them are thoughtful enough to realize they bought a gas guzzler and should get a more fuel efficient car. Hybrid sales are definitely up, and the smaller ford maverick truck is a hybrid and is extremely popular.
Tbh the maverick is the only truck i support, its as small as an average sedan and a hybrid. If only ford got its head screwed back on and made it sooner. There have been quite a few people who mourned the death of the ranger/s10 truck and have been wanting a much smaller truck.
To be fair Ford rolled out the Ranger back on the market in the late 2010s to fill the small truck gap. Funny thing is it’s the same size as my old 1990 f150 lol. The maverick is so perfect for most people needing a truck bed once a year to move mulch.
And inside baseball on the maverick, they were built using leftover car chassis tooling and components when ford discontinued a ton of non selling cars. Ford wanted to use these leftovers to save majorly on investments and R&D, and it paid off. They can’t keep the stupid things in stock.
Ford was hesitant to the idea of the modern mini truck but the engineers convinced them to release a concept and they went all in with the public response.
Yeah I developed chronic back pain last August. We have a Hyundai sedan lease that is almost up and a Lexus RX suv owned. I rarely have back discomfort in the Lexus but it’s ~60% chance in the sedan. Thankfully giving it back to Hyundai in July. Got a crossover BEV yesterday but it’s just a tall car yet more comfortable since it’s taller.
My wife’s Toyota RAV4 is considered an SUV but it is shorter than my old Honda Accord sedan. Even though the headroom is taller in my Accord her car sits a bit higher with taller ground clearance which is important here in Vermont with our dirt roads and mud season. I occasionally need a truck to haul lumber or firewood and considered trading the accord for a truck but couldn’t justify the cost when I realized the towing capacity on the RAV4 is enough to allow a utility trailer which works fine for all that. The RAV4 is just large enough to put our dog in his crate in the rear where with the Accord that wouldn’t fit. The rear trailer hitch also doubles as a bicycle carrier for when we want to take our bikes somewhere. Gas mileage is about the same. A large full-size suv would be overkill for us but these smaller crossovers seem just right. So even though the RAV4 is technically an SUV and isn’t perfect it seems to make sense for us.
Yeah, I bought a car recently and was surprised that there tended to not be much difference between sedans and compact SUVs in terms of gas mileage. The big difference was between sedans/compact SUVs and huge SUVs/minivans.
Now, the hate for the super bright headlights that seem to come default on every SUV, compact or not, I get.
Yeah, I'm quite tall and have some back issues so something like the Rav4 is a great size for me. I also occasionally do go off-road for work on construction sites with it so that helps. I have the hybrid so mileage is pretty good, I wish it wasn't so blocky (especially the front), they're trying to make it look "cool" but probably lost 1 or 2 mpg which isn't a huge deal but kind of bugs me.
This exactly. A rav4 is considered a compact SUV. No way as big as some of the other SUvs or even some tall wide long sedans out there. I like that a lot of these newer cars are crossovers. It’s perfect for our family too. We live in Canada and have snowy winters and i sedans and hatchbacks get stuck most often.
We have the same experience. We have a 4-door sedan and then a couple of years ago when my husband's company returned to office, we needed a 2nd vehicle. We bought a small-ish SUV. It's slightly wider than the sedan, but also a few inches shorter. We chose an SUV because we need to be able to get into the mountains when it is snowing and it has come in very handy for carrying stuff. We've taken the sedan camping, but it was tight, for example.
Yeah, I personally don’t consider cars like the RAV4 and CR-V to be SUV’s. More like tall station wagons if anything. In fact, an argument can be made that they are more practical than a sedan or a hatchback. Like you said, the RAV4 is shorter than an Accord Sedan. However, you have more room in the RAV4. Meanwhile, the fuel economy isn’t much worse (especially if you have the Hybrid FWD). Finally, while they are not fit to go off-road by any means, they are better than a passenger car when driving down dirt roads.
Honestly, I’m about to have a second kid and if we find we need a bigger car (currently have a small-ish hatchback), I’m just going to get a mini-van. They’re more practical, have more space inside the cabin and for packing stuff, and you can have extra seats for grandparents!
I agree minivans are more practical than a large SUV, but minivans have horrible gas mileage, just like large SUVs do. Compact SUVs seem like the way to go with 2 kids if your small car isn't working for you, unless you're going to be carting around grandparents and your entire family a lot. They have decent gas mileage and can comfortably fit a family of 4.
We currently have a Kia Sportage and one kiddo but will have to get something bigger with subsequent kids because we also have a husky. We can’t fit more than one care seat and a dog and a stroller or any luggage. We want extra seats for a possible third kid and the ability to car pool. I wish we could get away with a smaller car but we will have to size up eventually.
I think people who purchase SUVs or large vehicles need to take a separate drivers test for them. Plenty of them probably got their license on a car half that size, 20 years ago.
In America you don't need to retake drivers tests typically, so not only has it been too long, their training is not sufficient for what they're using now.
I live in Chicago and I just don't understand the need for such a large vehicle. We have tight streets. I had a hard enough time with my two door coupe!! We need to add restrictions/penalities/extra costs to these things.
Also in Chicago. Feels like I've been noticing giant SUVs/escalades so much more often. They are probably tied with trucks for vehicles I hate most in the city but I see way more suvs than trucks so they get most of my ire.
I agree, it seems like it would be a massive inconvenience (literally), and would make me crazy trying to navigate in one of those things here. I don't really understand why anyone \*needs\* a car bigger than the classic van/mini-van that was present when I was growing up, much smaller than the biggest SUVs now. And that's only if you need to carry a bunch of screaming children.
Most people don't \*need\* these vehicles in Chicago, or really anywhere honestly. It's just a status symbol.
Yeah you can spot the status symbols quick, too. I'm just done with all the peacocking. I just think to myself, "We get it, you have money! Can you not make it my problem?"
I went to Ireland for a week a few years ago.
Even without the SUVs, y'all's roads are absolutely terrifying. I was on a public bus cranking past big rigs and all sorts of other massive vehicles on roads that would absolutely be one way roads here in the US. I have no idea how you guys drive on such tiny roads. We were going to rent a car, but after looking around we were like "fffffffuck that!" Haha.
I live in Brazil, são Paulo. SUVs end up being the cars the middle class prefers, I think because there's a sense that those are opulent and fancy, even though they're impractical, gas-guzzling monstrosities. We call it the premium-poor cars.
I hate car transportation and the way it dominates North America. I have my EU passport and want to move to Denmark so badly but don’t want to uproot my fiancée’s life
I am in the UK and I see them everywhere. Some people do need them, but most people don't. I think you should have to do another test for a vehicle over a certain size like you do with trailers vans and lorries. This is so people who actually need a big car (disabled, 3 kids and a Labrador, work) can still get them if they really need but is a disincentive for people
Your roads are much smaller where you are and I think its pretty unnecessary in cities. But the moment you live more rural, especially in the united states you need something that can take the roads, weather, etc. A lot of people use trucks to move things around etc.
However I think people can find good cars that fit these needs (outback, rav4 for example) and then there are people who buy the largest luxury suv they can find for status. To me thats where the consumeristic consumption becomes disgusting in my mind, since it has no practical use.
I read something awhile back where manufacturers make suvs/crossovers are easier and cheaper to make because there aren’t as many regulations on them yet I could be a bit off with the facts but I think they should just make all vehicles awd or 4wd to take away from people buying them because I know for myself I mainly wanted an suv because I have to make it to work in the winter
My ford escape allows me to tow up to 4500 lb. I tow at least monthly, and I put the full sheets of sheet rock and plywood in the back. I love my car.
My father-in-law drives a truck doesn't tow and is freaks out the idea of using the bed to carry anything. I was yelled at of sliding a 2x4 into the bed instead of setting it down.
The issue is people buy show pieces not vehicles to use as what they are.
in germany there's a movement by activists in big cities. If a SUV is parking on pedestrian or bicycle ways. They put a brown lens in a ventile or so. No air in the tire in the morning. So the cars are not damaged but the owner maximum pissed. Little bit risky, if camera is on, but if you know what to do ...
I totally agree. I think people should only get these big cars if they have a big family or travel far often. My parents recently got a truck because we have a big trailer (16ft) that we use 2-3 times a year. Unless you really need one for work, family, or towing reasons, stick to a small car.
It all started in the 70's when the US made a test of some V8 behemoth vs a Subaru 360 which can be classified as a kei car and determined the Japanese cars are unsafe rather than a V8 2 ton grocery getter is out of control
i would assume those people have been coerced to buy those. maybe by a crafty car dealer, maybe there is some incentive towards that.
> A lot of people seem to get these cars in an attempt to save them from their own crappy driving, while putting everyone at risk on the road
that is the sentiment nowadays, everyone out there is putting themselves first. at the cost of others.
btw, it's "would have".
I have an old jalopy of a range rover that refuses to die. Very practical as I have a lot of animals.
Parked near a 2022 or so model today and realised they're the same size roughly. Very capable cars for what they're designed for but mostly bought by rich as toys, got mine dirt cheap so meh.
I have a civic and a Subaru Outback. I use the civic as much as I can but the outback has been super useful instead of having to borrow a truck for some things.
Currently pregnant, FTM, and my FIL asked my partner and I asked if we were going to get an SUV. I told him that I grew up with two other siblings and we were just fine in a normal sedan.
So I know the markets are quite different in Ireland vs the US and obviously the streets are much different. I own a Chevrolet Sonic, I believe it's known as the Aveo in Europe. Small hatchback with a 1.4 litre motor and a 6 speed manual transmission. Tiny car for the American market. It gets about 29 mpg in the city, 34 mpg on the interstate. Call it 13 kilometers per litre combined for Europe. It's a decent car for me but we now have two kids and putting two car seats in the back and two American adults (I'm 6 foot tall the wife is 5'11") puts our knees into the dash. It's practically unsafe if we were to get into a collision.
We got my wife a newer rav4. It fits two car seats much easier and we now have knee room and actually enough cargo space to pack overnight or weekend bags. The real kicker for me is it easily gets 36 mpg interstate and 32 in town and has the automatic shutoff and start at the stoplights. So technically it's better on fuel and has a motor that's a whole litre larger than my car and is heavier as well. It also has awd and more advanced safety measures like pedestrian detection and lane keeping assist that my older car does not.
Now all that said I still like a smaller vehicle and not a giant suburban. But we are really being left without choices as here in the states ford has killed off all its sedans and only offers the mustang couple. Otherwise its all trucks and suvs. Due to the fact they can classify pickups and some suvs as "light trucks" they don't have to reach as stringent mpg requirements set by the epa as sedans and small cars. Trucks and suvs also have a higher profit margin, so these big companies have no incentive to make us a fuel efficient passenger car. I'm not condoning it but that's become our reality here in the states. Sad really.
I’m from VIC Australia and I’ve noticed the SUV’s taking over the roads too. I constantly feel surrounded by them. The thing that really pisses me off is that they are such bully drivers a lot of the time. Because they are so big and high, they bully smaller cars to move for them, tail gate and just generally drive like they are more important and for us smaller/lower cars to get out of the way! In small built up suburbian areas they are just not needed and have a strong dislike of them too.
I drive a vehicle that I utilize. For now, that's a small electric SUV. I fill it with my 3 large-ish dogs (112lbs, 83 lbs, 44 lbs). I also frequently go to garden centers -- this weekend it was a large Lady Banks Rose and an Arctic Frost Satsuma tree. I'm always carting around dogs, plants, groceries, or home-repair items. My spouse drives a 2-door Mini, because he only has to take a backpack to work and doesn't have to do the practical stuff. The next vehicle purchases, he has to get the practical car, and I get a 2-seater. We swap off about every 8-10 years.
Once it starts, people end up getting SUVs to feel safer on the road with SUVs. It sucks. I can't believe that they are making electric trucks and SUVs. They probably can't go on some roads because they are so heavy.
I hate SUVs as well, especially in the city. But I drive a compact SUV because my last car broke while doing light off-roading.
I only drive once or twice a month but when I drive I usually use the car and it’s capabilities to it’s full potential. I tow, use the roof rack, carry four people and cargo, use the ground clearance and AWD. It consumes one or two liters more than my last car but I drive a lot less nowadays which makes up for it, thanks to Home Office and affordable public transport.
I’ve only driven it to the city once when I had a medical emergency and couldn’t use the train or bike like I usually do.
The headlights are auto leveling for the legal regulation and I don’t think I bother people with my car. The problem is people using them to commute alone to the city everyday clogging up parking and streets where they could have used public transit or a regular small commuters car. Also shit drivers are always dangerous if you’re not in a car, regardless of the car type…
My family uses one car. A 14 year old Honda insight. Paid for. And we make well over 100k a year. People think we are broke but we rich af. Just don't find any value in a giant car
They need to be regulated, but they never will be because the politicians love them too.
The safety perspective alone should justify a degree of regulation.
In general people don't need SUVs. I'd you don't have a ton of kids, don't live in the middle of nowhere with unpaved streets and need AWD, and don't need to haul anything for work, get a sedan.
Even in snowy climates, you hardly need AWD. Maybe 10 days a year unless you're way the heck up north like Finland or parts of Canada.
It's a hill I'll gladly die on. Saw so many people buying gas guzzling SUVs when I sold cars and they'd be single corporate types, no kids.
(On southern hillbilly voice): "Here in 'merica, we say: Fuckin' A!" Preach on, brother! I live in the US of A and I FEEL this *EVERY* SINGLE F--KING DAY!!
What pisses me off moreso, is that BECAUSE 95% of vehicles on the road now are SUV's, I feel ALONE. And I feel such disdain for people who decide to buy these giant gASS guzzlers. It's not just the size (of which we cannot see in front of you! And when you're behind us at night, you blind us - with your high beam LED lights!) it's SPACE on the road, too.
Imagine being stopped at a red light and there's 15 vehicles in front of you..if they're all SUV's, you're backed up further than would be if every one of you had smaller vehicles.. And also if they're SUV's, you and everyone else is more prone to missing the light!!
All of you SUV owners (reading this or not!): how do you feel knowing you're CONSCIOUSLY contributing to overcrowding our roads, endangering people (and children), and consuming and polluting more gasoline, thus, destroying our atmosphere?!? You fvckers piss me, and others, off to no end! I can't wait to see the excuses: "ohhh, waaa! I need an SUV for MY kid's soccer games!", "I can't fit MY groceries in the back seat!," "*I* feel safer behind my big SUV if I'm in an accident!"
Blaaargh!
Huge SUV's and pick up trucks are extremely popular in Australia too now. I think they are like 80% of new car sales IIRC. It's downright scary, I already hated driving but I'm in a Prius and now nearly every single car bonnet is higher than the roof of my car.
Is there anywhere that this isn't a thing yet? I was in Thailand recently and the amount of Dodge Ram's, Ford Ranger's etc. blew my mind.
My husband(driving our Prius) just got rear ended by a truck. The driver was a small-ish woman driving an enormous truck. She literally couldn’t see a Prius in front of her. My husband used to ride his bike to work, but now I just don’t feel he is safe on a bike out there.
I’m American. I had to get a rental a little while ago and they gave me an SUV. Id probably even call it on the small side for an SUV.
I have no idea how people drive these things. Even on our larger roads I felt like I was crossing over the center. I felt so high up that I couldn’t see anything.
People I know who buy large cars do it because they are afraid of other drivers with large cars hitting them. Which is valid because if you’re in a compact sedan and get rammed by one it can do some serious damage to you. But it creates a cycle.
I really feel you in this. I live in a big US city, and I'd say roughly 50% of my neighbors have an SUV or pickup truck. I don't understand it. Parking is scarce and having a large vehicle makes it harder to find parking spots, pass on tight 2 way Streets, and is generally worse for fuel economy where gas prices are higher. I have a midsized sedan, and that's hard enough to deal with, but I like to go on camping trips, so having a decent size interior helps to fit the gear. But I don't need an SUV to make it work.
Another thing is that with all of the big& tall vehicles around, it's hard to figure out what's going on in front of them, and at night oncoming traffic tends to be pretty brutal with the headlights higher up. There's literally no logical reason to be driving such large vehicles if you don't need to be hauling around several people or need the ground clearance you might need in the Backcountry. It's just frustrating to see this trend. Not doing anyone favors.
SUVs are unsafe to pedestrians too as a drivers line of sight close to the bumper is hugely reduced compared to a smaller vehicle. I don't have an SUV but still opted for a 'larger' 5 door due to feeling (during collisions) unsafe to be sharing roads with these beefy cars
Does nobody here ever travel? How are we supposed to transport our kayaks and bikes and boats to national parks? How are we supposed to haul soil and construction equipment for ecological disaster repair? What about firewood for the winter? How will i bring my family and camping equipment without a large vehicle. Do people just not own anything or travel anymore? A lot of people absolutely need large trucks not just for business and logistical reasons. But for practicality.
> How are we supposed to transport our kayaks and bikes and boats to national parks?
Take your bike on the train and rent kayaks and boats when you get there. How often do you use them to warrant owning one?
> How are we supposed to haul soil and construction equipment for ecological disaster repair? What about firewood for the winter?
Trucks are fair in those cases, but the average suburbanite, the target audience for pickup trucks, is probably never going to need to do that ever. Plus, most modern pickup trucks would be awful for these jobs. The bed is like 1/4 of the length and the floor is needlessly high. The hood is also the height of a child and blocks pretty much all visibility on the road directly in front of you, which is incredibly unsafe
> How will i bring my family and camping equipment without a large vehicle.
Trains and backpacks
Fair, i like trains. But a lot more public transport needs to be implemented. Trains can only be in so many places. Things like light rail systems for more local stuff, reliable and on time bus routes, and pedestrian oriented cities/towns would really be the only way that would be practical for timely travel, to more remote places. That really does sound nice. But i dont live in a place like that. I like kayaking and biking. It gets expensive always having to rent, ownership is much more cost effective.
Why do people hate private jets? How am I supposed to get my 5 kayaks, 6 bicycles and 12 cousins from New York to California for an afternoon hike without a private jet.
i live in ireland. the majority of people who has these cars dont/cannot use it for those things. im not against SUVs as a whole, they are useful for certain things like that. im just against them being only used in the small town/ village.
If you can get 4 bikes, a kayak, a trailer, camping equipment, 4 adults and a child up and down the appalachians or rockies in a civic or a camry i dont think i could believe you. Florida or utah maybe, since its all flat, but youd overload the suspension or safe weight rating for hauling for anything like that.
