I get the sentiment. It is shared by many and not uniquely American, but we especially value our freedoms in America.

With that said, our freedoms end on someone else’s lawn, and our freedoms don’t always mean we are free to do whatever with whatever, nor does our Amendments guarantee that we must have whatever products available for us to choose.

We can’t just crap wherever and dump our trash wherever, and we can’t all just go driving around in catless F350 duallies. And we can’t drive ICEs much longer from a natural resources perspective, from an economic perspective and from a logistics perspective. Our best solution is to transition to EVs sooner rather than later. Maybe along the way, we can still have some specialty ICEs, but the masses need to move to EVs, and for the most part, they will anyways, but now, the argument is that we need artificial demand from government to spur greater investment/innovations and support/infrastructure/supply until we get to the rise of the S curve of growth, and then things/adoption will happen naturally. Like how the automatic was adopted over the manual transmission because it made life easier and was better for the masses, the EV will grow to be far better for the masses.

The enthusiasts will have less choices, but they will likely still have some choices. If California can have smog exempt areas in the state and allow CARB superchargers and allow someone to go eight years in a new car before needing to smog their car then there will likely still be options for enthusiasts for places to live and for ICEs to buy. It might be different and harder and limited, but there will be the ability to buy whatever they want…from what’s available.

Things are a lot less black & white than this I'm afraid.

Consumers' choices tend to be affected by short-term, relatively "narcissistic" interests ("hey, that truck makes me look manlier"), but that decision has far-reaching consequences for everyone, from a road safety, noise & air pollution or resources management standpoint. That's where regulations are needed, and where governments can take a more long-term approach than consumers are willing to.

Problem is, because some people can't buy what they want, they scream foul at the gubmint and shout "conspiracy!"

In any case, you already can't buy what you want. Want a jet engine strapped to a golf cart with spike wheels? Not gonna happen I'm afraid :D

I mean... in the states, you absolutely can have a jet powered golf cart. :cheers:

I love a wagon, but it is not a better solution for anyone needing extra space, unless you only need wide, and not tall. That's why I own a Suburban.

By the way, our beloved 86 is just as "stupid" if you are looking at it as the perfect car. It gets mediocre gas mileage for it's size particularly compared to a hybrid, it isn't really a four person vehicle, and again unless you are hauling something more thick than a tire, you aren't going to get it in the trunk.

Oh yeah, I'm sure communists seethe every time they see one:D

You just can't (legally) drive it on public roads.

The cars that are available to us are shaped by regulations that strongly favor trucks and SUVS, and actively reward cars and trucks/SUVs for being physically *bigger*.

So those of us who want to buy smaller, lighter-weight cars are generally just out of luck :(

I can't help but add that I'm so tired of this type of thinking. I literally know dozens of truck owners (I live in the US, and in the South, and in Georgia after all) and not a single one of them own their truck because it makes them look manlier (or womanlier since about 40% of them are women).

Nearly every one of them has a utilitarian purpose (even if it's only 20% of the time) for owning a truck.

And, unlike a group of enthusiasts who think you need a vehicle for every occasion, most buy their vehicle for that 20% utilization since they have limited funds for transportation.

Are there folks that maybe buy trucks just because they can, and have no use for it, sure. But that is a very small percentage. Just because every truck you see on your commute is not carrying a load, or pulling a trailer doesn't mean that it doesn't spend part of its life doing that.

[/rant]

That's a golf cart problem lol. I bet you could get one registered and road legal under some other status (hot rod or something). :D

Ain't this the truth.

I've seen people make the justification for a truck but most of my friends that have trucks know I'm a big advocate for just renting them the couple of times a year that you actually need one.

I know for bulk home improvement purchases I've both rented trucks and had pallets drop shipped to my driveway. Sometimes a little creativity can save you a lot of money. (Especially with today's truck prices)

People buy cars/trucks to fullfill 90% of their needs. Things that happen very seldomly (like moving a couch) they dont need to worry about because how many times do you move a couch?

People who do outdoorsy stuff do so far more often than moving a couch and they'd like to have the one vehicle be able to fullfill that needs among the host of other common everday needs. No one wants to be inconvenienced by renting a car for example when they dont need to.

Some people use silly justifications like towing a trailer ONCE a year (IF They even tow) but i think it ultimately comes down to both WANTING the product AND making sure it does what you want it to do. You're dropping upwards of more than $50k it better do as much shit as you want....whats the point of having it if you are just gonna spend a big chunk of time renting or inconveniencing yourself without your big purchase (unless its not intended to do certain things...like you dont buy an 86 with the intent of trying to haul ikea stuff in it...i mean you could to a certain extent but you didnt buy that car to do those things).

and unless you're made of money most households are 1 car or 2 car. If youre a 1 car household your car better do everything you want it to do. 2 is easier to deal since you can have one car do certain things and another do something else.

Sure, and you could say the same for a car that's owned as a track toy or a canyon carver you use infrequently.

Renting is practical when it's a once or twice a year thing. It isn't if you are doing it multiple times a month.

Trucks don't have to be expensive, it's just that's the way most folks buy them these days (all decked out). A base Colorado is @$30K and a based Silverado is @$39K.

Like really, really 20% of the miles of the vehicle is hauling, off-roading, using AWD/4WD, or towing? Something like 80% of people use it once a year or never. The remaining 20% might use it less than ten times a year, but 20%? Someone would need to live in a rural area in snow country to say that, and even then.

I realize you were likely exaggerating, but the exaggeration is probably extreme for the masses who rarely use these utility vehicles, and what’s more, their whole family drives them. How could four people in a household need these utility vehicles for mostly personal transportation and the rare event, when they could probably borrow it from their family members?

But as a daily truck, that impacts emissions. The rare motorcycle ride or canyon ride in a sports car isn’t impactful like a gas guzzling daily suv.

It's not an exaggeration but admittedly is an educated guess. I do live in a relatively rural area (many of my coworkers own multi-acre homes in West Georgia and East Alabama). Most of them are hunters, fisherman, farmers or ranchers, "horse people", etc besides their daytime jobs.

Move 30 miles East (Atlanta) it would change of course but the makeup of the vehicles changes as well.