A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, letβs try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
Both vehicles involved are the type that make it impossible to see kids standing 10 feet away. These should he banned unless a second person is spotting, like what you'd do around construction vehicles.
A 9-year-old girl is dead after being hit by a truck...
The driver of the pickup was not injured in the collision.
π
You forgot:
The truck was not damaged by the unprovoked child ambush
Now there's peak carbrain, just phrase it as insanely as when cops shoot a completely innocent person for no reason.
jfc like anybody asked, why even include that
I see it in every article when a pedestrian or cyclist is killed, as if there was a chance the driver would be even mildly injured. Or that anyone would care, seeing how they killed someone else.
It's infuriating.
Because property has more rights than people in a hypercapitalist hellworld.
The vehicle didnβt hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.
"9-year-old... hit by truck." Someone should go have a talk with these trucks.
No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.
Everybody knows that a car doesn't drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn't) and that a driver is responsible.
That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It's not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.
No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.
The vehicle struck the child
vs
The driver struck the child
is analgous to
The bullet struck the child
vs
The cop shot the child
EDIT:
With the active phrasing... you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.
The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].
The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].
These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.
It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise... you're bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.
The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.
Yes, 'everybody knows' that a car doesn't drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.
But in this case it's actually the vehicle that is the problem. These trucks are simply unsafe and shouldn't exist. The blame is to be put on the car manufacturer. Of course the drivers are at fault but I bet they didn't want to squish their kids. They bought a car, assuming it should be safe to drive.
Still, fuck the drivers too.
thats what happen when the hood of cars become taller than actual children. Ford is responsible for countless of deaths.
Children
*Adults
I hate these high front ends now. Not only can you not see pedestrians, they are terrible for off-roading which is their supposed purpose. When go up any sort of incline you canβt see the road at all. A slanted down front end is better for visibility, aerodynamics, just about everything. This trend is stupid.
These trucks don't off road. They are pavement princesses.
It's not stupid if you're an oil company trying to increase profits, then it makes perfect sense to make your oil guzzling death machine as big, bulky and inefficient as possible.
a slanted down hood is required if you want to sell your cars in EU and most countries of Asia. Anything else negligent homicide, and the car makers should be held accountable
Their solution is to add a trail cam on the front so you can run over kids with impunity while also watching your line while off-roading.
Also why tf do cops have a giant ass pickup truck now
A fleet should be a mix so when an actual pickup truck might be needed one is available.
I imagine the mix is out of proportion though for some stupid reason.
This may be an ignorant question, but... Asking from a European perspective, where pick-ups aren't super common, what do the police have to do in North America that would require a pick-up truck?
ram other pickups
that's literally about it
SUVs/pickups are occasionally required for tossing stuff in the back to move it, like garbage/belongings/etc
Pickup trucks are not required for tossing stuff in the back. Because Europeans do need to transport stuff, from piles if dirt to wooden kitchens which need to be installed. And all of it most often doesnt happen with a pickup truck.
Or this kind of car for loading open air ("Pritschenwagen" in german)
All with normal grill-hight and probably a lower truckbed than pickup trucks
Or just a trailer. A lot of germans have something like this in their garage and use it only when needed instead of driving around with an integrated trailer all the time as people with a pickup do.
Sometimes, theyβre in the cop fleet because of civil asset forfeiture. Same reason they sometimes have Porsches and shit like that.
Itβs Alberta, everybody and everything has a massive pickup truck. Itβs the Texas of Canada, especially Calgary.
"Charges pending"
Gotta love how its "save the kids, protect the future" up until thier precious cars are at stake.
I don't want to ban pick up trucks.
Instead, put 15km/h (10mph) speed limits in residential areas, 40km/h (25mph) speed limits on arterial roads, and an 105km/h (65mph) electronic highway speed limiter, exclusively for vehicles with bonnet height above 40" or 1m. That will mitigate the danger these vehicles have on our roads.
That would only work if it's enforced. It'd be significantly harder to enforce that than a ban. I'll take the ban please.
Vehicle-specific speed limits are long overdue. Even having 2 or 3 categories would go a long way.
Height limits for the front grille as well. So many trucks are up to my neck. It's ridiculous.
don't forget to give these drivers the finger and flash your high beams at them when they drive towards you at night!
so sick of getting blinded by headlights, flashing somebody, and then they flash their "high beams" back but it's almost impossible to tell the difference
I do want to point out that while aiming and headlight height are a factor that makes it worse, it's the sheer brightness in the first place that's the main issue with headlights
I drive a little roadster and those trucks are especially terrifying for me. I know they can't fucking see me at all when I'm driving next to them on the right.
I would absolutely love for that
Yes it would fuck up traffic. and people would change their vehicle choice as a result
Enforcement, or the need for constant traffic surveillance, has already been raised as a problem with this approach. People tend to drive as fast as they feel safe on most streets, with the occasional unaware jerk screwing everything up. The threat of a possible ticket doesn't really work, or else we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.
A better approach is re-engineering streets for traffic calming. Basically threaten drivers with breaking or damaging their vehicle if they try too drive fast and/or in a straight line. Way more effective.
I agree, but I living in Toronto I found that people wanted to go 20-30% above the limit, so when it was 60 drivers would go 75-80, now it's 50 so they go 60-65.
And I bet the car brains blame the children.
Had someone tell me that arresting a child for walking to the park alone was ok because of all the cars.
Why were the outside??
Also: kids these days!!
I'd phrase it "The situation with huge oversized vehicles is out of control!". We want standards back not "everything goes" in the name of profit.
Those kids should have driven a pickup and carried a gun to defend themselves.
The driver dindu nuffin, fuck ur kids!
He already suffered enough metal stress over the dead lid, give him a break π€‘