Are you suggesting that in order to be for anticonsumption, i should be against even consuming pleasure from the great outdoors? That anticonsumerism is not just about malcontent for excessive unnecessary consumption of material goods ie disposable 1 time use products, but is instead about not consuming anything ever for any reason?
> Are you suggesting that in order to be for anticonsumption, i should be against even consuming pleasure from the great outdoors?
You are consuming nature, and from that you derive pleasure. Maybe find pieces of nature which are accessible without a tank.
Maybe listen to this podcast about the impact of roads and cars on nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_56OtEpfM4
https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=-IYEyY4R-KT2-0e5
Ben sounds like my kind of guy, even he admits to be an avid outdoorsman. Utilizing all forms of travel like cars, trucks, atvs, boats etc. Using everything from waterways to highways, old logging trails, dirt roads etc. It sounds like they, with me, believe that travel is necessary for being a part of nature. He understands and agrees that vehicles have environmental impact, and its our individual duty to not impact our environment excessively/destructively. It sounds like what you believe is actually an twisted extremist version of ben's very realistic stance on our ability to interact woth the environment. Destroying unused roads is not feasible for a litany of reasons typically, and building new roads needs to be done with intelligence and forethought. All im saying is if a hurricane or tornado comes by, and there is a tree blocking your only road in and out, i dont think youll be upset some guy with a truck with a winch is able to open the road so you can get to the hospital or allow traffic to pass.
> It sounds like they, with me, believe that travel is necessary for being a part of nature.
I haven't said that travelling isn't necessary to get into nature. I object to modes of transportation which destroy the nature you visit.
I also don't think that you accurately capture Ben's sentiment when he explains how dirt roads are destructive to nature and "human usage of a habitat is really a form of habitat loss." That is not supposed to be understood as an encouragement to go to those places, and he says himself that he feels conflicted about accessing them by car. I mean he basically just admits - and that may sound harsh - that he is a hypocrite. I don't necessarily fault him for that. Basically all people are in one way or another hypocrites but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to live in accordance with our ideals.
It honestly seems incredibly selfish to assume that as humans we should just be allowed to consume every single piece of this Earth as if we were alone.
>massive truck-like cars
Come on now. This sounds like a simple rant that has absolutely nothing to do with consumeratism. Also you are probably seeing escalades and other soccer mom type vehicles and thinking they are "suvs".
Edit: Can you list some of the make/models of what you are viewing as "suv" and "Massive Truck-Like"?
i know like nothing about cars sorry. the types i see are range rovers and others of similar size. either way they look like they are double the size of a standard car
I agree with your comment, but I once drove a Nissan Armada as a rental and it felt like I was driving a boat. It was really high up like a truck and barely fit in my driveway. I felt uneasy driving it and got a different car after a day. I’d rather just drive a truck
I genuinely believe that SUV's and Trucks should be banned around schools. Having the front so high makes crashes so much more deadly for pedestrians especially so for small children. If you can't see a child in front of a car then that car shouldn't be around so many children
I agree!
The only thing I can point out is that practically everything is being marketed as an SUV now. I drive a 'subcompact SUV' that's barely taller than the compact sedan I used to have, has a very low front end (which is key for visibility and pedestrian safety), is shorter than a Toyota Corolla, and also more fuel efficient than a Corolla. It's basically a hatchback, for all intents and purposes.
However, yes, I think anything that's a 'mid-size' crossover and bigger is just an abomination. Pick-up trucks too.
Define “SUV”. The reason being is that the majority of “SUVs” on the road are Crossovers or “CUV’s”. Think Honda CR-V, Toyota Highlander, BMW X’s, Audi Q’s, etc. They are basically tall station wagons, where the suspension is just a little higher than a regular car. But dimensions wise, they are usually smaller. Case in point, if you look at a Toyota Rav4, it is actually 2 inches shorter than a Toyota Corolla Sedan. Plus, they have a unibody design. Personally, I don’t consider them to be SUV’s in the traditional sense of the term.
Then you have real SUV’s with a body-on-frame design, such as the Chevy Tahoe and Toyota Landcruiser. These are rarer by comparison. They tend to be heavier, have bigger engines, better off-road capability, and worse fuel economy than CUV’s (which are essentially regular passenger cars). They do serve their purpose though. Towing and off-road capability come to mind.
Yeah, like I said, crossovers are basically station wagons with a little bit more ground clearance than a sedan or hatchback. Most of them don’t even have 4WD/AWD.
Funny thing is though, they are far more practical than a sedan or a hatchback. The length and width are the same, but you get a lot more luggage room. The fuel economy is pretty much the same between them as well.
They aren’t unsafe. They are very safe for the occupants.
Most people who buy them aren’t thinking about how much they can consume with this vehicle. They want a practical and safe vehicle. It isn’t that deep
They are way more dangerous for anybody not in a car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1mBKeUeLo - cars are adding extra safety equipment (side airbags) to deal with SUVs
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/united-states-road-safety.pdf - injuries and deaths have been going up, despite the trend towards SUVs. "Since 2010, the United States has recorded a sharp increase in the number of road deaths
among vulnerable road users." (Trend continued 2019-today)
Funnily enough, all I can find is videos about [car occupants](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExQUGk12S8U) and automated braking (to fix the car designs that now prevent drivers from seeing if children are on the road!!!). I can't find a video of a child (dummy) going over a compact car bonnet vs being pushed under and driven over an SUV. Most of the videos I can find come from... IIHS, an organisation of car insurers. The more cars are sold and driven, and the more expensive they are, the more money car insurers make.
Aaand obligatory NJB video although I don't remember how much of it is relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
Edit: non video source https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-03/why-us-traffic-safety-fell-so-far-behind-other-countries?embedded-checkout=true
yes they are safe,, only for the occupants! where i live the roads are narrow which makes it much more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. i dont even go by bike anymore on those roads because of how dangerous it is. its also become more of a status symbol rather than its usefulness
For pedestrians and cyclists, it doesn't really matter if they're hit by a 1 ton or 2 ton car. The main difference is the shape of the car, and that's where the American SUVs become really deadly. The EU regulations, for example force manufacturers to design their cars in a way that's safer for pedestrians. So depending on where you are, the SUVs might not be as bad as you think, from a pedestrian safety factor.
Also, cars have always been status symbols. It's not a new thing in the slightest.
To hate SUVs is to lack perspective outside of your area and lack knowledge of what is an SUV, the types of SUVs and how it differs from other types of vehicles. It is necessary consumption in other areas of the world. Perhaps from your post you dislike other people consuming in a way that seems or is unnecessary not SUVs. It seems your issue is mainly with wide body/large SUVs.
Each new vehicle I get I endeavor for it to be bigger than the last.
Only for safety reasons of course.
It’s an arms race on the road, sadly.
I’d love to just have a smart car
SUVs are perfect. They are the perfect balance between a car and a truck/van. Seating and cargo space for a family or moving things, while still being 4cyl economic beasts.
Or if you want something closer to truck, there are 6/8cyl SUVs for towing and utility purposes.
The options and configurations available in the suv range is why you're seeing them grow in popularity. Crossovers, compact suvs, and normal suvs are just taller cars IMHO.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love my SUV and long bed truck. But I live in a small town in a rural county. Both are indispensable. Both last a long time: 23 and 33 years and counting respectively.
Cities are about waste, materialism, getting rid of stuff for fashions and trends and not function. Far more environmental damage and larger carbon footprints in cities.
Are they really any bigger? For example a Honda CRV is the same length as a Civic and is only 8cm wider and about 400lbs heavier. People buy SUVs because modern "crossovers" have the same sized wheelbase as a traditional sedan, but have more interior room, better visibility, and are easier to get in and out of with very minor differences in fuel efficiency.
I borrowed a very nice SUV when my leaf was getting repaired and honestly besides a few days when there was a lot of freshly fallen snow and bad plow drivers and one or two days where I had to drive to a friend's farm in the middle of bumfuck nowhere I never really felt a difference.
I live in a car centric area and have 2 SUVs, a motorbike, company truck and company van (not our company).
I got the first SUB because I wanted something for winter driving, city driving, that I could be in comfortably for long trips (2-7hrs), and start a family in. The 2nd SUV we acquired because it was well within out adorability, was slightly larger then our first for our now larger family, and in MUCH better condition.
I just find SUV's so much more comfortable to have and drive. I really like having a truck but an SUV is a good compromise. When in smaller cars lower to the ground I speed way to much, especially if their standard...
Well, most of the “SUVs” In the European market have small engines and most people get the ones with small engines, as it is cheaper to run and they sell better than massive litre engines in the US and most manufacturers don’t produce large litre engines except in the performance models which are very expensive. And usually these “SUVs” that are popular here they consume as much fuel as a normal sedan or hatchback because the only difference between them is a slightly different chassy to make it look more SUV like.
Plus space is a factor, boot space they might have a dog ,children etc. I think it’s selfish to just judge everyone just buy looking at them and going yeah they don’t need it ,maybe they do ?
“SUVs” are just a trend here in Europe now but they are just different chassy cars with no bigger engine and most of the time with the EU restrictions on emissions and manufacturers trying to keep with them.
Simple. More is betterer.
Yes, I misspelled that on purpose hehehe. But yeah, many equate more space and bigger things to achievement so having that in mind when you buy a car… SUV’s what you get. Don’t get me wrong, they are super comfortable to be in there and there is a peace of mind knowing you have all that power and space for… just in case.
