this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
602 points (94.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9682 readers
1150 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit: to clarify: the message in the ad is actually ironic/satirical, mocking the advice for cyclists to wear high-viz at night.

It uses the same logic but inverts the parts and responsabilities, by suggesting to motorists (not cyclists) to apply bright paint on their cars.

So this ad is not pro or against high-viz, it's against victim blaming

Cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113544508246569296

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

That bimmer looks sick

Not sure if the intended message is really coming through...

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Because if too many people and things use hi-viz, that will make it regular-viz.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 17 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 26 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Bikes have lights on them too.

[–] Mrfiddles@feddit.nl 3 points 2 hours ago

Unless you're in the Netherlands, where 2/3rds of the bikes will have the shitty "this is legally a light" LEDs from the convenience shops... Oh, and 2/3rds of those will be either out of battery, or installed facing the wrong way.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

When I'm on the road, I want to be visible. On my red motorcycle I wear a bright yellow helmet and a jacket with hi-viz strips. The problem is that car manufacturers only offer boring colors and charge an exorbitant fee for a cool color if they offer them at all.

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

You're missing the point.

Its saying not killing cyclists is the job of the people who would be killing cyclists. Its saying operating dangerous heavy machinery is a privilege and it comes with responsibilities. A cyclist us never to blame for a car hitting a cyclist. It is always always always the drivers fault, because they chose to drive a car.

In my opinion a much too common privilege with responsibilities we dont take near seriously enough.

[–] PhilMcGraw@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago (1 children)

A cyclist us never to blame for a car hitting a cyclist. It is always always always the drivers fault, because they chose to drive a car.

That's an insane take, right? If I as a cyclist blindly ride across a road directly in front of a heavy vehicle, surely it's on me. In what way would that be the heavy vehicle drivers fault?

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

If my lover breaks my jaw in anger, thats not my fault.

Under no conditions is that my fault, and youre a terrible person if you say it is.

If an adult beats the shit out of a young child, that is, in no circumstance, the child's fault. Youre a terrible fucking person if you say it is.

You can say its not the abusive parent's fault and blame structural issues or whatever, and maybe thats fair sometimes, but still pretty suspicious.

This is like that. Cars are violent, they are inefficient, and they are a choice. You choose to (statistically) sacrifice innocents every time you get behind the wheel. Everything you do while driving is on you. Or possibly the civil engineers and lawmakers who created the situation. Do not blame the victim. The victim is not at fault for having been hurt, for cracking your windshield and stealing bits of safety glass with their face. Under no conditions is a victim at fault. You are at fault for hurting them.

Unless they hacked your car and remotely piloted it to kill them in some sort of elaborate suicide/frame-up, and you literally did not have control of the vehicle. In which case I'd still put some of the responsibility on you, because you put the weapon where they could get it, loaded it, and got in.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 12 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Cars should be bright as fuck. A bright red, orange, green, or yellow car stands out way more than the black, white, beige and gray shit that dominates the road.

[–] magikmw@lemm.ee 36 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

It's funny, but as a driver and a cyclist, the amount of times I barely saw the person on the bike, because they had no hi viz, no lights and no reflectors (and black/dark clothing), even in moderately good visibility conditions is too damn high.

It's not that big of a deal in cities, but I'd be really pushing it to ride my bike out on a 70+ kmph road, and you'd have to hold me at gunpoint to do it without any lights, because I'd be as good as dead anyway.

Of course black cars are kinda the same, except here in Poland every car is required by law to have at least position lights on at all times (yes, sunny daylight too), and it makes a world of a difference no matter the paint color.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 7 points 9 hours ago

I think any bike intended for road use should be equipped with lights

[–] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I prefer when all people occupying the road, whether its a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car, or horse rider be as visible as possible.

Its why I refuse to drive a gray or silver car. They blend in with the pavement at certain times in the am and pm and if it's raining really hard they disappear. In a lot of ways they are worse than black cars.

