Lots of new Ram trucks rotting on dealer lots it seems

[4WD]

This thread is rotting faster than Rams …

 

[21_6.7f450]

And Chevys...lol

 

[hemioiler]

What do you mean? Look what the IIHS says about trucks vs small cars:
“Although pickups are also less of a threat than they used to be, in 2013-16 they were still 2½ times as likely to kill the driver of a car they crashed into, compared with a car colliding with another car (Monfort & Nolan, 2019).”


Which is I am surprised you responded the way you did. I made it clear people should be free to choose whatever they want because I also don’t want less freedom at the expense of safety. But the best use of freedom is the considerate use of it. Sometimes people use freedom as an excuse to be rude to their neighbors.

but to be clear, I’d rather be the only guy driving a Corolla in a sea of excursions than in a lake of corollas because the government forced us to.

My point is, when you take your view a little step further you will find people that hate sports cars (dangerous, high powered, completely unpractical). Then you will find guys that say cars (in cities) should be banned. Then you will find guys that want to ban cars altogether. Etc.

Why should one get to decide that large cars are not acceptable but sports cars are fine? Or why are cars with 1 person allowed instead of filling them up with at least two?

You did say people should be free to choose, buy you also said you'd like to change culture. Those are conflicting statements.

 

[Kurtatron]

You did say people should be free to choose, buy you also said you'd like to change culture. Those are conflicting statements.

I never said I wanted to change culture personally. That’s different than desiring it change.

Also, I think you should be open minded about the difference between freedom and choice. If a culture at large has the freedom to buy big cars but choose not to because it’s not a cultural value, what’s the problem with that?

Junk food isn’t good for the human body.
It would be better if people stopped eating junk food.
Should it be banned? No.
Would it be better if people abstained from junk food and ate more healthy?
Yes.

That is my point. Yes buying a big vehicles is not a health thing, but It’s just that buying a huge vehicle puts others at risk, rather than the owner.

Just because I want the culture to change is not equivalent to wanting to restrict freedoms. There are real and substantial downsides to high proportions of a society buying large vehicles.

If the culture never changes, I’ll just deal with it. There are bigger issues going on in the world than big vehicles everywhere.

 

[hemioiler]

I never said I wanted to change culture personally. That’s different than desiring it change.

Also, I think you should be open minded about the difference between freedom and choice. If a culture at large has the freedom to buy big cars but choose not to because it’s not a cultural value, what’s the problem with that?

Junk food isn’t good for the human body.
It would be better if people stopped eating junk food.
Should it be banned? No.
Would it be better if people abstained from junk food and ate more healthy?
Yes.

That is my point. Yes buying a big vehicles is not a health thing, but It’s just that buying a huge vehicle puts others at risk, rather than the owner.

Just because I want the culture to change is not equivalent to wanting to restrict freedoms. There are real and substantial downsides to high proportions of a society buying large vehicles.

If the culture never changes, I’ll just deal with it. There are bigger issues going on in the world than big vehicles everywhere.

Everything puts something at risk. That's what you're not getting here. You driving your "small" car puts bikers, cyclists, and pedestrians at risk.

 

[Kurtatron]

Everything puts something at risk. That's what you're not getting here. You driving your "small" car puts bikers, cyclists, and pedestrians at risk.

What is not right about these sort of responses is the idea that comparisons to extreme examples somehow nullifies the bigger issues. If factor A leads to 18,000 deaths and factor B leads to 100 deaths, why ignore factor A just because we can’t solve factor B? It’s a useless argument. Why resist risk mitigation just because we can’t solve all of it? Besides, if my small car hits a pedestrian, he’ll have a much higher chance of surviving than a truck collision. So I should just ignore that risk mitigation because it doesn’t completely eliminate the risk? Not helpful.

Listen, I don’t think you should be comparing me to those who say “ban all cars”, if you are. I am in no way interested in those extremes. I’m more interested in education than shoving things down people’s throat.

“Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found. However, among vehicles with hood heights between 30 and 40 inches, a blunt, or more vertical, front end increases the risk to pedestrians.”

 

[hemioiler]

What is not right about these sort of responses is the idea that comparisons to extreme examples somehow nullifies the bigger issues. If factor A leads to 18,000 deaths and factor B leads to 100 deaths, why ignore factor A just because we can’t solve factor B? It’s a useless argument. Why resist risk mitigation just because we can’t solve all of it?

It's not about ignoring factor A, it's about "why stop at factor A when you can do better and stop all the way at factor Z and remove all our freedoms/choices.". It's a classic "slippery slope" argument, you don't get to choose where we stop, so be careful what you wish for because somebody somewhere is wishing that choices you made would not be made available to you or others in the future. Your view is the opposite of "live and let live".

Besides, if my small car hits a pedestrian, he’ll have a much higher chance of surviving than a truck collision.

You're missing the point. He'd have a far greater chance of living if we banned all cars in cities in the first place. Why should we stop the cultural shift from big cars to small cars, why not continue all the way and ban cars from the city? And why not ban sports cars out of existence since they are clearly for pleasure only and are ripe for abuse?

Why not ban all alcohol in restaurants and bars because somewhere there will be a statistic that alcohol in the blood causes X percent more driver related deaths. It's a pleasure that's not needed to function, "my safety is at risk so I feel we should ban it and allow only alcohol consumption at home after 10:00 pm." Etc etc.

 

[clinebarger]

And instead of being hyperbolic, I’ll give you a clear image of what I wish for on American roads.
80s
View attachment 225879
Today:
View attachment 225881

I noticed the absents of tractor trailers in the "80's" picture??

 

[Kurtatron]

It's not about ignoring factor A, it's about "why stop at factor A when you can do better and stop all the way at factor Z and remove all our freedoms/choices.". It's a classic "slippery slope" argument, you don't get to choose where we stop, so be careful what you wish for because somebody somewhere is wishing that choices you made would not be made available to you or others in the future. Your view is the opposite of "live and let live".



You're missing the point. He'd have a far greater chance of living if we banned all cars in cities in the first place. Why should we stop the cultural shift from big cars to small cars, why not continue all the way and ban cars from the city? And why not ban sports cars out of existence since they are clearly for pleasure only and are ripe for abuse?

Why not ban all alcohol in restaurants and bars because somewhere there will be a statistic that alcohol in the blood causes X percent more driver related deaths. It's a pleasure that's not needed to function, "my safety is at risk so I feel we should ban it and allow only alcohol consumption at home after 10:00 pm." Etc etc.

Life is give and take. You can also go the other extreme and have no standards at all because of freedom. Do you agree that the other opposite of your argument is a bad direction?

“I can drive a literal tank on the streets because if you say I can’t, the slippery slope begins.”

“I can dig a hole in the ground and dump my used oil in it because it’s my property.”

“I can own nukes because if you say I can’t, the slippery slope begins”

“Anyone who wants one can own crocodiles, bears, and lions without any enclosures and without asking for the country’s permission because of slippery slope.”

If you don’t see that life is about balancing freedoms with personal responsibility and respect for others and pursuit of happiness, than I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Kira]

The thing which amazes me is that the "big vehicle stalemate" arguments, besides becoming lame positions on "freedom", never ever include the word wasteful.

I once mentioned "cutting into car radios to notify drivers to clear the way for emergency vehicles", while watching an ambulance sitting in traffic blaring its siren. I was immediately rebuffed by a "camel's nose in the tent" train of logic....a short train.

 

[hemioiler]

Life is give and take. You can also go the other extreme and have no standards at all because of freedom. Do you agree that the other opposite of your argument is a bad direction?

“I can drive a literal tank on the streets because if you say I can’t, the slippery slope begins.”

“I can dig a hole in the ground and dump my used oil in it because it’s my property.”

