this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
649 points (96.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9385 readers
1297 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The first makes money with cars. The second makes money with train - at leat sometimes.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

All fines should be income dependent. Especially for all flavours of corporation, in which case there should be no upper limit. If the corp goes bankrupt because they broke the law hard enough it should either go out of business or become a public entity if it's vital.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago

Even as a car owner, I have no problems accepting Swiss-level regulations for this kind of criminal behavior.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

in my country they just give you a fine

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And not even enough. As a society we're condoning too much when it's about cars.

Going 100 in a 30 should be charged as "attempted massacre" if stopped. Because it's not an "accident" anymore when you go that fast.

And driving that fast in a residential area without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, should be an aggravating circumstance and not the opposite.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I wonder what the finnish Mayday psychosis guy got for driving and crashing his Mercedes at like 180 km/h through a narrow and extremely busy street (30 or 40 km/h zone) got. He didn't hurt anyone IIRC but he also could have killed like 20 people. I'll edit this comment when find the video and the verdict.

edit1: the video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpNI2BQYrE&pp=ygUSdmFwcHUgbWVyc3Uga29sYXJp

edit2: ok he "only" drove at 100km/h and injured 2 people. He was accused of 11 cases of attempted manslaughter among other things. All charges dropped.

Apparently he had just proposed to his bride, she said yes, it was the happiest day of his life and he completely snapped. No drugs or alcohol involved.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So dwi should not be an aggravating circumstance?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Meanwhile, in the US, going 74 mph in a 25 and killing someone? No consequences as long as you're a cop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jaahnavi_Kandula

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

Weil Autoland Deutschland, darum.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The problem is most cars are given back after being impounded for a bit, because you have to really speed for confiscation to stick. 80km/h over in the city (50km/h limit... so 130km/h in the city...) and 90km/h on the Autobahn (130km/h limit) or Country roads (100km/h limit) so it's fairly toothless.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

In the eyes of the law, ownership is one of the most fundamental and strongest rights, i'm surprised they managed to pull this off in general without it being unconstitutional

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Only 2 years suspension is a slap on the wrist for what is essentially an attempt at stochastic murder. We need to stop treating driving licenses as a universal right and stop clearly unfit people from sitting behind the wheel.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

i'm of the opinion that we should have a 2 strike system, first strike means you have to re-do your license from the ground up including any costs and undergo psychological evaluation to see if it's safe to give you a second chance, and second strike means you simply do not get to drive again, tough shit.

A suspended license should however come with a free public transport ticket such that you can get around reasonably, add the cost needed to finance that to the price of getting a license in the first place if that's what it takes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Lmfao, what the fuck is "an attempt at stochastic murder"? #onlyonthefed

It's plain ol' reckless driving.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If we stop treating driving as functionally a right we have to stop treating owning a car as functionally mandatory to having a job and being able to feed and house yourself.

What do you do in the US if you need a job but don’t have a license? You drive anyways and just deal with the risk. The problem is that people HAVE to drive so we can’t really in good faith take the ability to drive away from most people as most when pushed to their limit couldn’t stop driving if they wanted to.

load more comments
view more: next ›