This is automakers responding to buyer demands and a lax enforcement of government regulations. Nearly every state has bumper height restrictions, yet it is commonplace to see "brodozers" on the road built for decapitating motorcyclists and gassing EV drivers, not for off-roading. Most truck makers are now selling ready-made "brodozers" because trucks and CUV/SUVs are outselling cars.
Not only are these vehicles massively more dangerous to pedestrians and people on two-wheel vehicles, but they're also more stressful and dangerous for anyone driving a normal car on the road, because you can't see through them, they block ahead. When multiple normal cars are in a line on a highway, you can usually see beyond the cars in front partially by seeing through their rear window and windshield, but when all you can see is a solid aluminum tailgate, the pumpkin for the rear differential, and a hanging pair of truck nuts, it means you cannot plan ahead and react as quickly as possible to changing road conditions ahead.
Nothing is quite as disturbing to me as a conscientious driver as being behind a "brodozer" where I can't see anything ahead of me or having one with an unnecessary cattle/bull bar right behind me, essentially threatening me with certain death as their unnecessary monument to their small penis would roll right over the top of my normal car crushing me if we were to be in an "accident". These vehicles violate existing regulations in nearly every state in the US, yet seem to be epidemic on American highways and not disappearing any time soon.
Not to mention the headlights. I can deal with most of the rest of the stuff, but the headlights are downright dangerous to all other drivers around. They're rarely correctly angled, so due to the base height of the truck they'll frequently be right at eye level for smaller vehicles. On roads with short or no barriers, they also blind oncoming traffic in addition to whoever happens to be in front of them.
It isn't just the brodozers, all cars have gotten into that height. I drive cars made in the 90s and even driving behind a tiny car feels like tailing a truck because of the height difference.
A funny thing (not haha funny) I noticed about this article is that it mentions the demographics of the people being hit by the car, but just makes the "hyper-masculine" assumption about the drivers of the cars. You kind of do that here by using the term "brodozers". This is a kind of implicit bias I think a lot of people just accept as fact, but it could be a dangerous assumption to make. Ford did a survey of truck owners and (apparently) 46% of their respondents were women [0]. Now there are two things you can take from that 46% number depending on your beliefs. If you don't believe it, then you should be concerned: it means the companies that make these trucks are trying to get more people to buy trucks by "de-gendering" them. If you do believe it, then you should be concerned about going after only a subset of the demographic who uses these vehicles. It turns it into an identity issue where you're just targeting the safety of "men driving trucks" and not the overall safety of trucks. The result is ... men continuing to drive their trucks as an identity and just increasing the amount of women driving them as well.
I write this wall of text to say "truck bad because (our conception of what is toxic) masculinity bad" isn't necessarily helpful. Maybe you only meant to mention the safety, but you could have said all the things you've said about safety without making any specific reference to gender (or at least doing so with a reminder to continue to check the demographics). When we talk about these things and genderize them without referencing the true demographics, we open things up for the wrong conversation. The narrative can shift to "less men are driving trucks" (when really it's less men are driving trucks as a percentage of total truck drivers) after Ford rebrands to a gender-inclusive image for trucks. I think it's just more important to focus on the safety aspect and try to turn it from "men driving trucks aggresively" to "less people driving unsafe trucks". Marketing would love for you to just make this an "irresponsible men" thing so they can keep selling unsafe vehicles. This is not to say that men aren't aggressive drivers or don't get into more accidents, just that I want to make that conclusion on my own and not have marketing departments deflect the true cause of these safety issues.
You've got some good points to make here, but your language is dripping with derision, scorn, and personal judgement/attack. Please mind the site guidelines.
What the freak is a "brodozer?" I've never seen that term used before and I can't tell what you are really talking about. Are you talking about large 4x4 trucks that are high of the ground (kind of the opposite of what a bulldozer is)? These 4x4s have been around for ages. Nothing new. What is new (in the last ten it so years) are the SUVs and cross overs. These are larger than a sedan, but I wouldn't call them a brodozer or anything else.
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. All your problems can be solved with a massive SUV. Now we just need them all to be winter-proof electric and recharged with nuclear power.
By the way, they are crazy comfortable - as a tall guy, I’m never squatting and folding my ass into a little Eurocar again.
I’m not sure who should get to decide the definition of a “normal” car. You? I don’t really agree that there is some universal, canonical “normal” size of a car. In many places I’ve lived, pick up trucks and SUVs vastly (10:1) outnumbered coupes and sedans. In these places, an F-250 is the median, normal size for a car. What is special about (for example) a two-door coupe that makes it “normal”?
