You're viewing a single thread.
And the one in-front is becoming legally impossible to drive.
Yeah, check it out in a collision, it’s unsafe as shit for the driver.
Because the modern truck has crash safety in mind due to crumple zones and other shit. I bet if a small truck were to be redesigned today with modern collision technology it would be just as safe as the truck without being multiple tons heavy to the point you nearly need a cdl license to drive a behemoth
Kei modernized their truck, it still scores a zero.
Maybe research first…?
did they modernize it for crash safety or did they modernize it so they can stop using parts made 50 years ago which are harder to produce and find now.
Was the crash safety testing done between what would be an expected vehicle it would commonly see in it's life time or was it against an f150 which is basically going to steam roll the thing nomatter how much of a tank it is.
It failed against a bloody car lmfao.
How is it a part difference when they added airbags and other features and it didn’t increase the rating…? In those vehicles the driver is the crumble zone dude lmfao, always have been and that can’t change with their design. Fucking yeesh lmfao.
trucks are also a car?
That car is still probably is at least twice the weight of the kei truck. It's arguably probably not crashing in the correct spot for the crumple zone of the impacting car to work appropriately, and if it is it still weighs significantly more than the kei truck meaning it's significantly less effective.
Perhaps go and find some parameters from this "supposed" test, and post them here so we can oggle at them.
Trucks and cars are vehicles dude… suvs are another distinction, got a source of people calling trucks “cars”? That would be great.
Fucking yikes…..
google the definition of car lmao.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht68-132
I have, apparently you haven’t, every single agency, like the NHTSA, or the CMVSS in Canada, define them as vastly different things….
Again, are you retarded or something?
Kei is a legal classification and not a company???
What does that change? They’ve made them “safer”, it still achieves a zero, and loses against cars as well. It’s like your are trying to avoid the actual conversation here….
But yeah, sure deflect from the actual discussion instead of addressing the meat of the conservation… yeesh you guys are impossible to please aren’t you lmfao.
Also I'd like to point out, I've been doing some digging and I can't seem to find a crash test rating for an actual japanese made kei truck, found one for some kei cars and they did decent (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8liH4qxnBCo) but I can't find any similar videos for trucks
Oh I wasn't trying to add anything to the conversation, I was just confused because you didn't know the second most basic thing about kei cars and yet here you are telling people to do their research before speaking
To be certified as Kei class they need to meet certain standards, it’s a very minor distinction that you seem to be very concerned about for some reason…..
You’re confused since you’re trying to be a pedant…? That’s different lmfao. Usually when you try to be pedantic you don’t go and say you’re confused about extremely simple things! Lmfao. What a rube.
Motorcycles are far less safe and far less utilitarian, but still legal and ubiquitous.
And?
So why are Kei cars being banned, and not motorcycles?
There’s a push for both? What are you talking about?
One’s just more of a priority since the vehicles are more dangerous for pedestrians as well, they’ll both get there if people have their way, you’re naive of out think otherwise.
Both are insanely dangerous for the driver, one is for pedestrians, one they’ll deal with first, than move on more judiciously to the next.
"Kei modernized their truck".
Kei is a style of vehicle. This is like saying, "pickups modernized their truck". So let's try and understand what this misguided individual meant.
"The small vehicle that I saw had poor crash handling". Perhaps, but that's going to be on the individual vehicle, not a class, in the same way some small vehicles handle really well, and some fall over (remember the Mercedes A class, anyone?)
"The style of vehicle that is categorised by kei is impossible to secure, and all of them score zero". I'd love to see evidence of this, if you've got any. A modern kei-style car, the Honda E 2020 has a euro NCAP 4* rating - not the best, but not zero, and that's just the first one I found.
Sadly, kei trucks are not commonly for sale in the UK or US, so I can't find ratings for them. There's no reason they can't be made as safe as other small vehicles, only a market preference for larger vehicles.
Check how much worse it is for the pedestrian to be hit by the pick up truck.
Huh, both are dead from the videos I just watched. Any particular source I should be looking at?
It’s funny that pedestrians aren’t being hit at the same rates as in the US, so it’s like it’s not actually a concern since it doesn’t happen enough…?
What a stupid argument.
So are motorcycles. Maybe we should have a special license requirement for them, just like motorcycles.
My body my choice! Lol
Obviously not the same width or depth though. I think truck culture is dumb, but spreading obviously misleading memes isn't going to help with that.
