• Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    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
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
            7
            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
              4
              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

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • bermuda@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        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
    46
    ·
    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
      14
      ·
      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
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • PeoplesRepublicOfNewEngland [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

  • biddy@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is an American suburban. The petite burgerosie living in those houses would shoot your or call the cops to shoot you for walking on their lawns, or run you over with a Ford F 69,000 turbo jumbulator hepta-cab ultra-pickup if you walked in the street.

      (this might not be an American suburb. It’s hard to tell. All suburbs exist in a discrete liminal hell dimension)