The biggest issue I have is that the headlights of many of these cars, especially lifted trucks, are right at my eye level when I drive a sedan. So at night, I am constantly being blinded by headlights of trucks and SUVs going in the opposite direction. The solution seems to be to buy an SUV myself, but that just feels like I'm contributing to the arms race.
I drive a TRD Tacoma. Which is a bit lifted over a standard. I still get blinded by oncoming lights.
Most often it’s those super white LEDs even on cars noticeably lower than mine (ie: SUVs. ).
I put LED lamps in my truck because my headlights are missing a mount point (the bottom exterior bracket was shipped non functional) and the vibration had me going through a ton of head lamps as the filaments shook loose.
I noticed the following
1. I immediately was constantly flashed by others as if my brights were on and the only difference was the bulb color temp.
2. I adjusted my headlamps down to basically the legal (and my comfort) limit as I do a fair amount of driving on back/country roads with deer crossings. This cut down those flashing me about 75% but I still get it here and there.
I cannot find LED lamps in 5000 k color. They are all 6500 k. I’m are fairly sure moving back to a 5000k lamp color would fix the issue for most.
What a coincidence. Just yesterday on a perfectly well lit road I was constantly blinded by headlights from a distant oncoming car. The headlights tuned down on approach, but long before that they were too bright. I wonder if they were set on "automatic", in which case the regulators must tune the requirements for that automatic behavior to make it less aggressive (car manufacturers have no incentive to do that on their own).
I think really hard to remove, thick stickers are the solution to super bright and/or eye level lights like that. Or hammers. Seriously, wtf is wrong with manufacturers. We need safety regulations that rein in headlights, it's becoming ridiculous.
I am so sick of car culture. One good part of covid was seeing all the pointless car driving significantly reduced.
The usual arguments I see here on HN which are pro cars are "what about the children/disabled/elderly". Completely nonsense pro car argument. An efficient, humane public transport system that is well connected, gets you to where you want to go, well funded and maintained would probably be better for a majority of the people in these groups anyway. Im not even advocating for removal of cars, but Im sure the majority of the population could easily reduce dependence.
As for the "freedom" argument. Sitting in some box confined to miles of endless tarmac with countless rules, regulations, taxes, insurance doesn't seem free at all.
Sure, I like the ability to go out into the country side to go for a trail run, but again that is not the majority of my trips.
The vast majority of trips in a city could probably easily be replaced by public transport for a lot of people. It's just laziness and a deeply embedded car culture. Looking at pictures of American cities with enormous parking lots horrifies me.
I think "car culture" is a bit too broad. I don't have as much of a problem with car enthusiasts, more so our country's continuous commitment to car infrastructure without supporting other options.
I'm actually a huge car enthusiast, I love them. I don't own one though, nor do I drive much at all. But I think there is a difference between being passionate about cars, and forcing that passion to require people to use cars for nearly all transportation.
Totally agree with your other points, although the US has a lot of work to start incentivizing other modes of transportation.
But we don't have an efficient, humane public transport system. And it will take decades to build something even closer.
Even Europe didn't really have an efficient humane transport system that goes everywhere.
Sitting in a small box that can go almost anywhere you want, even with tons of rules, offers much more freedom than sitting in a slightly larger box that has even more rules and didn't go very many places.
I like the idea of public transit in theory, but if they want me to wear a face mask just to ride the bus then forget it. I'll drive my big car instead and be comfortable.
The taxes and insurance on my cars aren't very high. And the rules and regulations don't bother me a bit.
I don't think either momentum or kinetic energy are very good measures here.
Consider getting hit in the head with a fastball pitched by a major league baseball pitcher. A baseball weighs ~0.145 kg, and a fastball might be going 45 m/s.
That gives a momentum of 6.5 kg m/s, and a kinetic energy of 146.8 J, and a serious possibly life threatening injury.
Now consider getting hit by a fully loaded B-52 (220000 kg) being towed at 0.5 m/s.
That has a momentum of 110000 kg m/s, and a kinetic energy of 27500 J. That's ~17000 times the momentum of the baseball and ~190 times the kinetic energy, but all it will do is knock you over. (You might subsequently get run over by it, which would do a lot damage, but that injury will be from neither the momentum nor the kinetic energy).
I have also experienced this buying behavior first hand when a colleagues spouse had an avoidable accident with the kid on board. The thought was - My partner cannot drive, so I need to buy a bigger car so that they dont endanger my kid.
