this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
259 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

9773 readers
101 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
uthredii@lemmy.ml
uthredii@beehaw.org
259
Higher Vehicle Hoods Increase Pedestrian Deaths (arstechnica.com)
submitted 9 months ago by HallowellNash@lemmy.world to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I know, you’re shocked right?

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 58 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

A couple of people that drive massive vehicles they don't need like Escalades have told me (former practicing psychologist) over the years that they know they are bad drivers, but they want to drive a tank so they can walk away from whatever accidents they know they'll cause.

Because practicing and improving their driving skills is apparently not on the table. The lack of empathy is unsettling. They don't care who they kill, they just don't want to be inconvenienced.

Usually the affluent spouse type.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I think this shows some of the bigger issues in car centric design. Even if you don't like driving, aren't good at it, or aren't comfortable with it, you often have to do it anyway beceause there are no viable alternatives.

[–] aelwero@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Gotta have more real estate for factory lights... Starting to see trucks with eight lights on the front going down down the road.

The ironic part is that the high beams usually disable all the aux lights, so if you see a newer truck with only two lights, it's probably got the high beams on, and if they turn it back to low beams to be "courteous", it turns on all the others and ends up being worse than if they'd just left the fucking high beams on.

I don't really give a shit about the penile compensation aspect of "muh bigguh truck", but fuck your wall of lights...

[–] DarkDiamondK@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Man, I drive a truck, 500 a month, will be paid off in less than 2 years, I get a lot of utility out of it and I got it from my brother who put some nice tires on it

But I also hate it because it's so fuckin big, and I hate that people might think I'm a truck freak, but it's just my only good option right now

[–] aelwero@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I got a little jeep renegade that runs me like 350 a month...

First time I put gas in it and realized it had a 12 gallon tank, I was all like "OMG, why?!?". Then I drove 300 miles before the light came on and It made perfect sense :)

Full tank doesn't even get halfway to the $100 mark where you gotta reset the pump to fill it the rest of the way, ya know?

500 a month could treat you a lot better at the gas pump.

[–] seang96@spgrn.com 4 points 9 months ago

My girlfriend got a jeep renegade and I feel like it has so many more blind spots then other cars. That being said it does not have blind spot sensors on the side mirrors either since it's older.

[–] Aleric@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I feel you. We need a truck for occasional use, so we got a high mileage retired work truck for really cheap. It's bare bones with manual windows and no power locks but it has dual rear tires and a flatbed, so it's perfect for when we or a neighbor needs to haul big shit. Unfortunately, so many people now assume I'm a dick size compensating fascist on the rare occasions I drive it. My wife and I are thinking of getting the cab wrapped in a rainbow with a big purple, glittery unicorn right across the hood.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What? Really? We just tell Congress, surely more data will have them regulate car size immediately. /s with a sigh.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When a certain popular president and congress passed the bail-out of the domestic vehicle industry, written by the same in 2008 that allowed such vehicles to be more profitable then a smaller cars, he was awarded a noble prize and reelected in a landslide.

[–] Vinegar@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It is misleading to attribute too much credit to a single individual, even a president. There was a significant clash of social/political forces when Obama was in office. Off the top of my head I can think of the following major forces: War in Iraq & Afghanistan, Great Recession & Occupy, DREAMers, ACA, Gay marriage, Environmentalism / Inconvenient Truth, Global outsourcing & job loss, Tea Party & the rise of militant christian nationalism. That's the landscape in which progressive policy ambitions were compromised to death to avoid total gridlock.

It's also worth giving credit where it is due: those auto safety and emissions regulations achieved their goal... for regular cars. Unfortunately, Republicans insisted on exceptions for body-on-frame vehicles (trucks, vans, SUVs). In the years since, those types of vehicles have steadily become the most common in the US, because they are the most profitable for the auto industry.

[–] KinNectar@kbin.run 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Would cattle scoop style front ends save lives? The point would need to be crumply plastic for auto collisions, but i wonder if designing for deflection would legitimately benefit pedestrian collision survivability.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Man people really will jump through hoops to make it possible to change nothing about the design of cities and pedestrain safety. Even these massive trucks could be safer if the roads were better designed to minimizse pedestrian and car conflicts, but those designs often slow cars down so we will never see it in North America.

Also a far better option than a cattle scoop would be downward angled hoods. It would provide a similar effect but also provide better visibility which could help reduce collisions with pedestrians.

[–] KinNectar@kbin.run 3 points 9 months ago

Vehicle design prioritizing pedestrian survivability is beneficial regardless of urban design, though admittedly an optimal design will depend on median speed of the vehicle.in pedestrian areas.

Return to retro 1940s rounded truck hoods is honestly an inevitable design shift at some point, as fashion always cycles, but the aerodynamics and fuel efficiency standards are against it.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The trend was all too apparent at the last auto show we went to—at Chicago in 2020, I felt physically threatened just standing next to some of the products on display by GMC and its competitors.

Intuitively, the supersized hood heights on these pickups seem more dangerous to vulnerable road users, but now there's hard data to support that.

For decades, urban planners have prioritized car traffic above everything else, and our built environment favors speeding vehicles at the cost of people trying to cross roads or cycle.

Tyndall's data set started with 13,783 single-vehicle, single-pedestrian crashes, then filtered out those instances where there was no VIN recorded, except if the report included make and model.

He also removed entries that did not record other important variables, such as vehicle speed, leaving a sample size of 3,375 crashes.

When examined by vehicle type, vans proved to be the least dangerous to pedestrians, with a 6.6 percent chance of death.

The original article contains 640 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!