I am driving a 2007 VW Golf. You could make it easily 15 cm smaller by cutting off the center console between the front seats without sacrificing any safety. Of course, the rear bench would be comfortable for 2 only, but that already applies to it as it is. So one could design nice 4 seated cars - especially if they are designed electric only, removing most of the need for the center console, as there is no gear shifting.
This! sometimes I think it would be nice if they produced a low cost small car like the 1960s mini. with today's productivity they could build a simple version for quite cost effective. But, regulations mean it's completely impossible and so the cost of cars and their size keeps going up.
My personal perspective is that if I'm allowed to sign myself up for danger on two wheels - a motorcycle - and danger on four lackluster wheels - an older car - then I should also be allowed to sign myself up for danger on four satisfying wheels - a new but small and light car. Cutting-edge impact protection be damned; make me sign a waiver if you must.
I've come to realize that laws aren't generally about fairness. They're about whole-systems thinking. Lots of rules seem unfair if you're an individual in a system.
The popcorn kernel that doesn't pop may feel slighted, but that doesn't mean my popper is broken, or the kernel is.
Allowing car companies to make new cars which are less safe would cause more injuries and deaths. We allow older cars and motorcycles for political and economic reasons. Banning them would be even worse.
Here's a political and economic reason: modern cars, new and used, are painfully expensive for large portions of our society. Most of these price increases come from modern requirements for impact protection and other safety provisions. Allowing companies to pump out <$10k econoboxes would be a boon to low-income individuals.
dude have you been in a classic mini? its literally a coffin. that being said i like trying to drag race mustangs in my buddies one. Check out Kei Cars in Japan.
A coffin that fits 4 adults and a German Shepherd in the estate bit. That's quite snug, but no worse than a Polo, Beetle, Fiesta or 2CV of similar era.
But like most cars it spends most of its time carrying just one or two adults, maybe a bit of shopping, when it has ample room.
I personally know of someone that suffered permanent short-term memory loss from a terrible crash in an original mini. A woman pulled out in front of him without looking properly, his car was pretty much completely destroyed, and he was lucky to survive. It's all well and good to praise their size and practicality, but they come at a heavy price.
In the same era few cars would see you better off. A Polo or Escort would be similarly totalled, a big Merc or Volvo would often happily demount the engine and punch it back into the cabin taking your legs with it...
There are recent cars like that, you just can't buy them in places like the US or Europe because they're deathtraps. The Tata Nano was produced until 2018 and cost about 3000USD. BYD makes a tiny electric car (e1) for about 9000USD.
A used but modern Mini Cooper is not that expensive. In 2012 I bought a 2008 with 20K miles on it for $15K, and it's been a super reliable car, real joy to drive.
I also have a 1967 Pontiac, and THAT thing is enormous. There were a lot of big family cars back then.
I don't mind a wide car as long as it's not one of these absolutely fuck-ugly SUVs. They're a plague.
Go to any remotely rural place in the UK (especially if it's rich) and you'll see SUVs and 4x4 with no more than 2 people in them usually - basically just because there are some leaves on the ground, despite all the millions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds that have been spent on making normal cars safer, grip better and more efficient.
Edit: I fully expect to be seeing some Tesla Cybertrucks assuming they come to mass market.
People complain about SUVs with a lot of apparently unnecessary capability (4x4, holding lots of people), but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have. I.e., maybe most of the time it's just you in the car, but you want to be able to haul you and your spouse and your parents around when they come to visit. Or you mostly commute to work, but want 4x4 for when you go skiing.
This is why long term, we need to move away from car ownership and toward something like Zipcar for all. In that world, you would just rent whatever vehicle you needed when you needed it. Step one is making it not just possible, but preferable to not own a car.
Most people don't need SUVs to go skiing, just good tires, chains, and a shovel. There's a good chance you'll need these things even if you have an SUV.
Also mhh__ was talking about rural UK. They don't have ski hills there (at least not ones with snow).
People complain about SUVs because
1. They are large and get in the way.
2. Their lights are high up, so they blind you when they tail-gate you at night.
3. They often have poor drivers, possibly because they have large blind spots, possibly other socio-economic reasons.
4. They tend to hit pedestrians and cyclists above their center of gravity, so they knock you down under the wheels instead of up and over the windshield
> but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have.
Exactly. My budget only allows for one car (more precisely: my apartment only gives me one parking space). That car has to be able to do all the things I would want to be able to do. That includes driving to work in a snowstorm. That includes potentially giving my nieces and nephews (who are young enough to need car seats) rides to family functions. That includes hauling an entire warehouse's worth of networking equipment and cables to a job site. That includes occasionally having to drive on unpaved mountain roads.
An SUV is a pretty darn good intersection of those needs.
I feel the same way. I have a VW Atlas. It’s big but I often take advantage of its size including road trips with 4 adults, two kids in car seats, and luggage. I think
I use the volume of it enough to justify a large vehicle versus renting one when needed.
Unfortunately I can’t afford To also have a small car for the times I don’t need the volume. I definitely feel a little guilty when there are only 2 people in it.
My wife likes to drive an SUV because of the high vantage point of visibility for the driver, and because it's easer to put kids in a car seat when you don't have to bend over.
There are reasons people like SUVs other than "leaves on the ground".
Ironically that's why we had to get one in the first place. However, in the US, SUVs and Pickups outnumber sedans, so the majority of people sit at the same vantage point.
I don't think that's a casual relationship though. SUV drivers are probably more distracted because they are more likely to have kids in the back, they might just be worse drivers, etc. Too many factors to say if it's the SUV's fault.
One easy way to find out is to compare proneness to pedestrian collision—fatal and non-fatal—and see if the difference is nearly as great as when comparing only fatal accidents.
But I really don’t see why you’d even guess otherwise. Much larger and taller front compared to a smaller car means it’ll basically hit your abdomen instead of your legs. Higher weight means tha it’ll hit you with greater energy, and won’t brake as easily. In my mind, of course pedestrian accidents involving SUVs are more often fatal, so I wonder what goes on in yours when you say that you think they aren’t.
Is it because there are leaves on the ground? Or because it is worth the extra price to occasionally have the ability to drive 6 people around or haul all your gear up to the mountain safely or to feel safer on the road?
I've got a narrower than average car, and it's nice to fit in garages, tight parking spaces, narrow ferry lanes, etc. The seats are a little narrow, but not too bad. For some reason they built it so the turning radius is worse than a mini-van though.