The US needs regulation and more driving training to protect the other traffic participants. While we are at it also safer bike lanes and walk ways and crossings.
> My partner cannot drive, so I need to buy a bigger car so that they dont endanger my kid.
I've seen this same logic from many people who have asked me for my advice about vehicle purchases. The thing is, the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that larger/heavier vehicles are safer. In fact, it's just the opposite.
We really need stricter licensing requirements for driving in the US. Compare the way people in Germany drive to the way people in the US drive on average, and it's night and day. Most Americans drive aggressively, without regard for others, with little attention being paid, looking just barely in front of their vehicle and never their complete surroundings, and without even basic understanding of vehicle dynamics or roadway rules and etiquette. I daily see drivers, especially in larger vehicles, incapable of even maintaining lane presence while going straight down a highway, which is like remedial driving 020 skill levels. Most American drivers aren't even at 101 level.
Woah, is that an Oldsmobile Alero in the background? I had a coupe as a kid and boy was that car a piece of shit. The same components failed consistently.
Capitalism can be a very efficient system, but it also has flaws. We have seen a trend towards larger, more sophisticated and more expensive cars. It simply wouldn't be as profitable for manufacturers to make small, reliable and efficient cars. There's less profit in that.
Reliable and efficient are obviously things that capitalism have made better through competition, see the popularity of Japanese cars in the US. Modern cars are objectively more reliable, safer (for the passengers), and more efficient (see the popularity of the Prius) than any time in history, though obviously emissions regulation is helping here as well. Their exterior size and dimensions are another question that obviously seem to need some regulation.
What exactly is the "flaw" in capitalism here you are insinuating here?
There are plenty of small, cheap, reliable, and efficient cars available, if that's what you want to buy. The Toyota Prius. The Honda Fit. The Tesla Model 3?
Is it a "flaw" in capitalism that some people don't want to buy those? That someone can choose to buy a Chevrolet Suburban instead of any of these options?
The market for automobiles is as competitive as it gets. If a manufacturer is making profits, it's because they're selling what people want to buy.
From my perspective, the only "flaw" here would seem to be that capitalism makes it difficult for you to impose your own preferences on others.
What does this have to do with capitalism at all? The idea that im allowed to own and exchange money means big cars bad?
Given that there are what maybe 1 or 2 command economies on the planet, are they somehow automotive paradises? Im going to say probably not given that cars are a privelege for a small elite class in those places.
This article is a bit backwards - the number of pedestrians walking in front of vehicles is much higher than vehicles being at fault for hitting pedestrians.
We need to reintroduce the concept of pedestrians and cyclists being mindful of where they are... Or put barriers in place to keep pedestrians where they should be (out of the street).
I don't disagree that pedestrians and cyclists need to be careful, but as someone who walks far, far more than they drive, I really regret that cars are king in modern cities. Even in Europe, where cities are often better than their American counterparts, it is very difficult to walk without constant interruptions by roads (in the sense that they cause frequent stopping and waiting for traffic lights as well as the constant noise and choking stench of cars with poor exhaust systems).
I do think cars have their place, but I don't understand how people have come to believe that cars in, say, Manhattan or the center of Paris, make a lot of sense.
That claim of yours could use some support. As a pedestrian who agrees traffic lights are there for a reason, I increasingly find crossing the street when I have the right of way to be one of the riskiest situations; many drivers like to make a right turn on red (while I am preparing to cross to the right of them) but are so invested in their plan that all their attention is directed to checking for the approach of vehicles from the left.
The sense of entitlement among some drivers just beggars belief. The other day I crossed the street with the pedestrian signal. Beyond the traffic signal (to my right) there were two police cars with lights on blocking one lane to cordon the scene of a recent accident and redirect traffic. While I was crossing a vehicle just casually ran the red light and nearly hit me. When I angrily pointed to the light indicating I had the right of way, they angrily pointed at the police cars, as if their presence somehow superseded the existence of the intervening traffic light.
> Or put barriers in place to keep pedestrians where they should be (out of the street)
This is probably closer to the rational solution than your previous statement (about "pedestrians and cyclists being mindful of where they are"). With proper road design, cars are moving slow enough near pedestrians so they can stop within time. Separated bike lanes save the lives of cyclists and lead to less traffic on the road.
North America has been designed to the benefit of cars over pedestrians essentially everywhere, to the great detriment of the local population.
