> (insanely oversized “trucks”) are hardly ever necessary.
As someone with a truck constantly having to lend it for friends to use, I disagree.
Not sure exactly what you meant by insanely oversized, but a lift kit and tires aren't abnormal, they have use for off-roading / mudding which is fairly popular.
It's both a style preference and lifestyle preference. Good luck using a car if you have a lot of outdoor hobbies or work.
Kind of strange to tell a whole population what is or isn't necessary in their life, especially without knowing their reasonings.
Isn't the fact that your friends don't need a truck because they can borrow one occasionally evidence against your point? I mean, yes, it's true that it would be nicer if they'd rent one instead of impose on you. But clearly they don't "need" trucks of their own, because they have access to shared resources.
This is the kind of absolutist argument that these threads always fall into. You hear someone say "not everyone needs a truck!" or "there are too many trucks!", and hear "You, personally, should not own a truck". No, clearly trucks are useful vehicles and need to exist for people to use. But we also build and deploy way too many of them. Those facts can be true at the same time.
It seems like a needlessly divisive conversation, every time it comes up. My guess is that 99% of all the people who complain that they see people driving pickups not hauling anything are themselves usually driving a 5 passenger car as the sole occupant.
That's a pretty straightforward calculation that leads to unsurprising results. An F150 with just two passengers burns less fuel per person than a Honda Fit carrying one passenger.
> I mean, yes, it's true that it would be nicer if they'd rent one instead of impose on you.
Whether they rent or borrow one, they still needed a truck.
I need mine all the time, as do most others I know. I also listed activities that people like to use them for.
> But we also build and deploy way too many of them. Those facts can be true at the same time.
How many should we allow then? Who should qualify for them? Do recreational activities not qualify? Who gets to decide this? Do we do this for other things?
> Whether they rent or borrow one, they still needed a truck.
Yes, but only occasionally! Again, you're thinking we're trying to "take away your truck", when we're just saying (correctly) that most people (like your friends!) don't need them except rarely and are better served by other kind of resource allocation than personal vehicles.
> How many should we allow [...] who should qualify [...] banned [...] who gets to decide
This isn't a good faith argument. No one is advocating for any of that. Please don't.
Again I use mine all the time. I'm not advocating getting rid of cars because some people don't need a truck. I don't believe there are too many trucks or cars, I feel like the people saying there are too many trucks have the obligation to explicitly give reasons as you why.
> This isn't a good faith argument. No one is advocating for any of that. Please don't.
It is in good faith, I assure you. I'm trying to make you realize that what you view as necessary isn't the same for others. You said there are too many. I would like to know what you view as necessary and what the ideal amount would be for you. What uses for trucks are deemed as necessary and what are frivolous.
As someone with a truck constantly having to lend it for friends to use, I disagree.
Not sure exactly what you meant by insanely oversized, but a lift kit and tires aren't abnormal, they have use for off-roading / mudding which is fairly popular.
It's both a style preference and lifestyle preference. Good luck using a car if you have a lot of outdoor hobbies or work.
Kind of strange to tell a whole population what is or isn't necessary in their life, especially without knowing their reasonings.