What's wrong with making sure you are visible? Why is that something to make fun of? (I'm not asking you directly, I just don't get the joke in the ad.)

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 4 points 9 hours ago

also grey and silver are boring as fuck

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

We have daylight running laws here as well, but those lights are different than the regular headlights and weaker.

In driving school they taught me to just put on my regular lights all the time.

They're a lot stronger than the daylight ones and make you more visible

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'd even argue (this is what the Internet is for) that gray cars in rain are the absolute worst. They just disappear without any kind of lights on. I don't know why we don't just have headlights and taillights on all the time. It's how I've driven for the past 15 years, to me it just makes sense. I'm never caught forgetting to put them on when it's raining or when it's dark, because they are always on. I like people to see me, I do not want to be involved in a collision.

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They just disappear without any kind of lights on

My area has a law where you must have lights on when raining

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The funny part is that it is actually "headlights on when wipers required", which is quite strange. When I am in heavy rain and I have a freshly rainx'ed winshield, I don't even need wipers. But I still need lights

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Here in Spain is much simpler, if it's cloudy lights go on. Anything besides a blue sky basically means lights on. Its way easier since you just always have them on and that's basically it.

[–] FatCat@lemmy.world 56 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

The satire misses the mark since cars already have strict mandatory visibility requirements by law. In the EU, you must have working headlights, brake lights, turn signals, daytime running lights (since 2011), fog lights, reverse lights, and reflectors. Driving without any of these gets you fined, points on your license, and fails vehicle inspection (TÜV/MOT). These aren't optional safety suggestions like cyclist hi-viz - they're legal requirements with real penalties.

I don't know about yankee laws...

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Huh? Could you explain once more why this doesn't work?

Keep in mind that cycling also has a lot of visibility requirements, it is illegal to drive without lights at night, you need to have reflectors front, back, in the spokes and on the pedals. This also results in fines and points on your drivers license. Keep any remarks on enforcements for yourself, car drivers don't check or even fix their headlights the moment they break either as my last few drives showed me.

Comparing the optional wearing of hi-vis west to the optional painting cars a brighter colour makes sense when the goal is to mock the immediate question "well, was the cyclist wearing hi-vis?" that always seem to pop up when a crash happens.

[–] Backlog3231@reddthat.com 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

You can't make stupid people safe. I drive home in the dark now and I typically see at least one person driving with their lights turned completely off per day.

I also knew one guy who had a light that didn't work but his highbeams did, so he just used his highbeams 100% of the time. When I told him he was being dangerous he said something to the effect of "I'm not going to jeopardize my safety for some rando on the road". And was legitimately confused why I would want to put him in danger, and upset that people kept flashing their beams back at him. Some people have absolutely no desire to be a functioning member of society.

Edit: and that's completely ignoring the idiots who go in the complete opposite direction and use cheapo light bars they got off amazon that are 600x brighter than led headlights on urban roads. I hope there is a special place in hell for them.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago

"You can't make stupid people safe."

🤣

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

State dependent. Maryland for example legally requires a front headlamp and a rear reflector in low visibility conditions. Also must have a bell or horn but can't have a siren (?).

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's less state dependent than you think. The feds have the last say in the safety equipment that comes on your car from the factory. They write the regulations on safety equipment for all highway vehicles.

What is interesting is that the NFPA, (the US National Fire Prevention Association), which writes the guidance for US public safety departments, has learned that you can have too much flashy-flashies and woo-woos and sparkles hanging on your vehicle. We used to hang as much as that stuff as we could on fire trucks and ambulances. Now, new rigs are toning it down to reflective chevrons and marker lights on the back end to prevent dazzling and confusing traffic as they approach a scene. The NFPA national tracking has shown a marked decline in tertiary accidents.

Reflectives and markers are important, but you can do too much can have worse outcomes because of it.