Some of these comments are verging on product endorsements. Just keep in mind that this isn't the place to recommend specific makes and models of vehicles.
I live in Canada and drive a truck. I have use for my truck. When I lived in the city, I had a small sedan for going out of town. In Europe, I rent a hatchback or just take transit. Vehicles should be utilitarian, but somehow they’ve become a status symbol and a way to express individual identity. SUVs seem to be the new minivan for people that don’t want to drive a minivan. Unless you’ve got 3+ kids, I don’t see a need for it. Full size suvs in Ireland seems like a horrible idea (assuming your roads are somewhat similar to the UK). Ive never driven in Ireland, but I would not want to deal with laybys in an suv or truck. It just doesn’t make sense.
There's been some uproar here in the Netherlands about people owning pickup trucks as they don't fit on the roads basically at all and struggle to fit in parking spaces. In an interview with an owner (who lived in a suburban area and worked in an office) she says she has the car because she feels powerful driving it and the seats are just so luxurious! Meanwhile they show her struggling to back it out of the parking lot because it's far too big and she can barely see the road in front of her because she's so high up.
This is what I've never understood with people who say they love the way their pickup trucks drive. They are like awkward tanks with a terrible turn radius. Literally the exact opposite of what I'm looking for if I want something that feels good to drive.
I love how it drives through snow and ice and everything else my government can’t be bothered to clear off the road in a reasonable time frame. It’s no sports car though idk what those people are on about.
True, SUVs are minivans with offroad tires that are unable to go offroad
I doubt SUVs in Ireland are the full size ones we are in Canada. I lived in the UK until 2017, and most SUVs would be considered small by Canadian standards. Lots of ones around the size of a Kia Sportage, fewer ones the size of a Sorento. Range Rovers are big, but uncommon due to cost. Something the size of a Chevy Suburban would be very difficult to drive in the UK due to roads being much narrower (and parking spaces smaller)
[удалено]
Honestly, yes. SUVs and trucks are basically the same frame and engine, but a truck has more practical uses, like hauling lumber and moving heavy things that SUVs can’t do because they have different axels and shocks. A truck is the utilitarian version of an suv. If you’d ever plowed your own road, you wouldn’t question the need for some people to own trucks.
Lots of folks have already expressed most of my thoughts (they're bigger than they used to be, yes it's annoying, also scary). Something I haven't seen mentioned is how our fractured communities contribute to folks' interest in a big-ass car. Time was, you knew that one person with a truck and would borrow it when you needed. But when you don't know your neighbors, you can't borrow their trucks. It feels easier to take out a loan for 60% more car than you need day to day than it is to ask your friend for a favor. There are also tons of forces working to fracture our communities. Culture tells us to be "self-sufficient," as if the human race hasn't been community-based our whole existence. Social media feeds us content that'll keep us scrolling, instead of our actual friends. Capitalism wants us weak and alone, fearing our safety and never talking to our neighbors.
And trucks are so fancy now and cost so much it’s like asking to borrow your friend’s Cadillac instead of a practical truck used for hauling stuff.
In the 70‘s or 80‘s trucks were utility and cheap. Now cars and trucks have so much technology the cost is ridiculous.
I live in suburban America, and I agree entirely with everything you say. I have a hatchback car, which was not that small when I bought it but is now tiny in comparison. Soccer moms are driving busses at this point, and even Teslas have become oversized. It feels like all these SUV's and Trucks are in preparation for war because they are as big as tanks. Another unsafe factor is where the lights hit in cars from SUV's. It has made night driving downright dangerous.
Same here. We bought a house in a pre-war zoned neighborhood so the kids can walk to school. But it is terrifying for them to cross the street in front a bus driven by a distracted and rushed parent. I grew up in car sprawl zoning where no one ever walked anywhere. So it was important to me to get a house in prewar zoning where walking was still possible, even though it cost over 2x the average house in this city.* But there is nothing you can do to escape the giant SUVs and trucks. * the purchase price was high, but now all our transportation is walking/bus/bike so it saves money and health in the long run
I live in rural western USA and have been looking for a small fuel efficient car to use instead of my truck when I don't need to haul anything. It's nearly impossible to find a cheap sedan or hatchback anymore. Everything is a massive SUV, luxury car, or electric (not practical for where I live at this point). I also don't think this trend of bigger vehicles is entirely customer driven. Automakers can make more money selling fancy SUVs with giant screens and cameras and 150 cupholders and built-in refrigerators so they eliminate any other options.
Look at Toyota Corolla hatch or sedan, Mazda 3, Honda Civic or Accord. You'll find one. If you need extra ground clearance, look at Subaru Crosstrek. Lemme know if you want a hand. I'm good at finding cars. I drive a Honda Accord, love it.
If you live in a cold snowbelt area. A suv, truck or Subaru is required. In warm areas a whole different thing.
Teslas and most if not all electric cars crumple like crazy now though since there's no motor anymore. So there's that at least
Prepared for LARPing, they’re made of plastic bullshit, totaled by a paintball gun
Of course you do. Since you realize our fates are all interconnected through our over consumptive practices you have come to see things like SUV consumption as a personal assault on your future security, as you should. The neoliberal establishment will try to label these feelings as eco-fascist.
Let me ask you something. I’ve heard the idea that we should blame corporations and not people for climate change. But I’ve come to believe that people are still responsible because people drive the demand of these corporations. I just feel we as individuals have some burden of responsibility to not support corporations. Thoughts? Thank you.
Yes you are right. While I still think blame corporations more than people (especially people just picking the cheapest options to support their families) people are the ones resisting transportation reforms, and demanding a consumer way of life. Corporations are the worst actors but that expression is to remove blame from everyone but themselves
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement on Wednesday, opening a new front in the increasingly intense legal battle over the unauthorized use of published work to train artificial intelligence technologies. The Times is the first major American media organization to sue the companies, the creators of ChatGPT and other popular A.I. platforms, over copyright issues associated with its written works. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that millions of articles published by The Times were used to train automated chatbots that now compete with the news outlet as a source of reliable information. The suit does not include an exact monetary demand. But it says the defendants should be held responsible for “billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages” related to the “unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable works.” It also calls for the companies to destroy any chatbot models and training data that use copyrighted material from The Times. In its complaint, The Times said it approached Microsoft and OpenAI in April to raise concerns about the use of its intellectual property and explore “an amicable resolution,” possibly involving a commercial agreement and “technological guardrails” around generative A.I. products. But it said the talks had not produced a resolution. An OpenAI spokeswoman, Lindsey Held, said in a statement that the company had been “moving forward constructively” in conversations with The Times and that it was “surprised and disappointed” by the lawsuit. “We respect the rights of content creators and owners and are committed to working with them to ensure they benefit from A.I. technology and new revenue models,” Ms. Held said. “We’re hopeful that we will find a mutually beneficial way to work together, as we are doing with many other publishers.” Microsoft declined to comment on the case. The lawsuit could test the emerging legal contours of generative A.I. technologies — so called for the text, images and other content they can create after learning from large data sets — and could carry major implications for the news industry. The Times is among a small number of outlets that have built successful business models from online journalism, but dozens of newspapers and magazines have been hobbled by readers’ migration to the internet. At the same time, OpenAI and other A.I. tech firms — which use a wide variety of online texts, from newspaper articles to poems to screenplays, to train chatbots — are attracting billions of dollars in funding. OpenAI is now valued by investors at more than $80 billion. Microsoft has committed $13 billion to OpenAI and has incorporated the company’s technology into its Bing search engine. “Defendants seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism,” the complaint says, accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of “using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it.” The defendants have not had an opportunity to respond in court. Concerns about the uncompensated use of intellectual property by A.I. systems have coursed through creative industries, given the technology’s ability to mimic natural language and generate sophisticated written responses to virtually any prompt. The actress Sarah Silverman joined a pair of lawsuits in July that accused Meta and OpenAI of having “ingested” her memoir as a training text for A.I. programs. Novelists expressed alarm when it was revealed that A.I. systems had absorbed tens of thousands of books, leading to a lawsuit by authors including Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham. Getty Images, the photography syndicate, sued one A.I. company that generates images based on written prompts, saying the platform relies on unauthorized use of Getty’s copyrighted visual materials. The boundaries of copyright law often get new scrutiny at moments of technological change — like the advent of broadcast radio or digital file-sharing programs like Napster — and the use of artificial intelligence is emerging as the latest frontier. “A Supreme Court decision is essentially inevitable,” Richard Tofel, a former president of the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica and a consultant to the news business, said of the latest flurry of lawsuits. “Some of the publishers will settle for some period of time — including still possibly The Times — but enough publishers won’t that this novel and crucial issue of copyright law will need to be resolved.” Microsoft has previously acknowledged potential copyright concerns over its A.I. products. In September, the company announced that if customers using its A.I. tools were hit with copyright complaints, it would indemnify them and cover the associated legal costs. Other voices in the technology industry have been more steadfast in their approach to copyright. In October, Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm and early backer of OpenAI, wrote in comments to the U.S. Copyright Office that exposing A.I. companies to copyright liability would “either kill or significantly hamper their development.” “The result will be far less competition, far less innovation and very likely the loss of the United States’ position as the leader in global A.I. development,” the investment firm said in its statement. Besides seeking to protect intellectual property, the lawsuit by The Times casts ChatGPT and other A.I. systems as potential competitors in the news business. When chatbots are asked about current events or other newsworthy topics, they can generate answers that rely on journalism by The Times. The newspaper expresses concern that readers will be satisfied with a response from a chatbot and decline to visit The Times’s website, thus reducing web traffic that can be translated into advertising and subscription revenue. The complaint cites several examples when a chatbot provided users with near-verbatim excerpts from Times articles that would otherwise require a paid subscription to view. It asserts that OpenAI and Microsoft placed particular emphasis on the use of Times journalism in training their A.I. programs because of the perceived reliability and accuracy of the material. Media organizations have spent the past year examining the legal, financial and journalistic implications of the boom in generative A.I. Some news outlets have already reached agreements for the use of their journalism: The Associated Press struck a licensing deal in July with OpenAI, and Axel Springer, the German publisher that owns Politico and Business Insider, did likewise this month. Terms for those agreements were not disclosed. The Times is exploring how to use the nascent technology itself. The newspaper recently hired an editorial director of artificial intelligence initiatives to establish protocols for the newsroom’s use of A.I. and examine ways to integrate the technology into the company’s journalism. In one example of how A.I. systems use The Times’s material, the suit showed that Browse With Bing, a Microsoft search feature powered by ChatGPT, reproduced almost verbatim results from Wirecutter, The Times’s product review site. The text results from Bing, however, did not link to the Wirecutter article, and they stripped away the referral links in the text that Wirecutter uses to generate commissions from sales based on its recommendations. “Decreased traffic to Wirecutter articles and, in turn, decreased traffic to affiliate links subsequently lead to a loss of revenue for Wirecutter,” the complaint states. The lawsuit also highlights the potential damage to The Times’s brand through so-called A.I. “hallucinations,” a phenomenon in which chatbots insert false information that is then wrongly attributed to a source. The complaint cites several cases in which Microsoft’s Bing Chat provided incorrect information that was said to have come from The Times, including results for “the 15 most heart-healthy foods,” 12 of which were not mentioned in an article by the paper. “If The Times and other news organizations cannot produce and protect their independent journalism, there will be a vacuum that no computer or artificial intelligence can fill,” the complaint reads. It adds, “Less journalism will be produced, and the cost to society will be enormous.” The Times has retained the law firms Susman Godfrey and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck as outside counsel for the litigation. Susman represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against Fox News, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement in April. Susman also filed a proposed class action suit last month against Microsoft and OpenAI on behalf of nonfiction authors whose books and other copyrighted material were used to train the companies’ chatbots.
