this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
360 points (95.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9820 readers
758 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely
Fried_out_Kombi
[email protected]
grue
360
To help you decide on your next daily driver (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/fuckcars
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19668622

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] teft 62 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

In the army you have to have a ground guide for vehicles that big. A ground guide is a soldier that walks in front of the big vehicle and watches for obstacles. The ground guide helps the driver navigate obstacles they are unable to see due to blind spots.

I propose we legislate that all vehicles that big require a ground guide to walk in front of them.

Then everyone will buy small vehicles so the newly formed ground guide union will have less power.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

Ground guide or at least a crew commander at the top of the tank/armoured fighting vehicle. I can see lots of people accepting a lookout on top of their Personal Support Truck before they'd consider downsizing or gulp not driving. I guess that would also increase vehicle occupancy above the abysmal 1.4 people/vehicle it's currently at!

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I also hate driving vehicles like this. It’s not comfortable to know you can’t see around you properly. They’re hard to park too and get terrible mileage.

I had a gf with a full size Chevy, a Silverado or something, and basically hated driving it. We’d go mildly off roading on some dirt roads and when you were going uphill you couldn’t see the road ahead of you. Just awful. I had to stop and get out a few times to ensure we weren’t about to drive off a cliff. That never happened in the normal sized Subaru I had.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Having driven modern Unimogs, I can say with certain that you can absolutely design a vehicle to carry heavy loads, go almost anywhere, be a truly multi-roll vehicle, and have virtually no blind spot. Has virtually no bonnet though, and no chrome wheels, so won’t compensate for having a tiny dick in the same way as a giant pickup though

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Don't multi-roll Unimogs, they're expensive!

[–] CheeseNoodle 3 points 3 months ago

And so weirdly unnecesary, A relative of mine lives in the countryside and genuinely has to use a lot of really beat up tracks, their landrover doesn't have incredible frontal view but easily better than every single thing in this diagram.

[–] WoahWoah 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I think the real-life photo of like a dozen kids in a line in front of the hood and completely invisible from the driver's seat of the truck is more impacting. It's insane. People that drive trucks like that are seriously compensating for something.

I hate Elon Musk, so I don't want to get into a whole thing about it, but the Model 3 and Y have some of the shortest front blind spots of all makes and models of vehicle, largely because their is no engine under the hood allowing for a short and low front end. I couldn't find any data for other all-electric vehicles, but I would assume any fully electric car would be similar.

Bicycles have zero blind spot in front.

[–] numlok 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure Canoo has everyone but the bike beat.

[–] negativenull 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If they would actually release/build the things

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I have felt this way about the Elio for years now. We aren't allowed new competitors in car companies apparently.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Wow, a body design to rival the Fiat Multipla

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Subarus also have pretty good visibility because of how their boxer engines sit lower than other types of engines.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Eh, aside for Foresters... They had to add a front camera IIRC

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Yep other EVs have this as well. The Hyundai IONIQ has great front sightlines for an SUV IIRC.

Still a car, but I admit EVs are much less hateable in a city for multiple reasons. No stinky tailpipe, no roaring engine noise, and generally better sightlines and safety features.

I think my ideal city would be mostly bikes and ebikes, with those vehicles that can't be replaced by bikes being EVs.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

My next car is going to be a GDLS M1 Abrams main battle tank. It's the only true option for car lovers.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I definitely will not worry about anyone scratching the paint when I park.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It actually adds to the camo.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

"Y'all better plan to put that cart away..."

turret slowly begins to turn

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Imagine what it could tow. Such a useful vehicle

[–] Omodi 2 points 3 months ago

I hear it's the American way to be able to drive what ever you want.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Inb4 haha none of those other than the tank can shoot, you can mount a minigun on top of it.

*Minigun sold separately

**Mounting a Minigun will void warranty

[–] teft 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Almost* anything can be a technical if you’re feeling frisky enough.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not with Tesla Cybertruck, the rear will fell off.

[–] teft 2 points 3 months ago

You're absolutely right. I fixed it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

That will show the tankies!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

I think I'll wait until the tank is at least a hybrid.

[–] Taniwha420 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand how the distance to see ground in the tank is longer than those of the Dodge and Chevy, but the distance to see children is shorter.

[–] yetiftw 16 points 3 months ago

the tank sits lower, but the view is more restricted

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Sharper angles from the trucks. Look at the 16 Wheeler truck cabin for an extreme version of it, high up viewpoint and a large front means larger section in front of you is obscured, vs the lower to the ground but gentler angle down of the tank making it slow to see the grounds you can see shorter objects for longer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

look at the angle on thr lines

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

This makes me wonder if there could be a regulation mandating front facing cameras on vehicles where vision is obstructed when moving at low speeds. Perhaps collision alert systems are sufficient. At any rate, there should probably be something that mandates some form of compensation for the lack of vision.

[–] Spur4383 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is no need for cameras, that is solving a problem that did not need to exist. They should not raise the front ends as they do for aesthetic reasons.