this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
320 points (93.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9770 readers
41 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
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 69 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Tbf phones grew bigger at one point.

Actually the display always grew bigger and the rest of it always grew smaller and at some point, the sum grew bigger

[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

When the screens started getting good enough to watch porn on, the size trend reversed.

[–] agegamon@beehaw.org 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I was going to say, phones are currently growing bigger after hitting a sort of "peak small" lol.

They're getting so huge that it's hard to find a small one without ordering an old model. I like to be able to see things and all but at a certain point they don't fit comfortably in my pockets

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago

Ya, they're too big now. I liked it when I could use my phone with one hand.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

TVs might be an even better example

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don't think so. They never shrank which makes them an even worse example for the meme or what do you mean?

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 11 points 5 months ago

They shrank by weight and volume for sure.

Not by screen area though.

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

Right now I'm sitting next to 2 TVs. One 34'' CRT and an OLED with 4 times the screen area. The CRT weights 7 times more

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Donno why I didn't think about the volume and weight but only about the front area

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Poorly thought out government policy caused cars to get bigger, not over consumption. Over consumption is a problem with tech too.

[–] Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

It's a mix of the CAFE laws and consumer habits based on decades of unsafe street design pushing consumers to larger vehicles which makes them feel safer and anyone outside them less safe, which makes them lean toward larger vehicles to match. Viscous cycle and arms race. Point being policy is part of it, but consumer behavior isn't blameless.

[–] whodoctor11@lemmy.ml 28 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The post is only misguided because we can see the same effect in the latest smartphones. I fucking miss the time when it fit into my pocket.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What I find the most funny and ironic personally is the fact that the old BMW looks like it has a lot more space for passengers than the new oversized one.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Probably has less structure to the frame, smaller crumple zones, and probably no airbags in the pillars.

[–] Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago

Not to speak up for this ludicrous inflation of motor vehicle dimensions, but often the shrinking of cabin space on modern cars is often in pursuit of crashworthiness and safety.

[–] agegamon@beehaw.org 15 points 5 months ago

It doesn't help that carmakers get incentivised to go big by fucked up fuel standards. Here in the US the CAFE standards were gutted during their creation to carve out looser standards for obese pickups and hummer-sized SUVs. The bigger they get even within a given segment, the less stringent the requirements are.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution

Plus people "feel safer" and all that other jazz when they drive them. It's just... It's so stupid to have to watch people continuing to chose shit like this.

IMO it's such a multi-faceted problem that at this point about the only thing that makes sense is to switch lanes (heh) and focus on other transit methods. More people will take transit or bike if it's easier than parking their mile long farm vehicles in tight urban spaces and being helplessly fumigated by standstill traffic.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Safety standards caused passenger cars to get larger more than anything else (trucks got bigger because of weird fuel economy regulations).

Roll back safety standards and we can have small cars again. It’s probably worth the amount of excess deaths it will create, but someone should do a study.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Dpn't forget the fact that most car safety only applies to people in the car. For others it may or may not make it in fact less safe.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Actually pedestrian safety standards are a thing and explains a lot of design choices and why many cars have a very similar profile.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Absolutely true, it’s why there aren’t any more fun pop up headlights, or hood ornaments.

[–] RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Were already at an all-time high of vehicle related deaths. We'd actually probably see a decrease in fatalities if we made cars smaller.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Proportional to the number of km driven or just raw number?

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Both. More weight of a car = more danger to everyone.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Source on the deaths

Give us numbers, prove that deaths have gone up when taking the increase in annual mileage, cars on the road and increase in general population into consideration.

[–] RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The only thing I know as someone not in the business is that many of the experts are saying larger vehicles are nearly half of all fatalities.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212737005/cars-trucks-pedestrian-deaths-increase-crash-data

Do note that these are numbers for the US, and may not correspond with other countries.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They're also half of the vehicles sold though...

