this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
340 points (98.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9801 readers
5 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are correct, and I agree with you, but it's still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is. I understand what you're trying to go for, but stating false information won't help to convince people.

Even if the number of cars on the road remains the same, but utes and SUVs were swapped to lower vehicles (when possible), then there would still be positive outcomes of fewer pedestrian fatalities (even if the number of accidents remains the same) and reduced carbon emissions.

Removing most cars would reduce these even more, which I assume is your desired outcome, but even just reducing the proportion of utes and SUVs would have positive effects

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but it’s still incorrect to say there is no difference when research shows there is.

Just to clarify, I said "no difference" in that "big, small, tall, short, electric, or gas powered" vehicles ALL cause severe injuries and death to pedestrians.

I'm not trying to argue that there's no measurable difference in the amount of damage a larger vehicle can cause vs a smaller one, as I completely agree that there is.

My point is that they are all too dangerous to be around people, so a fatality by a car is “no different” than a fatality by an SUV.

[–] thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

I agree that a fatality by a car is no different to a fatality by an SUV. But I would say that there is a difference in accidents involving cars vs SUVs because the fatality rates differ, which is what is being discussed.

I might be misinterpreting your argument, but my understanding is that you're saying because both cars and SUVs can cause fatalities, they are all too dangerous to be around people. But many things can cause fatalities, even bikes. We'll never be able to reduce accidents entirely. But there's a rate at which the fatalities become too high compared to the benefits. So that's why I believe talking about the rates of fatalities is more useful than talking about whether something can cause a fatality at all. In this case, I think your acceptable rate for fatalities is at a level where all motorised vehicles clear the threshold, so that's why you're saying there's no difference. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Replacing tall-fronted vehicles with short-fronted vehicles would reduce fatalities, which is why I believe there is a difference and we should try to do that where possible.