Go watch a crash test for a Kei truck
Edit: at 0:50 https://youtu.be/roLcNwRi1Sk
And if people were buying massive trucks for their unmatched safety, that would be a point worth making. Unfortunately, there's thousands of cars on the market that are safer than both those options (for both the occupants and the people around them) and some of them can fit just as much in the back.
There is no justification for these trucks. Not safety, not cost, not the environment, not accessibility and not the amount of stuff they can theoretically carry.
The only excuse is "I'm a massive cunt" and people are absolutely right to not accept it.
But we're comparing getting a Kei truck instead of regular truck in this part of the conversation so it actually does make sense to discuss the safety question.
The conversation you want to have is elsewhere in this post.
No, I think OP is making a valid point. If you start with a Kei and just add in modern safety features and nothing else, the size of the vehicle will be a lot closer to the Kei than the other monstrosity.
https://www.wardsauto.com/regulatory/chery-transcab-suzuki-carry-lcvs-flunk-safety-tests
I had already shared a link about modern Kei trucks in another comment, they get a safety rating of zero even with modern safety features.
I’m not saying the modern Kei must be safe. I’m saying if you do things to make it safer while prioritizing small size, you’ll end up with something a lot closer to the size of the Kei than the other car.
you’ll end up with something a lot closer to the size of the Kei than the other car.
They literally just provided that vehicle for you….. still not safe….. because it can’t be done at that size… instead of claiming something, provide an example to show it’s even possible mate.
I'm not the person you were talking to but I'm happy to spoon feed you an answer since it was so trivially easy to find: Behold, a normal sized car with a large carrying capacity and a good safety rating.
Looks like it can hold about a third of the capacity of the truck and a 1/10 of the towing? Yeah they aren’t comparable when you account for what matters. It has a bed is about the lowest a factor when looking for a truck, capacity and towing is what people look for.
But of course people deflect from these and just spout it’s the same bed size like that matters?
Let's be honest, the bed size doesn't matter either since the majority of the trucks you see on the road are carrying nothing more than a LARPing driver -- that's why they keep making them smaller and smaller.
But the numbers you pulled out of your ass weren't part of the criteria when you told us all it "wasn't possible".
Also, I absolutely adore the salty little down votes you give anyone who replies to your comment without agreeing with you, even when you demand a reply. It's like something a grumpy toddler would do.
Smart gets a 5 star crash rating and is smaller than a. Kei truck. It can be done. Get Smart to make a pickup, literally just stick a bed on the back of the thing.
because it can’t be done at that size
it literally can be? You just don't need to crash it into a freight train. The reason most large vehicles are so much safer is because you are significantly more likely to kill the other person in a car crash, especially if they're in a smaller car, and if they're not, then both you and the other party will experience significantly more impact forces compared to using a smaller car, which fun fact, makes surviving crashes a whole lot easier.
I’m not saying at that size! I’m saying that whatever size increase you need to make a reasonably safe pickup would be closer to the small extreme (the Kei) than the large extreme.
Then you end up with the smaller trucks we already have on the market or a Maverick that has a bed so small that it's not that useful for actual truck stuff...
Permanently Deleted
Sounds like cunt behavior to me.
no it definitely makes you a cunt, brake checking and cutting off people makes you a dickhead
I mean modern kei trucks have airbags and safety features. They just have to buy 25 year or older to use the classic care rule.
And it still achieves a zero rating with those “features” dude…. Its almost like it’s size is why it’s dangerous or something….. they added modern features, and its still not safe… huh… why’s that…?
GM just announced a 6 Billion dollar stock buyback this month.
If crash tests results were the main reasons for people to buy these shitty pavement princesses, Volvo would have buried the rest of the industry decades ago.
The truth is most cars are great these days even if some brands are ahead, but there's no reason to want completely unsafe cars on the road.
But nowhere near the same driver comfort, crash test rating, towing capacity, top speed, tongue weight, or max load weight. Bed length alone is a poor measurement for a truck's usefulness.
So is using those other measurements as a reason to justify owning a truck for most people. The Apes (Italian) serve a purpose, not a daily driver. Living in Houston I observed American sized trucks carrying single occupants with the occasional truck towing something once a month. That’s it, none of these people needed a truck for a daily driver which is what that pic is all about.
So you expect someone to have multiple vehicles? Yeah because that makes sense…,
No, I expect people to rent a truck/trailer for the few times a year they need to actually haul things, and own a more sensible daily driver for the other 360 days a year.
