• Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year 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@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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.

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year 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@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

        • biddy@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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,

            • biddy@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year 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.

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year 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@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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

      • bermuda@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s funny too that SUVs and trucks also have themselves gotten bigger. I own an 11 year old SUV and I feel dwarfed on the road by every other new SUV I see. Trucks are insane too, some are so big they don’t fit in regular parking spots. Compare that to older pickups with the same bed space that are smaller than some sedans.

      • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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

      • Nisciunu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And the snow will pile up on that lane, because the street needs to be free and nothing else.

  • FleetingTit@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year 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!

    • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • Mereo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This what I hate about North America. Non walkable neighbourhoods.

    • Conowelle@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Weirdly enough it is a walkable neighborhood legit this is the entire street in the picture, for some reason they decided to paint these people lanes instead of just leaving it.

    • max@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you believe it that some see walkable neighbourhoods as a conspiracy? I just can’t wrap my head around why…

    • ch00f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Must be a pedestrian symbol. If it was a chalk outline, it would stretch for two blocks.

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • XTornado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

  • Herr Woland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    More like it was a guy who got flattened by a car and got painted over, because that’s exactly what’s going to happen if you try and walk there

  • njordomir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I keep seeing joggers in my area choosing the bike lane over the sidewalk, presumably because asphalt is softer than concrete sidewalks. If paving a ped lane next to the bike lane is what it takes to isolate these wrong-way bike-lane-jogging scufflaws, then let’s just do it and be done with it. We can cannibalize a car lane to make it happen. >:-)

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sidewalks in car-brained areas are super dangerous to jog on. People backing out of their driveway or turning across the road at 10-20km/h without looking. Trip hazards. Ankle destroying driveway cutouts or curved surfsces. Uneven grading.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Running against traffic on the road improves pretty much all of these and puts the new threat (oncoming cars) under their control.

          It does leave the runner vulnerable to cars turning right (in drive-on-the-right countries) though if they aren’t hyper aware of it.

          • njordomir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m a bit late to reply, but this is a great explanation. I always assumed it was just the softness of asphalt vs concrete on the knees, but there is absolutely a case to be made for visibility. It’s unexpected as a cyclist, but I am 100% empathetic to the struggles of anyone not in a car, more specifically one of those Dodge Ram 3500s with smokestacks and truck nuts on the bumper that seem to be so popular right now. :-)

  • biddy@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who would use this? Wouldn’t you either walk on the grass or clearly in the middle of the street?