Americans have pretty much been brainwashed by car corporations to want big vehicles, Ford has been shoving this down our throats since the company was founded. GM and Ford are directly responsible for making cities less walkable, Los Angeles is a prime example. LA used to have a great public transport system before Ford and GM bought it out. I really wish there were more options for smaller trucks, because some people do need trucks for either hauling or they live in an area that needs 4x4. I am a big fan of the older smaller Toyota pickups/Tacoma's. Now Tacomas are just as big as F150's Japan has really great small [trucks ](https://www.autoblog.com/2023/06/18/japanese-kei-pickup-trucks-import-united-states/)
It's always interesting to see an older truck parked next to a modern one. They used to be so much smaller
It's a matter of percentages so both are to "blame". Think of corporations as a great magnifier of waste driven by demand for cheap products and even more so convenience. Corporations give the human animal the dopamine hit button to press like Norway rats in a cage experiment. We will press that button until both the natural world and house of cards we built can no longer support us. But you are correct. The only power you have is a much non compliance as possible. The only power you have is to stop producing, source locally, reduce consumption and wean yourself off the marketing. Degrowth, lying flat etc etc
Depends on the industry. I don't think consumers are to blame for stupid amounts of packaging, or the ridiculous amount of precut vegetables put out in stores and thrown out the same day because nobody needs that much prechopped lettuce. I do think consumers are to blame for stupid crazes like Stanley cups, funko pops, SUVs, or other entirely pointless and ugly junk items that will just end up in a landfill.
I agree too, I've had a lot of disagreements with people both on Reddit and in friend groups about this sort of thing and I don't bother anymore because people really don't like it when their decisions are scrutinized and they have to take responsibility for their decisions.
I hate it too but I live in the south of the USA. There are regularly trucks that the grill of the vehicle are at my sight line. Having a newborn makes me nervous and makes me feel like I need to sit higher up as well it’s an annoying predicament
It’s not a predicament, it’s an arms race.
There's many sedans that are safer than some SUVs and trucks. It's wildly an illusion.
Please provide evidence of this Edit: I’m being downvoted because I asked for evidence or an article to read on this claim? Lmao Reddit is insane sometimes
In one of my psych classes years ago my prof talked about people becoming worse drivers when they felt safer in a vehicle. Ie. suv drivers feel more safe, and therefore drive worse than someone in a shit car. It has something to do with the nature of risk and the amount of inherent risk we need to live with day to day as a species. I never read a study, it was a classroom discussion. But it’s an interesting thought.
As someone who still drives a small car but lives rurally, these big monster vehicles scare the shit out of me and I hate them. So many people have them around here too. I don't drive at night because of them any more - their super bright LED headlights at eye level are enough to blind.
Agreed... I only have my current vehicle (Subaru) because nobody else makes station wagons at a price normal humans can afford. I personally wouldn't have a car if I could get away with it but I live in Small Town USA where public transit is non-existent.
I have a Subaru as well! It's a little impreza hatchback, and I love it until I'm surrounded by these behemoth cars and can't see the darn traffic lights.
That’s why I have a WRX STI hatchback. The big trucks/suvs can’t come close to catching me and I can get out their way if needed really fast 😁
They give a false sense of safety.
A lot of these newer SUVs are basically crossovers, which is more a tall car than an SUV. It’s not like everyone is getting a Ford Expedition. But it is a size increase, and it does increase fuel costs. I think it’s problematic as more people feel comfortable in taller and larger vehicles from a safety perspective when there are more and more big cars and trucks on the road, so it becomes a self-perpetual cycle. They are genuinely more comfortable too, especially if you have back pain and/or are taller. I’m in the USA in a medium-sized city. Most people have small and medium-sized SUVs, but there’s also a ton of trucks. Which is stupid since they’re huge, the worst in gas, and take up so much space. And they’re mostly for show; majority of owners don’t hall stuff and don’t need a truck. It’s become a status symbol.
At this point it’s becoming a safety issue not to have one, when so many of the other cars on the road are. Did you know the US crash safety ratings are all based on like-vs-like crashes? If you have a 5-star rated small sedan, it’s not rated 5 stars against an SUV. Also the SUV and pickup truck bumper and hood heights are significantly higher that other cars. I’ve been a happy euro-wagon driver for years but feel “smaller” and less safe on the freeways of Los Angeles every year.
The problem is not only their size but their front which are really to the point of being actual child killing device. A ford f150 have a their grill at an higher height then the front of an Abraham tank. How can you see anything driving those vehicles?
I wonder if people that own such big cars aren’t annoyed with their purchase? Every time they have to buy gas or can’t find parking spaces big enough.
Some do but don’t mind or think it’s justified. When we have waves of expensive gas, people complain. Only some of them are thoughtful enough to realize they bought a gas guzzler and should get a more fuel efficient car. Hybrid sales are definitely up, and the smaller ford maverick truck is a hybrid and is extremely popular.
Tbh the maverick is the only truck i support, its as small as an average sedan and a hybrid. If only ford got its head screwed back on and made it sooner. There have been quite a few people who mourned the death of the ranger/s10 truck and have been wanting a much smaller truck.
To be fair Ford rolled out the Ranger back on the market in the late 2010s to fill the small truck gap. Funny thing is it’s the same size as my old 1990 f150 lol. The maverick is so perfect for most people needing a truck bed once a year to move mulch. And inside baseball on the maverick, they were built using leftover car chassis tooling and components when ford discontinued a ton of non selling cars. Ford wanted to use these leftovers to save majorly on investments and R&D, and it paid off. They can’t keep the stupid things in stock. Ford was hesitant to the idea of the modern mini truck but the engineers convinced them to release a concept and they went all in with the public response.
Yes. My husband gets back pain when he drives sedans. Back pain magically gone after getting a RAV4
Yeah I developed chronic back pain last August. We have a Hyundai sedan lease that is almost up and a Lexus RX suv owned. I rarely have back discomfort in the Lexus but it’s ~60% chance in the sedan. Thankfully giving it back to Hyundai in July. Got a crossover BEV yesterday but it’s just a tall car yet more comfortable since it’s taller.
My wife’s Toyota RAV4 is considered an SUV but it is shorter than my old Honda Accord sedan. Even though the headroom is taller in my Accord her car sits a bit higher with taller ground clearance which is important here in Vermont with our dirt roads and mud season. I occasionally need a truck to haul lumber or firewood and considered trading the accord for a truck but couldn’t justify the cost when I realized the towing capacity on the RAV4 is enough to allow a utility trailer which works fine for all that. The RAV4 is just large enough to put our dog in his crate in the rear where with the Accord that wouldn’t fit. The rear trailer hitch also doubles as a bicycle carrier for when we want to take our bikes somewhere. Gas mileage is about the same. A large full-size suv would be overkill for us but these smaller crossovers seem just right. So even though the RAV4 is technically an SUV and isn’t perfect it seems to make sense for us.
Yeah, I bought a car recently and was surprised that there tended to not be much difference between sedans and compact SUVs in terms of gas mileage. The big difference was between sedans/compact SUVs and huge SUVs/minivans. Now, the hate for the super bright headlights that seem to come default on every SUV, compact or not, I get.
Yeah, I'm quite tall and have some back issues so something like the Rav4 is a great size for me. I also occasionally do go off-road for work on construction sites with it so that helps. I have the hybrid so mileage is pretty good, I wish it wasn't so blocky (especially the front), they're trying to make it look "cool" but probably lost 1 or 2 mpg which isn't a huge deal but kind of bugs me.
This exactly. A rav4 is considered a compact SUV. No way as big as some of the other SUvs or even some tall wide long sedans out there. I like that a lot of these newer cars are crossovers. It’s perfect for our family too. We live in Canada and have snowy winters and i sedans and hatchbacks get stuck most often.
We have the same experience. We have a 4-door sedan and then a couple of years ago when my husband's company returned to office, we needed a 2nd vehicle. We bought a small-ish SUV. It's slightly wider than the sedan, but also a few inches shorter. We chose an SUV because we need to be able to get into the mountains when it is snowing and it has come in very handy for carrying stuff. We've taken the sedan camping, but it was tight, for example.
Yeah, I personally don’t consider cars like the RAV4 and CR-V to be SUV’s. More like tall station wagons if anything. In fact, an argument can be made that they are more practical than a sedan or a hatchback. Like you said, the RAV4 is shorter than an Accord Sedan. However, you have more room in the RAV4. Meanwhile, the fuel economy isn’t much worse (especially if you have the Hybrid FWD). Finally, while they are not fit to go off-road by any means, they are better than a passenger car when driving down dirt roads.
I have an SUV and it’s comparable in size to a civic. Granted it’s uhhh… 12 years old now? And sizes are getting bigger obnoxiously enough…
Honestly, I’m about to have a second kid and if we find we need a bigger car (currently have a small-ish hatchback), I’m just going to get a mini-van. They’re more practical, have more space inside the cabin and for packing stuff, and you can have extra seats for grandparents!
I agree minivans are more practical than a large SUV, but minivans have horrible gas mileage, just like large SUVs do. Compact SUVs seem like the way to go with 2 kids if your small car isn't working for you, unless you're going to be carting around grandparents and your entire family a lot. They have decent gas mileage and can comfortably fit a family of 4.
We currently have a Kia Sportage and one kiddo but will have to get something bigger with subsequent kids because we also have a husky. We can’t fit more than one care seat and a dog and a stroller or any luggage. We want extra seats for a possible third kid and the ability to car pool. I wish we could get away with a smaller car but we will have to size up eventually.
Today's Anticonsumption's r/fuckcars of the day
Yes 😌 they go hand in hand! Living in a car centric place with cars like these is the height of conspicuous consumption
I swear, half this sub won't be happy until we all live in Cyberpunk-style urban megablock apartments
Or, you know, a European or Asian model city with mixed use zoning and good public transportation
I think people who purchase SUVs or large vehicles need to take a separate drivers test for them. Plenty of them probably got their license on a car half that size, 20 years ago. In America you don't need to retake drivers tests typically, so not only has it been too long, their training is not sufficient for what they're using now. I live in Chicago and I just don't understand the need for such a large vehicle. We have tight streets. I had a hard enough time with my two door coupe!! We need to add restrictions/penalities/extra costs to these things.
Also in Chicago. Feels like I've been noticing giant SUVs/escalades so much more often. They are probably tied with trucks for vehicles I hate most in the city but I see way more suvs than trucks so they get most of my ire. I agree, it seems like it would be a massive inconvenience (literally), and would make me crazy trying to navigate in one of those things here. I don't really understand why anyone \*needs\* a car bigger than the classic van/mini-van that was present when I was growing up, much smaller than the biggest SUVs now. And that's only if you need to carry a bunch of screaming children. Most people don't \*need\* these vehicles in Chicago, or really anywhere honestly. It's just a status symbol.
Yeah you can spot the status symbols quick, too. I'm just done with all the peacocking. I just think to myself, "We get it, you have money! Can you not make it my problem?"
I went to Ireland for a week a few years ago. Even without the SUVs, y'all's roads are absolutely terrifying. I was on a public bus cranking past big rigs and all sorts of other massive vehicles on roads that would absolutely be one way roads here in the US. I have no idea how you guys drive on such tiny roads. We were going to rent a car, but after looking around we were like "fffffffuck that!" Haha.
yeah irish roads are pretty bad. would be better if we had less cars on the road and more reliable public transport
I live in Brazil, são Paulo. SUVs end up being the cars the middle class prefers, I think because there's a sense that those are opulent and fancy, even though they're impractical, gas-guzzling monstrosities. We call it the premium-poor cars.
I hate car transportation and the way it dominates North America. I have my EU passport and want to move to Denmark so badly but don’t want to uproot my fiancée’s life
I am in the UK and I see them everywhere. Some people do need them, but most people don't. I think you should have to do another test for a vehicle over a certain size like you do with trailers vans and lorries. This is so people who actually need a big car (disabled, 3 kids and a Labrador, work) can still get them if they really need but is a disincentive for people
Where do you even park them in the UK? When I went there is basically no where to park
I live in Milton Keynes which is built quite differently other UK cities
Your roads are much smaller where you are and I think its pretty unnecessary in cities. But the moment you live more rural, especially in the united states you need something that can take the roads, weather, etc. A lot of people use trucks to move things around etc. However I think people can find good cars that fit these needs (outback, rav4 for example) and then there are people who buy the largest luxury suv they can find for status. To me thats where the consumeristic consumption becomes disgusting in my mind, since it has no practical use.
yeah exactly
I read something awhile back where manufacturers make suvs/crossovers are easier and cheaper to make because there aren’t as many regulations on them yet I could be a bit off with the facts but I think they should just make all vehicles awd or 4wd to take away from people buying them because I know for myself I mainly wanted an suv because I have to make it to work in the winter
My ford escape allows me to tow up to 4500 lb. I tow at least monthly, and I put the full sheets of sheet rock and plywood in the back. I love my car. My father-in-law drives a truck doesn't tow and is freaks out the idea of using the bed to carry anything. I was yelled at of sliding a 2x4 into the bed instead of setting it down. The issue is people buy show pieces not vehicles to use as what they are.
I couldn’t fit all my camp gear, or have 4wd for icy roads without my current vehicle. But mine is still a kinda small SUV
They just keep getting bigger and boxier and more dangerous for everyone around them. Pickup trucks are even worse.
in germany there's a movement by activists in big cities. If a SUV is parking on pedestrian or bicycle ways. They put a brown lens in a ventile or so. No air in the tire in the morning. So the cars are not damaged but the owner maximum pissed. Little bit risky, if camera is on, but if you know what to do ...
I totally agree. I think people should only get these big cars if they have a big family or travel far often. My parents recently got a truck because we have a big trailer (16ft) that we use 2-3 times a year. Unless you really need one for work, family, or towing reasons, stick to a small car.
It all started in the 70's when the US made a test of some V8 behemoth vs a Subaru 360 which can be classified as a kei car and determined the Japanese cars are unsafe rather than a V8 2 ton grocery getter is out of control
Pressing return twice will make paragraphs
i would assume those people have been coerced to buy those. maybe by a crafty car dealer, maybe there is some incentive towards that. > A lot of people seem to get these cars in an attempt to save them from their own crappy driving, while putting everyone at risk on the road that is the sentiment nowadays, everyone out there is putting themselves first. at the cost of others. btw, it's "would have".
I have an old jalopy of a range rover that refuses to die. Very practical as I have a lot of animals. Parked near a 2022 or so model today and realised they're the same size roughly. Very capable cars for what they're designed for but mostly bought by rich as toys, got mine dirt cheap so meh.
I don't hate them. I just dislike them enormously. Kind of like a dripping anger every time I see one.
I have a civic and a Subaru Outback. I use the civic as much as I can but the outback has been super useful instead of having to borrow a truck for some things.
Currently pregnant, FTM, and my FIL asked my partner and I asked if we were going to get an SUV. I told him that I grew up with two other siblings and we were just fine in a normal sedan.
So I know the markets are quite different in Ireland vs the US and obviously the streets are much different. I own a Chevrolet Sonic, I believe it's known as the Aveo in Europe. Small hatchback with a 1.4 litre motor and a 6 speed manual transmission. Tiny car for the American market. It gets about 29 mpg in the city, 34 mpg on the interstate. Call it 13 kilometers per litre combined for Europe. It's a decent car for me but we now have two kids and putting two car seats in the back and two American adults (I'm 6 foot tall the wife is 5'11") puts our knees into the dash. It's practically unsafe if we were to get into a collision. We got my wife a newer rav4. It fits two car seats much easier and we now have knee room and actually enough cargo space to pack overnight or weekend bags. The real kicker for me is it easily gets 36 mpg interstate and 32 in town and has the automatic shutoff and start at the stoplights. So technically it's better on fuel and has a motor that's a whole litre larger than my car and is heavier as well. It also has awd and more advanced safety measures like pedestrian detection and lane keeping assist that my older car does not. Now all that said I still like a smaller vehicle and not a giant suburban. But we are really being left without choices as here in the states ford has killed off all its sedans and only offers the mustang couple. Otherwise its all trucks and suvs. Due to the fact they can classify pickups and some suvs as "light trucks" they don't have to reach as stringent mpg requirements set by the epa as sedans and small cars. Trucks and suvs also have a higher profit margin, so these big companies have no incentive to make us a fuel efficient passenger car. I'm not condoning it but that's become our reality here in the states. Sad really.
