• TownhouseGloryHole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        9 days ago

        Astounding. Hummer H2 beating the Sierra by 3m is incredible. A truck designed almost exclusively to express how selfish you are and it has better viability.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’d be curious to see that chart for a Toyota Yaris. I drove one for a few years and it was almost unnerving how little hood it had.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      That’s not to mention the optics.

      https://www.quora.com/Where-does-the-M1-Abrams-have-the-optics-of-its-main-cannon-I-dont-know-anything-about-tanks

      #4 is the optic for the RWS. This cannot be used to aim the main gun, but it can be used as an alternate form of CITV, especially since it’s so damned high off the ground, it may be able to see over obstacles. Not as good as CITV in the thermal range, though.

      That being said, some civilian vehicles are gonna have their own camera systems too, so…

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        Civilian vehicles should all have thermals and a night driving HUD. If I’m paying 30,000 dollars then they can damn well put some actual stuff in there. Headlights being weaponized isn’t something we have to tolerate.

    • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      This is misleading because being higher up you can see much better further ahead, and over obstacles and barriers. Your special awareness is much better at distances that are relevant for avoiding collisions. If something is 1.5m away its too late anyway.

      The angle is also incorrect because they are putting the eyes of the driver straight in line with the hood, which is not how its been in any vehicle I’ve ever driven, the head should be higher or further forward.

      • Voyajer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        9 days ago

        The origin of the line is at head height…

        Also these vehicles gain in distant visibility at the expense of everyone else on the road, blocking their views.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          The best way to avoid getting into an accident is to see it long before you get there. But situational awareness is not something the vast majority of drivers actually practice or have…

      • You don’t want to see “over” obstacles close to your vehicle when said obstacles are in fact human beings standing in front of your car.

        At parking lot speeds, 1.5 meters is also not “too late,” and it certainly isn’t when you are at a standstill but need to determine if it is safe to move or if there is a small person in front of your vehicle, i.e. in the school pickup line, or in a parking lot, or your own driveway.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    I have conservative family members who deliberately go for the biggest SUV with the lowest gas mileage available just to “stick it to the government.” If the government told them that they couldn’t drive a small car, they’d be out there shopping for a small car. It’s incredibly childish.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Yeah, a lot of stupid culture war crap is now tied up into the car your own.

      If people actually prioritized performance, handling, visability, cost to drive, and cabin features, then a LOT of people would probably be better off with a sedan.

      If you don’t need the space, you can get so much more bang for your buck with a smaller car. The $10k more you spend on the larger form factor could go toward a nicer power train and cabin luxury features.

      • Hobbes@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 days ago

        Most other countries I’ve been to, all the trades use these, and seem to have no problem getting projects done.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          Let’s ignore the lack of crush zones, air bags, seat belts, re-enforced door panels and cabin pillars, for a moment. (The lack of any safety features is why they are mostly illegal to operate on roads in the US.)

          How far do you think that roller skate could pull my empty 24,000lbs tandem axle tilt bed trailer? Or even my 4000lbs trailer? On a highway at highway speeds.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Japanese Kei trucks are pretty rad, but they don’t fly with US highway safety regulations. They’re meant for slower roads / slower collisions speeds.

          That said, most American trucks do not need to be remotely as big as they are.

      • Or a hatchback or a station wagon…

        Oops, nobody makes station wagons anymore. We stopped making them because, uh, people stopped buying them. Yeah, that’s the ticket. People stopped buying them because we stopped making them.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        Ya know it probably says something that the concept of “cabin luxury features” made we want to burn the inside of a car. Ill stick to my lack of cupholders in my 30 year old car thanks, but seriously when I see the interior of modern cars they make me want to rip into them with wire cutters. Bunch of useless crap like lane assist, cruise control, and addaptive road assist, powered stearing is the only luxury I need.

        Fun fact I am only 24, I just am tech literate in the way that causes me to think 90% of technology is worthless crap that shouldve never been created and needs to be recycled.

          • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 days ago

            I love cruise control. Get on the highway, set it and go. Ideally find someone driving the same direction and speed, and follow along behing them. No more stressing that I’m going to get a speeding ticket.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          True. I’m mostly saying that you could probably take that cash and upgrade to a nicer car that isn’t covered in creaking injection molded plastic inside, or something with nicer seats and upholstery.

          AKA decent materials, and not the cheap garbage you get on a base model American SUV.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            I get that its just the concept disgusts me, but then again my Scottish ancestors would rise from the dead and kill me for wasting money on such superfluous things. Profligacy is quite literally killing the planet, ya aint gonna catch me wasting money on stupid pointless shit too often. My grandmother though aint bound by such ancestral limits and it annoys me.