Also bigger vehicles result in more dangerous pedestrian impacts isn't the first point you were making and isn't the point being discussed here.

Answer the question, where did you get the info about accidents being at an all time high? Where did you get the info that it's at an all time high in proportion to mileage covered, number of cars on the road and increase in population?

You said it's at an all time high for "both" gross number and in proportion, you must be able to provide a source if you're so confident, right?

https://lemmy.ml/comment/11316810

[–] RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You have me confused for someone else. Lemmy is a big place with multiple users, someone else said that it's both.

But sure, here you go:

Pedestrian fatalities are correlated with two major factors: speed and vehicle size. In North America, streets are designed to make driving easier and faster: lanes are made wider, and obstacles are removed to reduce visual clutter. This results in everything in NA looking flat and being spread out.

Vehicle sizes are goibg up because of the "size wars": the EPA made limits on fuel emissions barring vehicle size, so auto manufacturers decided to make larger vehicles to get around the limitations. Consumers wanted bigger, "safer" vehicles to make it more likely to survive a crash, so there's become an arms race for vehicle size. As these vehicles get bigger, pedestrians become harder to see, and if a pedestrian is hit, the grill is so high, the pedesteian will be thrown under the vehicle as opposed to over it.

As North America grows, we expand into suburbs, which are residential only, requiring residents to commute into the city to get groceries or go to work. More driving means more km driven.

And if you want my sources, here are a few to get you started:

Pedestrian deaths all-time high - https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deaths-high-traffic-car

And https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7317a1.htm

Vehicle size: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/more-and-more-american-pedestrians-are-dying-because-larger-vehicles-incorporating-data-safety-regulations-can-help

And https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-safety.html

And https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147075/

Lane width and speeding correlation: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/review_lane_width_and_speed_parsons.pdf

And https://narrowlanes.americanhealth.jhu.edu/report/JHU-2023-Narrowing-Travel-Lanes-Report.pdf

I hope these provide the answers you're looking for.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Numbers

Proportions

Source

Without adjustment based on proportions this means nothing.

Did you know that there's more car related deaths now than there ever was in the 1800s? 😱

Yeah, because there were no cars on the road.

[–] RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I just linked you 6 articles and a peer reviewed paper on the subject, but if you're still not going to believe me, I'm not going to spoonfeed you. This is my last reply to your motonormative idiocy.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

None of them adjust the numbers for proportions and a bunch of articles are about vehicle size and lane width and its impact on speed, which isn't what I'm asking about.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813458

7837 in 1981 (which is more than the number you shared), there was much less cars on the road, average annual mileage was lower, total population was nearly a third less at the time, so no, it's not at an all time high (these are your words) even the gross number isn't.

Adjusted for population it's 11 244 deaths in 1981, pretty far from current numbers am I right?

Try.

Harder.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago

Safety standards is the stated reason, but the actual reason is that weight is unregulated and can always be increased in pursuit of any more profitable dimension. If weight was the taxable dimension, we'd live in a much better world.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Smaller cars still exist though?

[–] oo1@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

yeah in europe (obviosly it varies a lot cross-country and rural/urban) but lots of places with high safety standards , and high emissions taxes. Still lots of small cars around .
Mostly due to parking in big-dense-cities though probably.

US does come out badly on deaths per billion pax-km: 8 ish vs 3-5 for most euro countries

So on the face of it small cars dont sem to correlate - but these data look a bit hodge podge, so not sure to read too much into it without knowing the underlying sources.

Other factors like the "stroad" thing might be an issue.
And a lot of European municipalities give the elderly free public transport, and have ok bus service, so many doddery old coots have a viable option.

I remember that southpark episode about senior drivers, with the jaws music . . .
Maybe not as funny when you look at that US death rate. To quoe Father Maxi: "No god needs complex irony and subtle farcical twists that seem macabre to you and me, all that we can hope for is that god got his laughs . . ."

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

I mean, you do need to fit into one of those