this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
308 points (90.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9804 readers
17 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
 

Some interesting stuff here, including links to more studies showing similar results in different countries.

The summary is that the reason motorists break more laws is that speeding is so common.

I don't think this is because motorists are all evil and cyclists are all saints. Probably, the reason motorists break speed limits is that it can be relatively difficult to keep cars below the speed limit. It's all too easy to absentmindedly speed up. It's also, perhaps becuase of this, widely seen as socially acceptable to break the speed limit (speaking anecdotally).

One interesting thing here, which may not surprise regular readers of Fuck Cars, is that better cycling infrastructure leads to less lawbreaking by cyclists. As is often the case, it's the design of roads and cities that changes behaviour, not abstract appeals to road users to be sensible!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Granted it's not all the time, but I do agree that a lot of the time, the rule breaking is incentivized by cars' problematic driving and not sharing the road well. If cars were on a whole more friendly with cyclists and knew the proper rules as well, it probably wouldn't happen as often.

[–] frankpodmore@social.coop 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@pjhenry1216 I think the key thing is better cycling infrastructure. Most people would do almost anything to avoid hitting someone with their car, but it still happens all too often because of poorly designed roads

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

That would cause the biggest impact, but in the meantime I wish car drivers were just better educated about the rules of the road when a bicycle is present. I'm not even sure which is the easier goal honestly. Maybe better infrastructure is easier even if more expensive. Easier to change a road than it is to change people.

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

Granted it’s not all the time, but I do agree that a lot of the time, the rule breaking is incentivized by cars’ problematic driving and not sharing the road well.

I suspect it literally is all the time. If there were no cars, there would be no need for the rules in the first place.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there were no cars, there'd be a hell of a lot more bikes. I'd still want rules. Like which side of the road one should be riding their bike, etc.

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

Before cars, there were a hell of a lot more bikes (and pedestrians, horses, and horse-drawn carriages) and yet we didn't need rules.

Stop signs and traffic lights were invented specifically because cars were uniquely dangerous. (Or rather, they were invented to shift the blame for the danger from the cars to the infrastructure.)

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

There were a hell of a lot less people then too, plus a lot less traveling.

You still need laws for bicycles regardless of the presence of cars.