this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
353 points (93.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

10066 readers
3 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

trying to share the lane with vehicles in the USA is very dangerous

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vapeloki 65 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And this is on purpose. The manufacturers pushing those huge trucks and SUV, because the required security and safety standards are lower.

Glad I am not living in the USA

[–] KoalaUnknown 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And larger vehicles aren’t subject require to be as fuel efficient as smaller ones are.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That problem is going to sort itself out. The era of cheap fossil fuels is over. And it’s not coming back.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

America will subsidize gasoline before it stops burning it.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are doing so already. But even that has limits.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The limit is the petrodollar, of course. Once that's defunct the whole thing falls down.

Until then wheeeeeeeee~!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

That's not gonna solve the problem when everything is switching to electric. It'll be even cheaper to power a vehicle like this, plus they can cram it with batteries to tout a high range. See: Hummer EV.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

To be more precise: fuel efficiency standards go down with the physical volume a vehicle takes up.

So every year efficiency requirement goes up, but you just update the body every few years to add a little more sheet metal and stay within your legal mandate.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble 19 points 1 year ago

Larger vehicles don't have lower safety requirements, that's just patently false. They're doing it for emissions compliance reasons as Koala said.

They have the same requirements, and need more much reinforcement to make up for all that added mass. Most of the NHTSA's tests involve either a vehicle of a set size running into the test vehicle, or the vehicle under testing to run into a wall. A heavier vehicle is going to need a lot more reinforcement to reach the same level of protection running into a wall than a lighter one.

They are less safe for pedestrians, but those requirements are all more or less the same regardless of size. Manufacturers aren't deliberately trying to make it less safe for pedestrians. They just don't really put any effort into it other than meeting those requirements, and making the "best" car outside of that.

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

These regulations weren't even intended for passenger vehicles. It was supposed to constrain actual work trucks.

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

Pickup trucks are work trucks. Practically zero americans actually require a pickup truck on a daily basis. And for those that do, it's almost always for work purposes. Which means these should be classed and taxed as commercial vehicles.

[–] puppy 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And should require a commercial vehicle driving licence or whatever they are called.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

yesterday I had a cop threatening me with more traffic violations because I asked a question (USA). He ended up never answering the question... ACAB

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I just cycle in the middle of the lane in UK. No one seems to mind but the odd (rare) driver but they still overtake on the incoming lane with no issues.

Who really cares if your drive is slowed down 30-90 seconds by waiting for a cyclist. Driving has a strange competitive mindset about making your journey in an "expected time". I've never understood that

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

There's this weird perception issue that I've noticed while driving. A car is able to cover so much distance so quickly that even small delays in time can equal a huge loss in distance.

Not that it really matters though because having to wait 30 seconds for a bicycle just means that you've lost 30 seconds. The amount of distance you have to make up is irrelevant, you're still only 30 seconds behind where you would have been.

And in any case, those same people will get to the parking lot and will circle around for minutes looking for the perfect spot closest to the front doors so they don't need to waste time walking.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My wife was a "Bikeability" (UK) teacher and this is how they teach people to cycle. Unfortunately there are too many entitled arseholes that can't bear to not be doing the speed limit 100% of the time. And I say this as a car driver.

[–] HexesofVexes 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, I can explain that "competitive mindset" - some are more interested in the destination than the leisure of the journey (travelling is not everyone's cup of tea, I personally hate any travel after work). This is especially true for people with high workloads whose leisure time is measured in minutes rather than hours on an evening, or those with caring responsibilities and a medication schedule to deal with.

Also, keep in mind, you're being charged every second you travel (fuel), so for those forced into a car commute there is double the pressure to make the journey quickly and cheaply.

If you'd like to empathise, think of it as working an extra 10-15 mins per day, and having to pay for doing so. You other option is to work an extra 2 hours a day without pay, in case you were wondering ;)

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

Its a valiant attempt at being a smartass but it falls down since this is clearly produced in the US for an audience in the US.

[–] crashoverride -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

All these are points for not biking on the road. Much safer just to use shortcuts and sidewalks

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

many places will ticket for riding bikes on sidewalks (if there are even sidewalks existing), and many people have no choice but to ride on the road for many routes because no alternative exists

not a solution the vast majority of situations

[–] crashoverride 2 points 1 year ago

That's ridiculous

[–] Squirrelsdrivemenuts 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sidewalks where I live are bumpy, interrupted by trees, signposts and trash bins and occupied by pedestrians. Much better (and ultimately safer) is to cycle in the middle of the lane to force cars to give you space. You are also more visible that way to cars from sidelanes.

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

This is the case with bike lanes at times. They gather debris preventing you from using them. It's frustrating.