The hypocrisy is that if safety was the overall concern, then motorcycles would have been banned a long time ago (and I say this as someone who enjoys riding my motorcycle).
I think the actual problem is that when compared to other cars in their category these kei trucks do have abysmal safety standards such as no airbags or crumple zones. Which is because there isn’t a mini truck category in the US. Basically all pick up trucks are the same category.
The point about older cars still on the road is a valid point though, cars made before 1998 didn’t require airbags so if they can still be registered then the kei trucks should too.
I assume governance is the art of the possible, and banning motorbikes is impossible for political reasons, where banning hobby vehicles looks pretty straight-forward.
Governance is also the art of getting the most for your financial and political capital. The fact that the Mass RMV is taking the time and effort to write up and defend a bespoke policy for a super niche vehicle class is a bit of a head scratcher.
Only 7500 kei vehicles are imported into the entire US each year - is this really a problem that needs addressing?
I’m biased because I bike everyday through Boston but - I just don’t agree with their assessment that they are a problem, or at least to the degree that it’s definitively worth addressing.
Being visible as a pedestrian or biker is a lot easier with kei cars parked on the street than some of the F150s I have to deal with now. Many of Boston’s streets are also notoriously tight compared to other sections of the country.
If there was wider movement kei cars (which is a big assumption - I can’t imagine many people would be willing to tolerate right side driving) there would be more road injuries of the drivers, probably, but that would also be weighed against injuries to non drivers.
> I just don’t agree with their assessment that they are a problem
And I don’t have an opinion either way, but it seems reasonable for the appropriate government agency to, even if the issue is currently pretty limited
Not in a city they aren't. They are an excellent commuting tool that offers much of the flexibility of a car for a fraction of the cost and much better commute time.
OK, I'll need to see a source on increased pollution. I really doubt that a motorcycle is putting out more pollution than an average American-size vehicle. For example, my sport bike gets 59MPG, and I've owned multiple bikes that got >100mpg. Even without a catalytic converter, how is that more pollution than a single commuter driving in a truck or SUV getting 20MPG and likely shedding more road and tire particulate due to the increased weight.
Edit: although the noise thing is valid, I'm perpetually annoyed with the "loud pipes save lives" crowd, that's obnoxious.
Does that include motorcycles that have illegal aftermarket exhaust systems with all emission controls removed in an effort to make them as loud as possible? This accounts for about 80% of them, so it's irrelevant how they function by design.
They might have to be that way to buy them new from the factory.
But the moment it belongs to you and even before you leave the lot, you can have illegal aftermarket exhaust systems installed that not one governing body in the United States, nor most of the rest of the world, will come close to enforcing any noise or emissions laws against.
The point is that motorcycles are well-established cultural icons. While road safety folks would likely be delighted to ban them, there would be a huge political backlash. Kei cars are not, there's very few people that even know what they are compared to motorcycles, let alone want to drive them on the road.
> if safety was the overall concern, then motorcycles would have been banned a long time ago
And horse riding on the road - it’s still legal. I believe you can even ride cows in most countries
Safety of the driver, mind you, should be lower priority than safety of others, I.e. pedestrians.
Driver chose to drive whatever that is, but pedestrians didn’t. From that perspective motorcycles are great, they are least likely vehicle to main a pedestrian or child.
But those Japanese vehicle owners are unknowingly risking their safety by driving them. The government is actually doing them a favor by banning them. /s
I really don't get the NA car market. There is a demand for small kei car/trucks as is natural with cities growing and parking dwindling.
Yet even compacts are disappearing. My kingdom for an EV compact that is compact. Even the Fiat 500s and Mini Coops feel like they get bigger each year.
Because of a quirk of emissions controls in the US. Longer wheelbases and heavier vehicles can get by with poorer emissions. It was done, at the time, to help semi trailers and other huge trucks meet less restrictive requirements without specifically calling them out but now has led to each manufacturer making vehicles as large as possible so meeting emissions restrictions is more economical.
This gets brought up on HN every time the subject comes up but it doesn't make sense. It is true that, sensibly, emissions regulations are more relaxed as vehicles get larger. But smaller vehicles are still cheaper to make and sell for lower MSRPs than the same manufacturer's larger cars, and larger cars almost always hugely outsell them. Sadly, this has meant that a lot of small cars, like the Honda Fit, have been discontinued in the US.
