this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
203 points (93.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9662 readers
352 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de 54 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Speed limit is enforced by road design, not by signs

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You’re suggesting they add even more potholes to motorways?

[–] Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago

Context is 20 mph steets, making them more complicated and narrower forces drivers to slow down to not hit anything. Straight and wide streets allow drivers to speed as they feel comfortable.

Motorways on the other hand encourage to speed with wide lines, long view distance, long turn radiuses, hard shoulder and long paint stips

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A center line with floppy cone-pole things, barriers on the side (such as planters)(bonus it keeps pedestrians and cyclists safer and beautifies the area)

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

More round a bouts.

[–] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

it's enforced by road design, and in some cases our desire to not murder children with our cars. call me autistic (I am) but I follow speed limits in residential areas even if the road is designed like a formula 1 track

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MDZA@feddit.uk 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

There are quite a few 20 mph roads near me where the only incentive to slow down is to avoid being caught be a speed camera.

The roads are wide and straight for long stretches, and going at the 20 mph limit just means you become an obstruction for the rest of traffic, even buses and lorries.

The design of the road and posted speed limits are sending mixed messages.

[–] apprehensively_human@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's a concept in road design that says the engineer must first determine the design speed, which is basically how fast they want traffic to be able to flow. This part of the process is generally not part of any public hearing or put to a vote by public officials - it is just decided on and then they move on to the next step.

There's also a prevailing concept in road design that seems to indicate that high traffic speeds are a design issue, but low speeds are an enforcement issue. The road is designed to accommodate the highest amount of traffic anticipated in the future without really thinking about if that's even a good fit for the area.

Once the road has been built to exacting standards (which means it is far too wide and flat,) the city steps in and slaps a speed limit on it, often at odds with the design speed.

When residents get worried about all the speeding cars, they petition the city for a traffic study to see if anything can be done. The engineers conducting the traffic study determine that the road is capable of handling higher speeds than the current limit, and so to cut down on speeding the recommendation is to increase the posted limit.

It's amazing to me how much influence the engineering team has on the design with basically no accountability. You can try to reduce speeding by putting up speed traps and police patrols, but at the end of the day people will drive as fast as they are comfortable with and that is often a result of the design of the road they are driving on.

[–] bettybarcode@urbanists.social 5 points 1 year ago

@apprehensively_human

"People drive the design, not the sign."
--unknown

@MDZA @fuck_cars

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Yea around here we have 4 or more lane highways with 60mph speed limits. You could almost double that safely if people actually used the lanes properly when not passing. Instead we have to deal with a mix of assholes going all different speeds trying to get around the people going 60 in the left lane and god help you of there's a cop around.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Metal0130@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You may enjoy the YouTube channel, Road Guy Rob. He covers a lot of these issues and more. It's a niche channel for sure, but can be fascinating if you're into that kind of thing.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't really make sense of what you're saying. If the road is straight and wide but also has a low speed limit, that's not sending mixed signals. Rather, it's suggesting that you should drive slow even though your instinct tells you that you could drive quickly, presumably because there are either obstacles creating blind points that could lead to pedestrian or bicycle involved accidents, small children playing nearby, or cars turning onto or from side roads that you might strike if you're driving at the speed that your gut tells you is safe.

In other words, you shouldn't trust your gut when deciding how fast is safe on a road because your gut is often mistaken about the finer points of road design.

Also, you wrote that a slow driver would be an obstruction to other vehicles including trucks. I think you were wording that as a bad thing, but in reality it's a good thing. One reasonable driver can force a dozen bad drivers to slow down.

[–] Fuckass@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it's a good thing. One reasonable driver can force a dozen bad drivers to slow down.

95% of drivers will just pass you even if it’s illegal, and often times they’ll do that recklessly and nearly hit the incoming car on the other lane, or they’ll be scared shitless of passing and quickly go back to your lane in front of you and narrowly missing the front of your car (which you’d be held responsible for damages because it was a rear end accident). Not saying increasing the limit is a good thing, but in the US at least, people will fantasize torturing you in front of your children if you slightly inconvenience them on the road.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I think a large part of it is inappropriately making 30 mph areas 20mph and also poor enforcement.

