469
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Avicenna@programming.dev 16 points 17 hours ago

wait hear me out. what if the driverless cars had special roads built for them and they were larger so they could carry more passangers!

[-] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago

As a European, I hope this shit stays off of our streets forever.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago

Yay for more traffic accidents!

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

Idk if you realize how many less car accidents europeans have per capita

[-] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 45 minutes ago

We could have even less if we allow progress.

[-] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 27 points 1 day ago

And do you know what trains and trams crash into? Its not other trains and trams...

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 22 hours ago

Trains sometimes crash into each other. It isn't common, but it happens

[-] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago

Or the environment.

[-] huppakee@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Actually in my city a tram crashed on another tram literally two days ago. Also train hitting trains is a thing. But yes, trams and trains crashing into trams and trains because the tram/train driver's action sure is near zero compared to the number of trams crashing into cars because of the car driver's action.

[-] Cabslock@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago
[-] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago
[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

I was going to comment that the only train I have personally seen hit something, hit a car.

[-] w33n1s@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

I like Waymo. Took LA decades to build out three more stops on the D line. The argument is retarded.

[-] subverted_per 3 points 1 hour ago

Said like someone who's never been to a place with a halfway decent rail system. But yeah its the trains fault, not the moneyed interest forcing you to take a single cabin rail car that can ride on surface streets, and barely recognize a person in a crosswalk.

[-] No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 day ago

What about driverless trains?

Double less crashes.

I honestly doubt it, since the vast majority of crashes occur when there's something not working (e.g. signal won't turn to green, track detection system not working) - scenarios where driverless trains need human intervention anyway.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 7 hours ago

There was very nasty train crash in Spain a few years ago because the driver was speeding and the train derailed.

Exceptions prove the rule. On top of that, that crash occurred on the border between two train control systems (ETCS and ASFA, if I remember correctly), where there ended up being quite a gap in train protection. As much as the problem was the speeding driver, it was also a dangerous gap in train control where whoever planned it really screwed up.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 43 minutes ago

Sure, my point is that as rare as they are, there are human error accidents that could be avoided if we switched to self-driving trains (and they proved safe). They are already in use at airports and commuter lines.

[-] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 1 points 27 minutes ago

Problem is, what is the tradeoff. So you switch to driverless trains. First of all, it has only worked in completely isolated systems until now (no mainline railways). Then, you have the problem that when something goes wrong, the consequences in terms of delays are much larger, often making the news, because there's no one there that can just "quickly do something" to get around the problem and keep going. People tend to get stuck in trains for long times when issues arise - see the REM in Montreal. What's the consequence of unreliable public transit? People tend to avoid it more, often switching back to their cars for important trips - a much more dangerous form of transportation.

[-] Blum0108@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago
[-] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 8 points 22 hours ago

You think people would do that? Go onto the internet and tell jokes?

[-] diabetic_porcupine@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)
[-] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 4 points 19 hours ago

OK ok ok ok OK... (lol) yes, he was probably joking. I thought it might be interesting to add the information anyway, in case anyone took it seriously (seems like a logical conclusion at first glance, after all)

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I got the joke. :)

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Also, humans driving cars, because it's pretty easy to have fewer 'crashes' when you just omit a heap of crashes.

“the analysis excluded minor incidents involving Waymos that would likely not have been reported to the police had a human been driving,”

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 15 points 1 day ago

¯_(ツ)_/¯ I get your point but also I get their point, they are trying to make the data comparable to the data they are comparing too. It just so happens it makes them look better too.

[-] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago

Interesting. Same data in USA says the robo taxis were almost twice as likely per million miles (I last checked few months to half a year ago) to be in incident as human drivers.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

As usual, Musk is most likely the one skewing the statistics.

His cars, whether on commercial "full self driving" mode (which it isn't, at all) or whether they're the commercial robo-taxis, have all kinds of driving and safety issues. Almost everyone other than Musk has very few issues.

[-] birdwing 15 points 1 day ago
[-] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago
[-] birdwing 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Those by definition can't exist - a bicycle must be powered through muscles for a significant portion, about 25-50% at least. Even electric bicycles still are mainly muscle-powered.

[-] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

So you're saying that technically they're all driverless?

[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 4 points 23 hours ago

Electric bicycle enthusiasts are in shambles

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 5 points 1 day ago

100% true, but currently the areas these waymos are active aren't going to install trains or rail lines. The Phoenix area Waymo operates in for instance is your typical asphalt hellscape that wouldn't work well with trains because of how the area was designed for cars (rip). Not ideal but I rather drive next to a waymo than a human in these areas, the humans are insane drivers.

Yes yes fuck cars but this is an improvement imo

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago

Phoenix is a perfect city for trolley/tram lines. You have perfectly straight gigantic roads laid out in an uninterrupted grid. It would be quite easy to run rails down the middle of the streets.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
469 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

16232 readers
485 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS