this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
712 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9807 readers
21 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

BTW the tank has a better forward view than the truck

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 161 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

Just gonna keep on posting this

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 84 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There really should be legal requirements for sightlines like this for most vehicles on the road.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 38 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That’s a good temporary fix but the long term solution is to get rid of stroads and get back to proper separation between streets (which are narrow, one way, and walkable) and roads (which have a high speed limit, very few intersections, and no driveways). This would dramatically cut down on the number of encounters between pedestrians and cars, while also making suburbs much more walkable and livable.

Streetcar suburbs, the most desirable neighbourhoods to live in, are illegal to build in most cities!

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 42 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

We could do both. I don't see how increasing visibility is a "temporary fix", I see that as a safety improvement regardless of how well designed a street is. Even the safest designed street is even safer by increasing the visibility a driver has. It also just makes driving easier in general.

Edit: it is also an unfortunate reality that people run over their own children or pets in their own driveway and better sightlines can reduce this risk.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 28 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

10 meter visibility is fucking insane. How is that not illegal.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 20 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Because when laws and policies are first made with the assumption people aren't assholes. We literally believed people will do the right thing.

All the addendums were to fix asshole behaviors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

it bothers me a little that it's not in order

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 26 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (5 children)

It's in an order: height of the front of the vehicle from the ground.

[–] Tower@lemm.ee 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's grill height until the first kid shows up, then it's the distance away from the vehicle at which the kid becomes visible.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

Ahh, nice clarification!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

i know this is anecdotal but i've sat up front in the bajaj re tuktuk. one can almost see the single front wheel from that position -- visibility for that one vehicle is definitely closer than the 2 meters shown in this graphic.

[–] RedIce25@lemmy.world 52 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

I can't understand why someone would want that large of a car

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 74 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (15 children)

It’s not even good for truck stuff. All that lift kit is extra weight and puts the bed too high to load stuff into it without a crane.

It’s also really expensive so you’re not gonna fuck it up when off-roading, though those wheels and tires aren’t off-road ready.

ETA: It's not even artistic. A low rider isn't good for anything but they look great. Sometimes art can be a reason. But this is just a giant, ugly, beige piece of crap with hideous wheels.

It’s an entirely useless vehicle that isn’t good for anything and I hate it.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 16 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s also really expensive

This is the reason. Conspicuous consumption is a pox on us all.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Conspicuous consumption has been a thing for a really, really long time. But at least in previous time periods the things they were consuming at least were interesting to look at. Now it's just mass-produced bullshit that doesn't even look good. For fuck's sake: They're selling stained and ripped jeans for hundreds of dollars!

Bring back codpieces and fancy frilled collars! Bring back ornate brocade and gold detailing! Bring back ornate architecture! If you're going to exploit us for our labor at least make things that look good!

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago

Not to mention the borderline useless low profile tires. The bead would probably slip off the rim on a bumpy cottage road, i can't even imagine how poorly they'd perform in real offroad conditions.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

lift kit = extra weight, bed too high

The weight added by a lift kit is a rounding error on the weight of the vehicle
Beds are too high from the factory so this doesnt actually matter

Offroading

This style is not built to go offroading

Not artisitic

Not up to you. People are allowed to like things.

Get better, defendable arguments.

These trucks suck to drive, ride like shit, get poor fuel economy, pollute the planet (especially after emissions equipment is deleted), but most importantly are unsafe to be on the road: they barely fit in the lanes, the view out of them is abysmal, and are extremely heavy which makes them unsafe in a collision.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 18 points 4 weeks ago

I know right?

The tank is obviously better for the commuter.

[–] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Right? If I'm going to get a vehicle that big it better have a 120mm cannon at least.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 46 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

FTR I hate this pickup and agree with the sentiment of this photo, but I feel like there's some skewed perspective tricks going on based on this manually photoshopped drag to relocate (no resizing of anything in photo) to demonstrate.

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I think the perspective issue is that the person you've dragged down is further back than the bicycle. Try dragging them just in front of the bicycle by the tank and I think they'll still look tiny.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Commander_Keen@reddthat.com 46 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Sad thing is it looks like he has spacers on his wheels so he is as wide as a dually with no marker lights. Lifted so even less visibility and prolly a douche.

This is coming from a guy who owns a f350 dually who uses it for work / hauling stuff for the farm. Not for getting groceries or cruising the strip.

Really should be a law proving you need the truck for something other than a commute but then again. ‘Merica!

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

What I don't get is how people can afford driving any truck for personal use.

I mean I'd like a truck for hauling stuff around the house, like feed, firewood, and the odd building materials. But I can't afford a car just for that, so I would need to use it for daily driving as well. I did a cursory search for used f150s and the cheapest I've found is a 2015 king ranch gas powered two seater, which, besides the ridiculous price tag of 56k USD, is guzzling gas at an astonishing rate. Just the gas for my commute alone would be about 700USD monthly.