I live on a long wide 20mph road and I can't stand the people going at 40, 50 or even 60 or 70 mph at times. But I don't think my road should have been 20mph, it should have been 30mph. It seems it was easier to stick some 20mph signs up to say "we've done something" as a way of discouraging some people going at more rediculous speeds and hope most go at 30mph.

Instead what was needed was actual investment in the road - speed bumps, narrowing the road with choke points and passing points, physical rather than painted cycle lanes - that kind of thing.

Fortunately after years of pressure our road is now going to be in a LTZ (Low Traffic Zone). Both ends of my own long road are blocked off to allow pedestrians and cyclists only through, and my main road is being split into 3rds with X-junctions being turned into filters(Instead of X it's now > and < with no connection). If you're driving you can only turn into one side street while cyclists and pedestrians can pass through as normal. We've had a trial for a while and it's been very effective - my whole block has been split up with filters so you can't use it to pass through to reach the main roads around it - this has stopped the arseholes using my road as a shortcut and speeding at 60 mph.

People are still going at 30mph but the twisting and turning through the block means you can't really get up to anything more than that and also unless you're going to a house in the block it's pointless to even enter.

So while I abhor speeding, I would argue these stats reflect bad road management - over relying on 20mph speed limtis as a cheap alternative to actual road management and redeisgns which are expensive (and difficult in many parts of the UK with lots of very old and narrow streets inherited from previous eras).

[–] bigschnitz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Speed bumps are the worst possible solution, they often mean if you're in a conventional car you have to come to a bear complete stop and if you're in a large SUV you can cross at 20mph. This reinforces the trend away from conventional cars to higher ride height vehicles which is a disaster for road safety (especially pedestrian and cyclist safety).

They do successfully slow down the flow of traffic (and also cause traffic to follow alternative paths, at least until speed bumps are saturated in the area) but it fucks up emergency vehicle access and damages cars (increases wear and tear). The other road design solutions (more narrow roads, inclusion of roundabouts, addition of choke points etc) all are equally as effective as humps at reducing speeders and diverting traffic away from roads (in some cases they are better) and have none of the negative consequences, speed humps should never be used imo.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 9 points 1 year ago

Way too many people are speeding where I live too and I partly blame the road design as well. I've seen many places in Denmark where I live that they at some point reduced the limit from 60 to 50 or from 50 to 40 kmh with no modifications to the road design or obvious reasons like schools or crossroads. Or similarly you are driving along at 80 and then the limit changes to 60 but the road looks the same. I know it's usually because of safety or more commonly noise pollution or hidden sideroads. This doesn't make sense intuitively while driving because the road design signals higher speed than allowed. It's still no real excuse for driving too fast but I think it could solve a lot of the issue with better road design like "not just bikes" are also preaching in his videos

At least 10% lied. Nearly everyone speeds.

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I feel like some reddit brain would say "oh we'll just enforce this digitally once everyone drives a self driving car"

given how many times computers fuck up and just randomly turn off or some shit, I still think humans (some of them at least) are more dependable

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

15% is not a hard success rate to beat but. This isn't dickriding self driving cars, that shit is never going to work without fucking everyone outside of a car over more, but that's kind of the point, the answer to this problem is not cars (any version)

[–] matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

@sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Modern petrol cars contain lots of computers too.

Automatic enforcement, with the right to override it recorded in the black box to be used as evidence in crash cases, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But inevitably there will be bugs, just as there are in self-driving cars (especially the often dangerous "semi-autonomous" vehicles).

However there is a cheaper solution: Fixed, widespread speed cameras. Which right now are effectively banned in the UK, because the treasury confiscates the fines (local government pays the running costs, and therefore can't afford to run any).

While I understand there are usability issues, and design can help with that, if you're not able to drive your ton of metal safely and legally you shouldn't be driving it. If people expected to get caught, they'd drive slower.