HN users are not representative. Kei car enthusiasts are not representative. Americans love F-150s, Tacomas, Highlanders, 4runners, RAV4s, CRVs, etc. They by-and-large buy the largest car/truck they can afford. You look up the sales numbers for this stuff and there's just no contest; e.g., CRVs outsold Fits by almost a factor of 10. The marginal gain of "parking is slightly easier in streets or unlined lots" is something most people don't care enough about to buy a smaller vehicle. They prefer the other conveniences of large cars.
Is it true that manufacturers like selling larger cars because they have higher margins? Sure; they also like to sell you on the higher trim levels of small cars for the same reason. But Americans are happily making that easy for them.
The article doesn't really support that claim. Yes, larger vehicles have higher margins, just as higher trim levels do. But it is also true that small vehicle sales are consistently poor. Of course manufacturers aren't very interested in a low-volume low-margin market segment, which led to the tragic death of cars like the Fit.
That's why the article you linked says things like:
> Long, a sustainable transportation researcher at Simon Fraser University, and Jonn Axsen, professor of sustainable transportation at SFU, undertook a study of 1,000 SUV drivers in the Vancouver area. The study revealed that drivers "see them as superior to cars," said Long.
People are happy and willing to pay more for larger cars. Manufacturers are delighted to oblige. Given the choice between a small car and a large car, the typical consumer chooses the larger car. The fact that a small number of consumers like me prefer Honda Fits is not enough to justify their continued production.
Because the fuel standards for those smaller vehicles are not realistic to hit. If you go to page 24 on this pdf [1] you'll see that for a car with ~41 square foot wheelbase they need to get 55 combined miles per gallon. This essentially disqualifies anything that is not a hybrid from even going into production at that size. I'll give you its true that Americans love big cars, but even my Ram TRX driving coworkers are complaining that trucks are too big and that they'd love for a early 00's or late 90's F-150 style truck again.
I drive a 2000-era Chevrolet Tahoe. Large but not huge by SUV standards.
I park between an F150 and a Ram pickup. Despite the fact that all three are built on the same nominal size category - 3/4 ton pickup - the new ones make my 20-ish year old car look like a RAV4.
And it's not exactly a gas-sipping vehicle to drive.
I do wonder why nothing seems to get good highway mileage anymore despite all the improvements that have been made. My mid-90s Pontiac Bonneville got the sort of mileage around town that you might expect from a full-size sedan (even by American standards, it was large for a sedan) with a 3.8L engine driven by an early-20s male, but the top gear was set so high that it got 30 mpg on the road (7.8 L/100 km). Even modern sedans of the same nominal size get worse than that.
Thanks for the link, I've been looking for that. Without reviewing it in depth - I appreciate any pointers - it looks like going by the tables on page 26, the requirement for "light trucks" (therefore including SUVs) is also higher than what can be achieved without a hybrid system. I see similar tables near the end seemingly showing the same thing that I think your 55mpg number came from.
> HN users are not representative. Kei car enthusiasts are not representative. Americans love F-150s, Tacomas, Highlanders, 4runners, RAV4s, CRVs, etc. They by-and-large buy the largest car/truck they can afford. You look up the sales numbers for this stuff and there's just no contest; e.g., CRVs outsold Fits by almost a factor of 10.
This is true, but even outside the US in a lot of Asian places with no apparent space for big cars everything is getting bigger, why is that?
There is the perception that larger vehicles are safer, at least for the people inside. They aren’t, but that is the perception. And fuck the people outside I guess.
Americans love them because of advertising. It's societal wide manipulation.
For those who doubt the power of marketing, look no further than this case.
American regularly buy worse cars, that don't last as long, and burn more fuel, and require more maintenance, with virtually no upside - purely because that's what's advertised and what makes people feel cool. And they know this is the case. They understand the purchase they are making is an objectively worse one, and they (pretty often) have to create complex orchestrations of lies they tell themselves to obfuscate that.
