If you don’t know how to drive a truck, please don’t. Just dont.
Elect me dictator of the world and I will implement my pickup truck and SUV tiered licensing scheme: Before you are allowed to have an F-150 or Escalade, first you must complete a 4 year probationary period of driving, say, a Suzuki Samurai.
Fuck, I would LOVE to drive a Samurai!
No one loves driving a samurai.
A samurai is a jeep for people who can afford little more than a lawn mower.
It rides like you’re in a trash can being pulled by an angry mule.
A Suzuki samurai can get you places, as long as they’re either at least down wind or down hill from where you’re currently at.
You can take the samurai off road but you’ll find the experience of driving on smooth asphalt dangerous enough.
wranglers are samurais for people who are mentally stuck in high school who need to be seen as cool, and massively overpay to do so.
They take an “offroading vehicle”, modify it further, reduce the efficiency and ruin the on-road handling, slap a light bar on top, and then drive it to the mall and back.
But it’s alright, because the marketing team at Joop™ told them it’s the Real American Young Man©'s utilitarian vehicle, starting at 175% of what a competing vehicle from any other brand would cost, with 30% of their reliability.
Good thing you brought that Wrangler™ to drive onto the dirt path to your favorite drinking spot in the mountains, not like anything else would’ve gotten you there.
Or for the 1% that actually crawl rocks, it’s a good thing to constantly prove that with enough torque, and getting out, making sure you won’t hit, and getting back in, the coefficient of friction of a surface still behaves the same way. Kinda crazy how other people just go around and get to the same spot with final drive ratios that keep their vehicles useable elsewhere. What’s the fun if you don’t spend 15 minutes not going around?
It’s ok though, the guys with green and beige tacomas with all their gear strapped to the cage day in and day out are even more insufferable. That moment as they hop out in their cargo shorts and Tevas on their way to order another IPA hoping a girl will hear their stories about their once-a-year “overlanding” trips is so worth it. They’re higher-end, more refined, because they drive Tacomas™. But the way they wear their wayfarers inside and the Patagonia t-shirts tell them “it’s ok baby, I’m also chill”
I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter
I’d also rock a geo tracker, could go either way
Just ban them outright. What’s the point? You want to move things around, get a bus
I need an F-350 so I can haul my wife around.
Then you don’t need all those 4 seats
Does it have a two-tonne cargo capacity?
anything does, if you’re willing to swap trannies later
That’s why I’m on my second wife.
Oh, transmissions! Sorry, I misunderstood.
Exactly this model? Not sure, but somewhere between 1.5 and 3t. Probably only 1.5t.
Not quite good enough for my wife then.
Dad?
This isn’t lack of ability, it’s on purpose. I have had this type explain how clever they are for parking like this to keep other drivers from dinging their truck
The eventual key gouge down the side is gonna look great though.
I do this, but in the far end if the lot. Notice how the image is framed so you can’t see where in the lot the truck is.
i hope the the negative score let you know that we think it’s shitty even back there
We care about points? I walk the full distance of the parking lot. If I don’t care about doing that, why do you think I care about internet points?
I also park in the back of the lot - within the lines. I would absolutely key your shit on my way through.
Ok internet tough guy.
You can blame the driver for parking poorly, or you can blame the manufacturer for making a massive truck that can barely fit into a standard parking space, or you can blame car-centric infrastructure for making it so that everyone has to drive, even those that are insecure about their length.
I blame all three + the driver again for buying this stupid fucking truck they probably don’t even need and won’t benefit them 99% time. But hey, it excels at killing children in driveways, so that’s something.
They got upsold by the dealer.
Blame dealer too
It’s still the dipshit driver’s fault. Nobody forced them to buy that monstrosity or park like that.
People are easily manipulated at scale ( No one is immune to Propaganda ). Fear marketing is more powerful to those who are anti-social, and car centric infrastructure perpetuates an anti-social society by sprawling people out and segregating them in transit through a car, and segregating them in their homes based on class.