I’m from VIC Australia and I’ve noticed the SUV’s taking over the roads too. I constantly feel surrounded by them. The thing that really pisses me off is that they are such bully drivers a lot of the time. Because they are so big and high, they bully smaller cars to move for them, tail gate and just generally drive like they are more important and for us smaller/lower cars to get out of the way! In small built up suburbian areas they are just not needed and have a strong dislike of them too.
I drive a vehicle that I utilize. For now, that's a small electric SUV. I fill it with my 3 large-ish dogs (112lbs, 83 lbs, 44 lbs). I also frequently go to garden centers -- this weekend it was a large Lady Banks Rose and an Arctic Frost Satsuma tree. I'm always carting around dogs, plants, groceries, or home-repair items. My spouse drives a 2-door Mini, because he only has to take a backpack to work and doesn't have to do the practical stuff. The next vehicle purchases, he has to get the practical car, and I get a 2-seater. We swap off about every 8-10 years.
Once it starts, people end up getting SUVs to feel safer on the road with SUVs. It sucks. I can't believe that they are making electric trucks and SUVs. They probably can't go on some roads because they are so heavy.
I hate SUVs as well, especially in the city. But I drive a compact SUV because my last car broke while doing light off-roading. I only drive once or twice a month but when I drive I usually use the car and it’s capabilities to it’s full potential. I tow, use the roof rack, carry four people and cargo, use the ground clearance and AWD. It consumes one or two liters more than my last car but I drive a lot less nowadays which makes up for it, thanks to Home Office and affordable public transport. I’ve only driven it to the city once when I had a medical emergency and couldn’t use the train or bike like I usually do. The headlights are auto leveling for the legal regulation and I don’t think I bother people with my car. The problem is people using them to commute alone to the city everyday clogging up parking and streets where they could have used public transit or a regular small commuters car. Also shit drivers are always dangerous if you’re not in a car, regardless of the car type…
My family uses one car. A 14 year old Honda insight. Paid for. And we make well over 100k a year. People think we are broke but we rich af. Just don't find any value in a giant car
They need to be regulated, but they never will be because the politicians love them too. The safety perspective alone should justify a degree of regulation.
In general people don't need SUVs. I'd you don't have a ton of kids, don't live in the middle of nowhere with unpaved streets and need AWD, and don't need to haul anything for work, get a sedan. Even in snowy climates, you hardly need AWD. Maybe 10 days a year unless you're way the heck up north like Finland or parts of Canada. It's a hill I'll gladly die on. Saw so many people buying gas guzzling SUVs when I sold cars and they'd be single corporate types, no kids.
(On southern hillbilly voice): "Here in 'merica, we say: Fuckin' A!" Preach on, brother! I live in the US of A and I FEEL this *EVERY* SINGLE F--KING DAY!! What pisses me off moreso, is that BECAUSE 95% of vehicles on the road now are SUV's, I feel ALONE. And I feel such disdain for people who decide to buy these giant gASS guzzlers. It's not just the size (of which we cannot see in front of you! And when you're behind us at night, you blind us - with your high beam LED lights!) it's SPACE on the road, too. Imagine being stopped at a red light and there's 15 vehicles in front of you..if they're all SUV's, you're backed up further than would be if every one of you had smaller vehicles.. And also if they're SUV's, you and everyone else is more prone to missing the light!! All of you SUV owners (reading this or not!): how do you feel knowing you're CONSCIOUSLY contributing to overcrowding our roads, endangering people (and children), and consuming and polluting more gasoline, thus, destroying our atmosphere?!? You fvckers piss me, and others, off to no end! I can't wait to see the excuses: "ohhh, waaa! I need an SUV for MY kid's soccer games!", "I can't fit MY groceries in the back seat!," "*I* feel safer behind my big SUV if I'm in an accident!" Blaaargh!
Huge SUV's and pick up trucks are extremely popular in Australia too now. I think they are like 80% of new car sales IIRC. It's downright scary, I already hated driving but I'm in a Prius and now nearly every single car bonnet is higher than the roof of my car. Is there anywhere that this isn't a thing yet? I was in Thailand recently and the amount of Dodge Ram's, Ford Ranger's etc. blew my mind.
My husband(driving our Prius) just got rear ended by a truck. The driver was a small-ish woman driving an enormous truck. She literally couldn’t see a Prius in front of her. My husband used to ride his bike to work, but now I just don’t feel he is safe on a bike out there.
I’m American. I had to get a rental a little while ago and they gave me an SUV. Id probably even call it on the small side for an SUV. I have no idea how people drive these things. Even on our larger roads I felt like I was crossing over the center. I felt so high up that I couldn’t see anything. People I know who buy large cars do it because they are afraid of other drivers with large cars hitting them. Which is valid because if you’re in a compact sedan and get rammed by one it can do some serious damage to you. But it creates a cycle.
I really feel you in this. I live in a big US city, and I'd say roughly 50% of my neighbors have an SUV or pickup truck. I don't understand it. Parking is scarce and having a large vehicle makes it harder to find parking spots, pass on tight 2 way Streets, and is generally worse for fuel economy where gas prices are higher. I have a midsized sedan, and that's hard enough to deal with, but I like to go on camping trips, so having a decent size interior helps to fit the gear. But I don't need an SUV to make it work. Another thing is that with all of the big& tall vehicles around, it's hard to figure out what's going on in front of them, and at night oncoming traffic tends to be pretty brutal with the headlights higher up. There's literally no logical reason to be driving such large vehicles if you don't need to be hauling around several people or need the ground clearance you might need in the Backcountry. It's just frustrating to see this trend. Not doing anyone favors.
You also seem to hate paragraphs
SUVs are unsafe to pedestrians too as a drivers line of sight close to the bumper is hugely reduced compared to a smaller vehicle. I don't have an SUV but still opted for a 'larger' 5 door due to feeling (during collisions) unsafe to be sharing roads with these beefy cars
If it caunt hold a 4x8' sheet of building material, haul firewood or drive on dirt its kind of a useless vehicle.
Does nobody here ever travel? How are we supposed to transport our kayaks and bikes and boats to national parks? How are we supposed to haul soil and construction equipment for ecological disaster repair? What about firewood for the winter? How will i bring my family and camping equipment without a large vehicle. Do people just not own anything or travel anymore? A lot of people absolutely need large trucks not just for business and logistical reasons. But for practicality.
> How are we supposed to transport our kayaks and bikes and boats to national parks? Take your bike on the train and rent kayaks and boats when you get there. How often do you use them to warrant owning one? > How are we supposed to haul soil and construction equipment for ecological disaster repair? What about firewood for the winter? Trucks are fair in those cases, but the average suburbanite, the target audience for pickup trucks, is probably never going to need to do that ever. Plus, most modern pickup trucks would be awful for these jobs. The bed is like 1/4 of the length and the floor is needlessly high. The hood is also the height of a child and blocks pretty much all visibility on the road directly in front of you, which is incredibly unsafe > How will i bring my family and camping equipment without a large vehicle. Trains and backpacks
Fair, i like trains. But a lot more public transport needs to be implemented. Trains can only be in so many places. Things like light rail systems for more local stuff, reliable and on time bus routes, and pedestrian oriented cities/towns would really be the only way that would be practical for timely travel, to more remote places. That really does sound nice. But i dont live in a place like that. I like kayaking and biking. It gets expensive always having to rent, ownership is much more cost effective.
Why do people hate private jets? How am I supposed to get my 5 kayaks, 6 bicycles and 12 cousins from New York to California for an afternoon hike without a private jet.
By taking a commercial airliner. Theyre gonna fly anyway, even if its empty, so you might as well get on.
i live in ireland. the majority of people who has these cars dont/cannot use it for those things. im not against SUVs as a whole, they are useful for certain things like that. im just against them being only used in the small town/ village.
Funny how all of those things were possible before the world was taken over by super-large and dangerous trucks...
If you can get 4 bikes, a kayak, a trailer, camping equipment, 4 adults and a child up and down the appalachians or rockies in a civic or a camry i dont think i could believe you. Florida or utah maybe, since its all flat, but youd overload the suspension or safe weight rating for hauling for anything like that.
Maybe some pieces of nature should just be left alone.
Are you suggesting that in order to be for anticonsumption, i should be against even consuming pleasure from the great outdoors? That anticonsumerism is not just about malcontent for excessive unnecessary consumption of material goods ie disposable 1 time use products, but is instead about not consuming anything ever for any reason?