I mean, the sheer amount of single passenger drivers buying trucks for 70,000, never towing anything, and then complaining about fuel economy is insane. I know many people like this. Little do they know they could pay half the price for a Prius, get a better experience, and get 3x as many miles to the gallon. But they do know this, kind of, but the manipulation exists on a subconscious, unreachable level.
Put two mountain bikes in a Prius and drive to a singletrack trailhead then tell again how it's objectively better. But on a serious note, there are many more reasons to have a truck than towing. I understand that it's disturbing when others don't share your needs or views, but saying "people other than myself are stupid and do things for silly reasons" is not adding to discussion quality.
> Put two mountain bikes in a Prius and drive to a singletrack trailhead then tell again how it's objectively better
Easy, nobody does that. Okay well not nobody... just almost nobody.
I'm working under the assumption (which I think is correct) that the majority of people who buy large vehicles use them identically to how they would a small one. That is, with usually a single passenger, on roadways, for a regular commute. There's some studies out there on how vehicles are used.
If this doesn't apply to you, then I think you're an outlier. But we're not talking about outliers. You'll notice everyone and their mom is driving an SUV or Truck. Especially when it comes to trucks, 99% of the time I see one its one dude in them, towing nothing, with nothing in the bed.
Even if you DO occasionally use your truck (most don't), you're still making a poor purchase. Because I can rent a day truck for 50 bucks. Let's see... save 30 grand, save hundreds of dollars on gas, save thousands on repairs... and then spend 50 bucks on a rental... let me just do my calculations... oh yeah, it's still obviously a better deal.
As I've said, nobody really wants to admit this sort of stuff because then you're admitting you've been manipulated and you're an irrational consumer (although almost all consumers are). This DOES contribute to the discussion, and I think you know what I'm saying is right. This is the sort of thing that is obvious to everyone, but talked about by no one, because of the implications.
Yeah, people usually don't tow, off-road, drive through unplowed streets covered with snow 3 feet high, ford through a flash flood, transport vehicles or big appliances, or gardening or construction supplies etc. But people still do these things, which are not possible with a Prius.
You believe that if you don't do these usually then you should never do them? How often do you have more than two people in your Prius? Wouldn't you say that you usually don't? So why would you buy a car with 5 seats by your own logic? Everyone who is not brainwashed by ads and knowing what's good for them would be buying a Miata, if your logic applies, right?
And yes, renting comes up in these discussions all the time. For me to rent a truck right now I would need to call several places to find if they have trucks available at all, find someone to drive with me to that place or take Uber, sign up paperwork and walk-around, pay $100+ day, then return with another walk-around, then find a way to get home from the rental place. Or I could just throw bikes in the box, drive to a trail, ride, and come back by the time you got home in your rental. You saved some money, but likely you saved even more because you stayed home while others had fun outside.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Most people never do that stuff. Then a small subset of people left very rarely do it, maybe once a year or so. And then an even smaller subset does it regularly. If you're not in group 3, you're wasting your time.
> So why would you buy a car with 5 seats by your own logic?
By my own logic, there's no downside to having 5 seats. I mean, it costs nothing. Coupes are certainly not cheaper nor more efficient. If I was paying 30,000 dollars for those extra two seats I rarely use then yes, I WOULD think about it more carefully.
> others had fun outside.
Aaaand there it is. I said something about people being irrational consumers, and now it's become an attack.
Look, I'm not attacking you. If you feel you need a truck more power to you. I'm just observing the actions of average Americans, who ARE largely very irrational consumers.
I've known many people who own trucks and many who own SUVs, including 5 seat crossover SUVs. Out of almost everyone I have met, none of them need those vehicles and bought them for truly no reason. Well, not no reason. Because the TV said so and they want to look cool, and they like feeling like they own the road a bit more etc etc.
But if I ask them why they bought those vehicles, of course they won't say that. They'll say it's because they need them, which is just a lie. That's called justifying a purchase, and everyone does it all the time. Because of advertisement, most people are deeply irrational consumers.
Exhibit B: talk to some people about lab-grown diamonds. They're molecularly identical, but people sure don't want to accept they paid 5x more for nothing. Maybe this one you'll grasp a bit better, because I'm assuming you're a man so you're advertised less to when it comes to diamonds and jewelry so in that area you may be a less irrational consumer. But when you get a chance, survey some random women on it and then come back and tell me advertising doesn't manipulate the mind.
