this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
682 points (96.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

12115 readers
1271 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
682
Wank tank confirmed (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
 

BTW the tank has a better forward view than the truck

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 155 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Just gonna keep on posting this

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 82 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There really should be legal requirements for sightlines like this for most vehicles on the road.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s a good temporary fix but the long term solution is to get rid of stroads and get back to proper separation between streets (which are narrow, one way, and walkable) and roads (which have a high speed limit, very few intersections, and no driveways). This would dramatically cut down on the number of encounters between pedestrians and cars, while also making suburbs much more walkable and livable.

Streetcar suburbs, the most desirable neighbourhoods to live in, are illegal to build in most cities!

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We could do both. I don't see how increasing visibility is a "temporary fix", I see that as a safety improvement regardless of how well designed a street is. Even the safest designed street is even safer by increasing the visibility a driver has. It also just makes driving easier in general.

Edit: it is also an unfortunate reality that people run over their own children or pets in their own driveway and better sightlines can reduce this risk.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 25 points 6 months ago (1 children)

10 meter visibility is fucking insane. How is that not illegal.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because when laws and policies are first made with the assumption people aren't assholes. We literally believed people will do the right thing.

All the addendums were to fix asshole behaviors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

it bothers me a little that it's not in order

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

It's in an order: height of the front of the vehicle from the ground.

[–] Tower@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's grill height until the first kid shows up, then it's the distance away from the vehicle at which the kid becomes visible.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Ahh, nice clarification!

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's only in that order for the first half of the chart then it gets a little jumbled

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

i know this is anecdotal but i've sat up front in the bajaj re tuktuk. one can almost see the single front wheel from that position -- visibility for that one vehicle is definitely closer than the 2 meters shown in this graphic.

[–] RedIce25@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I can't understand why someone would want that large of a car

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 70 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 children)

It’s not even good for truck stuff. All that lift kit is extra weight and puts the bed too high to load stuff into it without a crane.

It’s also really expensive so you’re not gonna fuck it up when off-roading, though those wheels and tires aren’t off-road ready.

ETA: It's not even artistic. A low rider isn't good for anything but they look great. Sometimes art can be a reason. But this is just a giant, ugly, beige piece of crap with hideous wheels.

It’s an entirely useless vehicle that isn’t good for anything and I hate it.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s also really expensive

This is the reason. Conspicuous consumption is a pox on us all.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Conspicuous consumption has been a thing for a really, really long time. But at least in previous time periods the things they were consuming at least were interesting to look at. Now it's just mass-produced bullshit that doesn't even look good. For fuck's sake: They're selling stained and ripped jeans for hundreds of dollars!

Bring back codpieces and fancy frilled collars! Bring back ornate brocade and gold detailing! Bring back ornate architecture! If you're going to exploit us for our labor at least make things that look good!

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Not to mention the borderline useless low profile tires. The bead would probably slip off the rim on a bumpy cottage road, i can't even imagine how poorly they'd perform in real offroad conditions.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

lift kit = extra weight, bed too high

The weight added by a lift kit is a rounding error on the weight of the vehicle
Beds are too high from the factory so this doesnt actually matter

Offroading

This style is not built to go offroading

Not artisitic

Not up to you. People are allowed to like things.

Get better, defendable arguments.

These trucks suck to drive, ride like shit, get poor fuel economy, pollute the planet (especially after emissions equipment is deleted), but most importantly are unsafe to be on the road: they barely fit in the lanes, the view out of them is abysmal, and are extremely heavy which makes them unsafe in a collision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The reason is "mine is bigger than yours", almost entirely.

And expense, but the size and power numbers are most of what these people care about, like it makes them better than other people in smaller cars in their mind.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them think everyone driving something smaller is jealous and if they say they aren't jealous they're just lying to cover up that they can't be as awesome as big truck drivers

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago

I know right?

The tank is obviously better for the commuter.

[–] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Right? If I'm going to get a vehicle that big it better have a 120mm cannon at least.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 46 points 6 months ago (3 children)

FTR I hate this pickup and agree with the sentiment of this photo, but I feel like there's some skewed perspective tricks going on based on this manually photoshopped drag to relocate (no resizing of anything in photo) to demonstrate.

