this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
407 points (97.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9683 readers
1415 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
407
Wank tank confirmed (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/fuckcars
 

BTW the tank has a better forward view than the truck

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 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!

[–] JoshuaFalken 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I don't get the problem here.

We just need some big ass bikes!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour 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.

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

Tank has a better turning radius too

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PunnyName 100 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

Just gonna keep on posting this

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 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.

[–] FireRetardant 60 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There really should be legal requirements for sightlines like this for most vehicles on the road.

[–] chonglibloodsport 21 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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 22 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 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 4 points 5 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.

[–] ComicalMayhem 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

it bothers me a little that it's not in order

[–] PunnyName 20 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

It's in an order: height of the front of the vehicle from the ground.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It's grill height until the first kid shows up, then it's the distance away from the vehicle at which the kid becomes visible.

[–] PunnyName 3 points 3 hours ago

Ahh, nice clarification!

[–] FireRetardant 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's only in that order for the first half of the chart then it gets a little jumbled

[–] PunnyName 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Kinda, yeah. Looks like it's mostly typical household cars, and then 3 examples of taller vehicles with actually better angles of vision.

[–] ComicalMayhem 3 points 8 hours ago

oh hey it is. dunno how I didn't notice that

[–] [email protected] 35 points 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.

[–] RedIce25 36 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

I can't understand why someone would want that large of a car

[–] [email protected] 1 points 47 minutes ago

Otherwise it wouldn’t fit the owner’s inflated ego.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 54 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] dejected_warp_core 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It’s also really expensive

This is the reason. Conspicuous consumption is a pox on us all.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 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 8 points 9 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod -1 points 5 hours ago

Aaaand block

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce 4 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

It's good for making the owner forget they have a micropenis for a short while.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] lettruthout 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

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 2 points 6 hours ago

Good point, I'll stick with ESV instead.

"Smart people listen to smart people and are open to change."

[–] snausagesinablanket 3 points 10 hours ago

short while

[–] ohwhatfollyisman 1 points 5 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 hours ago

I know right?

The tank is obviously better for the commuter.

[–] jewbacca117 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Right? If I'm going to get a vehicle that big it better have a 120mm cannon at least.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

And come up to traffic ahead? What traffic? You just keep going!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Lol modern day tanks are insane, they probably have the same top speed

[–] DaddleDew 10 points 9 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.

[–] Aurix 7 points 9 hours ago

The issue is the tank too small, and bicycles shouldn't exist. /s

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

When an IFV is a sensible vehicle in comparison....

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick 3 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 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 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 43 minutes ago

It’s not exhaustive but a good indicator: https://www.carsized.com/en/

load more comments
view more: next ›