• bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    At least trucks are useful for farmers and construction workers. What you need to focus on is making your transit network better so nobody needs a small car at all, and these trucks are only used by the few people who need a big truck.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 day ago

      These are actually useful, working vehicles appropriate for European streets:

      This, is not:

    • arandomthought@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      You mean serious farmers and construction workers are better off with an american style “truck” (60% comfy family and passanger space, 40% bed for your construction stuff) than with a van or a “classic” truck (two seats and a big bed for all your stuff)?

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        That will depend on what they are doing. a lot of construction crews need a seat for everyone on the crew, and the small bed is enough. The reason trucks cabs have got much larger as we no longer accept people riding in the bed of the truck, or in front with no seat belt. This is overall for the better, but either the truck needs to be longer or your need a shorter bed.

    • huppakee@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 day ago

      these trucks are only used by the few people who need a big truck

      Did I miss your sarcasme or are you not connected to reality?

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        These truck should only be used by the few people who need a big truck. That is a small minority of people.

        • Desdinova@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Right. They should only be used by the few people that need them. But the reality is there are a lot of people with no business owning a big truck driving them in places that big trucks have no business being in

          • bluGill@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Back to my point: fix tranit so more people don’t think they need to drive. Small cars are still vastly more dangeious than transit.

            • percent@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              22 hours ago

              I’ve known plenty of people in southern US states who drive trucks for purposes that don’t require trucks. They’ll never choose public transit over their trucks, no matter how good it is.

              …Though, realistically, that’s not exclusively a truck issue. If one can just step outside and get into their own car and be immediately en route to their destination, on my their own schedule/convenience, it’ll be hard to convince them to choose a less convenient mode of transportation.

              • bluGill@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Are you sure they wouldn’t use transit? Or is it just all the transit they have ever seen is so bad they wouldn’t use it and they have no vision of what could be - but if somehow you built they great transit they would use it?

                • percent@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  I’m very confident that they wouldn’t. However, I suppose it’s possible that I’ve never seen transit that could be so good that people would choose it over their own vehicles. What would that look like?

                  I suppose a few of them might do it if there’s free coffee on board (or beer, but that would be chaos lol) and it ran on VERY convenient schedules.

                  People in the US place a LOT of value in convenience, so the public transit system would have to offer something that outweighs that. Do you know of any examples?

                  • bluGill@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    Convience is needed. That means it is not more than 5 minutes from when you get to the stop until you are moving. It means you can get to a lot of places in a short time. It doesn’t mean cofiee - bring your own, or stop by a coffee shop and get on the next but/train which isn’t that long of a wait.

                    the above would cost a lot of money - but it is much less than people spend on cars.

    • tgf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The only people who can afford these 100k€ rams and f150s are rich assholes. Farmers drive around in their toyota hilux or ford ranger that is small in compariaon to these massive american trucks and all of the construction workers use vans.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 day ago

      farmers use tractors. construction workers use vans. nobody here uses big trucks.

      • percent@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Not the same seating capacity though. Also, it’s hard to tell, but it seems like there’s a difference in bed widths?

        Edit: Could someone help me understand the downvotes? The seating capacity is just an objective fact, so was it the speculative difference in bed width? Or something else? (Sometimes I have difficulty understanding people)

          • percent@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            This may sound dumb, but I honestly don’t know how to answer that, lol. The first answer that comes to mind is “for passengers to sit in,” but that just seems too obvious. Is there more to the question?

            • stray@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I only ever see smaller trucks here; it doesn’t seem to be a problem to only seat two people. Don’t the American trucks have more seating because they’re doubling as family cars?

              • percent@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                The weight capacity of the truck on the right is much higher than the light-duty truck on the left. Jobs that require trucks of that capacity tend to require more workers, so it makes sense to seat more passengers.

                The truck on the left might be more comparable to something like the Ford Ranger (the older generations). Many of those were single-cab (i.e. no back seats) models, but some of them would have two tiny, uncomfortable “jump seats” as back seats.

                You’re not completely wrong though. I have known some workers who would also use their trucks as family cars if it was their only vehicle.