Most people who don't own a truck, I suppose? Because most people who own one do some truck-y things with it once in a while.
> Coupes are certainly not cheaper nor more efficient
The base model Miata is just 1000 more than the base model Prius new, used Miata is absolutely cheaper than a used Prius (because, surprisingly, more people want 5 seats in their car than people who want 2).
>Aaaand there it is. I said something about people being irrational consumers, and now it's become an attack.
I am not sure where do you see an attack? People have different lifestyles than you, it's a fact. Yes, people do sports outside. No, Prius is no good for that at all. And it's just one instance when Prius is not good. Owning a house with a Prius is also problematic. And even renting one somewhere remote is dangerous (if roads get blocked by snow/rain you are not going to get food). You believe you are in majority and in fact, almost everyone, sits at home on weekends or goes to bars or whatever you do, and trucks and other off-road big cars are being bought by people who are exactly like you but dumber. I know for a fact that a lot of people are into outdoors, home improvement, trades etc.
> Because most people who own one do some truck-y things with it once in a while.
I disagree. I don't think this is true.
> The base model Miata is just 1000 more than the base model Prius new, used Miata is absolutely cheaper than a used Prius (because, surprisingly, more people want 5 seats in their car than people who want 2).
Used prius is more expensive because the prius is a more reliable vehicle that holds their value better. Meaning, that's even more reason to buy a prius.
> Yes, people do sports outside. No, Prius is no good for that at all.
I want to make it clear that I've never mentioned a prius. You're creating a granola-loving Californian caricature of me because you're running out of steam.
You don't have to buy a Prius. You just don't need the Child Crusher 4000 with Ulta-Gas-Guzzling suspense and glaucoma inducing laser beam headlights.
> Owning a house with a Prius is also problematic. And even renting one somewhere remote is dangerous (if roads get blocked by snow/rain you are not going to get food).
Yeah sorry this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe it's because I live in Texas, where 3/4 cars are trucks, but this is 100% never the reason somebody buys a truck. Again, after-purchase justification is all this is to make yourself feel better.
> I know for a fact that a lot of people are into outdoors, home improvement, trades etc.
Okay. Sure. I don't disagree with this.
But you're telling me the MAJORITY of people do this? The majority? Really? That's what you're telling me?
I know you don't believe that. You're bullshitting me, and it's not gonna work. If you're gonna make an argument at least make it realistic enough so that you yourself can believe it. Obviously if you don't believe it, I certainty won't.
That's a given. You believe most people who own a truck never driven in snow, never put anything in the bed, never drove over water, never towed anything, right? Your right to believe such a thing.
>Used prius is more expensive because the prius is a more reliable vehicle that holds their value better. Meaning, that's even more reason to buy a prius.
So is a truck.
>I want to make it clear that I've never mentioned a prius.
Click this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41259117 then do a search on the page for "prius", it sure appears there. I guess this the end of discussion because the obvious troll is obvious.
> I've known many people who own trucks and many who own SUVs, including 5 seat crossover SUVs. Out of almost everyone I have met, none of them need those vehicles and bought them for truly no reason.
Five-seat crossover SUVs like the CRV and RAV4 are small enough to be pretty efficient - in my driving I got 40MPG in a non-hybrid - while being large enough to be more comfortable than a sedan and are still relatively cheap. What exactly is the reason to not buy one? They are much handier than the average non-hatchback sedan, since in combination with a decent size-storage area the back seats usually go down.
> Out of almost everyone I have met, none of them need those vehicles and bought them for truly no reason. Well, not no reason. Because the TV said so and they want to look cool, and they like feeling like they own the road a bit more etc etc.
When everyone but you has been manipulated and propagandized, it's a good sign that maybe you should rethink your position. You are probably correct that much of the time, most of these vehicles are being used as single-occupant commuter vehicles. But I find it highly implausible that none of these people are ever using their trucks to tow. That's not what I see with people that I know who have trucks. It's certainly probably ~<1-5% of of trips, but it is nonzero.
