this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
56 points (91.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

11691 readers
1472 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
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
56
How do we put a stop to road violence and curb excessive car use? Look at how we dealt with guns (in UK) (road.cc)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by lgsp@feddit.it to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Cross-post da: https://slrpnk.net/post/21686998

Author of the article is: https://slrpnk.net/u/frankPodmore

EDIT: modified the title to specify that the context is UK, not USA

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] madame_gaymes@programming.dev 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Just an FYI, this person is not referencing the USA's approach to gun laws. My gut reaction to the title, unfortunately, was, "so this author wants us to start driving cars into schools, now?"

But even so, this idea is strange and wasn't fully fleshed out. Just because you take large SUVs mostly off the street doesn't make cars any less dangerous to pedestrians, and removing criminal offenders from the drivers seat does absolutely nothing to counter drunks, and certainly nothing about oblivious drivers or older folks that rightfully should never touch a steering wheel again.

Also, a smart car can still kill a person, especially at 55mph as they used in their example. Like, ok, maybe one turns a human into a pink mist while the other just breaks their neck and slides them across the pavement. As long as the gore is less, then the fact that both humans died doesn't matter I guess.

[–] yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The higher the hood of the car, the more deadly it is. So yes, we need to be allowing only sedans and station wagons for regular drivers, and special licenses for trucks and vans

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

But have you thought about a suburban white male with a frigile ego?

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I too am a myopic American and clicked through just to see WTF this author was suggesting.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Basic physics says that lighter vehicles have less inertia, that carries less force, that stops faster and causes less damage. Let alone the host of other benefits of smaller cars, environmental, psychological, societal etc.

[–] madame_gaymes@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not denying that smaller cars are more sane, I'm just saying that no matter what a car that weighs over a thousand pounds, especially at any sort of speed, still has great potential to kill. Motorcycles that weigh less have hit and killed pedestrians.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Indeed - but that’s not the central issue here.

Traffic casualties, like running a reverse casino and deciding which games to include, are a matter of statistics.

Something that will kill you 9 times / 10 vs 4/10 will simply cause less deaths, the same for lesser injuries, less cost on society in general.

I don’t see the value of equivocating the two by ignoring their statistics.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I get the point but thus literally is Apple's and oranges.

Guns aren't used for transport, cars are sometimes a necessity, guns are not

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed bad example, I think there are better cases to look at.

I think there's plenty to be learned from safer cities like Oslo and Helsinki.

I think they reduced traffic deaths by a combination of road/street design and building alternatives but they do also cite speed limit reduction and enforcement.

I do like what they're trying to do in Wales: https://walesupdates.uk/news/welsh-road-deaths-plummet-after-20mph-speed-limit-roll-out Hopefully it continues long enough to get some more decent stats on it before they are forced to relax the policy.

Scotland also has some pretty extensive 20mph zones. I also like that the 40mph that often extends out from villages for a km or so before the 20mph zone. That makes it a lot easier for occasional drivers like me to get my senses accustomed to what speed I should be going - and i can keeep my eyes on the road not so much the speedo. I've not seen any decent stats on reductions in deaths from those specific changes. I just feel a bit safer (and less dangerous) driving through a small town in Scotland than in England for some reason.