Everyone in the US needs a car, whether they want one or not.
He definitely could’ve parked better, but the greater issue at hand is if driving was a requirement in the US but instead a luxury, The privilege of driving would be restricted to those who can pass a more rigorous driving test. But since in the US, public transportation has been designated as being for the poor and the desperate, their upkeep and social understanding of them has reflected this.
No one wants to ride the bus or take a train in the US because “Ah it’s dangerous, everyone gets stabbed, shot and bludgeoned there!!”. The reason for this is deceptively simple, if you designate something as only being for a class of people that is known to fall into violence as a result of their material conditions, then that thing as well as everything else that they use will reflect that negative connotation.
But similarly, should cars and trucks not have a similar reputation? As cars and trucks are in frequent accidents and so many complain about bad drivers. Road rage, and police chases. Why don’t cars have the same negative connotation as public transportation? Because you, me and most people who are not in the “poor and the desperate” category use them. If any negative issues come to light at all, the solution isn’t to avoid driving, the issue is to improve the driving experience, hence all these absurd massive tank trucks.
The “reason” I alluded to that was deceptively simple earlier, is not that if something becomes associated with bad events and behavior it will become undesirable. the deceptively simple reason is In-Group/Out-Group bias.
Because those with middle-class wealth all the way to the richest all use Cars, naturally this form of transportation sees the most improvement. But since public transportation is only used by the poor and the desperate, it sees neglect instead of improvement.
Sorry but your wall of text is immediately invalidated by the very wrong assertion that trucks are cheaper than other vehicles. They most certainly are not.
I will concede, my value on trucks was incorrect, but that does not invalidate an entire argument, especially since the entire argument did not depend on that detail.
Literally nothing in your meandering comment addressed the sentiment that motivated the one you were responding to. Id est, lots of people with large trucks do not need large trucks and could do just fine with a smaller truck or even a sedan.
Whether a truck or a small truck or a sedan. A poor park job is done by a poor driver. And Poor driver doesn’t need to have a license.
But in a world where automobiles are your only means of transportation, the need to make Driver’s Licenses easy access increases.
I’ll take option #3, thanks!
I’d just put the blame on the part of OP’s brain that gets mad at non-problems
Haha emotional support truck! Must be tough at times have a micro peen and no cunnilingus skills!
“Emotional support truck” lmaooo
2023 and we’re still body shaming dick size.
The point is less about body shaming and more about shaming the person’s “small dick energy”. Eg the kind of behavior you’d expect from someone who thinks dick size matters a ton and would buy nice things to try and compensate for their lack of size.
I still think we need another phrase. It’s the same logic that people (myself included) used to defend using gay as a slur.
Sounds like something a small dick would say ;-)Hmmm. I feel like one of those words is far more charged than the other, but I agree that it’d be nice if we had better alternatives. The problem is that it’s making fun of a certain specific attitude that some men have that tends to extend to high levels of care about the size of their junk, and there’s not quite an equivalent concept for another topic. I mean, it’s basically a way to call someone “insecure about things about yourself that you can’t change or control, so you spend your time grasping at whatever material gains you can in order to try and have some semblance of Identity beyond those insecurities”.
Yeah I’m not trying to say they are facing similar challenges just that the rationalization for using the term seems the same.
👄 I have small dick energy
Small dick energy is sorta like ham planet energy. It’s not about body shaming at all because bodies are physical and we’re talking energy.
QED
Hey as somebody with a small dick I really appreciate your adding that bit in about cunnilingus skills.
I can always go into the slime if I want to get her off
Tiny penis
Unrelated, but did you know that most cars and trucks only carry one spare tire?
So if, god forbid, something happened to more than one tire, it becomes significantly more difficult to deal with.
Lots of new cars come with none spare tire.
Would that make it take up extra space for even longer than it does already? (don’t get me wrong, I’m with you, but doesn’t that just make it even worse for others who would like to park there?)