[+] [-] tristor|4 years ago|reply
Not only are these vehicles massively more dangerous to pedestrians and people on two-wheel vehicles, but they're also more stressful and dangerous for anyone driving a normal car on the road, because you can't see through them, they block ahead. When multiple normal cars are in a line on a highway, you can usually see beyond the cars in front partially by seeing through their rear window and windshield, but when all you can see is a solid aluminum tailgate, the pumpkin for the rear differential, and a hanging pair of truck nuts, it means you cannot plan ahead and react as quickly as possible to changing road conditions ahead.
Nothing is quite as disturbing to me as a conscientious driver as being behind a "brodozer" where I can't see anything ahead of me or having one with an unnecessary cattle/bull bar right behind me, essentially threatening me with certain death as their unnecessary monument to their small penis would roll right over the top of my normal car crushing me if we were to be in an "accident". These vehicles violate existing regulations in nearly every state in the US, yet seem to be epidemic on American highways and not disappearing any time soon.
[+] [-] genocidicbunny|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathias|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqv|4 years ago|reply
I write this wall of text to say "truck bad because (our conception of what is toxic) masculinity bad" isn't necessarily helpful. Maybe you only meant to mention the safety, but you could have said all the things you've said about safety without making any specific reference to gender (or at least doing so with a reminder to continue to check the demographics). When we talk about these things and genderize them without referencing the true demographics, we open things up for the wrong conversation. The narrative can shift to "less men are driving trucks" (when really it's less men are driving trucks as a percentage of total truck drivers) after Ford rebrands to a gender-inclusive image for trucks. I think it's just more important to focus on the safety aspect and try to turn it from "men driving trucks aggresively" to "less people driving unsafe trucks". Marketing would love for you to just make this an "irresponsible men" thing so they can keep selling unsafe vehicles. This is not to say that men aren't aggressive drivers or don't get into more accidents, just that I want to make that conclusion on my own and not have marketing departments deflect the true cause of these safety issues.
[0]: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
[+] [-] klyrs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismcb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FredPret|4 years ago|reply
By the way, they are crazy comfortable - as a tall guy, I’m never squatting and folding my ass into a little Eurocar again.
[+] [-] ryandrake|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sylens|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croutonwagon|4 years ago|reply
Most often it’s those super white LEDs even on cars noticeably lower than mine (ie: SUVs. ).
I put LED lamps in my truck because my headlights are missing a mount point (the bottom exterior bracket was shipped non functional) and the vibration had me going through a ton of head lamps as the filaments shook loose.
I noticed the following
1. I immediately was constantly flashed by others as if my brights were on and the only difference was the bulb color temp.
2. I adjusted my headlamps down to basically the legal (and my comfort) limit as I do a fair amount of driving on back/country roads with deer crossings. This cut down those flashing me about 75% but I still get it here and there.
I cannot find LED lamps in 5000 k color. They are all 6500 k. I’m are fairly sure moving back to a 5000k lamp color would fix the issue for most.
[+] [-] lostmsu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbedpeter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otachack|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foxes|4 years ago|reply
The usual arguments I see here on HN which are pro cars are "what about the children/disabled/elderly". Completely nonsense pro car argument. An efficient, humane public transport system that is well connected, gets you to where you want to go, well funded and maintained would probably be better for a majority of the people in these groups anyway. Im not even advocating for removal of cars, but Im sure the majority of the population could easily reduce dependence.
As for the "freedom" argument. Sitting in some box confined to miles of endless tarmac with countless rules, regulations, taxes, insurance doesn't seem free at all.
Sure, I like the ability to go out into the country side to go for a trail run, but again that is not the majority of my trips.
The vast majority of trips in a city could probably easily be replaced by public transport for a lot of people. It's just laziness and a deeply embedded car culture. Looking at pictures of American cities with enormous parking lots horrifies me.
[+] [-] milkytron|4 years ago|reply
I think "car culture" is a bit too broad. I don't have as much of a problem with car enthusiasts, more so our country's continuous commitment to car infrastructure without supporting other options.
I'm actually a huge car enthusiast, I love them. I don't own one though, nor do I drive much at all. But I think there is a difference between being passionate about cars, and forcing that passion to require people to use cars for nearly all transportation.
Totally agree with your other points, although the US has a lot of work to start incentivizing other modes of transportation.
[+] [-] chrismcb|4 years ago|reply
Sitting in a small box that can go almost anywhere you want, even with tons of rules, offers much more freedom than sitting in a slightly larger box that has even more rules and didn't go very many places.
