Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
By victims I assume you mean unsuspecting drivers coming across a dark, unlighted vehicle in the road at night who could be injured or killed by an accident or swerving to avoid one, right?
If they can't see a fucking cart with their headlights on, then what chance do they have of avoiding a cyclist or a pedestrian out for a walk?
Some people shouldn't be allowed to drive.
They have a very good chance of seeing me while I'm cycling because I'm lighted. If I'm forced to walk on the road at night without a light I'll stay out of the roadway when cars are coming. Doing otherwise would be stupid, just as stupid as driving an unlighted vehicle with a significant speed differential at night.
They should see you with only your reflectors. Headlight "safety" ratings have steadily improved since 2016. [https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/ranks-of-top-safety-pick-winners-swell-as-automakers-improve-headlights] I use the air-quotes as IIHS tests favor more light for the driver at the expense of glare for others.
In any case, if they can't see you at night, then they need to slow down as the maximum speeds supported by current low beam technology is around 40-45 mph. Bicycles shouldn't be on roads with such high prevailing speeds, 50 mph+. Rather they should be on a separate path. In that case the risk is far lower to the cyclist then what some flashing lights could've achieved.
Cyclists and pedestrians use lights + high-vis gear
What's depressing is that now headlights are glaring LED supernovas, and yet drivers still can't stop hitting things at night.
Well i assume the drivers used headlights at night so they can see where they're going and if there are obstacles in the way.
I see you don’t understand how dark objects work at night when they are not lit. Lmfao. And then BOOM instantly lit 5 fr in front of you.
No, by victims we mean the people using a road in the way roads were used for centuries, completely legally. The ones being hit from behind by people in too much of a hurry to use proper caution in area where Amish frequently travel and they are not the only users of the roadway.
If I drive through a neighborhood with a "Children at Play" sign and run over a kid, I can 100% guarantee you that I am not the victim. That is some very cringe logic. The road exists first for pedestrians, secondly for non-motorized vehicles, and lastly.... for automobiles.
They're not using it legally, hence the legal proceedings.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Sometimes the laws themselves are immoral. I believe this may be such a situation.
I don't necessarily disagree. But someome using the road legally needs be able to assume others are too. If you can't, what do you do? Walking, riding a bike, or driving do you stop at every green light to make sure no one is going to decide the red lights don't apply to them? Do you idle down the road at 10mph whenever it's dark or there is reduced visibility to make sure someone didn't decide the laws don't apply to them and drove an unlighted vehicle?
The most important thing about using a road safely, whether you're walking, riding, or driving, is to be predictable. A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.
If you think the law should be changed and some other accommodation made, that's a reasonable opinion. But until that happens, the person injured or killed by illegal activity is the victim, not the person acting illegally.
That's a great response and I'm now on board with you. You're considering this from a perspective I hadn't, but I see it now. Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
Let it be known that on this day, the sixth of August in the year of our Lord 2024, an event of great import and considerable rarity occurred: a man's opinion was changed by Internet discourse.
But a bear, deer, moose, or other large animal is, and they don't have warning lights. Drivers need to drive within the distance of their headlights and sight; it's that simple.
I occasionally come around bends in the roads to my neighborhood and discover a deer standing in the road. Because I'm not going too fast, I'm able to stop and avoid hitting them. Or, I could come around a bend and discover a large tree has fallen on the road. Again, it's my responsibility to be driving in a manner that I can stop in time. It's not the tree's fault if I hit it, unless it just happens to fall inches in front of me.
Blaming the victims instead of the drivers is the biggest problem with cars in the US today. Drivers need to be responsible for their several tons of heavy machinery, and we do not hold them responsible often enough. So, drivers are practically encouraged to drive like nothing is going to go wrong.
I suppose you could try to pass laws against animals or fallen trees in the roadway. I don't know how successful that might be. Fining a bear for being in the road also presents challenges.
Using a road in any way is never going to be completely safe. All we can do is make rules that reduce or eliminate known hazards.
We're not taking about a deer being a deer. We're talking about a group of stubborn dickheads who despite knowing damn well that they're sharing the road with vehicles that have large speed differentials, refuse to make themselves visible for the benefit of everyone's safety.
The victim is the person injured or killed by someone committing an illegal act. Not the person acting illegally.
Keep driving like nothing will ever go wrong, I'm sure that will work out perfectly for you!
Lol, nice straw man.
Hey, let me ask you a few questions.
What if the next law these fucking jerks decide they don't want to follow is driving on the right? You come to one of the bends you go around and instead of a deer standing there, or a fallen tree, there are two horses pulling a carriage toward you making the combined speed too high to stop in time. Your hood takes out their legs and a couple thousand pounds of house torso blasts through your windshield killing you and your family.
Are you and your deceased family victims now? Or is the victim still somehow the asshole driving the carriage who miraculously always remains blameless just because they're not driving a car?
What does fuck cars mean to you?
To me it means drastically reducing the share of infrastructure and space given to the operation and storage of cars by improving public transportation and cycling/pedestrian friendly infrastructure to reduce, or even eliminate, the need for personal motor vehicles larger than an E-Bike in most, or even all cases.
Based on your comments "fuck cars" is just a mantra. A mantra you've repeated often enough to inspire a religious-like conviction that the driver of a motor vehicle is always at fault when they come in conflict with any other road user, no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound.
You're actually insane. Got it.
Roads are a shared resource, and we all have a responsibility to use them wisely.
Driving around too fast to stop - whether it be vehicle or horse - is irresponsible. I don't understand why this is a controversial opinion, but it sure as hell is. I ride bicycles, I drive compact cars, and I drive a pickup while towing a 30' long trailer, so I experience all aspects of road usage and rage directed at me.
And somehow I know that I need to keep within my limits of braking. It's not hard. Christ. I'm blocking you, I don't need insane people in my life.
So we're both in agreement that driving too fast is irresponsible.
But you think diving an unlighted buggy at night is fine. And furthermore, if that unlighted buggy gets in an accident with a car, it's definitely the driver of the car obeying all the laws at fault, never the fault of the buggy driving scofflaw.
Nope, doesn't sound like dogmatic culty thinking to me at all.
BTW: the appeal to authority fallacy is no better than a straw man. Much like traffic laws, they're all important.
Traffic laws tend to be about safety rather than morality.
It would be interesting if separate bicycle infra ever makes its way to that part of Ohio. I wonder how the buggies would be treated in that case? Would they be permitted to ride on the bike paths, or would they only be allowed on certain parts of the paths?