this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
941 points (98.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

13520 readers
861 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Agreed, we shouldn’t be letting the goddamn ephemeral mannekinder block roadways.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 18 points 14 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 6 points 14 hours ago

If I recall my driver's ed, most current "rules of the road" (such as leave a two second gap) are based around WW2 tank driving regulations.

[–] Econgrad@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

I want to see your pic but I can't download it or magnify it.

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 11 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

We should start packing nitroglycerin into kids backpacks to force drivers to be more careful. Sure, some kids would die unnecessarily but dead children seems to be a price Americans are very willing to pay.

[–] cabb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Sure but what if some parents are too lazy or bad with money to be able to buy their children nitroglycerin without receiving government handouts? I don't want my tax dollars helping strangers kids.

/s seems necessary here

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

YSK you can say "fuck" on the internet

[–] NotSafeForWorld@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 15 hours ago

Eh, you can also say f*ing if you want ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Especially on the fediverse, we don't have corporate sponsors, who want us to be sterilized.

[–] Machinist@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Our corporate ~~owners~~ sponsors don't want us to be sterilized. They want us to breed more good little consumers.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Oh, that's really bad.

You know what's also really bad? Our sponsor, ReallyBadMentalHealthCare! Speak to an AI chatbot or some unqualified part-timer for a subscription fee after downloading this shoddy mobile application.

[–] jkercher@programming.dev 4 points 16 hours ago

It's a form of engagement hacking.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 10 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Well, I assume the idea is to see the children before they're that close....

That being said, from my small vehicle I could probably tell what shoes someone is wearing from the same distance that the driver of one of these monstrosities can barely tell their hair color.

I get why trucks exist, I just don't get why so many people drive them as their primary or only vehicle when they don't regularly haul anything more than groceries.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Well, I assume the idea is to see the children before they're that close....

It is, but that does not help you when you stop to talk with the neighbour and their child runs in front of your car while you don't see.

It should at least be mandatory to have a front & rear facing cameras and proximity sensors for cars like this.

[–] flippinfreebird@lemmy.today 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

EPA regulations on emissions, in relation to size, caused light trucks (and the SUVs based on them) to grow to the size you see. Ironically, the fuel efficient small pickup trucks and SUVs we grew up with in the 80s and 90s don't meet modern standards. I die a little inside every time I see one of the Nissan trucks, like the one I totaled. ;_;

[–] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

I'm holding on to my 21 year old 1st gen Colorado like my life depends on it. I'm so mad small pickups aren't a choice nowadays...

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

They have become prohibitively expensive to have as a secondary vehicle, if someone is in a position to need a truck occasionally, most people can't afford to have it as anything other than their daily driver.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride!

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Four wheel drive, smells like a steak and seats thirty-five!

[–] strcrssd@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

No, never. That would scream mass transit, or the B(us) word. Unacceptable. Think of all the unclean, dirty people with darker skin that I would be forced to look at unfairly.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 16 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I thought this was about the freaky little mankins, I was like "yeah they're freaky, but banned is a bit harsh" then I saw that the background was a modern truck grille, not a building.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 17 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Trying to ban them would be extraordinarily difficult. A potential solution would be to push to reclassify them as trucks, under trucking regulations (I'm unsure how this is done in the US). Once you need a tachograph and a requirement to keep driving records, it would cut back on sales. It also still allows "legitimate" usage. This would weaken the argument against the change.

Basically anything where you can't see a 5 year old within 0.5m of your bumper should be under "truck" rules, not "car" rules.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (4 children)

For this purpose, it’s not a question of banning them, but adding pedestrian safety regulations. You can still build these monstrosities while also providing better visibility and less likelihood for victims to be run over.

It’s just banning the “wall” of the front. That’s only required as a style choice and style should not trump safety

I’ve actually been paying more attention lately since my brother bought a Chevy ~~Behemoth~~ Silverado EV. As a big and tall guy I’m used to being bigger than most people I encounter, but looking at the “wall” at the front of these vehicles, it is also well above my center of mass. I would also be thrown down and run over. It’s not just children but there really is no “big enough” to survive getting hit with those

(And yes I will keep giving my brother a hard time. After All these years of owning a house and large property where he could have argued he needed a truck, he gets one after he gave up that property. He bought this monstrosity to commute alone and do road trips alone. Nothing to tow. Nothing to haul.)

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

“Nothing to to tow, nothing to haul.” is so typical. And when they do it’s something even a sedan could pull or a van would have been better for. And then they’ll claim they want winter safety even as I comfortably rip by them in a blizzard with my goddamn BRZ(partly because I actually bought winter tires and they think their frozen “all-terrain” tires are good enough).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 4 points 18 hours ago

I'm feeling similarly. Require a minimum sight lines for shorter humans in front of the vehicle, and lower weight/size limitations on vehicles for a standard Class D license, and a short 1-2 year grandfather period for folks who already own a vehicle that they'll require additional licensing to continue driving so that they can either trade it or get their ducks in a row and continue driving their vehicle legally.

These gigantic trucks and SUVs are unacceptable on our roads and they keep adding extra wear to our roads due to the increased weight, require larger parking spaces and of course are far more deadly to those outside of the vehicle in any kind of collision. They need to be regulated back into the niches their classes were originally designed to fill.

And for those saying "oh but I need a bed for this that and the other" guess what? you can buy a trailer. Drive around an efficient vehicle then hook up an 8 foot trailer (bigger than basically any truck bed these days!) when you need to haul shit

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 1 points 11 hours ago

You have a point but the margins are like 30% more plus these dumb chucklefucks are willing to pay 67%apr over 9 years I think we can afford the odd child death

[–] macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

*fucking. You can say fucking on the internet. Don't worry, we won't tell your mommy.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 26 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I didn't know, fuck you very much ! :-)

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 6 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Why do our car manufacturers here even remotely think this is okay?

[–] hayvan@feddit.nl 1 points 13 minutes ago

Simple: it's profitable. Which means it's not only okay, it's mandatory!

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 16 hours ago

Because it's legal for them to kill us but illegal for us to kill them back.

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 17 hours ago

They don't think it's okay, but neither do they care. They want money even if it means killing kids.

load more comments
view more: next ›