this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
1011 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9579 readers
573 users here now

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 CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 133 points 2 months ago (4 children)

So when is the driver getting charged for vandalism and littering?

[–] thesporkeffect 66 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The driver suffered minor injuries but was able to exit the vehicle on his own. Luckily, no one else was hurt, considering the area is popular with swimmers and kayakers

[–] [email protected] 107 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The driver deserves criminal punishment in addition to the punishment of ignoring physics.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Would this be a criminal offense? As much as it’s annoying that his car is so massive, he drove a street legal vehicle in the wrong place. Paying for the damages seems like a sufficient consequence.

[–] bahbah23 65 points 2 months ago

Not a lawyer, but I would assume that reckless driving would apply here. If nothing else, he should be liable for the damages financially due to negligence

[–] PapaStevesy 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If it's overweight, it's not street legal.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Street legal*

*not legal on all streets

[–] Duamerthrax 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was overweight for the bridge, not the road. It was from a commercial trucking company, so likely a dump truck. The first clue should be that it was a F-750. There are pickup beds for them, but they're almost always a flatbed or dump bed.

[–] PapaStevesy -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Street-legal, bridge-legal, who gives a shit. The point is, they drove it illegally and should be able to be punished accordingly. The make and model are irrelevant.

[–] Duamerthrax 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you think they wont be if not for this internet rage?

[–] PapaStevesy 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't care either way, I was responding to a different person who said they couldn't be punished because it was street-legal but in "the wrong place." I was simply pointing out that street-legal-but-in-the-wrong-place is the same as not-street-legal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why do you have such a hard on for punishment? Isn't restitution enough?

[–] PapaStevesy 1 points 2 months ago

I have a hard-on for accurate language, I don't give a shit what happens to the imaginary people in the pickup truck.

[–] Burn_The_Right 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

He failed to observe a traffic control device. There's at least a ticket in there somewhere for him.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

If the bridge had been just a bit sturdier, it could have been damaged jut to the point where the truck could have passed, but the next person driving over would have fell in and risked their lives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Perhaps the cost of the damage would add up to something they could try to make felonious

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

but getting into a car accident while kayaking is an interesting bragging right lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That is in no way related to the question asked. Are you a career politician by chance?

[–] thesporkeffect 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I was quoting the article in attempted response to another commenter saying the driver was dead :0

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago
[–] Duamerthrax 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://www.thedrive.com/news/overweight-ford-f-750-plunges-through-historic-wooden-bridge-in-maine

Repair estimates have not been released, but the owner of the truck company has offered to help pay for the rebuild. The incident itself remains under investigation by local authorities.

The trucking company has already offered to help pay for it. It's likely covered under their insurance and the driver is almost certainly been fired.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What about the environmental damage of a car filled with gasoline, oil and other toxic materials falling into the river below? I doubt anyone will have to pay for the full cleanup

[–] Duamerthrax 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Law enforcement fines the trucking company, trucking company files insurance claim, trucking company pays.

Hazmat was probably the third for fourth on the scene after police, fire and ambulance and would have put those floating oil absorbers in the river.

[–] captainlezbian 10 points 2 months ago

Yeah something like this isn’t some wild out of the blue occurance that nobody is prepared for. Any department of transportation of any acceptable competence level has a procedure for catastrophic bridge failure, especially by vehicular overload.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Need to pay the cost to repair the bridge too