Obviously this doesn't apply to people that own trucks and haul things on very regular basis, but those people are the vast, vast minority of people who own trucks.
dude literally every truck owner that uses a truck for work that i've talked to has multiple trucks, one for work, and one for daily.
Please stop talking.
It's called buy a fucking car and rent a truck for the one time a year you actually use it like a truck you brain-dead fuck.
I use my truck every day for work, as well as drop my kids off at school.
Working parents…. What a novel idea….
I can’t afford to have two (four, wife as well…..) vehicles, let alone the place to park them, as well as the time to go home and change vehicles, not to mention showering and clothes change so I don’t get the other vehicle dirty…. Before getting my kids after work.
It’s almost like these trucks do exist for a specific use or something… it’s funny my braindead truck brain can think of this scenario, but your brain can’t..? How fucking retarded does that make you…? Fucking lol.
You can just drive your pavement princess, you don't have to justify it to the internet
You're making a lot of assumptions there, hass.
Stop driving around a penis enhancer and I will stop making assumptions about the size of your junk
You're an idiot. I never said I drive one of those things. Dumb ass.
Sorry about the micropenis
Until you want to carry something long.
damn i didn't know my 3 sheets of 4x8 plywood required all of those specifications in order to be hauled home.
And I can’t legally drive my kids around in one of those, so yeah it’s like they are different trucks for different purposes or something…. I don’t know…. Maybe…?
In my opinion, it should be illegal to drive any vehicle so tall you can't see kids in front of you anywhere near a school zone. Unless it's a fire truck or other service vehicle, for obvious reasons.
I fucking hate what's happened to hood shape on modern pickups. You mention firetrucks, but most of those that I've seen are cabover and have great visibility.
Just give me an 80's square body shape and ride height with a modern drive train.
Someone posted the accidents stats and Canada is way lower than the USA even though buying habits are the same, so trucks aren't the issue from that perspective.
It’s funny, kids aren’t getting run down in school zones in other places, we don’t let them run indiscriminately across the road. They’re taught to walk to a a crosswalk to cross the road.
In fact, lots of places ban school buses using flashing red lights inside urban areas since it’s more dangerous, it’s only allowed on rural roads.
...we don’t let them run indiscriminately across the road. They’re taught to walk to a a crosswalk to cross the road.
Really? You're actually going to defend this classist, corporate-astroturfing bullshit, the theft of the public street away from the People for the exclusive benefit of irresponsible drivers?
You’re arguing with a car brain lol, they lack the intelligence to understand.
It’s kind of hilarious how North Koreans live in this fucking insane societal bubble where they simultaneously think they’re the best nation in the world while living in complete shit conditions that would appall the rest of the developed world.
Kicking your kids out at 18, sending your elders to fucking abuse camps to die, can’t even afford to have a baby, let alone buy them a car or education. Don’t even think about housing or healthcare. Retirement? LOL. Cops can just fucking kill you at any time with no consequences.
Oh sorry typo, I meant Americans in that second paragraph.
This dumbass is too stupid to see that I’m not American and I’m bashing the people lmfao. What an idiot.
Gonna go out on a limb and guess you're an Albertan, close enough.
Yeah and oddly enough this isn’t a problem where jaywalking is legal like the EU, so what point do you think that’s making here….?
What's funny is that we have the same buying habits in Canada so maybe the issue isn't trucks after all
Yeah no Americans would rather blame vehicles than take ownership for their own actions.
Yeah the amount of people who think the problem exists outside the US is astonishing.
Flashing red lights in urban areas is dangerous since people don’t follow the rules and it provides a false sense of security to the kids.
They’re literally lining the kids up and know people don’t follow the rules, it’s silly they haven’t thought to adjust the laws yet. Places in Canada did, decades ago.
Believe it or not, some people don't bother to stop at a crosswalk if they can't see anyone crossing.
Is that an issue? You can’t see the side of the road? Or a kid that’s already started crossing since you are well away…?
I’ve never heard of this issue before, got a source? Or are you just not paying attention to the road while driving…?
Mind you, we also have well established crosswalks that are lit up, and teach people to use them, so that’s probably why it’s not an issue here…? It seems like a uniquely US issue.
The other way a giant truck can solve your "driving my kids around" problem is via the massive blind spot in front. If you're impressed how much you can fit in the back, wait until you see how many tiny little skulls fit between the road and your line of sight.
I’ve literally never had an issue and I’ve never heard of that being an issue. Do you not look at the road when you’re driving or something?
Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?
Here you go bud.
Latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that in 2020 there were over 500 deaths and more than 10,000 “frontover” injuries due to forward-moving vehicles. A frontover injury happens when a vehicle moving forward runs over a person because of not seeing them, usually due to a blind spot.
And a disproportionate number of frontover victims are children, as these accidents mostly take place in driveways and parking lots. According to Kids and Cars, about 81% of victims are 6 years and under.
Got anything from anywhere other than the US where this problem solely exists…? Because your local stats mean nothing in a global conversation.
this isn't a global conversation? At least right now it isn't this is entirely localized to the US because the US has the most of these large vehicles lmao
Canada… Mexico… Australia…
Your ignorance is showing.
i almost mentioned australia, but australia is just now getting an influx of these trucks, they're becoming more popular.
Mexico, well uh, mexico has cartels, so i feel like that's completely redundant and not worth mentioning, the statistics you could even gather from mexico are probably more significantly swayed by the existence of the cartels than they are from the increase in danger of the truck tbh.
Mexico is also a completely different place, so i would have to research into mexico specifically to know more about it and how it would be a problem.
unfortunately for you i live in america and do go outside, so i have a rather reliable viewpoint there. And that's what im talking about.
as for canada, canada has a lot of logging and oil industry so it's probably related to that, most of the populated parts of canada are coast line, the norther border and farther north are generally sparse and has a considerably lower population than most of the US. It's just a little bit different from the US in most regards that would make comparing the data directly much harder.
Seems like you might have more ignorance than me, considering you forgot the entire rest of the world, where as you literally just referenced the entirety of "north america" maybe you're just american pilled, but north america is not global, it's north america.
Sure thing bud. Also, how far are you going to move the goalposts?
The bottom line? These vehicles are not fit for European cities.
They are dangerous for several reasons, namely because their front ends are frequently higher than the average height of young children, making it difficult for drivers to spot some of the most vulnerable road users. Moreover, pick-up trucks such as these are more difficult to manoeuvre than standard vehicles, a challenge only made worse by the size of many European city streets.
Therefore, it should hardly come as a surprise that these vehicles have been shown to kill and injure road users more frequently than ordinary automobiles when they get into collisions. According to Pedro Homem Gouveia, Coordinator of POLIS WG on Safety & Security, it would be more fitting to call vehicles of this dimension "dangerous road users."
I followed every hyperlink, and there’s no stats.
EU hasn’t had an increase in pedestrian deaths like the US has, where’s the stats…?
In fact, the hyperlink that alludes it should be about stats, just goes to a LinkedIn type page for the person they are talking about…. What do you think that op Ed would be proving here?
Further, large trucks and SUVs are involved in more pedestrian accidents (and are more lethal in those accidents) than cars.
Got anything from anywhere other than the US where this problem solely exists…? Because your local stats mean nothing in a global conversation.
I’ve literally never had an issue and I’ve never heard of that being an issue
Well fuck me dead, that's a shocking plot twist. The guy who responds to every comment with "spoonfeed me this widely available information" hasn't heard of something.
Do you not look at the road when you’re driving or something?
It's basic geometry, which was apparently too much to ask of you. Maybe we should have started at "object permanence" and established that things continue existing, even when your vision of them is blocked.
Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?
Most people probably just assumed you were aware of this extremely common knowledge and that if you weren't, you were capable of being a big brave boy and typing "pickup truck blind spot" into a search engine by yourself.
But nope, you'd rather accidentally admit that you don't know basic safety information about your own car.
Well fuck me dead, that's a shocking plot twist. The guy who responds to every comment with "spoonfeed me this widely available information" hasn't heard of something.
Like everyone else not understanding that using red lights inside of urban areas cause most of these issues? And this issue only exists in the US…? And not anywhere else?
I love how all the data is from the US, it’s literally not an issue anywhere else… fucking lmfao. Don’t provide your local data in a global conversation, why do you think that’s important…??
Oh look, the goalposts have moved again and apparently outside the US, people in giant trucks have xray vision that let's them see through solid metal.
I'm not engaging any further. You're a fucking idiot, driving around in a fucking idiot's car, and you've already done more than I ever could to prove it.
the reason they mention the US is because the US has significantly more of these trucks, it's not even shifting goalposts, it's literally cherrypicking the data to make it look better than it is.
The goalposts haven’t moved, they’ve always been global, I don’t live in the US so why the fuck would I be talking about the US…? The meme could apply to multiple countries, even mine, but we don’t have this issue of kids getting killed in school zones, nor this campaign to get smaller vehicles, since it’s not an issue when driving, maybe the decent pedestrian infrastructure helps, but who knows, the problem only exists in one place.