“I can own nukes because if you say I can’t, the slippery slope begins”

“Anyone who wants one can own crocodiles, bears, and lions without any enclosures and without asking for the country’s permission because of slippery slope.”

If you don’t see that life is about balancing freedoms with personal responsibility and respect for others and pursuit of happiness, than I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Tanks and nukes have one purpose, they're not personal items or luxury/sports cars.

Disposing of your oil responsibly hurts no one, you won't find too many people asking to bury their trash as they see fit, most are actually quite happy to have that taken care of.

Crocodiles, bears, lions, these are animals with their own "rights" and they should be left alone in the wild where they belong. They're not pets. Instead change it slightly, what would you say if dogs (which are probably an extremely popular pet) are suddenly banned from city's because too many people are concerned they might get bit?

Trucks are the number one selling vehicle in North America by a huge margin. They are large, comfortable utility vehicles which can be used for all sorts of convenient functions, such as towing boats, RVs, hauling firewood, making trips to the lumber yard, or just hauling your family in absolute comfort for hours on end while you make a trip to visit uncle Frank. They're also the most comfortable ride around if you are a large person (I'm well over 6 feet and this is the first vehicle I've owned where my legs aren't always pressed up the dash/console/doors.

And the other flaw in your argument is that removing trucks/cars removes freedom that we currently have. We currently have a great balance of what we can drive on the road, and those of us who have larger trucks pay larger registration taxes (some regions), pay more gas tax, pay more tax to purchase it, pay more when driving on toll roads (region specific) and so on.

You haven't come right out and said it, but your view is not unique and is shared by others. What you essentially want is to remove choice that we currently have. I'm not suggesting we expand those choices by driving deadly military equipment down the road. My point is, be careful about removing freedoms/choices that we have since you won't be able to stop that process and you won't be happy when its your choices that start to get removed and your life is negatively effected.

 

[hemioiler]

The thing which amazes me is that the "big vehicle stalemate" arguments, besides becoming lame positions on "freedom", never ever include the word wasteful.

That's because that's your opinion and not even close to reality. Trucks are far more comfortable, utilitarian, and necessary (towing) than sports cars, do you want to ban vettes, mustangs, porche, lamborgini and friends, anything that goes fast with a large engine (wasteful) and can't fit 4 adults? Why not start there first.

 

[drtyler]

The thing which amazes me is that the "big vehicle stalemate" arguments, besides becoming lame positions on "freedom", never ever include the word wasteful.

I once mentioned "cutting into car radios to notify drivers to clear the way for emergency vehicles", while watching an ambulance sitting in traffic blaring its siren. I was immediately rebuffed by a "camel's nose in the tent" train of logic....a short train.

How is it wasteful?

 

[Kira]

^^They're driven empty so often. That's wasteful. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "reality" as I see it every single moment of driving.

What's funny is that after I mention wastefulness, banning sports cars gets mentioned. I got news for you, the functionality of sports cars, namely their speed, is banned effectively in lots of places. Have you ever seen speed limit signs.

Just because you can buy something excessive doesn't mean it's not wasteful.

707 hp cars are, by their very nature, wasteful. It doesn't matter that trucks are really good for moving refrigerators once every two years, they're wasteful for delivering one kid to high school.

 

[Kurtatron]

Tanks and nukes have one purpose, they're not personal items or luxury/sports cars.

You use the slippery slope argument repeatedly against my arguments, so I am using it against you to illustrate an example. WHO gets to determine where the right to bear arms ends? You? So it’s not nukes, what about RPGs? Fully automatic guns? How about Gatling guns? You might say those are military, but who draws the line between military/civilian? When’s the AR-15 going to be banned? My point is the slippery slope argument cannot be used as an end-all argument when someone is proposing too many people are driving excessively big vehicles.