[–] Backlog3231@reddthat.com 3 points 9 hours ago

I wish those laws were enforceable. I passed someone the other day whose car was completely covered in Christmas lights. I don't mean, "they had a lot of lights", I mean every square inch of the exterior was covered in blinky flashy lights.

It takes a special kind of stupid to think that is a good idea, and a special kind of police incompetence to allow it on the road.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (4 children)

I get the sentiment here but as I'll always say the car wins.

You can't call it a death machine and then act like it's not one.

Cars have lights built in. Humans don't. Wear the fucking highvis and save your life.

Either that or start wearing light strips all over yourself.

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Your standard bicycle has light too? If it's about being the safest cyclist possible, you'd also need a loud siren declaring that a bicycle is on the road. At some point it is ridiculous how many non-mandatory rules you need to follow until drivers accept that they are to blame for the crash, how about we stick to the actual laws and people who can't see a vehicle fitted with reflectors and lights get off the road.

Hint: seeing the lights on a bicycle is easier when your wind shield isn't 2 meters of the ground.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Your standard bicycle has light too

No it doesn't. It has reflectors but not actual lighting. I've almost hit a few cyclists who relied only on the reflectors on the wheels, front peg, and rear peg.

Hint: seeing the lights on a bicycle is easier when your wind shield isn't 2 meters of the ground.

I'm not arguing pro cars here. My point is keep yourself fuckin safe. Don't be stupid just because "bUt CaRs ArE tHe PrObLeM"

You can't say they're a problem and then act like they're not a problem.

Complain all you want it's perfectly valid. But do the shit you have to do to keep yourself the fuck alive.

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 59 minutes ago)

Goddamn, forgot that the USA considers bikes as exercise machines.

Your standard commuter bike has lights, and is required by law to have it in most countries.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Okay but hear me out here, we design streets where bikes and cars don't have to share a lane. Crazy idea i know.

We should design streets for the cyclists and drivers we have, not the ones we want.

[–] DV8@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

Fair point that roads should be designed a lot better, but in the mean time, if you're going to be driving on roads that got put down originally 50 years ago without cycling paths and no lights in the middle of farmland. Wear the high Viz gear or make sure you have working lights and reflectors.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I personally prefer the option of equipping a comically bright headlight to the bike to emulate a lifted truck.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 18 points 14 hours ago

Cars used to have lots of reflectors on them in the 1980 and 90's. Especially I'm the head and taillight clusters.

Cars should also be required to have high vis strips like commercial vehicles.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 100 points 20 hours ago (27 children)

To be fair, cars have headlight and taillights.

Here in Sweden cars are required to allways have their headlights on when the car is moving, making them far easier to see even during the day.

It us frankly one of the most annoying things about crossing the street when being abroad, cars having their headlights off during the day, it is much more difficult to see if a car is moving if it has the headlights turned off, than if they are on.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Right. You're not going to see the car color at night.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Spezi@feddit.org 12 points 15 hours ago

I drive a Smart 451 which was silver initially. I can‘t count the amount of times that trucks and cars on the highway cut me off. At first I thought they were just assholes, but now I think its partly because its such a small car that the silver blends in with the street.

Two years ago, I wrapped my car in bright neon orange as part of an ad campaign from my company and it feels like I‘m getting noticed much more often. It‘s literally like a high vis west for my car.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago

Seeing as many people drive WITHOUT LIGHTS

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

We can't even make blacking out essential safety equipment like headlights and tail lights illegal, apparently a driver's personality and style should come before functional lights.

[–] DV8@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

What? Where is this? In Belgium you'd get pulled over for sure. Depending on if the car could get made road legal again it could get towed too.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

North America. Very common on sports cars or with people who like to modify their cars. They do still light up when the bulb is on although not as bright. My bigger issue is that light won't reflect off blacked out lights the same way it does off a regular tail light. It is a massive safety hazard but "my freedom" seems to be a valid reason for it.

load more comments
view more: next ›