this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1541 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
4302 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 162 points 1 year ago (8 children)

This video here explains one of the issues one minute in. Definitely worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh4H9qZ-_6Y&t=55

The way car companies are working around this legislation is why it's so hard to find and buy smaller sized cars (like smart cars) even if there is demand. It also makes our community less safe for pedestrian traffic.

[–] joemo@lemmy.sdf.org 123 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The title is confusing. It starts by saying "compare the 2023 model to the 2013 model" and then mentions that the mix of cars has changes (proportion of SUVs in the mix). I feel like the title should have been "The average car purchased in 2023 emits higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) than the average car purchased in 2013." Then you can explain "This is due to the large proportion of SUVs in the mix."

There needs to be more proofreading and editing of articles before they are published online, as the title here is a direct quote from the article.

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're expecting too much from the English version of Spain's #2 newspaper.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JasSmith@kbin.social 84 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I wish wagons were more popular. They're great for fitting all the stuff in for the family, but lighter and much better handling. I don't know why SUVs became the thing, but I wish wagons would be a come-back. A Tesla wagon would be awesome.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Took me years to realize but "Crossover SUVs" are basically just Hatchbacks with slightly higher suspensions. Hell, manufacturers like Subaru literally use the same chassis as their sedans.

Which is slightly different than a station wagon but is close enough for the vast majority of people since the main distinction is more vertical storage capacity because of rounded edges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon#Comparison_with_hatchbacks). Which... definitely was an issue when I had to make multiple dump runs but never comes up in "real life" as it were.

Like, I hate that I drive a "SUV". But when I was doing more or less everything I could to NOT buy one I eventually realized "A hatchback Impreza with a lift kit sounds perfect" was literally at the same dealership.


As for SUVs in general: a lot of it is people thinking they need a giant vehicle to carry their one child around town.

But the other aspect is... driving in a sedan sucks these days. You are surrounded by pickup trucks where the wheel axis is already at eye level. You have no visibility in traffic and are pretty regularly afraid of what happens if someone doesn't stop.

Like I said, I drive a hatchback/crossover now. And that generally puts me at bumper height on a lot of trucks which... still means my visibility is shit but means I am less likely to get monster trucks driving on top of me.

[–] Magister@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The worst crossover I saw is the Ford Ecosport. It is basically a Ford Fiesta with higher suspension. It has nothing to do with a SUV, it is small, has 0 towing capacity, is 3000lbs, has a 3 cylinders engine, cost 30'000$ (in canada). The most useless and expensive thing. A Fiesta was half the price for essentially the same frame/car.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

They took a Fiesta and made it heavier with worse handling. And they do it with every car now. It’s infuriating.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you're curious, it is because wagons are classified as passenger vehicles and SUVs are classified as light trucks. Wagons are held to higher emissions/safety standards than SUVs, making them less profitable to produce in the US. So most automakers steer clear. They don't want to accidentally compete with their own most profitable products by selling a less profitable one that better-matches what consumers need.

Also fuck Tesla.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Wagons and minivans - which are great substitutes for SUVs - have a negative stigma because everybody’s parents had one and people don’t want to feel old.

Hopefully the same thing will happen to SUVs.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.

https://www.newsweek.com/its-hard-find-small-car-us-thats-not-going-change-soon-1808174

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 35 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Also the average length of car ownership before buying something else is about 5 years, but the average loan duration for a new car is 7 years.

The car market in the US is just screwed.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My Honda Civic was built in 2008 and it's fine. My car before that was a Nissan Sentra and it lived 22 years. Drive them until they are piles of rust kept going by duct tape and raw anger, and try not to shed manly tears when they are crushed into a cube.

I am sorry car, but this is a good death.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 61 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Interesting that this is focused on the UK and mentions Europe. I (like other commenters) expected this was about the US market before I read the article.

That would mean they were subject to EURO emissions regulations.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've noticed a huge uptake in big American trucks here in Europe. I hate it!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LUHG_HANI@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Boring coloured SUV is the British car landscape now. The motorways are depressing enough but it's a grey scale dystopia now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Firedcylinder@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's beyond time to get rid of the "light truck" classification for suvs.

[–] UnspecificGravity@lemmings.world 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Especially since they aren't even light any more. Compare a Ford Ranger from the 1990s or early 2000s to the current generation and it looks like a toy. The current generation of light trucks and SUVs are bigger than full sized trucks and SUVs from 20 years ago.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The "light truck" segment is in comparison to the big semis or tractor trailers, which are medium or heavy duty trucks, and often require a commercial driver's license to operate.

For example, the typical school bus or fire truck is classified as a medium duty truck.

Heavy duty trucks generally include things like cement mixers or dump trucks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There's an interesting corollary to this in the school bus world. Beginning in 2004, the EPA started imposing emissions standards on diesel engines and the standards have become increasingly stringent over the years. The standards govern the allowed amounts of NOx (nitrous oxides) and particulate matter to be emitted, but the units measured are per-horsepower-miles, meaning that an engine with twice the horsepower is allowed to emit twice the NOx and twice the particulate matter amounts, which has led to bus engines that have much more power than their counterparts from twenty years ago did - despite this added power being largely unnecessary for hauling kids around at relatively low speeds.

