885
rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by nebula42@lemmy.world to c/196
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 106 points 2 years ago

Sowwy I skewed the statistics by drinking all the petrol I was thirsty 😖

[-] atocci@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago

Darn it Petrols Georg, not again

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 52 points 2 years ago
[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

Fuck cars is nothing but city dwellers that think their lifestyle is scalable to suburbs or the sticks.

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago
[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

eVeryOne sHouLd lIvE iN aPartmEntS anD bE haPpY aBoUt iT

[-] drbluefall@toast.ooo 17 points 2 years ago
[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Thankfully you won't ever be in a position of power to force people into cells. Ill keep living on my land 😁

[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Can bet this dork doesn't even own land lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] t_jpeg@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

indubitably based.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ToastedPlanet 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I definitely want a more expansive public transportation system out here in the foot hills. A high-speed rail network to connect us to other parts of the state would be awesome. But it isn't feasible to get rid of all cars completely. A single parent out here can't be expected to make multiple bike trips for the equivalent of one grocery store run, up and down hills to feed multiple children and work a full time job. Some people out here live on roads where cars can barely drive on let alone a bus. edit: typo

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

You've identified the problem. Now for solutions!

[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

The solution is individual vehicles for transportation. Congestion is not an issue in the sticks.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

What a dumb community. I'd be fucked without my car, so you're going to disparage me for using one? Sorry I don't live in fantasy land where public transport is readily available.

[-] holyopt 54 points 2 years ago

The way I perceived it is the point isn't to disparage people people for using cars but to point out how ridiculous car oriented infrastructure is. Places were designed to have poor alternatives to driving, that's the problem.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] graveyardchickenhunt@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago

Fuck cars refers to what they caused with car centric infrastructure. The lobbying that reduced that "fantasy" of public transport to rubble. It's advocating for people centric cities.

At least check what is about before getting offended.

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 years ago

This is it 100%

The idea of fuck cars isn't to make drivers lives worse but to make everyone who can't drive for any number of reasons (age, finances, anxieties and other disabilities, etc) have access to an equitable life.

My brother has crippling anxiety behind the wheel. He's tried driving and physically cannot do it without putting his life and the lives of those around him in danger. Should his life be worse, or should he be subjected to only living in dense metro areas his whole life because of this? Or should he have a viable transportation option no matter where he lives?

That's the real idea behind fuck cars. Unfortunately when people with so much are asked to share with people with little to nothing, they see it as an attack on their freedom (which only goes one way) rather than a equalization of the playing field.

[-] MonsieurArchi@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

These days people get offended for even the tiniest thing lol

[-] trainden 33 points 2 years ago

I think the point of the community isn't 'Fuck you for driving a car!' but more like 'We should focus on affordable public transport, proper cycling lanes and walkable neighbourhoods instead of focussing on expanding car infrastructure, turning nature parks into parking lots and urban sprawl'.

[-] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago

I'd be fucked without my car

And that's exactly the point of this community. We don't want you to just stop using your car. We want you to have the choice to stop using the car. We hate the fact that car-centered infrastructure led to the point where you can't go anywhere without a car.

This is an issue because first of all, cars are the thing that makes traffic as dangerous as it is for pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. Secondly they create traffic jams and everyone hates those. Thirdly, something something CO2 something something climate change, you know the jazz. Fourthly, not everyone can afford a car, driving lessons to get a licence, petrol and car insurance.

I could keep going but I hope you see why infrastructure more centered around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport could lead to safer and quicker traffic, cleaner air, lower emissions and more freedom for those who can't afford it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 years ago

Can I just say how much I loved Edinburgh for that? I was able to go to pretty much any bus stop, and have one that goes where I needed to go like every ten minutes.

That was quite a while ago though, and I think they wanted to build a tram network, so maybe that's changed

[-] paleasswhiteguy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Best not to mention the trams in Edinburgh. They finally finished the line (all the way from the airport to the port in Leith) but it cost waaay more than planned, had to be done in two phases and was a massive ballache during the construction.

That said, it is an absolute win for public transport in the city but it did knock the confidence of residents. Mostly down to the piss poor management of the project by the council.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 27 points 2 years ago

What about the women and children? Did they have to walk?

[-] Rusty@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 years ago

I transported them. I transported them all. Every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. They’re like passengers, and I transported them like passengers! I LOVE THEM!

bus

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago

They are always free to try and cling to the underside of the bus

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

They aren't allowed to go out

[-] 768@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago

1980s ads were stuck in the 1780s, confirmed?

[-] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Up to 1989 british women and children weren't issued a bus loicence

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

But how many gallons will 68 seamen take?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cantsurf@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

I agree that personal muscle cars are a "go fuck yourself" to the climate, but look at that bus. It doesn't look fast because it has no reason to be aerodynamic. That thing is either stopped or going like 30 mph a majority of the time. If driving takes you 15 minutes but taking the bus takes you an hour, those with enough money will trade it to get that time back.

[-] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 years ago

Why does it need to be aerodynamic? You know you don't need a Formula 1 shaped car to go faster than 30mph right?

Also the bus pictured is a London city bus. They can't go faster anyways because of all the traffic in London. There's busses designed to go on the highway at least like 60 mph.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DefunctReality 7 points 2 years ago

That's why good public transit networks using multiple modes are important, as well as reducing car infrastructure to disincentivize driving at the same time

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
885 points (100.0% liked)

196

18422 readers
225 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS