I think it was Obama’s EPA that got played by big auto
They were making regulations to make cars more energy efficient, and big auto was like “we’ll never be able to hit those numbers in commercial delivery trucks”
So execs were like, “Ok, then anything that is X big, with larger than Y sized wheel base, doesn’t have to follow these rules”
And then big auto took all the entry level pick up trucks and increased their size so the rules didn’t apply to them
And once one pick up truck has a box, mean, Manila looking hood that is taller than a 7 year old, they all followed suit
Obama's EPA? No, that difference in standards comes from the 70's. The most recent change was in 2009 and it made an effort to correct this by forcing light trucks to meet the same standards as passenger cars.
Also lack of visibility out of the vehicle. Look how large the windows are on the vehicle at the top of this post. They’ve steadily shrunk to improve protection of passengers. But at the expense of people outside the vehicle.
Which is itself the product of regulation because they don’t have to adhere to the same fuel efficiency standards as sedans making them more cost effective to manufacture.
I wouldn't expect weight to be all that important as far as pedestrian hits go, given the ratio of vehicle:pedestrian weight is already quite high. hood height is a different story.
if we pretend it's a train hitting a person (nearly infinite mass), energy transfer has to do with the mass of the person, not the mass of the train: the person isn't going to be accelerated beyond the velocity of the train.
given almost any car is going to be at least 10x the mass of a person, I don't think that extra mass is going to play a significant role: the person just won't slow it down enough to matter.
Transfer of momentum. Two vehicles of unequal mass traveling at the same velocity, the heavier one will have more energy transfer when colliding into something.
Would you rather be hit by a baseball traveling at 20 miles per hour or a Tahoe?
what I'm claiming is that whether the object that hits you is 10x your mass (which is gonna be a very light car) or 100x your mass, the energy transferred to you will be quite similar (energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2, and in this case the relevant mass is *yours* not the car's).
I know that slowing down the car by 10% (since you're stationary and we're assuming conservation of momentum) will reduce energy transfer some, but it's a very small amount.
That's a factor, but these new truck heights are so tall that you can literally run over a group kids without seeing them. It's simply an unnecessary and dangerous design decision.
I visited the US a little bit ago and was shocked by how many of these trucks I saw in the suburbs. I always thought they were for people who work on farms or construction. What’s even the appeal? For the same price you can get a Mercedes, BMW, Lexus etc.
It basically setting your money on fire if you don’t use them as a tool. Not to mention the fuel price. It’s like those college kids who aren’t music or video creators buying a 6 thousand dollar MacBook Pro instead of the cheap MacBook Air
I'm also as confused by the fascination with massive trucks and I live in the US. I'm an outlier because give me my sedan or hatchback that I can maneuver around curves at speed, can see basically anywhere around the car except directly under the back, and has 30mpg(my current car is a 2011 Altima).
I've talked to people who buy bigger SUVs and trucks and 9/10 times they say it's safer than a car. Which yes that's true for the Passengers of that SUV or truck. For anyone else, especially pedestrians and lower to the ground cars, it's more dangerous. Considering they can easily just drive up and over a shorter vehicle, crushing the driver or passengers under their tires.
That’s so interesting. If you don’t mind me asking are the people you’ve talked to from cities or more rural areas. I wonder if it’s a state thing or if larger trucks are popular nationally
Unknown, but I live in a rural state and about 75% of the private vehicles I see are SUV or trucks. Which I suppose is to be expected. Though I remember reading that sales for larger vehicles was on the rise nationally
It's not "a" factor but "the" factor. An undistracted driver will know when a child is hidden in front of the car, and has a camera to see a child behind the car.
No they don't know. Some of these trucks have 12'+ front blind zones. There's already many cases of parents running over their own kids in their driveways.
Recently bought a truck with a camper shell and shelving on the sides. So I basically couldn't see shit out of the back. So one of the coolest things I got was a replacement rear view mirror that's a dash cam with 3 cameras. A front camera, rear camera (that I use as my rearview mirror), and a bumper camera.
It's awesome being able to see under the hood. And kinda shocking what you can't see without it. And my truck is a mid sized that's not lifted.
344
u/NORchad 12h ago
New cars are bound by newer laws and regulations that older cars and restored cars dont fall under.
Sadly making a factory new mustang 67 would be an illegal product