Is it perfectly rational and economically efficient to buy 40k of car when 20k of tiny car would do for 95%+ of driving? Probably not. But people value convenience and time higher than maybe you do, and they usually buy more of anything than they need. How many HNers are buying the cheapest, minimal-value computing device that does 95% of their daily computing tasks? It's perfectly possible for any of us to spend $100 on a Chromebook and rent any additional computing power we need 1% of the time.
I recently bought an eight-seat three-row SUV. Why? My commuter car remains my tiny compact hatchback. But about once a year, I typically make a very long vacation trip, and I can't pack everything in it. I would like two separate passenger rows to separate my kids. I would like to have enough seating for their friends. I would like something much more comfortable for > 30minute trips that aren't commutes. I would like something that can tow a boat trailer for the boat I don't have. It may be more "rational" to simply say "no" to a lot of these things (your friends wil have to find another way) and rent for everything else. I've rented for my vacation trips before and I find it extremely stressful. It's worth it to me to not rent. I don't watch TV, I rarely watch YouTube, and I can't tell you the last time I saw any advertisement besides a billboard. Maybe they "got me" anyway, I guess, but maybe it's also true that people can be completely unlike you and have motives that make sense to them.
"Rational" and "efficient" is something that never actually applies to almost any consumer behavior. Most people who write things like this are walking around with tons of pointless irrational luxuries, just in a different product category.
> But people value convenience and time higher than maybe you do
See, this is where the consumerism propaganda comes in.
Larger vehicles don't get you anywhere faster, because the road decides that. The vehicle you choose has literally nothing to do with that.
They're also not more convenient in the general case. They're not easier to maneuver, they don't perform better on concrete, they're much harder to park. You refill more often, they don't hold more people.
> "Rational" and "efficient" is something that never actually applies to almost any consumer behavior
Right, yes, you have walked directly into my point. That's correct. This is because of advertising. People are manipulated.
> Most people who write things like this are walking around with tons of pointless irrational luxuries, just in a different product category.
I never said I didn't. I don't understand why everyone is getting defensive and acting as though I'm taking a "holier than thou" approach. I'm not.
These conversations are so difficult to have because everyone is so emotionally invested in their metal box on wheels. Sorry, I don't mean to offend you. When I call you an irrational consumer that's not me singling you out. I'm an irrational consumer, and so is everyone else.
My point is to highlight the dangers and real-life harm of advertising. Because it's a fairly abstract problem. But when you put it into real-life terms maybe you can see the tons of CO2 caused by car ads or maybe the children crushed by car ads. Obviously I don't know those numbers and they're probably not measurable, but point is human behaviors cause problems, and human behaviors are influenced by ads, ergo advertisement causes problems.
Would love to see data otherwise but I don't believe this is the case. I hear this argument a lot for kei vehicles but its still a niche compared to the broader truck market. 2023 units sold, ford ranger 40k, f-series 760k. The kei market is vastly smaller than the ranger market.
I am sure that profit margin/advertising plays a mix into the decisions but I also think the consumer largely does not want small cars.
Edit: And for small work trucks, most of that market seems to be eaten up by the smaller commercial van vehicles at this point.
Im not denying that demand for trucks/SUVs is probably has the largest demand of any segment.
I guess im more just wondering if the lack of demand for small cars is just that after being absent from the market and seeing the least innovation over the last X years, whether there is some sort of collective amnesia that such a segment exists.
Car companies know what they're doing, so im probably just coping. I should stop wishing the free market to do what's right rather than profitable :P
That's because of the fixed cost of making another model of a car. Look at what happened to Stellantis trying to bring Fiat 500: after three years of great sales it started to drop pretty quickly to the point where they sold only 16 in the 2023 [1]. Do they make enough profit from selling 16 (or even 1600) cheap cars to afford compliance with the US regulations (they need to crash several cars to get the NHTSA "stars", that's quite a cost even before the cost of the testing itself), stocking spare parts, training mechanics etc? And this is assuming they can sell just the euro model without any retooling, if they need to make a different model for the US market they also need to keep factories tooled for that, keep ordering parts etc.
I think it's because they are still a relatively niche pick. Ultimately creating a car is very hard (I assume), so they all tend to converge their efforts on the 95%.