        • ensoniqthehedgehog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          I’m almost 40 and a lot of my cars in my teens and 20s were from the '80s and '90s. Almost everything I’ve owned has had at least a rudimentary cruise control although there are some ('80s Bronco II, '95 Miata, early '90s 240sx, 99 Impreza Wagon) where it was broken or I just never used it.

          All that said, I LOVE the radar controlled cruise control on my current vehicle. I’ve used it for at least 20,000 miles of driving at this point. Interstate, highway, city, you name it… Pretty much any time I want to maintain a steady speed over 28 and there’s not a lot of stop and go traffic. I hate thinking about life without it now (and I hate using standard cruise control without radar)!

  • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Humans have quite literally invented cars that are better at killing people, especially children.

    “I don’t want children to die in accidents,” say people as they drive huge masses of metal that might do just that.

    • The Pantser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’ll keep driving my PEV Minivan that has 360 cameras and I can see in front of me easily. I care about children’s lives, unlike bubba in his lifted pickup truck. Why do you need a 4x4 lifted 3 feet and you live in the suburbs?

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 days ago

        …you know what they say about guys with big lift…

        Funny thing is, the people I know with large vehicles around here always bemoan how difficult it is to park, yet don’t want to solve the obvious problem because twice a year they want to haul a fridge to the dump or pick up something from the home improvement store rather than have it delivered or rent a truck for an hour.

        • socphoenix@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 days ago

          Counting the differences in cost (loan, gas, expected maintenance, insurance etc) it came out to where I would have to use the truck to haul something at least a very weekend possibly more to break even with a much newer car vs just renting a truck once or twice a year. Pickups are almost universally owned by people too stupid for middle school math imo.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          always bemoan how difficult it is to park

          I’ve made multuple older men incredibly upset by laughing at them when they say this

          They get pissy and respond with “well you’re some skinny long haired hippie who drives an EV so what do you know?” Which, yeah, all of that is true

          But then I pull up the pictures of me 4x4ing in the rain and snow through fire smoke at work, pointing out that I drove a RAM3500 fully kitted out and lifted with a giant set of 4 110g tanks in the bed blocking anything other than my mirror and cam view, yet I only had issues parking when people didn’t know how to stay in their own lines, and that I regularly had to squeeze my truck into areas with an inch or less of clearance in order to do my fucking job on a construction site, and I never hit anything but a rock (downhill, someone left a fucking rug out on some dirt in the rain and when my truck hit it I just slid til I hit the rock, company deemed me blameless)

          They usually get flustered and change the subject p quick at that point

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Why do you need a 4x4 lifted 3 feet and you live in the suburbs?

        Penis issue

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yes, but mini vans aren’t lifted 20 ft off the ground with absurdly huge hoods for no apparent reason.

          The reason trucks and SUVs are killing kids is because you can see a 4ft tall person that isn’t standing 100 yards in front. These are the only vehicles with this problem.

          • niucllos@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            Additionally, the raised and blunt hood height makes a full-body impact with no force dissipation much more likely, particularly for shorter people, where a more traditional hood shape allows a struck pedestrian to roll over the top and avert some of the force of the strike

          • dafo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            But it’s still blocking the view for us in normal sizes cars.

            I don’t know how many times I’ve had to hope for the best and carefully inch forwards/backwards when being next to a minivan/SUV/pickup. I’ve been close to being in an accident a number of times because of, well mostly, SUVs.

          • thefartographer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            20-foot lifted vehicles would probably be considerably safer:

            1. They’d easily have the clearance to safely navigate over most pedestrians in their path.
            2. Any attempts to balance them well would be incredibly expensive and you’d likely have many drivers whose cars would fall over from insufficiently sized tires or whatever.

            Hmmm… 🤔 Now that I think about it, maybe we should subsidize these lift kits to make this a self-solving problem

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      Driving a truck and not wanting children to die in accidents are in-fact not in conflict with each other. Or are you implying that truck drivers do want them to die?

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        Driving a truck and not wanting children to die in accidents are in-fact not in conflict with each other.

        Then design trucks which are not as deadly to pedestrians on impact.

      • Krzd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        No, but it clearly isn’t important enough to them to influence their choice.

  • workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    9 days ago

    Why do little cars have to withstand a collision with a huge truck but trucks just get bigger and bigger? The new Hummer is over 9,000lbs (4,090 kg)

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        Commercial license requirements for full sized trucks over a certain size and weight would be an excellent solution. In addition to the increased effort and cost to get one, commercial licenses are way easier to lose.

      • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        I mean they’re getting heavier, but not, like, whole number multiples heavier. An electric might be some 60% heavier than a comparable gas car. But the aforementioned hummer is more than 5 times heavier than even a heavy electric “utility vehicle”. That’s more than 400% heavier.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 days ago

          Huh? Are you saying heavy electric utility vehicles are less than 2k lbs? I think you’re math is a bit off, or I’m misunderstanding you. 9k lbs is heavy but it’s only around 2k lbs heavier than it’s gas counter parts (most SUVs are around 6.5-7k lbs). Most electric cars are 1-2k lbs heavier than their gas counterparts already. Batteries are not light.

          • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            I’m saying smaller cars are usually lighter than bigger cars, even when the smaller cars are electric. And the car I was comparing to was the Chevrolet bolt “electric utility vehicle” that’s trying to be an electric SUV. Which is 1600 kg.

            Where a Ford fiesta that’s almost the same size is still 1100 kg.

            Edit: corrected units to kg.

            • ililiililiililiilili@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 days ago

              Chevy Bolt (electric) is approx. 3,600 lbs. Ford Fiesta (gas) is approx. 2,500 lbs. I think your numbers are kilograms. Sorry to be pedantic, just trying to get correct numbers. But what you’re saying is basically correct. Most small EVs are still lighter than midsize and bigger ICE cars. If you want apples to apples: the 2024 Chevy Equinox EV is 5,000 lbs, whereas the 2024 gas version is approx. 3,400 lbs.

              • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                Oh, shit, you’re right. I was looking at kilograms. Thank you.

                But yeah, the point stands that small cars are lighter and safer than big cars, especially for the things they hit.

    • HBK@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Regardless of truck size, I don’t think tractor trailers are going anywhere. Even if we made trucks smaller those would still be out there

      Smaller trucks would still get in accidents though, and I imagine they would be less deadly

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Man, if only we could separate freight from commuter traffic. Like, imagine if all those tractor trailers were on their own separate road, but make it out of, IDK, metal or something so it can withstand the weight better. You could even just have metal right under the wheels, to reduce costs. But what do I know, I’m just some pie in the sky nobody who doesn’t know what he’s talking about

        • MasterMediasRes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          That sounds like a neat idea—here’s a wild thought, what would happen if we tried the same thing with passengers? Eh, you’re right, sounds positively un-American.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        Tractor trailers are heavily regulated with training, licensing, driving hours and sleep break logging etc. Are they really a significant source of pedestrian collisions?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          You should check out the safety stuff with them and cars. You’ll stay near one on the road again.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        Even if we made trucks smaller those would still be out there

        If we made them smaller there’d just be more of them on the road. There’d also be higher prices for everything to compensate for the extra expense of having those extra trucks and bodies to pilot them.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 days ago

    As it is the US has no pedestrian safety standards at the federal level. I’m pretty sure if GM wanted to put out a truck with running chainsaws all over it then it would be perfectly legal as far as the NHTSA is concerned, although some state regulators might have a problem with it which is probably why it doesn’t happen in reality.

    • modeler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 days ago

      You’re in the process of describing a Cybertruck, just the misfitting panel ‘teeth’ aren’t rotating

  • Tiefling IRL@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    I have a Honda Fit (compact 4 seater) and absolutely LOVE the little car, plus it’s easier to park. But holy shit looking for a compact is hard! Everything is a fucking SUV or truck these days! Just count the number of sedans vs SUVs next time you’re out and about. My favorite cars, the 2 door Mini Cooper and VW Buggy, aren’t even made any more.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 days ago

        Some of that is crumple zones and airbags, but yes there’s pretty much nothing for “small” cars (10 to 14 feet long) in the US.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Since the fuel efficiency standards are based on the vehicles footprint, going a few inches bigger allows for a slightly more powerful but also slightly less fuel efficient engine. So the car is roomier, more powerful, and doesn’t get penalized for lower mpg.

          Small trucks are penized for not being fuel efficent enough. I really wish that lead to smaller electric or hybrid trucks like the Maverick, but people have been conviced that those smaller efficient trucks are bad.

          I wish the standards were not based on size, but by vehicle type. Same end result for trucks being popular, but at least smaller trucks would be viable alternatives to sedans again.

  • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 days ago

    For the first time ever, manufacturers would be required to study the impact of test dummies hit outside of vehicles. The rules would likely change the design of what America drives permanently.