And importantly, the EPA diesel engine standards do not in any way govern CO2 output, so today's school bus fleet is emitting far more of it than twenty years ago.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I don't remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.

[–] raginghummus@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes! It's called Jevons paradox

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This isn't an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I can confirm. In 2023 despite having LED lightbulbs - we consume 7 more watts per hour per lightbulb than the average lightbulb did in 1546.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

What if instead we had Less Cars and more Public Transit?

[–] Couplqnd@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure! But that's not a silver bullet.

Decarbonization is a multi-prong solution and switching everything over to public transportation would take decades. It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds. Investing in public transportation, bike infrastructure and electrifying our cars are all necessary for our goal to lower green house gasses.

Perfect is the enemy of good

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Id like to have more public transit than I currently have which is none.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (12 children)

You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The more I read about them, the worse it gets.

It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency.

It's like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like the growth of trucks should play a big part of it, too. When I was young the majority of vehicles on the road were cars. Where I'm at, at least, it seems like the majority of people are driving trucks with a large minority of crossovers, and the occasional 10 year old car.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A big part of this is also that the auto industry is increasingly steering people to buy big, expensive, profitable trucks over smaller, saner, more reasonable vehicles (that they earn less profit on).

It's not just that consumers "want" these vehicles. Consumers are being pushed to want them.

There's a reason Kei-style trucks basically do not exist in the US -- because they're cheap and useful and the automakers thus dare not allow them.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

Vehicles classified as light duty trucks in the US are also not subject to such strict emissions standards. Many crossovers are classified as light trucks despite being the same platforms as sedans, but because the classification is different the crossover can cut costs the sedan can't at the expense of emissions. And because of this for a while now "light trucks" have composed the majority of vehicle sales in the US.

It's confusing that vehicles get favorable treatment from the EPA simply for being taller. Sounds like industry lobbying happened to me since SUVs are conveniently also well known for having the best profit margins.

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is also that pesky light truck exemption the USA has held on to for decades.

I wonder if something similar comes into play in the European market as well.

Yep. If exemptions required a CDL there would be far fewer exempt vehicles being made.

[–] greenmarty@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Someone pointed our interesting loop in US legislative about trucks and how producers are making their cars bigger to escape small trucks hard mile/gas / size quotas + lobbying of car makers to keep the trend going because bigger car = more profit. I wonder how big they can get them before them trucks can't drive in single line. Is there something similar to SUV by any chance?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] greenmarty@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Let's not point the finger at anyone for having stupidly big cars cough 🤧 US cough 🤧

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Rollie Williams and Nicole Conlan from Climate Town on YT talked about this on their podcast, The Climate Denier's Playbook, a few weeks ago.

Car companies, at least domestic ones, are subverting fuel economy rules by making cars "like trucks" due to a loophole in the code about Light Duty vehicles (SUVs are light duty trucks and hence get around requirements that other, smaller light duty vehicles have imposed on them).

It's the same reason we see bigger and bigger trucks that look like tanks and that you can't see children from. Those bigger vehicles require bigger engines to move, hence more greenhouse emissions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm the city centre where I live, I'm allowed to drive a gigantic petrol 4x4 because it was made in 2021. A friend ours can't take their 2010 petrol Polo in because they'll be charged a congestion charge for their emissions.

A lot of so called environmental legislation is just hidden taxes on the poor masquerading as progressiveness.

Fuck congestion charges and fuck anyone who thinks that the average person can make a dent on this shit when companies and governments around the world continue to funnel more toxic and permanent chemicals into our environment every day than 1000 individuals will in their lifetime.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (56 children)

anyone who buys an SUV is a stupid fucker. there are other types of cars that have just as much unnecessary seat space in them. if you bought an SUV I'm talking directly to you and I'm calling you an idiot to your face. on the internet.

load more comments (56 replies)
[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is almost an "arms race" situation, since when there are so many gigantic SUVs and pickup trucks on the road, driving in a smaller car becomes a lot less safe in case of an accidental collision with a larger, heavier vehicle, and the only way to reduce that risk is to drive a gigantic SUV/pickup truck yourself and further exacerbate the problem.

Having this many large vehicles on the street makes driving on the highway dangerous and unpleasant. LA's traffic is especially terrible.

[–] LoamImprovement@ttrpg.network 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To say nothing of how dangerous it is for pedestrians, especially children. Some of these vehicles have less forward visibility than, not even kidding, a fucking Abrams tank:

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BarterClub@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

And we did this to ourselves to make pickups in the USA not be required to have additional licensing. We did before Ragan if I recall correctly.

Edit

4 replies and they are fixated on Ragan. Didn’t state he was repossable or not. Here is a good video about this. https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=7PsOF-WE8MXX87vX

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] hark@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Do we need another oil price shock to teach people a lesson again?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago

Or just taxing it appropriately, rather than letting people think driving 3 tons of metal 80 miles a day is a normal and responsible thing to do.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

They never last long enough for people to remember the lesson. After a year or two, prices return to 'normal'. Then 2-3 years after that, car makers release fuel efficient vehicles that nobody wants because fuel prices have gone back down.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›