And the 95% want an SUV or a Sedan. The 5% in dense cities, even if you successfully target and sell to 100% of them, isn't much revenue. Whereas if you make a crappy sedan and only 10% of the 95% consider it, that's STILL more sales.
So it might make more sense to simply give up those markets, take that money and dump it into the big sellers. Your Accords and F-150s of the world. To further capture more of the biggest market. So that's my guess.
That's how capitalism works for vehicles. The same model name continues to grow and increase spending for people looking to buy them when they do. Eventually a new lower model may be inserted below for new buyers, or sometimes the grown model may be reset to a smaller or different form. It's similar to bundling/unbundling cycles which increase expenditure as you try to keep what you want.
Compacts, subcompacts, and microcompacts are very popular in Europe. Is this because Europe has fewer and less restrictive standards for fuel economy, emissions, and safety? I am not an automotive policy expert, but I feel like Europe tends to regulate more than the US does.
One factor to take into account is that streets and roads are narrower (or at least feels narrower). I would be very uncomfortable driving those huge SUV where I live.
Yeah my expat friend owns a midsized (for the US) SUV in Spain, and she finds it incredibly difficult to use in the city she lives in due to the narrow streets + sidewalk cafes.
Regulations are not just a more/less choice. They can also be better or worse.
This usually comes up when arguing about about FDA, which is uniquely bad at its job. When I try to point that out, people come out of the woodwork and argue as if I'm a nutcase libertarian who wants to abolish all regulations. No, there are countries with drug regulations that are generally tighter, and also the population has had access to UVA-blocking sunscreen for a decade.
The regulations that matter here are terribly written regulations that are more lax if your vehicle is bigger. EU has more regulations, but wouldn't ever make that mistake.
FDA Delenda Est, sure. But I'm still glad that seatbelts and frame strength standards aren't optional for auto manufacturers. Maybe we just need to regulate regulatory capture; have penalties for it that actually hurt the pocketbooks of the market juggernauts who try it.
Many Japanese vehicles are banned, especially light trucks, because they are too competitive. They are often banned for trumped up reasons, mostly to protect local competition.
While true, at issue in TFA is importing older vehicles. A motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old can be lawfully imported into the U.S. without regard to whether it complies with all applicable [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)]. [0]
As noted in TheDrive.com [1] a few weeks ago, the lobby/professional group for various state DMVs, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, has decided for some reason to promote DMVs outlawing by regulation small vehicles. The kei car enthusiast community is directly threatened by this and the Japanese Domestic Market (JDM) enthusiast community sees this effort as a shot across the bow. Thus they are working the PR channels to get legislative help in rolling back the regulatory rulemaking.
Yeah, what’s wrong with that? The problem is that US regulations reinforce the creation of unnecessarily large vehicles, largely as the only local option. We have no need for international cars, and inherently transporting them is bad for the environment. It makes far more sense to broaden emission standards across the board to ALL vehicles so that smaller vehicles have a larger market presence and then if international brands want access to the US market they can create US jobs by opening factories.
This sounds like a massive conspiracy if I have ever heard one. Evidence would be helpful.
Foreign markets are often very different and those vehicles don't pass safety in the US. My favorite was the death traps that Toyota Mexico made up until a couple years ago. Brand new vehicle but absolute death trap.
> The Chicken tax is a 25 percent tariff on light trucks (and originally on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy) imposed in 1964 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson in response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken.
> Eventually, the tariffs on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy were lifted,[4] but since 1964 this form of protectionism has remained in place to give US domestic automakers an advantage over imported competitors.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting! Also super fascinating that it has largely been left untouched since then. I was thinking purely from a safety standard regulation as I know many don't pass US standards.
It doesn't require a conspiracy to be the case, simply a bit of "safety" lobbying by domestic manufacturers. Lobbying for regulations that favor and protect market incumbents happens all the time. I'd go as far to say that it's the primary source of regulations.
Given the reasoning for refusal is that the vehicles don't meet safety standards, I wonder if they will stop registering older American vehicles as well for lack of safety standards but also for emissions?
A small truck has just as much possibility to kill as a big truck, and in fact due to the smaller application of similar forces its more likely to seriously cripple you, even if said hit was non-fatal.
