this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
466 points (96.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

12991 readers
1223 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 103 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

πŸ˜’

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

jfc like anybody asked, why even include that

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

Because property has more rights than people in a hypercapitalist hellworld.

[–] falidorn@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The vehicle didn’t hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] schnapsman@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

"9-year-old... hit by truck." Someone should go have a talk with these trucks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 week ago

"Charges pending"

Gotta love how its "save the kids, protect the future" up until thier precious cars are at stake.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Also why tf do cops have a giant ass pickup truck now

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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?

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] freeman@feddit.org 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

Mercedes Sprinter Vans

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

[–] dass93@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] freeman@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

There are several images but I think I know what you mean. Those are common for smaller gardeners in Switzerland.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

In my township, the police supervisor drives the truck around. I don't know why the fuck police supervision requires a truck, but "police supervisor" is what's written on the side of it. Maybe they put the cops back there when they're found passed-out drunk in their regular cruisers.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BurntWits@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

It’s Alberta, everybody and everything has a massive pickup truck. It’s the Texas of Canada, especially Calgary.

Sometimes, they’re in the cop fleet because of civil asset forfeiture. Same reason they sometimes have Porsches and shit like that.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ego issues with cops and conservatives

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Vehicle-specific speed limits are long overdue. Even having 2 or 3 categories would go a long way.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Height limits for the front grille as well. So many trucks are up to my neck. It's ridiculous.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

I would absolutely love for that

Yes it would fuck up traffic. and people would change their vehicle choice as a result

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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 can’t see the road at all. A slanted down front end is better for visibility, aerodynamics, just about everything. This trend is stupid.

[–] tabris@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

These trucks don't off road. They are pavement princesses.

[–] Allemaniac@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Allemaniac@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

thats what happen when the hood of cars become taller than actual children. Ford is responsible for countless of deaths.

Children

*Adults

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Front-view cameras for giant trucks?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Those kids should have driven a pickup and carried a gun to defend themselves.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 6 points 1 week ago

The driver dindu nuffin, fuck ur kids!

He already suffered enough metal stress over the dead lid, give him a break 🀑

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

a white pickup truck ... the driver made a turn to continue north, striking the toddler.

The 9-year-old was sitting on her skateboard, which was rolling off the driveway, when she was struck by a Dodge pickup, RCMP said in a release.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί