I hate that I will likely buy a larger car than my current Corolla just so I can feel slightly safer. I don't need it, I don't really want it, but given the adversarial nature of other drivers, I feel I would be putting myself unnecessarily at risk if I don't.
There is also safety in a more maneuverable car. I went from a pickup truck to a Fusion (hybrid), and I've been able to steer clear of situations easier in it than the bigger truck. Also since I can't see past the SUV in front of me, I tend to back off and give more following space. If that causes other cars to try to cut in the open spot in front of me, then that causes me to back off further where I end up in a pocket behind the pack.
Also there is the concept of "safe enough". If you are on an expressway, what are the chances of a head-on accident? And although getting t-boned at an intersection may often be the other driver's fault, being hyper-vigilant can help there too (although it gets exhausting constantly looking out for the other driver).
What I'm really hoping for is that some minimal level of driver automation features become standard -- things like emergency braking, lane assist that yells at you when your driving deteriorates (so drivers realize they are getting to sleepy to drive), etc. The automatic braking alone would have prevented the last three accidents I witnessed in this past year (the most recent was a 5-car chain reaction that was most likely caused by a driver staring at a cell phone instead of the long line of stopped traffic in front of them).
Funny thing is you can do this by buying a new Corolla, which is probably much larger than your current one. Car models have gotten so much bigger over the last several decades; current Corollas are bigger than older Camrys, Civics are bigger than old Accords, etc.
It's actually a problem for those of us that actually use their garage for parking, as opposed to storing more junk. Most 2-car garages are around 20x20 or usable parking space or less. Even newer houses skimp on garages, because it doesn't count for square footage, and you don't really notice when it's empty.
2 modern cars, especially a mid-sized SUV or minivan, aren't going to work well with 20' of width. Even the length is problematic for clearance and being able to open the back liftgate with the garage door(s) down. A large SUV or pickup, forget it.
For a recent example, the previous gen Honda HR-V was 171” long, the new one is 180”. That brings it to about 2” shorter than last year’s 182” Honda CR-V, but the new model of that grows to 185” long. Every time a car gets redesigned it gets bigger.
Recently disappointed with the Chevy Equinox EV announcement, it takes the name of their small SUV but makes it 11” longer. Still at least impressed by the target price, but wish it were smaller.
And you’d say “Oh well they have to put the batteries somewhere,” meanwhile on the same day Jeep announced their Avenger EV. It’s a proper subcompact with 250 mile range, but it won’t come to the US because apparently no one here wants small cars.
Also waiting for more info on Mazda’s plug-in hybrid models. The CX-60 was announced for Europe, but we have to wait for a special fat version (CX-70) for the USA.
Overall disappointed with the car manufacturers lately, and with the consumer spending habits that have pushed things this way. Would greatly increased taxes on large vehicles reduce it? Maybe, but then you’re basically saying “it’s OK to kill pedestrians as long as you’re rich.”
Correction, Equinox EV is only 7" longer than the previous one, not 11". Not great, but not as bad as I thought.
Interestingly, the Equinox has previously been an exception to the "Cars always get bigger" rule. First gen was 188.8", second gen shaved off an inch to 187.8", third gen moved it from midsize to compact at 183.1.
EV version will put that back up around 190, back into the midsize segment and larger than the original gas version.
Heh, I bought a 2004 Subaru Forester XT. Nice size, easy to park, easy to travel with dog and kid, etc. Went to buy a newer one and it was MUCH larger, felt like a boat, much taller, much longer, etc. Turns out the crosstrek (their smallest crossover) is now nearly the exact size of my Forester XT. I'd have bought one, but it was depressingly slow.
Sadly Subaru seems to have abandoned the practical small/sport SUV. The WRX wagon ... killed off. The crosstrek, nowhere close to sporty. The Forester nowhere close to small.
Indeed, I used to drive a 2001 Forester, and the new ones look insanely large. (I haven't owned a car in the last 12 years, and whenever I rent a car I try to get an "economy"-sized car but usually end up with something much bigger).
Well I have a 2013 Hatch. 1.4t GVM. Up a few hundred kg from the 2003 Sedan I had prior at 1.1t GVM. The vehicles I'm regularly driving with/around/near SUVs that are almost an entire ton heavier at approx 2200kg. Driven by people that have the observational skills of an ex-parrot.
Saw my first Hummer EV this week. 9000 lbs and 0-60 in 3 seconds. My best hope for not dying is that they drive carefully because they don’t want to dent their $100,000 mall crawler. Yikes.
It would be interesting to know how car insurance companies treat such vehicles. The likelihood that the occupant dies (or even sustains any injuries) is probably quite low. But the likelihood that it does damage to people, structures, or other vehicles would seem to be quite high (including the risk that there are issues with the enormous battery, which have yet to be discovered because it is a new, low-volume vehicle).
In Europe you need an advance license to drive a car that exceeds a certain tonnage (3,500 kg I believe; or at least that is my license). So for certain markets there is a hard limits. I don’t think a Corolla will ever exceed that as that would kind of ruin its whole marketing.