The bottom line is speed limits are the law. And lower speed limits reduce the number of serious injuries dramatically and help to push people onto public transport. Although with old cars they increase emissions slightly; with modern hybrids they reduce them.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (17 children)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] copandballtorture@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cars aren't good at going slow. They need a "chill mode" setting where light pressure on the accelerator for 2 seconds doesn't move you from 20-30mph before you realize it. I like going the speed limit and have a hard time only going 20 on some roads because it's just so dang easy to accidentally bump up to 30mph. Automatic transmission problems

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

In the US speed limits are set by 85% of traffic speed on a road. So if the road was set for 30mph, and then you changed it to 20MPH with no other changes, you will immediately get 85% of drivers breaking the "limit."

Another way to say it is that UK's department for transport has incompetently designed 85% of their 20mph roads.

[–] smeeps@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

UK highways departments have had essentially zero budget for 2+ decades now. There's no funding to completely retrofit every single residential street to match the new signage. Most of them are already incredibly narrow and tight compared to your average North American street.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Hmm, sounds like the infrastructure for personal vehicles is pretty unsustainable, perhaps we should start closing off streets so that traffic will naturally be limited to locals only thus solving the problem from the demand side.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Another way to say it, is that they haven't installed enough average speed cameras.

If you install a few of those, suddenly drivers do manage to keep to the speed limit.

The US system is stupid. Most drivers drive too fast and overestimate their driving capabilities.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Designing a street so that people naturally drive a given speed is a pretty well-solved problem and you don't have to expand the surveillance state to do it. Also it usually makes the road more pleasant for everyone!

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh cool a surveillance simp

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Cool create perverse incentives that do nothing to physically stop a car from barreling down a residential street, but also generate tax revenue so now the government is further discouraged from fixing the problem of a car barreling down a residential street, lest they lose revenue. Good job!

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I think it's important to note that the US approach to speed limits is absolute fucking garbage and maybe one should be able to expect people piloting a vehicle to actually read and follow speed limits

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

It's the same or higher here in the US based on my personal experience.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

Exactly why we need LTNs etc. Existing restrictions don't work!

[–] C4d@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If you’re out there, need to be in a car and for whatever reason find it hard to keep the car at 20mph - do what I do and use the speed limiter function (if you have one). Works a charm.

With or without the tech aid though, there’s no excuse.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I believe it 100%.

I started riding with a Garmin bike radar and installed an app that tells me exactly how fast a car is going when it passes, and the majority are over the speed limit.

Just the other day, in a 60 km/h zone, I clocked two cars going 125 km/h.

If I thought for a second that police would charge these drivers using photo/video evidence, I'd fork over the $500 to get the radar with a camera built-in and report each and every speeding driver that passes me.

[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 19 points 1 year ago (57 children)

In Denmark we have the lovely new law that if you drive more than 100% over the speed limit and over 100 kmh or drive over 200 kmh at all or drunk driving with over 2‰ they confiscate the car and you are not getting it back at all. They confiscate the car regadles of who owns the car (with very few exceptions) and that is also if it is leased. So far since when the law started they have confiscated over 2000 cars in two years. It's my favourite law of all laws right now. The fine for driving crazy is also nicely proportional to your income and it removes the car so the person cannot just drive without license afterwards.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (23 children)

I can't get behind property seizure without compensation, but I can understand everything else.

Even if they said "you can't have this car any more, but can sell it from our facility" that'd be better I think

[–] threedaymonk@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (16 children)

In effect, is it really that different to a fine? It seems to have a couple of advantages, though: it's easier to collect, and it's proportional, so a person who can afford a fancy luxury car pays more than someone in an old banger, without the complexity of having to evaluate their income and savings.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Normally me neither, bit in this context where you are driving so recklessly you are endangering everyone else and we are talking over double the speed limit I'll allow it. Noone has any rights left when you are doing that kind of stuff deliberately.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (56 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›