this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
286 points (89.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9809 readers
2 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
[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 42 points 5 months ago (5 children)

The Chevy Suburban is about the same weight now as in 1973 (5837lbs then, 5785-5993lbs now, according to Wikipedia).

It was huge then, it's huge now.

The BMWs pictured are not the same class of car either


one is a coupe/sedan, one's an SUV, so of course they will be radically different.

Don't get m wrong, I think modern cars are too big and, in the case of BMW, way uglier than they used to be.

[–] Jilanico@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Exactly. This pic is comparing apples with oranges to get a rise out of us. There are irrefutable arguments for saving the planet, we don't need this low IQ rage bait.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago (6 children)

People would find some way to complain no matter what cars were chosen for the comparison, but the fact is cars have been getting bigger on average.

[–] mike805@fosstodon.org 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@mondoman712 @Jilanico This is ironically due to the emissions rules. Bigger vehicles are classed as commercial and allowed to burn more gas and pollute more.

My dad has a 1999 Chevy S-10 with a small cab, a 4-cylinder engine, and a long bed. Nothing like that is made today. Handy when you need to move stuff though.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

In the US, but worldwide car companies push consumers towards larger vehicles because they are more profitable.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 1 points 5 months ago

Right


and I think that is a real issue that deserves real attention, and closing these bullshit carveouts for high GVWR vehicles should absolutely happen.

That said, I take some issue with ragebaity posts when less ragebaity posts (such as the article you linked) are more informative, offer fair comparisons, and ultimately are more critical of the problem.

Just my 2¢.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] aleph@lemm.ee 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Sedans were the default back in the 80s, now SUVs and pickups account for around 75% of all new sales (in the US, at least).

So, in terms of what the average car looked like then versus now, it's a perfectly valid comparison.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

That's not an average representation of the increase in the size of pickup trucks, though.

Just look at the Ford F150:

F150 in 70s versus today

Even if you compare like with like, pickups are around 30% heavier than they were in the 90s, and around 10-15% taller.

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/23/pickup-trucks-f150-size-weight-safety

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago

Nah the actual space you can use shrunk while the truck got bigger. That's insane

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Compare a '90s F-150 to a 2024 Ranger. Then compare a '90s Ranger to a 2024 Maverick. Arguably, what Ford really did was that it added a third, bigger-than-full-size, truck and shifted the names one notch up.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The Maverick is new and while it does buck the trend of "bigger is always better", all it signifies to me is that Ford are diversifying their range of pickups now that they don't make any small cars or sedans in the US any more, which is kind of emblematic of the whole problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

The point is the smaller model was popular what was popular then, and the giant SUV (or even worse those massive truck things) are what's popular now.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 5 months ago

You're telling me that tiny little sedan on the left is 3 tons!?

[–] banana_lama@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Here's a link if you want to include in your comment.

It's a site that compares car sizes. This link is for the 3 series

https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/bmw-3-1997-sedan-vs-bmw-3-2018-sedan/

And here's a dodge challenger which surprisingly is fatter but slightly shorter and higher

https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/dodge-challenger-1969-coupe-vs-dodge-challenger-2015-coupe/

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 37 points 5 months ago (2 children)

For those who are actually curious, this is because of the Light Truck Exemption in the US. long story short, the us made emissions requirements on cars. Car companies said "fine well do cars, but we can't do it for trucks". At the time, trucks were only used for, you know, actual truck things, so they made the Light Truck Exemption.

So of course car companies created the SUV, popularized it, and made it the standard. Now, so interestingly, everything is a light truck! Even most sedans are. Who would have guessed car companies found a way out of emissions standards yet again.

Great not just bikes video that goes more in depth: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=y38n9OQz8gC5RLBq

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 6 points 5 months ago

The weird thing is that it even rubs of to the rest of the world, cars are getting bigger and higher in Europe, without the tax dodge, or even the contrary. Where I live cars are taxed by weight and even here the fuckers get bigger...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The old BMW looks so much better too.

[–] Jilanico@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (7 children)

It's bigger. Does that mean it burns more fuel or has more emissions than a 40 year old car? I'm all for saving the planet, but I'm not sure big automatically means worse. I could be wrong.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago (7 children)

They are still gonna be less effecient than smaller, lighter models with modern technology.

Another factor is bigger vehicles are deadlier.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

the 1984 BMW 318i gets 24 mpg the 2024 BMW x7 gets 24 mpg

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 9 points 5 months ago

Bigger does almost always mean more emissions/worse economy for a given technology. In this case someone else pointed out that the economy is about the same for both, which is due to the fact that technology has improved; if you put the engineering effort of the big car into the form factor of the little car, it'd be much more efficient.

[–] hannes3120@feddit.de 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It weighs more and definitely could use a lot less space on the road and costume less fuel if it didn't grow to this size but stayed small and with less weight

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago

They’re bigger specifically so they can qualify as “light trucks” instead of regular vehicles, which means they have more more lax emissions standards.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 months ago

means it’s easier to claim you didn’t see the kid you just ran over

[–] Maestro@fedia.io 4 points 5 months ago

I replaced my old Ford Focus stationwagon with a Nissan Qashqai, an SUV. It has much better milage so it'll probably have less emissions.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

cellphones have been reversing the trend, we’ve gone back to phablet sized devices (but this time removing the smaller options)

[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

With cellphones, at the very least it's more a question of screen size more than anything. Phones got smaller, but screens got bigger. I'm guessing this is why - in part at least - folding phones are trying to become a thing; increasing screen size whilst staying small enough to fit in a pocket.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] halvar@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Who gives a shit about cars, give me my buttload of ports back!

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Get framework. It has 6 type-c ports, each of which you can breakout into something like 10 ports with usb hubs.

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You don't know what I'd do to get massive chunky brick laptops back from the 90's again. Look at all those ports!

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you like chunky and portful check out the MNT Reform

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 5 months ago

whoa

regretting my framework laptop about now

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Counterpoint: you needed all those different ports because we didn't have USB-C and wifi yet.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

except phones are big again because we noticed we can watch porn on them

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] starman@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Actually, I'd like a bigger and thicker laptop

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

Gaming laptops are thicker and have quite a few ports. I have one and the only port i am missing is Displayport instead of hdmi

What you carry and what carries you don't really compare though.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Does anyone know what that laptop is?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Bring back the assault-and-battery-case laptop!

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Like smart phones have now bounced to getting larger again, cars used to be big and got smaller because of Korea and gas prices. But then they are getting bigger again because of regulations and showing off.

load more comments
view more: next ›