[+] [-] RickJWagner|4 years ago|reply
For the people (and there are a lot of them) who live in suburbs and beyond, public transportation is a non-starter.
[+] [-] nradov|4 years ago|reply
The taxes and insurance on my cars aren't very high. And the rules and regulations don't bother me a bit.
[+] [-] cozzyd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|4 years ago|reply
Consider getting hit in the head with a fastball pitched by a major league baseball pitcher. A baseball weighs ~0.145 kg, and a fastball might be going 45 m/s.
That gives a momentum of 6.5 kg m/s, and a kinetic energy of 146.8 J, and a serious possibly life threatening injury.
Now consider getting hit by a fully loaded B-52 (220000 kg) being towed at 0.5 m/s.
That has a momentum of 110000 kg m/s, and a kinetic energy of 27500 J. That's ~17000 times the momentum of the baseball and ~190 times the kinetic energy, but all it will do is knock you over. (You might subsequently get run over by it, which would do a lot damage, but that injury will be from neither the momentum nor the kinetic energy).
[+] [-] tylerfontaine|4 years ago|reply
NB: I didn't do the math, so this is probably mildly hyperbolic, but I think it illustrates the point.
[+] [-] bifrost|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sheeeep86|4 years ago|reply
The US needs regulation and more driving training to protect the other traffic participants. While we are at it also safer bike lanes and walk ways and crossings.
[+] [-] tristor|4 years ago|reply
I've seen this same logic from many people who have asked me for my advice about vehicle purchases. The thing is, the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that larger/heavier vehicles are safer. In fact, it's just the opposite.
We really need stricter licensing requirements for driving in the US. Compare the way people in Germany drive to the way people in the US drive on average, and it's night and day. Most Americans drive aggressively, without regard for others, with little attention being paid, looking just barely in front of their vehicle and never their complete surroundings, and without even basic understanding of vehicle dynamics or roadway rules and etiquette. I daily see drivers, especially in larger vehicles, incapable of even maintaining lane presence while going straight down a highway, which is like remedial driving 020 skill levels. Most American drivers aren't even at 101 level.
[+] [-] waffle_maniac|4 years ago|reply
Woah, is that an Oldsmobile Alero in the background? I had a coupe as a kid and boy was that car a piece of shit. The same components failed consistently.
[+] [-] apetrov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sheeeep86|4 years ago|reply
These drivers tend to know how to stay out of dangerous situations and how to react when they do come up.
[+] [-] fredophile|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dig1t|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avalys|4 years ago|reply
There are plenty of small, cheap, reliable, and efficient cars available, if that's what you want to buy. The Toyota Prius. The Honda Fit. The Tesla Model 3?
Is it a "flaw" in capitalism that some people don't want to buy those? That someone can choose to buy a Chevrolet Suburban instead of any of these options?
The market for automobiles is as competitive as it gets. If a manufacturer is making profits, it's because they're selling what people want to buy.
From my perspective, the only "flaw" here would seem to be that capitalism makes it difficult for you to impose your own preferences on others.
[+] [-] anm89|4 years ago|reply
Given that there are what maybe 1 or 2 command economies on the planet, are they somehow automotive paradises? Im going to say probably not given that cars are a privelege for a small elite class in those places.
[+] [-] rytcio|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gigachad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bifrost|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshgev|4 years ago|reply
I do think cars have their place, but I don't understand how people have come to believe that cars in, say, Manhattan or the center of Paris, make a lot of sense.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|4 years ago|reply
The sense of entitlement among some drivers just beggars belief. The other day I crossed the street with the pedestrian signal. Beyond the traffic signal (to my right) there were two police cars with lights on blocking one lane to cordon the scene of a recent accident and redirect traffic. While I was crossing a vehicle just casually ran the red light and nearly hit me. When I angrily pointed to the light indicating I had the right of way, they angrily pointed at the police cars, as if their presence somehow superseded the existence of the intervening traffic light.
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|4 years ago|reply
Either way, there's nothing wrong with trying to make cars safer for pedestrians too.
[+] [-] not-my-account|4 years ago|reply
This is probably closer to the rational solution than your previous statement (about "pedestrians and cyclists being mindful of where they are"). With proper road design, cars are moving slow enough near pedestrians so they can stop within time. Separated bike lanes save the lives of cyclists and lead to less traffic on the road.
North America has been designed to the benefit of cars over pedestrians essentially everywhere, to the great detriment of the local population.
[+] [-] klyrs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beebmam|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smm11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watermelon0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avalys|4 years ago|reply