• Funderpants
    link
    fedilink
    10911 months ago

    SUV, Truck, SUV, SUV, SUV, SUV, sedan, SUV, SUV, SUV, SUV.

    The culture problem around big vehicles we’ve created with bad regulation and aggressive marketing is depressing.

    • queermunist she/her
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It isn’t just a culture problem, it’s a tragedy of the commons.

      When you’re surrounded by giant vehicles, the only way to be feel safe and see the road is to have a giant vehicle.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The only way to feel safe. The really big ego-support vehicles are no safer than a subcompact to be inside of, but they are far more likely to kill your own family.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          Well sure, though not being able to see anything around you when deep in truck/suv traffic is pretty scary in a sedan.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -2
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            That’s a feeling, not a lack of safety. Intimidating people into buying big cars on purpose is still vile, but the people who cave are giving in to irrationality and putting their feelings above the safety of their kids and of others. Tragedy of the commons is when defecting improves your utility. The SUV/emotional support truck arms race is only decreases the utility of others in exchange for feelings of power.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                011 months ago

                Which does not override the lack of safety of a tall heavy vehicle. Small cars are not less safe than emotional support trucks and full sized SUVs, because the latter get specific exemptions from safety regulations.

                “I’m going to increase the probability of killing my kid, innocent hystanders because of this one specific critereon i’ve cherry picked” is an emotional argument.

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              -1
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              The feeling of power and safety, itself, has utility. Feelings matter.

              No argument that there’s been an active propaganda campaign to make people in smaller cars feel less safe, but propaganda works. You can’t just dismiss it.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                111 months ago

                I can object to it being used to justify killing kids for a feeling though. Which is what you were doing by suggesting it’s a prisoner’s dilemma.

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -511 months ago

                  Object all you like? It doesn’t change the actual reality of what is happening and why people drive murder machines.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -211 months ago

          Physics says that in a collision, the heavier vehicle will always come out better. Higher mass means more resistance to acceleration, so it will take longer to change speed and impart less force on the occupants. This is one reason why buses sometimes don’t have seatbelts, when the bus collides with much lighter cars it will be largely unaffected.

          If everyone has a heavy vehicle, it’s worse overall because of higher kinetic energy causing more dramatic collisions. And obviously significantly worse for everyone outside a car.

          Hence the arms race.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            511 months ago

            Which is offset by the lack of safety regulation, high center of mass, heavier weight to crush the cabin in a rollover, and much higher likelihood of running over your own kids.

            Stop spreading propaganda by cherry picking,

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -111 months ago

              Which is offset by the lack of safety regulation

              Citation needed. SUVs tend to be modern which would generally have stricter safety regulations

              high center of mass, heavier weight to crush the cabin in a rollover

              I wouldn’t have though that rollovers are a common cause of deaths or serious injuries in cars. The higher center of gravity is going to be offset by the wider wheel base, so it depends on the car.

              Traction seems like a much bigger problem, although many SUVs solve this with bigger wheels.

              and much higher likelihood of running over your own kids.

              Agree 100%

              Stop spreading propaganda by cherry picking,

              Look, fuck SUVs, obviously. If you aren’t a psychopath you should not feel safe driving those things. My point was specifically about the physics of collisions. What you’re bringing up can’t be answered with physics because it depends on the details of the car, we need real world statistics to continue this conversation.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                311 months ago

                “Buy a new big car because it will be later year than a new small car and thus have newer safety features” is an incredibly wild way of drawing the exact opposite conclusion to the one you should have from that data.

              • Uranium3006
                link
                fedilink
                111 months ago

                Citation needed. SUVs tend to be modern which would generally have stricter safety regulations

                what? that makes no sense. SUVs in the US are generally regulated as light trucks, which have historically had laxer safety requirements for a given model year

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        811 months ago

        That’s not the tragedy of the commons, and that’s not why everyone drives turboencabulators.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

        It is, I shit you not, a cold war tariff on fucking chickens. There’s some other shit that’s glommed on over the centuries, but the mad-science breeding program to create a pickup truck big enough to swallow the sun started with a stupid trade dispute over chickens between the krauts, the frogs, and the yanks.

  • Maeqa
    link
    fedilink
    9111 months ago

    So glad they put that thick protective white line there so I know I won’t be hit 🥰

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Ironically enough, this is how the pavements are in the ski resort I live in. It’s a “shared zone”, pedestrians have the same rights as vehicles. It slows everyone down because nobody knows when the next braying snowboarder trust-fund baby is going to stagger out in front of you.

        Oh and as for the snow, we have adorable little mini snowploughs for the pedestrian bit

        Edit to add pic -

        Of course it uploaded upside down

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3811 months ago

    If you are walking you’re either poor or up to no good, in both cases we don’t want you around these parts. Oh, your kids need to walk? Don’t be lazy and DRIVE them where they need to go!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1211 months ago

      Don’t be lazy and DRIVE

      For the briefest of moments I felt a spark of blinding hot rage in my heart. Now I am left with the lingering feeling of wanting to smash my head against a rock.

      Thank you for that experience.

  • rem26_art
    link
    fedilink
    3411 months ago

    Why even allow people in this neighborhood? Just have cars and no people

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3111 months ago

    Next they’ll eliminate the stripe and put up share-the-road signs with the stick figure

  • PeoplesRepublicOfNewEngland [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2811 months ago

    The presence of the paint makes this nightmare area more walkable than plenty of places in the Failed States of America. I once had the misfortune of living in a place where the presence (or much more often, absence) of sidewalk was completely up to the owner of the property the stretch of road in question abutted. The rare property owner who chose to add sidewalk created a completely useless, disconnected decoration.

    • NotErisma [they/them, any]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There’s a storage unit near my neighborhood built on a stroad without a sidewalk, they built a sidewalk that stretches only within the bounds of the storage property.

      On that regard: Storage units and hotels are so weird because if they get built in the suburbs no one will bat an eye (despite their density). But if its an apartment complex people lose their minds.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Lots of cities mandate new construction has to build sidewalks in zones without any. I think the idea is that eventually, as long as the sidewalk is up to code, new buildings will handle adding sidewalk instead of the city.

        It’s a very long term plan that makes these long term idiotic stretches, but it’s not the worst way to do something that would otherwise not happen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -111 months ago

      Idk. We have similar things around here for when they want to add more walkable spaces and less space for cars but they cannot or do not have the money for a full walkable path. Although usually they put some plastic bollards to avoid people parking or stopping on it.

      They ain’t bad, usually is in town and the max speed is 20 - 30 Km/h with the exception of main roads inside the town/city which is 50 Km/h. So although a proper sidewalk would be better they ain’t bad and they are quick to install.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1311 months ago

        Except that they are bad if you consider safety and convenience of pedestrians. It is a testimonial of terrible planning in the first hand and the most ‘I don’t give a shit’ solution second hand.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        911 months ago

        Yeah, it seems like there should be something to separate the vehicle traffic from the pedestrian traffic though. Like some kind of low concrete barrier that would actually curb an errant car’s trajectory and direct it back on to the road.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Some are exaggerating a little bit how much a curb protects pedestrians… And yeah that’s the correct approach but as I said this fast to implement, the rest can be done later.

          In our local case we are talking about reducing car space in benefit of extra pedestrian space, although keeping safe distanced. Not like the picture were there wasn’t pedestrian space at all to begin with.

  • Piecemakers
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1811 months ago

    I’m just wondering why that corpse was wearing such an unhealthy corset.