BTW the tank has a better forward view than the truck

  • Commander_Keen@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Sad thing is it looks like he has spacers on his wheels so he is as wide as a dually with no marker lights. Lifted so even less visibility and prolly a douche.

    This is coming from a guy who owns a f350 dually who uses it for work / hauling stuff for the farm. Not for getting groceries or cruising the strip.

    Really should be a law proving you need the truck for something other than a commute but then again. ‘Merica!

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      What I don’t get is how people can afford driving any truck for personal use.

      I mean I’d like a truck for hauling stuff around the house, like feed, firewood, and the odd building materials. But I can afford a car just for that, so I would need to use it for daily driving as well. I did a cursory search for used f150s and the cheapest I’ve found is a 2015 king ranch gas powered two seater, which, besides the ridiculous price tag of 56k USD, is guzzling gas at an astonishing rate. Just the gas for my commute alone would be about 700USD monthly.

      I know my numbers are a little high, these are Danish figures, but I still see dodge rams and f250s on the road. How the fuck are people affording that? Are they just going deeper and deeper into debt to peacock? That hardly seem sustainable.

    • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The year is 2050, Trump’s dessicated husk is dictator-for-life due to Elon Musk’s life extending technology.

      Vehicles have steadily gotten larger to meet supposed consumer demand. The smallest “compact” sedans require a 4 foot step ladder to enter.

      Bicycles are now at least 500 pounds of solid steel. The tires cost $250 each due to their enormous size and thickness.

      It is illegal to spend less than $1000 dollars on gas per month, and all homes are required to have a minimum of three garages.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        For more than a hundred centuries the Emperor of Mankind has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the master of mankind by the will of the gods and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the vast Imperium of Man for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day so that he may never truly die.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      To be fair, the tank has better turning radius than everything, besides a bike if you count lifting it and rotating it. A tank can turn in place.

      The view of a tank is fairly bad though, which is why it’s impressive the truck is worse.

    • Fizz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 hours ago

      10 meter visibility is fucking insane. How is that not illegal.

      • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Because when laws and policies are first made with the assumption people aren’t assholes. We literally believed people will do the right thing.

        All the addendums were to fix asshole behaviors.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That’s a good temporary fix but the long term solution is to get rid of stroads and get back to proper separation between streets (which are narrow, one way, and walkable) and roads (which have a high speed limit, very few intersections, and no driveways). This would dramatically cut down on the number of encounters between pedestrians and cars, while also making suburbs much more walkable and livable.

        Streetcar suburbs, the most desirable neighbourhoods to live in, are illegal to build in most cities!

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          We could do both. I don’t see how increasing visibility is a “temporary fix”, I see that as a safety improvement regardless of how well designed a street is. Even the safest designed street is even safer by increasing the visibility a driver has. It also just makes driving easier in general.

          Edit: it is also an unfortunate reality that people run over their own children or pets in their own driveway and better sightlines can reduce this risk.

    • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      i know this is anecdotal but i’ve sat up front in the bajaj re tuktuk. one can almost see the single front wheel from that position – visibility for that one vehicle is definitely closer than the 2 meters shown in this graphic.

  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    FTR I hate this pickup and agree with the sentiment of this photo, but I feel like there’s some skewed perspective tricks going on based on this manually photoshopped drag to relocate (no resizing of anything in photo) to demonstrate.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      It’s not even good for truck stuff. All that lift kit is extra weight and puts the bed too high to load stuff into it without a crane.

      It’s also really expensive so you’re not gonna fuck it up when off-roading, though those wheels and tires aren’t off-road ready.

      ETA: It’s not even artistic. A low rider isn’t good for anything but they look great. Sometimes art can be a reason. But this is just a giant, ugly, beige piece of crap with hideous wheels.

      It’s an entirely useless vehicle that isn’t good for anything and I hate it.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Conspicuous consumption has been a thing for a really, really long time. But at least in previous time periods the things they were consuming at least were interesting to look at. Now it’s just mass-produced bullshit that doesn’t even look good. For fuck’s sake: They’re selling stained and ripped jeans for hundreds of dollars!

          Bring back codpieces and fancy frilled collars! Bring back ornate brocade and gold detailing! Bring back ornate architecture! If you’re going to exploit us for our labor at least make things that look good!

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Not to mention the borderline useless low profile tires. The bead would probably slip off the rim on a bumpy cottage road, i can’t even imagine how poorly they’d perform in real offroad conditions.

      • Mac
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        lift kit = extra weight, bed too high

        The weight added by a lift kit is a rounding error on the weight of the vehicle
        Beds are too high from the factory so this doesnt actually matter

        Offroading

        This style is not built to go offroading

        Not artisitic

        Not up to you. People are allowed to like things.

        Get better, defendable arguments.

        These trucks suck to drive, ride like shit, get poor fuel economy, pollute the planet (especially after emissions equipment is deleted), but most importantly are unsafe to be on the road: they barely fit in the lanes, the view out of them is abysmal, and are extremely heavy which makes them unsafe in a collision.

        • homoludens@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Could we stop using “micropenis” and the likes as insults? There are many men with small dicks who aren’t insecure assholes.

          • lettruthout@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Agreed. Moving away from body shaming, here are a couple of names for such a huge vehicle: Pavement Princess, Emotional Support Vehicle.

            • Incandemon@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Just to be pedantic and nit picky, if we want to move away from insulting body features I feel that moving to insulting gender isn’t a great thing to move to. Pavement Princess as a pejorative is mostly relying on our assumptions of princesses, end by extension the female side of the species, being delicate and useless.

              Just a thought, I’ve used the term myself, though I wish I could find a better one. ESV might be the one I go to in the future.

              • lettruthout@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Good point, I’ll stick with ESV instead.

                “Smart people listen to smart people and are open to change.”

    • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      society has made us see cars more as a statement of one’s image rather than an object of utility.

      this is also why luxury brands thrive in general – because there exist people with more money than sense.

    • Gork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I know right?

      The tank is obviously better for the commuter.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The tank also legally requires a crew commander with functioning communications with the driver to help alleviate the blind spots if it is to be driven on public roads during peace time. At least in Canada anyway.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    How do you even park that monster?

    Dude, I wouldn’t drive that truck if it was free. 100% would sell and get something actually usable.

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      IFVs generally carry a full load, making them more fuel efficient per pax than the vast majority of vehicles on the road.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      “Wank tank” is a derogatory term for lifted, oversized pickup trucks, implying they’re as big as a tank, but with the only purpose of serving as wank material for the owner.
      In these pictures, the pickup truck has a longer wheelbase than the tank, and is of comparable size overall, confirming that the term is appropriate.
      The bicycle in both pictures with the parallel lines proves that both pictures are at the exact same scale.

  • DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Never seen a scaled picture like this before and it is shocking tbh, what a waste of fuel and danger to the community.