This car is FAT! I mean this car is body-positive.
This parking lot looks pretty empty to me
Ah, that’s where I left it!
The car’s size is the same of one’s ego.
Inverse to their genital size
I’m worried now- I’m a woman with a small 3 door hatchback, not sure how I feel about this comment
Proud? Confident? :-)
meaty
Odd how the tiniest dicks take the most space.
I saw a truck parked similarly but he took up 4 spots
There are no other cars around. I often park at the far end of the lot so nobody parks close to me, and then I don’t have to worry about those lines.
I am the guy that parks right beside him. In my designated spot. Takes a photo of his car and plate. Walks away. That drama is his drama.
What would a photo do? Prove to your insurance you put your vehicle in a situation that it could be damaged? Your insurance has clauses to prevent paying out in those situations.
You’re asking for trouble and a fight and potentially a bill that you created for yourself actually.
If I’m in my space, and that person can’t manoeuvre out of their space. That’s their fault. Not mine.
So you’re intentially putting your car in a situation where it can be damaged, and you’ll admit that to your insurance so they can not pay out to you?
They would ask why you parked there and not somewhere else. Taking the picture proofs your intent even….
Insurance isn’t stupid they know these games and people do this stuff intentionally all the time, you’re not going to have an easy slam dunk victory. There’s plenty of precedent from people thinking it’s a smart idea before. Give your insurance clauses a read, there’s clauses about you not putting your vehicle in situations, doing everting you can to avoid a collision…
Sometimes you don’t have a choice. Either park there or nowhere. Examples include, but are not limited to: designated parking spaces, or full parking lots.
Sometimes you don’t have a choice
Once I see a picture of that scenario, I’ll believe it. As it stands now it’s coming across as the sort of thing a person makes up on the fly.
In this picture, this truck is obviously parked in a place with an overabundance of parking.
Insurance isn’t gonna pay out either way. In this situation they’d say they don’t have enough information to determine who is at fault and close the claim.
insurance has clauses to prevent paying out
Oh man what a sick gotcha it’s not like that’s the entire purpose of a for profit insurance system.
Alternatively, the lovely thing about driving an old beater is that you have nothing to lose in situations like this.
Goes both ways, the clauses also prevent people from abusing the system and intentionally damaging their vehicles to get repaired.
If you have a legitimate claim, there is nothing you should worry about.
I’m glad my premiums don’t go up because someone intentionally hit a car marginally in their lane “because I had the right of way”, instead of just moving slightly over to avoid the collision.
Amen. I hate bitter people and I hate it even more when they start playing games with my stuff to prove their point.
The last vehicle to move is the one at fault, even if someone else parks right up on them.
Nope that is not even true in the slightest actually, your insurance has clauses that you have to do what you can to prevent accidents and claims.
You can be hit by a vehicle and still be found 100% at fault in plenty of situations.
Play stupid games and find out.
So will I, unless it’s a heap of crap that looks like the driver doesn’t care about their paint…
Agree. You can usually tell an insured vehicle. Not always, but usually.
That guy is taking up like 50 bike parking spots.
Perhaps stores should set up a handful of “big car” parking spots at the very far end of the lot and let these losers walk.
That’s the way it should be but they don’t care they park anywhere they want.
This is already the way it is. At least where I work, the people who park across multiple spots do so at the far end of the parking lot where nobody else is parking.
Looks like this truck is already far enough out to be behind the convenient spaces. Either that or the lot serves a store with no demand.
Either way there are no cars surrounding the truck in this photo, indicating that nobody is actually being harmed or even inconvenienced.
(🛻 * 📏) = 1/( 🍆 * 📏 )
Error: Div 0 not defined!
Aaand that’s a keying
Naw, just loosen a valve stem
Mustard gas in the AC!
Am I doing it right?
Just lift the wipers and leave them flipped away
That’s a good one and just annoying!