I know my numbers are a little high, these are Danish figures, but I still see dodge rams and f250s on the road. How the fuck are people affording that? Are they just going deeper and deeper into debt to peacock? That hardly seem sustainable.

Edit: somehow I claimed that I could afford a separate car for truck stuff, and then proceeded to explain why that wasn't the case. Fixed that.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 23 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

It broke my european mind when I was talking to an American about fuel prices. I spend like 90$ a month MAX, usually less on petrol. And then this mother fucker says 200-300$ A WEEK!!! BROTHER WHAT?!? And American fuel price are lower than here due to government subsidies, so like holy shit... How much more is that thing eating up??? He said that he only included his non work driving too...

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's worse than that. I live in a rural Midwestern state, and have seen huge expensive trucks outside of a tiny home in terrible condition. Their truck is probably equally expensive as their home. It's sucking all of their income and driving them into poverty.

Also near me, there was a billboard advertisement that said simply, "YOU NEED A TRUCK" with a picture of one of these monsters. I see people driving them around hauling nothing. It's about 30% of the vehicles on the road. It's a culture I will never understand.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Also near me, there was a billboard advertisement that said simply, “YOU NEED A TRUCK” with a picture of one of these monsters.

Superliminal advertising

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

Not only gas prices, some trucks are priced similarly to mid end porsches. I've always seen them similarly as I see minivans or SUVs: something circumstances might dictate you should drive instead of a car. Minivans if you need to haul kids, SUVs if you need to haul sports equipment, trucks if you need to haul things moved by front loaders or outdoor tools. Or maybe if they do some offroading, certain trucks work well for that (though I'd personally rather go for a jeep, Suzuki, or something small).

But for some reason there's people who get a fancy liner so that their groceries don't scratch their truck bed and their tires never touch dirt until maybe they want to show off and end up stuck in some mud or something because they forgot to set it to 4WD.

What happened?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Really should be a law proving you need ~~the truck~~ a license for something

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 weeks ago

When I was a teen, I drove my parents' 94 Chevy S10 with the mini-extended cab. The kind with those two, tiny little sideways seats.

That truck had a 4-banger in it and was lucky to hit 70mph with nothing in the bed and a stiff tailwind. But damn if it didn't haul everything we threw at it.

Beauty bark, topsoil, gravel, rubble from demo work, river rock, goodwill hauls, and moved multiple friends into apartments, piled way over the cab with furniture.

It screamed and revved, but it never failed us. About 20 years of faithful service before it was put out to pasture.

I still miss that truck...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 34 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't get the problem here.

We just need some big ass bikes!

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 24 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

The year is 2050, Trump's dessicated husk is dictator-for-life due to Elon Musk's life extending technology.

Vehicles have steadily gotten larger to meet supposed consumer demand. The smallest "compact" sedans require a 4 foot step ladder to enter.

Bicycles are now at least 500 pounds of solid steel. The tires cost $250 each due to their enormous size and thickness.

It is illegal to spend less than $1000 dollars on gas per month, and all homes are required to have a minimum of three garages.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Imagine the gearing on a half tonne bicycle hahaha.

I like to think in this future, vehicles have also become wide enough they take up multiple of our current lanes as to not tip over by being tall as a house.

America's new best selling vehicle:

Bonus, the compact car of next century:

The infrastructure would be comical.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

a minimum of three garages.

Which are filled with useless crap because because the vehicles are too large to fit in them.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 6 points 4 weeks ago

For more than a hundred centuries the Emperor of Mankind has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the master of mankind by the will of the gods and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the vast Imperium of Man for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day so that he may never truly die.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 16 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

The tank also legally requires a crew commander with functioning communications with the driver to help alleviate the blind spots if it is to be driven on public roads during peace time. At least in Canada anyway.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Aurix@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago

The issue is the tank too small, and bicycles shouldn't exist. /s

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 9 points 4 weeks ago

How do you even park that monster?

Dude, I wouldn't drive that truck if it was free. 100% would sell and get something actually usable.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 9 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

When an IFV is a sensible vehicle in comparison....

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 35 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

"Wank tank" is a derogatory term for lifted, oversized pickup trucks, implying they're as big as a tank, but with the only purpose of serving as wank material for the owner.
In these pictures, the pickup truck has a longer wheelbase than the tank, and is of comparable size overall, confirming that the term is appropriate.
The bicycle in both pictures with the parallel lines proves that both pictures are at the exact same scale.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol modern day tanks are insane, they probably have the same top speed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

They look so small when they climb out I have to laugh. They think they make them look big and tough when they really make them look small, insecure, and silly.

[–] xChronoZerox 5 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Tank has a better turning radius too

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 weeks ago

To be fair, the tank has better turning radius than everything, besides a bike if you count lifting it and rotating it. A tank can turn in place.

The view of a tank is fairly bad though, which is why it's impressive the truck is worse.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›