this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
295 points (93.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

10128 readers
1 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] threedaymonk@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In effect, is it really that different to a fine? It seems to have a couple of advantages, though: it's easier to collect, and it's proportional, so a person who can afford a fancy luxury car pays more than someone in an old banger, without the complexity of having to evaluate their income and savings.

[–] TDCN 32 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is exactly the reason they are doing it. Proportional to income and the car is completely and physically removed from the road. There was a big issue here where the offender would just drive without license or the car was leased or borrowed so there was no real penalty. Now the leasing company would have to take responsibility for leasing fancy supercars to anyone and everyone and people lending their car to a known drunk or fast driver would definitely think twice.

[–] joland@sfba.social 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

@TDCN

That part is all good. The problem is they don't care whose car it is. If I was to borrow your car, and then break this law, then YOU are out a car. Yes, you can try and get the money back from me, but that might take a decade if I don't have money to replace your car.
If you ask me, that's crazy.

[–] TDCN 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well I agree it might be a bit crazy, but I also must admit that I like the law because it works and it makes it such that I don't want to lend my car out to anyone unless I know for sure how they drive by driving with them a few times. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I'd only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@TDCN @joland replacing car with gun or riffle makes it even more absurd. You saying that if I lend a riffle to someone on a hunt, I should bear the consequences for their actions if they miss and hit something? Thankfully the law in rest of Scandinavia isn’t as insane…

[–] TDCN 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's a significant difference between an accident and deliberately being wrekless

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@TDCN There is nothing about being “wreckless” when borrowing something to someone else. If person has a valid driving license that is all that matters. We ain’t even taking about lending a car to a obviously drunk idiot which is punishable.

[–] TDCN 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But the law will definitely make me think twice before lending my car to anyone.

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@TDCN And it is outright harmful to the environment, car pooling is a thing.

[–] TDCN 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes carpooling is a thing but this law literally has nothing to do with this so I don't get your point.

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@TDCN Your literally lending a car. And if you lend it to some idiot, you have no car.

[–] TDCN 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly. Don't lend your car to an idiot. It's your car so also your responsibility. Keep it safe.

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@TDCN it is a pool. You don’t know who you are lending too.

[–] TDCN 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Okay then I don't understand your way of car pooling. It's not really thing here since it's either impractical or public transport is way better or biking is a possibility

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago

@TDCN look up skjustgruppen in Sweden. Denmark you can literally walk all over the place.

[–] Starkimarm@social.linux.pizza 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@amszmidt @TDCN

Just make a contract with a refund clause if you lend your car?

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Starkimarm @TDCN you can’t negotiate such things with a contract, law trumps whatever you write down.

[–] Starkimarm@social.linux.pizza 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@amszmidt @TDCN

Why wouldn't you be able to make a contract that your friend has to replace the car you borrow him, of it get's confiscated because of his reckless driving?

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Starkimarm @TDCN how is the law formulated that for example lending car companies can lend a car? Why do companies have a lower bar than individual citizen? If I start a company will I be able to lend my car silly niilly subverting the intent of the law? This law is beyond daft.

[–] Starkimarm@social.linux.pizza 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@amszmidt @TDCN

For clarity: are you a danish lawyer?

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Starkimarm @TDCN are you? What relevance does it even have? Your the one claiming by bullshit.

[–] Starkimarm@social.linux.pizza 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago

@Starkimarm @TDCN ah. Neither are you, troll.

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Starkimarm @TDCN because law is higher than whatever terms you put into a contract. You can’t make a contract that allows illegal results. It isn’t about just getting back they money.

[–] Starkimarm@social.linux.pizza 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@amszmidt @TDCN

Why "allow illgal results"? That's just compensation of damages.

[–] amszmidt@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago

@Starkimarm @TDCN which might or might not be legal to do. Not everything is valid in a contract just because is says so.

[–] sheean@hachyderm.io 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@TDCN @joland here in the Netherlands the fine for a traffic violation is already up to the owner to sort out. They don’t give AF who drove the car. Your car. Your responsibility. Your problem.

[–] TDCN 2 points 2 years ago

I like that actually

[–] supernov@fosstodon.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

@sheean @TDCN @joland Except it's not proportional to one's income. I lived in Denmark and I like how they do things quite a bit better.

[–] DavidPenington@mastodon.au 2 points 2 years ago

@joland @TDCN it's the same as if you crash a borrowed car while doing something that invalidates the insurance, eg racing.

[–] antipode77@mastodon.nl 1 points 2 years ago

@joland @TDCN

There is only a problem when the car was stolen from the owner.

[–] nicemicro@fosstodon.org 1 points 2 years ago

@joland @TDCN yeah but if you borrow your car to someone they could also just total it in an accident and die, and in that case they also won't be able to give it back to you and you definitely won't get paid for the car.

This is just one more reason to not borrow your car to people you don't trust 100%.

[–] falcon@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago

@joland @TDCN I think it’s good. Don’t lend your car to friends that you know don’t respect the law

[–] sldrant@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] mhgottlieb@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk yes. Stolen cars are returned to the owner, not confiscated.

[–] sldrant@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@mhgottlieb @TDCN @threedaymonk 👍 would have assumed so.
Sounds like a pretty sensible law. No excuse for reckless driving

[–] mhgottlieb@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk as a Dane, I like the law. Most debate in Denmark has been revolving about all the "what if?" cases. What if it's a loaned car? Or leased?

Personally I think it's great that responsibility is also on the owner. If you lend your car to a reckless driver, you always risk losing it. Either because he crashes, or now, because it's confiscated. So make your own precautions.

[–] ggmartin@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk As a Canadian who lives in Denmark, I also like the law. If you engage in reckless endangerment of other person's lives, you should lose your favourite playtoy. If you walk around downtown swinging a machete over your head, and then you hop in your car and drive away at 200 km/h, you should lose the machete and the car.

An argument over whether the machete was borrowed or not are exceptions that can be dealt with in court.

[–] ggmartin@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago

@mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk It would, however, be nice if the car companies could align with the expectations of the speed limits. On both of our cars, the minimum possible cruise control speed is 30 km/h. However, there are more than a couple of 20 km/h speed limits in the area.

I know that, of all the things I could complain about in life, this one is well down on the list. However, it's also not a difficult problem to solve.