Disposing of your oil responsibly hurts no one,

Dumping oil in a hole in a backyard is responsible? That’s the example I gave. It certainly hurts wildlife like bears, crocs, and lions (nature in general).

Instead change it slightly, what would you say if dogs (which are probably an extremely popular pet) are suddenly banned from city's because too many people are concerned they might get bit?

Canada bans a couple of breeds and has a 10th of the number of dog attack fatalities per 100,000 people as the US. Can’t argue with strictly numbers. Should certain breeds be banned nationally? No. But maybe background check - maybe. But then will you just a slippery slope argument again when I suggest such a thing?

Trucks are the number one selling vehicle in North America by a huge margin. They are large, comfortable utility vehicles which can be used for all sorts of convenient functions, such as towing boats, RVs, hauling firewood, making trips to the lumber yard, or just hauling your family in absolute comfort for hours on end while you make a trip to visit uncle Frank. They're also the most comfortable ride around if you are a large person (I'm well over 6 feet and this is the first vehicle I've owned where my legs aren't always pressed up the dash/console/doors.

Of course trucks are comfortable, utilitarian, and useful, and I have no problem with you owning one. I simply dislike that a vast majority of Americans feel the need to drive huge vehicles. And you’ll say “what’s your problem with it?” I’ve already stated the facts that big vehicles hurt people who do not also drive big vehicles, pedestrians included.

And the other flaw in your argument is that removing trucks/cars removes freedom that we currently have. We currently have a great balance of what we can drive on the road, and those of us who have larger trucks pay larger registration taxes (some regions), pay more gas tax, pay more tax to purchase it, pay more when driving on toll roads (region specific) and so on.

You continue dodge the thrust of my sentiment. Choice should not be banned. Can you please address this specifically instead of misrepresenting what I am saying? Prior decades is the only circumstance that I am arguing for. People had the freedom to buy whatever vehicle they wanted, they just didn’t. STOP suggesting I want big vehicles banned. If a governing body did propose such a thing in the name of safety, I WOULD oppose it.

You haven't come right out and said it, but your view is not unique and is shared by others. What you essentially want is to remove choice that we currently have. I'm not suggesting we expand those choices by driving deadly military equipment down the road.

No, I don’t. Not the viewpoint you continue to frame me as having.

My point is, be careful about removing freedoms/choices that we have since you won't be able to stop that process and you won't be happy when its your choices that start to get removed and your life is negatively effected.

I agree. But that doesn’t mean so many people need to flaunt their freedom around via huge vehicles.

 

[KrisZ]

Trucks somehow always get blamed as being wasteful. Not sure why that is. By the way, it’s not just Americans that like bigger vehicles, if you go to Europe the trend towards SUVs is quite clear.

People like bigger, more comfortable and powerful vehicles all around the world, the difference is that their countries do everything in their power to curtail their desires.

 

[drtyler]

^^They're driven empty so often. That's wasteful. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "reality" as I see it every single moment of driving.

What's funny is that after I mention wastefulness, banning sports cars gets mentioned. I got news for you, the functionality of sports cars, namely their speed, is banned effectively in lots of places. Have you ever seen speed limit signs.

Just because you can buy something excessive doesn't mean it's not wasteful.

707 hp cars are, by their very nature, wasteful. It doesn't matter that trucks are really good for moving refrigerators once every two years, they're wasteful for delivering one kid to high school.

What about all the minvans running around with only one occupant (the driver)?

 

[hemioiler]

You use the slippery slope argument repeatedly against my arguments, so I am using it against you to illustrate an example. WHO gets to determine where the right to bear arms ends? You? So it’s not nukes, what about RPGs? Fully automatic guns? How about Gatling guns? You might say those are military, but who draws the line between military/civilian? When’s the AR-15 going to be banned? My point is the slippery slope argument cannot be used as an end-all argument when someone is proposing too many people are driving excessively big vehicles.

