Theory: people don't have as many/as close of friends as they used to.
When I need a truck, I have a friend I can borrow it from. When I need a van, I have a friend I can borrow it from. Otherwise my Honda Fit does everything I need it to. Growing up my family borrowed cars all of the time.
But outside of my circle of friends, I've noticed most people these days don't have friends/family they feel comfortable asking favors from. Everyone wants to be self-reliant, so everyone wants a car that can do everything for them. Ironically even for hauling friends around in.
For me, it's another extension of the larger "bowling alone" trend.
I just rent a truck on the rare occasions I need one. Uhaul is $20/day plus a dollar a mile, which is incredibly cheap compared to buying one if you only need it occasionally.
That's what me and all of my friends do in Sweden (at least the ones who don't own a work van), whenever we need to transport a lot of stuff we pop by a nearby gas station with rental vans, they usually have some different sizes (even small box trucks), rent one out for a period and be done with it.
I can't fathom having a large vehicle just for the sake of the odd trip that requires one, completely understand if you need one for work, for anything else it's just much cheaper to rent one when needed.
> The law of averages says there are between just 1.2 and 1.6 people sitting in most cars daily, with the average distance covered hovering around the 20-mile mark.
Sure but two days a week I need to transport 3-4 people at once, once a month I need to travel 30+ miles to visit relatives, and a couple times a year I need to travel 200+ miles for a road trip. Would it really be better if I owned two cars?
EDIT: Personally, I think this solution (micro cars) is less optimal than owning larger cars (for infrequent, one-off trips) + better public transportation (for frequent, predictable trips).
Not an attack on your comment at all, or your choices.
I totally get it :-)
But the thinking around needing a car that does-it-all is a problem that needs to be resolved!
My Australian perspective:
Even if we ignored the climate crisis, our cities and metropolitan areas are not designed to deal with the influx of massive cars and trucks!
Australian roads are now seeing the huge RAM Trucks from the US!
I see RAM trucks on the school run, with one of two kids in them, then the parent drives it to work. The RAM trucks are spotless. No mud, no dir, and not a scratch. Never done a days towing or work in the Trucks life.
We don't have the road width or parking space capacity for these RAM size trucks.
At least the massive popularity of the Tesla Model Y, and lately BYD, over here gives us some hope that when people are given choices, people will choose compact-ish efficiency!
And then there is the climate problem...
Essentially, my belief is that we are all going to have to swallow the hard pill and make unpalatable choices. We cannot individually own cars that do it all. We are just going to have to inconvenience ourselves and rent a Van or Truck for when we need it, or god forbid, use a train or bus! ;-)
Let's say you live in a city, so you don't have much room, but you require a car. And let's say your needs are scattered. Sometimes you need a van, sometimes a pickup. Sometimes you need to bring four people. You need sliding rear doors. You also won't pay more than $5000 for it.
Most people would say you're insane. But I understand you, and I know what you need: this 1991 Daihatsu HiJet Deck Van.
> But the thinking around needing a car that does-it-all is a problem that needs to be resolved!
Actually rather than a car that does it all, I think of a car primarily for filling in the long tail of trips while public transportation handles the most common trips.
And to be clear I definitely don't advocate for extra large ram/escalade style cars here, my point is a 2 seat car that sits inbetween a car and a bicycle and is primarily for commuting is a wasteful and impractical idea.
Any kind of "share" program inevitably will wind up becoming "I have to compete for this resource when I want to use it, which means sometimes I won't be able to access it when I need it"
So that's a big fat no from me
You can share access to important resources all you want. I'm not playing that game
Share programs are not meant to be the main source of anything.
But here is another idea: what if the US were able to build an alternative system for transporting more people efficiently? Then the need for cars would be reduced and consequently no fight over one specific type of resource.
Maybe they could call it, I don't know, mass transit...
Are you really gonna hold up flying as an example of a "share" that works? Flying is notoriously a miserable experience, between security, delays, cramped seating...
Yeah, I mean, it'll get you to where you're going but it's not really an enjoyable experience.
Right, my bad. I'm just tired of people trying to justify having ridiculously large SUVs or trucks, so I assumed that the idea of "small car" would be the traditional 4-seater hatchback.
We could make really long cars that lots of people can fit on. Maybe some of those cars could drive on special low-friction roads and be powered by overhead electrical lines.
Restrictions for cars to enter the city, extraorbitant price from parking after third hour and many other things to discourage use of cars - isn't it a hostile to cars?
> Only low emision cars allowed, parking is allowed for 3h only, something like 4 eur per hour.
This is not being hostile to cars. This is to avoid external costs being pushed to non-owners. Would you say that restaurants are "hostile to smokers" because people are not allowed to smoke indoors in public spaces?
> not all of US is dependent on personal car, you shouldn't talk that way either.
With the except of NYC and parts of New England (the cities that were founded before cars were a thing), it is.
Nimbus EV (https://nimbusev.com/) is working on a 2 person electric vehicle that's narrow enough to lane-split.
Large vehicles serve a few purposes including: signaling status/wealth/power and having the size and mass to favor the occupants in collisions with smaller vehicles.
It may be counterintuitive, but convertibles are usually heavier than coupes, due to the added bracing and stiffening that compensates for the lack of a roof.
Miatas are pretty small, but I agree GP is right to lament the lack of lightweight vehicles in the US. I've read the average European car weighs ~1000 lbs less than its American counterpart. I personally feel gross driving around in heavy vehicles, like are people really so insecure they feel the need to haul all this extra mass around, and ignore the repercussions at scale?
Have you seen how people drive? Yes, the extra mass is to protect you in a crash. EVs are the heaviest of all, but not to increase their crash ratings.
Isn't the exactly same issue with big houses? After living in a city my whole life (apartments), I feel houses are too big for regular families. Do a 4 people family need two floors? No, but if they can afford it...
I understand that some things are not optimal, but if you want to live otpimziing everything then we aren't beings anymore, and just bots...
This sort of thing is just propaganda for the poors, those who can will have big cars and houses in the city anyway.
The only non-financial downside to having a larger vehicle is occasionally struggling to find parking, and even that is mostly a non issue outside of city centres.
When I need a truck, I have a friend I can borrow it from. When I need a van, I have a friend I can borrow it from. Otherwise my Honda Fit does everything I need it to. Growing up my family borrowed cars all of the time.
But outside of my circle of friends, I've noticed most people these days don't have friends/family they feel comfortable asking favors from. Everyone wants to be self-reliant, so everyone wants a car that can do everything for them. Ironically even for hauling friends around in.
For me, it's another extension of the larger "bowling alone" trend.