Lmfao, give your head a shake, the world doesn’t evolve around your country, I know you all want to, but there’s an entire world out there.
I’m sorry your country doesn’t care about your safety, and you want to blame vehicles instead of your own abilities while driving, or make shit safer of you want to stare at your phone while driving. Yeah it’s not illegal to use your cellphone while behind the wheel in how many states….? Maybe that’s the reason for these collisions that only happen in the US…? No… can’t be the laws letting people be negligent… no…. Can’t be… must be something we can blame than ourselves… hmmmmhmmm….
I'm not American but don't worry, we're all used to your opinions being ignorant of basic facts.
Can anyone provide anything that says this is a real concern…? Because people keep saying it, and no one wants to prove it. So strange… should be easy, no? So why can’t anyone do it?
the likelihood of large trucks hitting pedestrians is substantially higher, and the likelihood of those impacts being deadly is even higher than that.
Even ignoring statistics here, basic static analysis of the factors at play would argue that there should be an expected increase in these stats. For one thing you have significantly less immediate LOS meaning it's not incredibly apparent what is directly in front of you which should make it quite obvious as to why they're more dangerous, especially at lower speeds. You feel much safer in them due to their size, so you are more likely to be paying less attention or none at all, assuming that other people will notice your massive pavement princess coming down the road.
The front of the vehicle is a literal wall, so the chance that you impact someone, and drag them across the road for a significant distance, or even just run them over outright is significantly higher, because low hoodline vehicles often just throw people up on their hoods, an f150 is significantly less likely to do this, considering how much higher off the ground the hoodline is already, especially when you add in children. It also has considerably more mass, meaning it's going to impart significantly more energy into a pedestrian, even at low speeds. A lot of these trucks are also lifted and stanced (or as i liked to refer to them "tonked" because they look like tonka trucks) which means if you do impact a pedestrian, you're likely to stuff them straight into your front suspension and driveline, which is sure to cause all kinds of fun problems.
So why are rates only going up in the US…? Other places have these same trucks and don’t have the same issues.
I appreciate you not providing sources from outside the US to support it’s not a US only problem. Every article people provide is about the US, other places have these trucks, why don’t they have the same issues?
Why in this so hard for you guys to find? And why is every answer skirting around the actual question? Lmfao.
probably a combination of the fact that there are substantially more trucks in the US compared to places in the EU for example where the statistics are probably significantly closer to "margin of error" levels of accuracy.
The US also has substantially more people driving, substantially more road, substantially less skilled drivers one could argue, though i would argue we have a much wider range of skilled drivers, than somewhere like germany for example, where they have a might tighter though higher sitting range of skilled drivers.
edit: a lot of these trucks outside the US are likely to be work vehicles exclusively i imagine, where as in the US they're primarily work and personal, though i sure do see a lot more personal trucks on the road than i do work trucks on the road.
In short, other places don't have these issues because other places simply have a lot less vehicles, and a lot less traffic, as well as a lot less of these trucks per capita compared to the US which is just statistically what you expect to see in the results.
Dangerous vehicles are really only dangerous when in large numbers because otherwise they are quite literally a statistical anomaly. It's why old vehicles are still allowed on the road in the US even though they're less safe, there just isn't enough of them for it to be statistically significant.
Why did you mention the EU? What about Canada? Mexico? Australia? Where these vehicles actually exist, but the numbers aren’t the same as the Us…?
Canada is basically identical to the US in every metric you mentioned, yet the stats aren’t the same. You keep trying to find other reasons why, when I’ve already explained it.
go have a look at my other comment in your inbox :)
I did, all those other countries haven’t had an increase in pedestrian rates… and you’ve provided nothing to support this claim…. it’s almost like the size of the vehicle isn’t a factor at all or something… but hey let’s keep blaming the vehicles when 20 other proven points have been pointed out…
Fucking yeesh, you’re about the stupidest one in this chain trying to argue lmfao.
all those other countries haven’t had an increase in pedestrian rates… and you’ve provided nothing to support this claim…
and i don't have to as i don't live in those other states.
You haven't provided me with any info as to why they haven't risen in other places, but have risen in the US so arguably, you're just factually incorrect by fallacy of logical reasoning!
Fucking yeesh, you’re about the stupidest one in this chain trying to argue lmfao.
Fuck yo kids, little shits spoiled by shit parenting.
