Fuck Cars

9798 readers

6 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

1026

Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)

submitted 1 year ago by Masimatutu@mander.xyz to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

347 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gayhitler420@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It literally is borne out by data though. The way that source wriggles around is crazy.

They carefully pick the worst case scenario tire wear number then use it as a baseline for the mathematics that underlie the sentence

the tyres would be bald in less than 1,358 miles, or two months’ worth of driving

and extrapolate that out to

we now know that tyre wear is nowhere near as big a contributor to particulate matter emissions as some media coverage has suggested

The dancing around weight and tire wear is even more absurd:

modern electric vehicles aren’t actually that much heavier than many modern petrol or diesel cars, especially with the recent trend towards bigger and heavier SUVs

and a long section about taxi tire math that ends with the buried admission

Ryan notes that his diesel taxis do tend to get an extra 5,000 to 10,000 miles of lifespan out of their front tyres

But even if you aren’t interested in reading that source with a critical eye and recognizing the ways it manipulates language and information to make a point (I’m still not clear why a towing company wrote this), you can literally just look next to the authors name and see:

Author of this report commissioned by the RAC

I genuinely cannot understand why you’d choose to believe a dubious blog entry from a towing company over research from literally any other source.

Shame on you for making me bring out the [ ] over the British equivalent of a triple a guide.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But even if you aren’t interested in reading that source with a critical eye and recognizing the ways it manipulates language and information to make a point (I’m still not clear why a towing company wrote this), you can literally just look next to the authors name and see:

The RAC isn't just a "towing company". It provides a range of motor services like breakdown assistance, insurance, vehicle inspections, servicing, fleet management. Therefore it happens to know a great deal about automotive matters unlike say Forbes or some other outlet which does not. It's also not some stealth EV proponent controlled by some shadowy puppet master, it just happens to have knowledge from supporting fleets of EVs of their outcomes. The AA, a similar organisation also debunks EV myths, again coming from a position of experience.

[–] gayhitler420@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

If the towing company is so smart and has all the data and experience, why do they have to commission reports that they then deploy every narrative manipulation technique in the book towards when reporting upon?

Couldn’t they just publish all their good data in a peer reviewed journal?