You need a special license to drive anything with an airbrake which most semi trucks have. Also a special license for more than some weight (18000lbs IIRC). Of your semi avoids both of those I guess you are okay, but that is tricky.
Yeah this was terrifying for me when I had to move with a family. Smaller trucks were too small. Next move I'll pay people to drive those monsters or take two trips.
Another option is new smaller models get introduced and begin their own lifecycle of bloating. For example the Honda HRV is roughly the same size and price point as the CRV was originally.
I think that something is electrification and the limits on energy that comes with that. Aerodynamics makes for smaller is better. However the weight of the car is up significantly.
Which definition of "bigger" are we concerned about?
The average American is also growing larger with each new revision.
"Large" American people probably won't be comfortable crammed into a 90s Chevy Geo. I think such people deserve to be comfortable, is it not a basic human right / dignity?
There's a disconnect here: why does a bigger human need a radically larger car frame? There's plenty of internal space for a larger seat. You'll note that we haven't made airframes correspondingly larger over the last 30 years.
I'm not big but I've had injuries which have hindered my mobility. Ever tried to get into a low subcompact when you can't bend as easily? The height of the seat, the height of the A-pillar/roof, the width of the door, and how far the door open, all massively affect getting into and out of a vehicle.
These are all reasonable cases to expect accommodation for! The part that I'm not convinced on is that said accommodation needs to take the form of an absurdly large SUV or pickup truck.
I’m not sure that’s a great example since airline seats have become so small many obese people simply are effectively prohibited from flying. Even business seating has contracted over the years so paying a kings ransom still isn’t enough for such people to gain freedom of mobility. (Cue the Ayn Randian self control HN argument every time someone says something marginally accommodating of the obese).
Being not/being able to fly commercial airlines is certainly not "freedom of mobility". If that were the case, then no one had freedom of mobility before the Wright brothers, which is absurd.
I'm not going to make that Ayn Rand-style argument. I think it's disgusting that people stoop to that.
My point with the plane example was that we could fit larger seats in planes, without any particular trouble. The reason airlines don't is because it cuts into their profitability: requiring an obese person to purchase higher-classed tickets to accommodate themselves is much better for business than actually having to accommodate them with a wider seat.
Once upon a time (before some significant weight loss) I was an obese weekly business traveler. I used to fly southwest as a preference if I could because their policy was to charge for two seats if you needed a belt extender. You would get priority seating and a little card to place on the second seat that designated the seat as unavailable (no assigned seats on SWA). If the flight wasn’t full, they would refund the second seat.
I always felt that was a reasonable accommodation.
Having to accommodate them with wider seats means fewer seats in the plane, which means much lower profitability, or higher seat prices for normal-size people. There's only so much room on an airplane. Customers consistently choose flights based on seat price, so of course airlines are going to optimize to keep prices as low as possible to get customers. For people who prefer comfort over price, there's higher-class seats.
If Americans don't like this, maybe they should try losing weight so they aren't so much larger than everyone else in the world.
I don't think we could fit wider seats into airplanes unless you mean fewer wider seats than current seats. In such case it's not just about profitability (airlines aren't known to have huge profit margins anyway) but about travel getting more expensive for everyone.
I might not go full Ayn Rand but making things more expensive for everyone to accommodate fat people is a line I am comfortable defending.
I'm sure it is an international issue. At the same time, I was recently visiting Switzerland, didn't see any particularly obese and definitely no morbidly obese folks. Ymmv.
Also, the Swiss diet is interesting. Pretty carb heavy with morning pastries, and bread, and cheese throughout the day.
They also bike and spend time outside a lot, when the weather is amenable.
Maybe part of our problem in the USA comes down to availability of cost effective, convenient, semi-healthy options on average- Way too much preservative-heavy calorie festivals day in and day out?
I'm not a dietician, but the state of affairs stateside is without a doubted tragic and sad.
> Also, the Swiss diet is interesting. Pretty carb heavy with morning pastries, and bread, and cheese throughout the day.
That's their culinary culture, not their daily diet lol.
Growing up American, we have a looser food regulations, but also our education system probably doesn't help. I ate a lot of weird rectangle pizzas in elementary school. In High School Health class, we learned about healthy eating, watched Food Inc and Supersize Me, but I don't think we were consistently introduced to healthy eating habits. They made it look really uncool, fuck that, I want gushers and gatorade.
In defense of portion sizes, in the US it is a cultural thing to not finish your portion at restaurant and get the rest packed up for the next day. That explains the double portions
But when the stock truck next to you at a light has a higher hood that your roof it makes an impression on you.
A quick google shows a stock F150 at ~51” and it’s hardly the tallest. A RAM seems to be 58”. I know they’re adding pedestrian cams to the front of some trucks just so drivers can see if they’re about to hit someone at a light.
Sedans seem to be in the 55-57” range. They feel flat out unsafe at times.
Yeah I'm thinking about getting rid of my Charger and getting a large pickup truck (probably EV hear in a few years, if it's even possible). I drove a corolla at one point as well and traded up to the Charger (power/feature wise)