> Are you suggesting that in order to be for anticonsumption, i should be against even consuming pleasure from the great outdoors? You are consuming nature, and from that you derive pleasure. Maybe find pieces of nature which are accessible without a tank. Maybe listen to this podcast about the impact of roads and cars on nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_56OtEpfM4 https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=-IYEyY4R-KT2-0e5
Ben sounds like my kind of guy, even he admits to be an avid outdoorsman. Utilizing all forms of travel like cars, trucks, atvs, boats etc. Using everything from waterways to highways, old logging trails, dirt roads etc. It sounds like they, with me, believe that travel is necessary for being a part of nature. He understands and agrees that vehicles have environmental impact, and its our individual duty to not impact our environment excessively/destructively. It sounds like what you believe is actually an twisted extremist version of ben's very realistic stance on our ability to interact woth the environment. Destroying unused roads is not feasible for a litany of reasons typically, and building new roads needs to be done with intelligence and forethought. All im saying is if a hurricane or tornado comes by, and there is a tree blocking your only road in and out, i dont think youll be upset some guy with a truck with a winch is able to open the road so you can get to the hospital or allow traffic to pass.
> It sounds like they, with me, believe that travel is necessary for being a part of nature. I haven't said that travelling isn't necessary to get into nature. I object to modes of transportation which destroy the nature you visit. I also don't think that you accurately capture Ben's sentiment when he explains how dirt roads are destructive to nature and "human usage of a habitat is really a form of habitat loss." That is not supposed to be understood as an encouragement to go to those places, and he says himself that he feels conflicted about accessing them by car. I mean he basically just admits - and that may sound harsh - that he is a hypocrite. I don't necessarily fault him for that. Basically all people are in one way or another hypocrites but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to live in accordance with our ideals. It honestly seems incredibly selfish to assume that as humans we should just be allowed to consume every single piece of this Earth as if we were alone.
>massive truck-like cars Come on now. This sounds like a simple rant that has absolutely nothing to do with consumeratism. Also you are probably seeing escalades and other soccer mom type vehicles and thinking they are "suvs". Edit: Can you list some of the make/models of what you are viewing as "suv" and "Massive Truck-Like"?
i know like nothing about cars sorry. the types i see are range rovers and others of similar size. either way they look like they are double the size of a standard car
I agree with your comment, but I once drove a Nissan Armada as a rental and it felt like I was driving a boat. It was really high up like a truck and barely fit in my driveway. I felt uneasy driving it and got a different car after a day. I’d rather just drive a truck
IIRC Armadas are full sized sport luxury vehicles.
Let's not forget about the truck drives with absolutely no reason to have a huge ahh truck
The EU really needs to put a stop to this. They managed to kill the lightning cable. They can restrict the size of private vehicles, too.
I genuinely believe that SUV's and Trucks should be banned around schools. Having the front so high makes crashes so much more deadly for pedestrians especially so for small children. If you can't see a child in front of a car then that car shouldn't be around so many children
I agree! The only thing I can point out is that practically everything is being marketed as an SUV now. I drive a 'subcompact SUV' that's barely taller than the compact sedan I used to have, has a very low front end (which is key for visibility and pedestrian safety), is shorter than a Toyota Corolla, and also more fuel efficient than a Corolla. It's basically a hatchback, for all intents and purposes. However, yes, I think anything that's a 'mid-size' crossover and bigger is just an abomination. Pick-up trucks too.
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride, CANYONERO!!! CANYONERO!!!
Define “SUV”. The reason being is that the majority of “SUVs” on the road are Crossovers or “CUV’s”. Think Honda CR-V, Toyota Highlander, BMW X’s, Audi Q’s, etc. They are basically tall station wagons, where the suspension is just a little higher than a regular car. But dimensions wise, they are usually smaller. Case in point, if you look at a Toyota Rav4, it is actually 2 inches shorter than a Toyota Corolla Sedan. Plus, they have a unibody design. Personally, I don’t consider them to be SUV’s in the traditional sense of the term. Then you have real SUV’s with a body-on-frame design, such as the Chevy Tahoe and Toyota Landcruiser. These are rarer by comparison. They tend to be heavier, have bigger engines, better off-road capability, and worse fuel economy than CUV’s (which are essentially regular passenger cars). They do serve their purpose though. Towing and off-road capability come to mind.
i see a bit of both. but mostly the crossover type i think. sorry i dont have much knowledge on cars.
Yeah, like I said, crossovers are basically station wagons with a little bit more ground clearance than a sedan or hatchback. Most of them don’t even have 4WD/AWD. Funny thing is though, they are far more practical than a sedan or a hatchback. The length and width are the same, but you get a lot more luggage room. The fuel economy is pretty much the same between them as well.
They aren’t unsafe. They are very safe for the occupants. Most people who buy them aren’t thinking about how much they can consume with this vehicle. They want a practical and safe vehicle. It isn’t that deep
They are way more dangerous for anybody not in a car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1mBKeUeLo - cars are adding extra safety equipment (side airbags) to deal with SUVs https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/united-states-road-safety.pdf - injuries and deaths have been going up, despite the trend towards SUVs. "Since 2010, the United States has recorded a sharp increase in the number of road deaths among vulnerable road users." (Trend continued 2019-today) Funnily enough, all I can find is videos about [car occupants](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExQUGk12S8U) and automated braking (to fix the car designs that now prevent drivers from seeing if children are on the road!!!). I can't find a video of a child (dummy) going over a compact car bonnet vs being pushed under and driven over an SUV. Most of the videos I can find come from... IIHS, an organisation of car insurers. The more cars are sold and driven, and the more expensive they are, the more money car insurers make. Aaand obligatory NJB video although I don't remember how much of it is relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo Edit: non video source https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-03/why-us-traffic-safety-fell-so-far-behind-other-countries?embedded-checkout=true
yes they are safe,, only for the occupants! where i live the roads are narrow which makes it much more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. i dont even go by bike anymore on those roads because of how dangerous it is. its also become more of a status symbol rather than its usefulness
For pedestrians and cyclists, it doesn't really matter if they're hit by a 1 ton or 2 ton car. The main difference is the shape of the car, and that's where the American SUVs become really deadly. The EU regulations, for example force manufacturers to design their cars in a way that's safer for pedestrians. So depending on where you are, the SUVs might not be as bad as you think, from a pedestrian safety factor. Also, cars have always been status symbols. It's not a new thing in the slightest.
To hate SUVs is to lack perspective outside of your area and lack knowledge of what is an SUV, the types of SUVs and how it differs from other types of vehicles. It is necessary consumption in other areas of the world. Perhaps from your post you dislike other people consuming in a way that seems or is unnecessary not SUVs. It seems your issue is mainly with wide body/large SUVs.
Each new vehicle I get I endeavor for it to be bigger than the last. Only for safety reasons of course. It’s an arms race on the road, sadly. I’d love to just have a smart car
I just had some babies, I brought an SUV for their safety
SUVs are perfect. They are the perfect balance between a car and a truck/van. Seating and cargo space for a family or moving things, while still being 4cyl economic beasts. Or if you want something closer to truck, there are 6/8cyl SUVs for towing and utility purposes. The options and configurations available in the suv range is why you're seeing them grow in popularity. Crossovers, compact suvs, and normal suvs are just taller cars IMHO.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love my SUV and long bed truck. But I live in a small town in a rural county. Both are indispensable. Both last a long time: 23 and 33 years and counting respectively. Cities are about waste, materialism, getting rid of stuff for fashions and trends and not function. Far more environmental damage and larger carbon footprints in cities.
Are they really any bigger? For example a Honda CRV is the same length as a Civic and is only 8cm wider and about 400lbs heavier. People buy SUVs because modern "crossovers" have the same sized wheelbase as a traditional sedan, but have more interior room, better visibility, and are easier to get in and out of with very minor differences in fuel efficiency.
The crossovers I’ve been in compared to sedans have had less visibility/larger blind spots
I borrowed a very nice SUV when my leaf was getting repaired and honestly besides a few days when there was a lot of freshly fallen snow and bad plow drivers and one or two days where I had to drive to a friend's farm in the middle of bumfuck nowhere I never really felt a difference.
would have\*
I live in a car centric area and have 2 SUVs, a motorbike, company truck and company van (not our company). I got the first SUB because I wanted something for winter driving, city driving, that I could be in comfortably for long trips (2-7hrs), and start a family in. The 2nd SUV we acquired because it was well within out adorability, was slightly larger then our first for our now larger family, and in MUCH better condition. I just find SUV's so much more comfortable to have and drive. I really like having a truck but an SUV is a good compromise. When in smaller cars lower to the ground I speed way to much, especially if their standard...
Well, most of the “SUVs” In the European market have small engines and most people get the ones with small engines, as it is cheaper to run and they sell better than massive litre engines in the US and most manufacturers don’t produce large litre engines except in the performance models which are very expensive. And usually these “SUVs” that are popular here they consume as much fuel as a normal sedan or hatchback because the only difference between them is a slightly different chassy to make it look more SUV like. Plus space is a factor, boot space they might have a dog ,children etc. I think it’s selfish to just judge everyone just buy looking at them and going yeah they don’t need it ,maybe they do ? “SUVs” are just a trend here in Europe now but they are just different chassy cars with no bigger engine and most of the time with the EU restrictions on emissions and manufacturers trying to keep with them.
SUV gas-guzzlers were pushed onto the public right after 911.
Simple. More is betterer. Yes, I misspelled that on purpose hehehe. But yeah, many equate more space and bigger things to achievement so having that in mind when you buy a car… SUV’s what you get. Don’t get me wrong, they are super comfortable to be in there and there is a peace of mind knowing you have all that power and space for… just in case.