this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
273 points (90.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9821 readers
1 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The ship is expected to keep burning for weeks.

Actually, it might also sink and release up to 2,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (plus molten plastic, metals etc.) to the Wadden Sea which is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as an important biosphere reserve.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Nice! Good to know!

[–] veganpizza69 3 points 1 year ago

yeah, tug it back to the customers/producers.

[–] coffeebiscuit 2 points 1 year ago

This is also the reason why they aren’t extinguishing the fire as normal. Because flooding the boot with water will guarantee it to sink.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (7 children)

"Of the 3000 cars onboard, 25 are electric and one of those has apparently set light to the whole cargo"

BULLSHIT!

Nobody said so.

But "journalists" nowadays are full of shit and all reporting "currently there's no proof that some electric car started the fire" (always with #electriccars) - what everyone reads as "yeah, sure the electric car was it!"

meanwhile electric cars are actually LESS likely to start a fire and still nobody in the know has actually claimed electric cars had ANYTHING to do with it.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The article linked in the post says:

A spokesman for the Coast Guard said earlier today that the fire is believed to have started in one of the electric cars. Later in the evening, the Coast Guard said that nothing is yet known about the cause.

So yeah they aren't sure but it's coming from the coast guard not the journalist.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago

Other people actually reported that coast guard not only responded with "we don't know anything yet", but also with "nobody of us would have told you a cause and we don't know who did"

I've not seen any proof apart from wild speculation by owner/journalists yet.

And yes, the owner too pointed at electric cars - but neither people on board nor anybody near the ship was telling about that. So I'd guess that's just repeating headlines too.

My point was: don't claim "maybe it was electric cars"! because people don't understand "maybe"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

because it's impossible that the other 3000 cars filled with an explosive liquid could have ignited the fire. No, it's definitely impossible, those fuel tanks never leak, and gas vapor never explode

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

They dont ship cars with gas in them

[–] vaultdweler13 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure they don't ship cars with gasoline in em, thats extra weight that doesnt need to be there let alone the fire hazard.

The electric cars on the otherhand most likely have the batteries built into the fucking frame.

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

Tbh all cars have at least one battery. Or it might have been some order random accident that has nothing to do with the cargo. I think we need more info on this

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I mean statistics are clear on that one… :D

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Just tow it beyond the environment.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Just pipe it to /dev/null

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

No. Out of the environment!

So it's no longer in an environment.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Whether you like it or not, our modern society can't function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc. Focusing on the fact this vessel dares to carry cars, rather than the fact the fire was able to spread between presumably multiple decks, and cause the entire cargo to burn.

Sprinkler systems on vessels is very much a thing.

[–] Necronomicommunist 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Nobody here wants everything with rubber wheels banned. We just want cars to be a form of personal transport to be the lowest prioritized compared to other forms like buses, trains, etc.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey it looks like your comment got quadruple posted. Do you happen to use liftoff for lemmy? I do and multiposting happens to me occasionally.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we only had cars where they are needed, for emergency and delivery vehicles etc, then the demand for these sorts of things would reduce massively and the likelihood of something like this happening would plummet.

[–] nxfsi 16 points 1 year ago

Yeah but then rich people will have to ride public transit together with the poors. Obviously we can't have that

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Good luck fighting a burning EV with sprinklers!

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago

The aim of a sprinkler system is to contain a fire, not necessarily to extinguish it. A sprinkler system can, will, and has kept a burning EV from spreading to other vehicles.

Now, gasoline on the other hand, that floats on water, which is very annoying to put out.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can’t function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc.

yeah, okay. But we need far fewer than we have. So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?

And yes "this should have been made safer" is another point - but that doesnt invalidate the other.

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

So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?

The supply side is the wrong place to tackle this problem though. If you limit the amount of new cars that may be produced, people will simply drive their older ones for longer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

...alright, maybe this is a stupid question, but how is it we can't get 8 ships out there meant to suck up sea water and blast it onto the fire until its out? How is it that waiting for it to burn out our best option here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Water stops fire because it spills over the burning mess and starves it of oxygen.

A burning lithium cell releases both oxidizer and fuel, which, because of the temperature, can now burn more of the lithium cell and release more oxidizer and fuel.

Which essentially burns down to LiPos can burn underwater and water won't quench them.

Also, blasting a ship with water means that it will, eventually, sink. Spilling its own heavy fuel, and all the cargo onboard into the sea.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›