this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
1059 points (98.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

13527 readers
446 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
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

States should be taxing or increasing licensing fees on these vehicles to pay for the increased medical services because of these unsafe vehicles.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 10 hours ago

In Australia they're registered as trucks, and drivers have to follow truck rules, including special low speed limits on hills, restrictions from minor roads except where that's their destination

This isn't a big impost on them, but it makes them less desirable for people who would use them as daily drivers

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 2 points 17 hours ago

In the 1000% range.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

The state is actually a big part of the problem in this case. Small gas trucks are effectively illegal.

Automakers were fucking around with vehicle classifications in the 2000s to get around CAFE regulations. Things like the PT Cruiser were being classified as trucks. So starting in 2012, CAFE regulations were changed so that fuel economy standards were based on vehicle footprint. But it had a huge unintended consequence.

Suddenly a Toyota Corolla had less-strict fuel economy standards than small commercial vehicles like the Dakota, S-10, and Ranger. Notice how all 3 models were discontinued by 2012? And now that the Ranger is "back" its footprint is larger than some old F-150s?

As the CAFE standards get stricter over time, manufacturers have learned it's easier to just make the car bigger than to meet the fuel economy standards. They've made the marketing about penisnsize and shit, but it's really more about meeting regulations.

A more recent casualty was small cargo vans. The Transit Connect, ProMaster City, and NV200 were all discontinued by 2022 because small cargo vans can't meet CAFE. This is also why New York had to cancel its new Taxi fleet that was based on the NV200.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

How can I get my goods to market if I dont have a long haul bus?

[–] Hungry_man@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

You are up for surprised when you will know blindspot of low level sedan

[–] rising_man@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

How would they carry stuff, guns and their alpha male ego? Did you think about that? /s

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago
[–] polle@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But what would the people with their small self-esteem do then?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Beat me to it, dammit.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 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.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 2 points 17 hours ago

Didn't that other dude say something similar about gun deaths?

[–] cabb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 22 points 1 day ago (9 children)

YSK you can say "fuck" on the internet

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 1 points 21 hours ago

ok, let me try this... duck! DUCK! Does my F key even work? Duck! Fck! Fuk! FCUK! Nope, apparently, I can't

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

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

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (9 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world 42 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›