this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023

91 points (87.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9773 readers

89 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

uthredii@lemmy.ml

uthredii@beehaw.org

91

Two Cyclists Killed By Truck's Lumber Load In California (jalopnik.com)

submitted 1 year ago by tree@lemmy.zip to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Two cyclists died near Napa, California, Tuesday by a lumber truck when its load suddenly shifted of the picturesque roadway.

Authorities say the victims, identified as Christian and Michelle Deaton, were legally riding north on the valley’s winding, two-lane Silverado Trail when they encountered a flatbed truck headed in the opposite direction. Somehow, the lumber it was carrying shifted and fell, hitting the cyclists, Fox 8 reports.

Exactly what caused the load to hit the Deatons when it did is still being investigated, but Christian was declared dead at the scene. Michelle, meanwhile, was taken to a nearby hospital where she later died from her injuries. According to the sheriff’s office, they were visiting the Napa Valley from Portland, Oregon. And to his credit, the truck driver stayed at the scene and reportedly cooperated with authorities who are still investigating what caused the load to shift and hit the cyclists.

read more: https://jalopnik.com/two-cyclists-killed-by-trucks-lumber-load-in-california-1850954500

archive link: https://archive.ph/ZJb0f

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just a sad freak accident here. Put away your {fuck cars, fuck cyclists} pitchforks.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I mean... I get a lot of the arguments from the fuck cars people? But like... Do they really think we shouldn't be transporting lumber anymore? No more wood?

[–] lysol@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, fuck cars isn't "fuck transportation vehicles". The things clogging the streets are personal vehicles, not buses and semi trucks (did I do American English correct here?) transporting stuff.

[+] Treczoks@kbin.social -10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which invalidates one of the key arguments of the "fuck cars" crowd. They regularly come with the argument that a road without cars would need way less maintanence and therefor would be cheaper. They ignore (or don't know) that the damage done to roads by a vehicle depends on the weight and is an x^4 relationship. Guess what, if you banned all personal cars from a city while retaining access for trucks (as no city would survive without them), the road damage would not be reduced in any noticable manner.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Guess what, if you banned all personal cars from a city while retaining access for trucks (as no city would survive without them), the road damage would not be reduced in any noticable manner

The majority of the fuck cars crowd doesn't want to ban all personal motor vehicles. We want our streets to be pleasant to live and walk around, and car-centric urban planning is incompatible with that.

As for the deliveries of commercial goods, you only need to look at how it is achieved today in cities that are designed around people instead of cars. If you live in North America you may be picturing your shopping as a weekend highway trip to a big box store with a massive ground-level parking. Such large stores practically require large semi trucks to bring goods in.

A different way of doing things is possible, and indeed not only it was done that better way in North America before the popularity of the car, but is still done that way in most places around the world.

Instead of hopping in your car once a week, you walk or use other means of transportation on your way home from work. Yes, walking is fine because your destination isn't far away any more: mixed-use buildings mean that you live not far from where you shop. Shops are smaller and they are not surrounded by an ugly sea of car parking -- it isn't needed when people arrive to the shop by foot.

"But what about bringing goods into the shop?", you say. "Don't you need trucks for that?". Yes, small ones, not semi trucks. Remember: it is not a huge big box store by the highway. It's a neighborhood grocery shop, or furniture shop, or whatever else it is that you are buying.

Small delivery vans and trucks are all that is required. And often times, they are only allowed to deliver within certain hours of the day to reduce the amount of disturbance to the neighbors, who want to enjoy their streets with as little motor vehicle traffic as possible.

This isn't some new experimental idea. It's how it already works in most of the developed world.

[–] Sean@liberal.city 4 points 1 year ago

@frostbiker @Treczoks
I've got a local grocery/corner store (long shelf life but also milk and eggs) that is a Amazon delivery point and I don't know there's a size limit but it essentially turns the corner store to a big box store all without a 18-wheeler coming down the street. It would be nice to have competition with Amazon, that the same corner store could provide the same last mile service to a myriad of retailers, it wouldn't take much a infrastructure investment for that transition.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Large trucks like this shouldn't be in cities unless they're the only thing that can solve the problem. More freight rail and bikes or smaller vans for last mile are much better.

[–] youRFate@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Was the lumber strapped down correctly? If not it’s Manslaughter.

[–] LimitedWard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No that's not the point. In countries like the Netherlands where proper bike infrastructure is in place, cyclists physically separated from car traffic. This type of "freak accident" would not happen if that were the case here.

[–] Treczoks@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago

No, they just believe the truck dropped the trunks on the bikers on purpose or something.

[–] 601error@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless the load was improperly secured, or the driver was not driving safely, which we don’t know yet.

[–] oo1@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if so, I'd not argue for a non-"truck centric" approach to moving dead trees.
The busses would have to have huuuge luggage racks.

More training or enforcement might be worthwhile - but some sort of medium scale free ranging bulk transport will likely always be an important part of tree logistics.

[–] RembrandtQEinstein@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Final destination 2 did it first

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That scene was terrifying, I'm still afraid of lumber trucks to this day.

[–] willhig@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While tragic, I don’t think this is fuckcars material. Truckers are professionals, doing a job that is far more inevitable than the more relevant problem, which is the overaccommodation of the use of personal automobiles by amateurs.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ok, fuckcars, how do you suppose we get lumber out of the woods?

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Push it downhill then float it down a river! Where those features are present.

[–] LimitedWard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's less about how we move lumber and more highlighting the dangers of having cyclists share the road with giant trucks and cars. You wouldn't hear stories like this in countries like the Netherlands where they actually provide proper bike infrastructure that's separated from the road.