Right to bear arms is a whole different discussion. I'm not getting into that with you, other than my post above which was to show you that tanks are not a choice that civilians currently have, so it's not relevant to the discussion as to who gets to decide to remove current choices.

Dumping oil in a hole in a backyard is responsible?

No it's not, if townships make disposal depots readily and cheaply available then people won't see the need to drop oil in the ground. And 50% of Americans are not currently doing this so it's a moot point.

That’s the example I gave. It certainly hurts wildlife like bears, crocs, and lions (nature in general).

Everything hurts wildlife. New homes, irrigation, windmills, that's not the sole criteria one should use is it now?

Canada bans a couple of breeds and has a 10th of the number of dog attack fatalities per 100,000 people as the US. Can’t argue with strictly numbers. Should certain breeds be banned nationally? No. But maybe background check - maybe. But then will you just a slippery slope argument again when I suggest such a thing?

We need a license to drive cars/trucks. That's sufficient.

Of course trucks are comfortable, utilitarian, and useful, and I have no problem with you owning one. I simply dislike that a vast majority of Americans feel the need to drive huge vehicles. And you’ll say “what’s your problem with it?” I’ve already stated the facts that big vehicles hurt people who do not also drive big vehicles, pedestrians included.

You're intentionally not answering my point: be careful what you wish for because you know for a fact there are those who will not stop at "scary trucks" but will remove choices that you don't agree with. "Hurting people" can be applied to almost every freedom so where does it stop. Just get out and enjoy life.

You would like to see big trucks removed, others want to ban all alcohol in the blood, others want to restrict your ability to set your heat/ac where you want it went you want, others want to restrict the size of new homes and so on.

It's all absolutely terrible and not well thought out. Live and live.

 

[Kurtatron]

Right to bear arms is a whole different discussion.

No it’s not. This pins on safety vs freedom. Same thing. Different vessel.

No it's not, if townships make disposal depots readily and cheaply available then people won't see the need to drop oil in the ground.

People are stubborn when it comes to laziness. I gave that example because I know someone’s friend who did it.

Everything hurts wildlife. New homes, irrigation, windmills, that's not the sole criteria one should use is it now?

Obviously not. Did I ever say it was the sole criteria? Quote it.

We need a license to drive cars/trucks. That's sufficient.

I agree with you here, because this is not the crux of my argument.

You're intentionally not answering my point: be careful what you wish for because

NO. You are not addressing my point at all. How can I possibly make this any more clear for you? I don’t want trucks removed forcibly, but you persist in ignoring the key word “forcibly.”

"Hurting people" can be applied to almost every freedom so where does it stop. Just get out and enjoy life.

You would like to see big trucks removed

Not forcibly. I don’t see why you can’t answer my point that it’s not right if it is not forced.

Compelled choice
Vs
Free will choice

There’s a difference.

Keep dodging that point…

 

[hemioiler]

No it’s not. This pins on safety vs freedom. Same thing. Different vessel.

It's a different discussion because it's in your constitution, I'm not American and I'm not up to speed on what your rights are.

People are stubborn when it comes to laziness. I gave that example because I know someone’s friend who did it.


Obviously not. Did I ever say it was the sole criteria? Quote it.


I agree with you here, because this is not the crux of my argument.


NO. You are not addressing my point at all. How can I possibly make this any more clear for you? I don’t want trucks removed forcibly, but you persist in ignoring the key word “forcibly.”



Not forcibly. I don’t see why you can’t answer my point that it’s not right if it is not forced.

Compelled choice
Vs
Free will choice

There’s a difference.

Keep dodging that point…

For the rest of this, you're just jumping into the weeds. Compelled vs choice, that's not how it works. Once the karens come out of the woodwork it's compelled one way or the other, we can see this with EVs and we all know gassers are getting axed until there is no choice left.

It boils down to this: you would prefer if cars/trucks disappeared from the road. I'm saying, be careful what you wish for because there are others who would love dearly if your choices in other areas of life disappeared.