this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
151 points (92.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9372 readers
297 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 66 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Many who do this have no choice but to drive or lose their housing, job, children, etc. But, this city seems to have an extensive public transportation network.

I don't live in Guelph, but I know a few who do, and have also briefly read from others complaints about the transit system in Guelph. Sure it's better than it is in some other places in Canada, but that's a looooow bar. Toronto has the best transit that I know in Ontario, and there's still a lot of shortcomings with it.

Here's an article that gives a bit more info on Guelph transit system. It seems that there's some disagreement on whether it is actually "bad" or not in the article. To be fair, I'm biased as to what qualifies as a good transportation network, as most people from this community would be.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Even without that option, if a license is suspended, it usually is for a reason. And more often than not the reason is that the driver is not safe for the environment. The risk of losing whatever is dear to them if they lose the licence is a something that should have been taken into consideration before whatever lead to the suspension.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My license was suspended in rural Michigan because I had a broken muffler. I fixed the muffler, but the fix wasn't recorded correctly, and so I rec'd an administrative suspension of my license. ...Which I didn't even discover until I was pulled over a year later, and arrested. But there's not any public transit in rural Michigan, and the distances too far to realistically ride a bicycle, which meant that I couldn't stop driving to get to and from work. I kept paying my fines, but every time i had enough saved to pay the reinstatement fees, I'd get pulled over again (yay for having a shitbox car and living paycheck to paycheck, right?). Eventually I ended up in a place where I could bike to work, and ended up riding five miles a day to work in west Michigan for about a year, including through blizzards.

Don't assume that licenses get suspended for reasons that have anything to do with the safety of the driver.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

OK, that sounds like a very American problem. They don't suspend a licence just for fun in my country.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Even without that option, if a license is suspended, it usually is for a reason. And more often than not the reason is that the driver is not safe for the environment. The risk of losing whatever is dear to them if they lose the licence is a something that should have been taken into consideration before whatever lead to the suspension.

Treczoks

Loss of security of employment, thus security of water, food, clothing, shelter, sleep, and defense for self and children, is not a humane punishment. It inhibits the individual's ability to rehabilitate themselves. Perhaps you should've thought about this before demonstrating in public your lack of basic human empathy, now preserved in quote.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Loss of security of employment, thus security of water, food, clothing, shelter, sleep, and defense for self and children, is not a humane punishment.

Here, at least, suspending a license is done only when a driver has definitely shown that he or she is a danger for other people. For somemone going through a school zone with 90km/h or driving completely drunk, I care more for the actual or potential victims of the driver than the drivers' ease of transport.

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

Predicating your very survival on a privilege that you may not always be entitled to is hopefully something that will be bred out of the species in a few more generations.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure, we'll certainly give up vehicular transportation any day now. /s

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. Look, people become disabled and have to stop driving very, very frequently. People lose their earning ability and cannot afford to keep driving very, very frequently. I know you can't wrap your head around it, but it's not a fucking death sentence. It's just a life change.

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

Where is the human empathy if the suspended driver harms or kills another community memeber in a car crash?

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

"Better than shit," got the US Biden and Harris. My standards of ethical and moral choices aren't measured relative the lowest common denominator.

[–] lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If a person has harmed others, and is likely to do more harm in the future, it's appropriate to remove them from society. This is why prisons exist.

Drivers licence suspension typically is the consequence of crimes that are too minor to warrant prison. In this case, the perpetrator has the chance to make changes to their life to avoid prison. For example, they can accept slow public transit, bike to work, get a closer job, move to a place where it's easier to live without a car.

Obviously, It will be challenging for the perpetrator to reorganize their life in a way that does not require them to risk harming others, and many will fail.

But your argument that society is required to accept being victimized by dangerous drivers because it would be inhumane to force them to use alternative forms of transportation (used by millions of people too poor to afford a car, even in the most car dependent cities) is absurd.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They're expected to fail and end up in prison. But, you recommend it. That's not only absurd, but also inhumane and unethical.

[–] lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

Do you think anyone ought to go to prison?

[–] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Extensive public transit hardly means functional. And women are far more likely to be harassed/abused on public transit than men.