    That’s all the article says about the actual rule changes. Based on this information alone, I know very little about what will actually change.

    I feel like the NHTSA should do way more if they can and argue for limits on light truck sizes in their length, height, weight, and perhaps classification.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Well, for one thing, an M1 Abrams main battle tank has better front sightlines than most trucks on the road today.

      And it isn’t even that much more dangerous to get hit by because of the giant flat-face front impact planes of the trucks. Used to be if you got hit by a car it would roll you up over the hood, now you just die.

      I have to imagine that will impact the testing and design at least somewhat.

      Edit: fixed the image link

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Not sure about the second part, tanks are built to go over things. Their “negative slant” seems more likely to push things under than a car’s hood or a truck/SUV’s flat face.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          Oh sure if you get run over by a tank you’re going under the treads and it’s lights out for you. No question. My point was though, with sedans or older smaller trucks, the point of impact would hit around waist level on most adults and you’d be thrown up and over the hood, which would bleed off a lot of the lethal impact damage. These days the full weight of the truck is going to hit you in the chest and shoulders and you’re not getting thrown anywhere but forward and under.

          If you’re a child, you’re pretty screwed either way, but modern big trucks are way, way more dangerous in a frontal impact than they used to be just based on the shape of the things. That big flat face is like getting slammed directly into a wall at 80mph.

    • USSMojave@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 days ago

      For the first time ever, manufacturers would be required to study the impact of test dummies hit outside of vehicles

      But that will reveal a LOT of corroborating information for what we know, which is how dangerous they are. It’s a good thing to have more data

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      I suspect the only “change” that will happen is a large amount of money changing hands so they don’t have to bother.

      Double the price of petrol. That will make Americans desire small cars again.

  • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    It’s out of control. I drive a 2019 Kona and I moved to that from my 2013 Elantra. Last time I was at the dealer was looking at the new Konas and they’re bigger, too big for me.

    • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      The most jarring thing is when I was picking up a prescription for my cat, and on the way home I was driving next to a plain vanilla, factory-stock GMC truck whose hood was literally taller than my entire car. And I don’t drive a miata or some other sub-compact, I drive a freaking Nissan Leaf, so about the size of your average sedan.

      Since then it’s like a switch flipped in my brain, and I can’t unsee just how insanely huge modern-day pickup trucks have gotten.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    My dream car: An EV version of the 1955 Nash Metropolitan, seen here in this silly ad photo:

    (Sorry, it’s hard to find pictures that give a true indication of the smallness of the car. Also, mine would be the red and white two tone variety.)

    • UnpledgedCatnapTipper@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 days ago

      I just want a tiny electric hatchback, like, Honda fit sized, that has like 150+ mile range, and doesn’t use an outdated charging standard. I’ve considered a Nissan Leaf but they are still sticking with the chademo charger port, which is way less common.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Yes!

      Even that was in an era or needlessly ego-boosting giant cars, going utilitarian to get a better product, better lives on average, even save resources - amazing (but with the cardinal sin of not being expensive enough and thus not as financially profitable).

      For the same reason I would love to get a normally viable car of much smol.

      Like a bit more modern version of Figaro:

      Or a sexy mid-engine Autozam:

      Kei cars are qewl!

    • ghen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      As was designed by the people who actually wrote those laws, the lobbyists. More profitable cars to sell as America moves farther and farther away from reality with car prices.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 days ago

    There should really be a redistribution gas tax, another dollar per gallon on gas which then goes back split evenly to every American. Incentivizes less gas usage while avoiding the regressive nature of a sales tax. Canada has something like this.

    Ruinous politically so it would never happen but it would be a good plan.

    • Grappling7155@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s the carbon tax and carbon rebate in Canada. When paired with a carbon tariff, it’s a great market friendly solution to reduce emissions. Beware though, it really really triggers regressive petrosexual conservatives and the ones in Canada keep trying to trigger an election over it so they can get rid of it ASAP and pollute more.

    • Lobreeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I’m Canadian… avoiding tax??

      Hahahahahaha I want what you’re smoking.

      We literally get taxed on tax

  • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Let’s target them in order to lower the demand for fossil fuels. The drivers of these vehicles are the ones driving up gas prices; and then subsequently crying about gas prices.

  • rhythmisaprancer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    This seems like it could lead to significant innovation in vans in North America, or set least US/Canada. Van pickups, van sedans, van Goghs? After the initial temper tantrums, I think people will buy whatever comes out of the design phase. There used to be a lot of “beef” about emission control devices, but not so much anymore. Those folks moved on.