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think the perspective issue is that the person you've dragged down is further back than the bicycle. Try dragging them just in front of the bicycle by the tank and I think they'll still look tiny.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Commander_Keen@reddthat.com 45 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Sad thing is it looks like he has spacers on his wheels so he is as wide as a dually with no marker lights. Lifted so even less visibility and prolly a douche.

This is coming from a guy who owns a f350 dually who uses it for work / hauling stuff for the farm. Not for getting groceries or cruising the strip.

Really should be a law proving you need the truck for something other than a commute but then again. ‘Merica!

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

What I don't get is how people can afford driving any truck for personal use.

I mean I'd like a truck for hauling stuff around the house, like feed, firewood, and the odd building materials. But I can't afford a car just for that, so I would need to use it for daily driving as well. I did a cursory search for used f150s and the cheapest I've found is a 2015 king ranch gas powered two seater, which, besides the ridiculous price tag of 56k USD, is guzzling gas at an astonishing rate. Just the gas for my commute alone would be about 700USD monthly.

I know my numbers are a little high, these are Danish figures, but I still see dodge rams and f250s on the road. How the fuck are people affording that? Are they just going deeper and deeper into debt to peacock? That hardly seem sustainable.

Edit: somehow I claimed that I could afford a separate car for truck stuff, and then proceeded to explain why that wasn't the case. Fixed that.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It broke my european mind when I was talking to an American about fuel prices. I spend like 90$ a month MAX, usually less on petrol. And then this mother fucker says 200-300$ A WEEK!!! BROTHER WHAT?!? And American fuel price are lower than here due to government subsidies, so like holy shit... How much more is that thing eating up??? He said that he only included his non work driving too...

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's worse than that. I live in a rural Midwestern state, and have seen huge expensive trucks outside of a tiny home in terrible condition. Their truck is probably equally expensive as their home. It's sucking all of their income and driving them into poverty.

Also near me, there was a billboard advertisement that said simply, "YOU NEED A TRUCK" with a picture of one of these monsters. I see people driving them around hauling nothing. It's about 30% of the vehicles on the road. It's a culture I will never understand.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Also near me, there was a billboard advertisement that said simply, “YOU NEED A TRUCK” with a picture of one of these monsters.

Superliminal advertising

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Not only gas prices, some trucks are priced similarly to mid end porsches. I've always seen them similarly as I see minivans or SUVs: something circumstances might dictate you should drive instead of a car. Minivans if you need to haul kids, SUVs if you need to haul sports equipment, trucks if you need to haul things moved by front loaders or outdoor tools. Or maybe if they do some offroading, certain trucks work well for that (though I'd personally rather go for a jeep, Suzuki, or something small).

But for some reason there's people who get a fancy liner so that their groceries don't scratch their truck bed and their tires never touch dirt until maybe they want to show off and end up stuck in some mud or something because they forgot to set it to 4WD.

What happened?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Really should be a law proving you need ~~the truck~~ a license for something

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Whether or not he has spacers, you aren't getting much work done with rubber band tires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't get the problem here.

We just need some big ass bikes!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The tank also legally requires a crew commander with functioning communications with the driver to help alleviate the blind spots if it is to be driven on public roads during peace time. At least in Canada anyway.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Aurix@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

The issue is the tank too small, and bicycles shouldn't exist. /s

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 34 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

"Wank tank" is a derogatory term for lifted, oversized pickup trucks, implying they're as big as a tank, but with the only purpose of serving as wank material for the owner.
In these pictures, the pickup truck has a longer wheelbase than the tank, and is of comparable size overall, confirming that the term is appropriate.
The bicycle in both pictures with the parallel lines proves that both pictures are at the exact same scale.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

When an IFV is a sensible vehicle in comparison....

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

IFVs generally carry a full load, making them more fuel efficient per pax than the vast majority of vehicles on the road.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] henfredemars 8 points 6 months ago

How do you even park that monster?

Dude, I wouldn't drive that truck if it was free. 100% would sell and get something actually usable.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol modern day tanks are insane, they probably have the same top speed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

They look so small when they climb out I have to laugh. They think they make them look big and tough when they really make them look small, insecure, and silly.

load more comments
view more: next ›