While I’m all for reducing the size of cars in USA, pretending that ”massive modern trucks” are the only ones that kill is just wrong.
> A small truck has just as much possibility to kill as a big truck, and in fact due to the smaller application of similar forces its more likely to seriously cripple you, even if said hit was non-fatal.
> While I’m all for reducing the size of cars in USA, pretending that ”massive modern trucks” are the only ones that kill is just wrong.
The argument is that a larger truck is more likely to kill - instead of resulting in injuries that can be treated. There is evidence for this.
There is also very obvious evidence that regardless of size you are overwhelmingly likely to die when hit by a vehicle and that in fact due to the application of force via the hood even in non-fatal crashes smaller vehicles have a higher chance to cripple you for life. I really shouldn’t be surprised that saying ‘getting hit by a car, regardless of size, is deadly’ on HN.
“Large SUVs and pickup trucks are, unsurprisingly, more likely than smaller cars to injure or kill pedestrians due to their greater weight and taller front ends.”
You’ve simply got it backwards. More massive trucks with higher top speeds are more dangerous. An F-150 at 30mph is more dangerous than a Honda Fit at 30 mph.
The only way you can somehow NOT come to this conclusion is by denying that all vehicles, big or small, are dangerous and fooling yourself into thinking that there is some magical size where a multi-ton object going at 60MPH is somehow not a lethal force.
I mean it's just momentum = mass*velocity. Something with more mass inherently has more momentum, and will therefore be harder to stop in an emergency/hit harder when it crashes. That's obviously more dangerous no matter how you look at it. A penny going at 60 MPH at your head probably won't kill you but a truck will. A penny going 1000 MPH will probably kill you, but I wouldn't call a penny as dangerous as a truck even though they're both potentially lethal.
It makes sense to regulate what can be sold new, while grandfathering in what was sold legally in the past. People won’t stand for the government jerking people around and saying “this vehicle you purchased legally is now illegal and can’t be driven or sold, and you need to buy another with your own money… but no guarantees we won’t immediately ban the new one also.” Cars have a finite life span unless restored at great expense, so the problem takes care of itself without overbearing laws that would be seen as the government stealing peoples personal property. Appreciating classic cars is also a mainstay of American culture- with most towns having classic car shows, and things like discounted registration and insurance for antique cars.
From the way I read the article, it appears to me that the vehicle registration must be renewed:
>But Massachusetts is now pointing out that kei trucks and vans don’t meet federal safety standards and recently included them on a list of vehicles that can’t be registered in the state. The state is now reconsidering that decision, leaving kei truck owners wondering whether they’ll be able to keep driving these vehicles.
>All existing unexpired registrations for Kei trucks and vans will remain active as the RMV works to review and assess industry standards related to Kei mini trucks and develop an updated policy addressing the registration of these vehicles. From: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/vehicles-that-cannot-be-re....
So depending on how registrations in MA work and if they expire, they will be pulling the rug out from under the owners.
Related, if we are worried about crash safety(ostentatiously of the operator and passengers) why does MA still allow motorcycles?
Yes, that is the objective of the parties involved. From a manufacturer's standpoint, the worse thing that ever happened was the secondary market for vehicles.
Japan has different standards and driving environment around kei cars (I'm going to use K-car going forward).
- Their top speed limit even on highways is 100kmh / 60mph
- K-cars have yellow license plates and yellow license plates are not allowed on highways
I have a memory of seeing one of the infamous white K-trucks on an interstate in Nashville and was gobsmacked. These cars are not rated for highway / interstates in Japan, let alone the U.S.
I'm not sure if the U.S. has a similar visible markings for farm vehicles to allow K-cars city road travel and deny interstate travel. If not, I agree they should be banned until some sort of classification is made and driver culture / knowledge is propagated.
I think the actual problem is that when compared to other cars in their category these kei trucks do have abysmal safety standards such as no airbags or crumple zones. Which is because there isn’t a mini truck category in the US. Basically all pick up trucks are the same category.
The point about older cars still on the road is a valid point though, cars made before 1998 didn’t require airbags so if they can still be registered then the kei trucks should too.