this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
309 points (93.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

15761 readers
315 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
309
Priorities in the modern world. (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 59 points 9 months ago (2 children)

When a plane crashes investigators try to find the causes to make recommendations on how to make things safer. When a car crashes the investigation is not about safety, its about assigning blame.

This is the reason that aviation is as safe as it is, and cars are as dangerous as they are. Investigate car crashes the same way, and change licensing, training, vehicles, and infrastructure in response to those findings, and cars can be safe.

There is no such thing as an accident. Every collision is avoidable.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Also, there's no fear of revoking pilot licenses. If someone behaves stupidly while piloting a plane, they won't pilot a commercial plane again.

If someone behaves stupidly behind the wheel, usually nothing happens, and only rarely will someone get their license suspended for a limited amount of time.

Piloting a plane is not a right but a priviledge, and driving a car should be seend the same way.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Not defending cars at all but plane accidents usually have higher casualties. The total number is still way higher with cars but planes are more shocking because they have way stricter regulations.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

so...

maybe cars also need stricter regulations?

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They do. Especially in the US where cars that are barely held together are allowed on the roads and getting a driver licence is easy as cake.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I would happily resubmit to the driver exam every five years if that were the norm. It would remove or reform sooo many dangerous drivers. I think regular retesting is also superior to only retesting elderly drivers, because it's a level mechanism for everyone that avoids ageism. Lots of younger and middle age drivers are menaces, too. It's less about prohibiting them from vehicle use, more about making sure they're actually ready for that use.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'd be up for a 10 year resubmit and then after you are older than 70 it keeps decreasing. No issue retaking it as long as it's just like a theory and maybe an hour or 2 on the road with a driving instructor and it's not as expensive as doing it the first time. (20+ mandatory instructor hours don't come cheap).

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Considering how many people don't know the basics in regards to driving law (e.g. under what circumstances you are allowed to use the horn, driving only so fast that you can stop before any danger that you can presently not see, parking rules, ...), I'd say 5 years is even too long of an interval, not too short of one.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The issue with it being less than 5 year IMO is that you would not have the capacity to test so many people so often.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Tbh, I don't really see that as an issue.

There's four potential parts to a license renewal:

  • medical check
  • theory test
  • driving test
  • submitting an up-to-date photo and printing the new license

In any civilized country, people have a yearly medical check (for health purposes) regardless, so you could just add the driver's license check to that.

Theory tests can be done on a PC, so you don't need a lot of humans to supervise. One should be enough for dozens of parallel tests just to make sure nobody is cheating.

The photo and printing part hardly takes any personell and can be outsourced super easily.

Leaves the actual driving test. In most countries the training required to become a driving examiner is really easy, often just a 1-3 month course. So it should be rather trivial to increase the capacity there. In my country there aren't even any full-time employees doing driving exams, they are all part-time, because the amount of required employees for that job is so low.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Agree to the first arguments but the last one not so much. We have fuckall capacity here and you can wait up to 3 months to even get a free date to take your driving test because there is so few people doing the grading.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

But still, that's a really easy thing to fix. People pay for their own exams, so if there's more demand, more people will get into this super easy to train job.

[–] Eczpurt@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The safety testing is a problem because they often test vehicles solely against other vehicles in their class. Meaning a 5 star safety rating on a small car is only 5 stars against another small car. Against the suburban down the street it'd be illegal to produce them for the safety violations.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 9 months ago

There's a perceptional issue at work. Individual people aren't in control of an airplane. They're stuck in a metal tube going 500+ mph at 30k ft. They don't have any agency over what happens. The industry combats this by having really, really tight regulations (well, they do until someone in the C-suite tries to fuck with it).

With a car, you're in control. There's a heavier emphasis on "personal responsibility". When the truck with a 5' hood hits a kid crossing the street, it's the kid's fault for not looking both ways. We have a bunch of stuff that tries to make things safer (mostly for the occupants), and a lot of it has made cars heavier, more expensive, and sometimes more dangerous for people outside the car.

This deserves a more in-depth writeup on the evolution of car safety equipment than I'm willing to do right now, but the conclusion should be that you can't make cars work as a primary mass transit method. We're over a century into cars being mass transit, and we haven't really solved it, because we can't.

[–] ook@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 9 months ago

Yeah, this is definitely not a good comparison, I agree. One argument maybe is that because planes are more regulated it works out at lower accident rate and that's what we should bring to the car world. But there are also much much more cars than planes around.

[–] idegenszavak@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

And what metric you check: accidents per km or accidents per trip. Per trip airplanes are much higher, per km cars are higher.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

I think it's shocking how little regulations cars have

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

It has to do with fears and responsability. If someone dies on a car accident, 99.99% of the time, people will blame the driver or another driver.

If a plane crashes it hits the news big due to the quantity of corpses and the blame goes through a pipeline splashing everyone from pilots to the dudes adjusting bolts and ultimately hits public fear on flying, which could potebtially kill the industry.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago

Reminds me of when some rich people wanted to see the Titanic and, well, went the way of the Titanic

[–] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Auto industry spends over $12 billion per year just within the US. That money is to buy positive news coverage, which is why the media will never describe driving as being inherently unsafe.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Commercial planes you mean. Private planes come down from time to time and they don't get as much coverage. Even with this, commercial planes come down so rarely that usually it's a technical error and not the fault of the pilots.

Few cars crash because if technical error, it's more driver error.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

They usually don't let 18yo (or younger) drunk people fly after just a short license course.

They also don't let 95yo semi-blind people fly.

And road ragers are also rarely allowed to pilot a commercial plane.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Come on, full self driving is 1000x safer!!! /s

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

*two airplane crashes

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Volume, the issue is volume. If there was 3 million planes flying around the same sky it would be another story, but also personal vs commercial. Commercial has standards they need to meet and investigations need to take place when things go wrong. If you fuck up your own shit, who cares but you and the other people involved?!