this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
130 points (95.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

12455 readers
1526 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not suggesting that the moral character of the individual is in any way relevant here, and I'm glad driver's licenses are not issued or revoked on that basis. This is instead a straightforward question of public safety - anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads according to the clearly posted and non-negotiable law should not permitted to risk the lives of others, and will be subject to escalating sanctions in order to accomplish that. There is definitely room for improvement in the system but it is fundamentally reasonable and sound. Yes, essentially anyone who lives in Toronto can get by without a car. Even if someone is severely physically disabled and confined to a wheelchair they can still use not only the fully accessible bus and subway system but also a separate disabled-specific transit system that provides door-to-door service using the same fee scale as the broader system. Toronto may not be a perfect utopia but it has gotten pretty close to solving this particular problem.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Ironically, people that are severely physically disabled are the ones that won't be owning cars so a good wheel-chair accessible city with reliable public transit is needed most for them.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to [follow] the clearly posted and non-negotiable law

This right here is a moral argument. You're suggesting that people are repeatedly making a conscious decision to "break the law".

The entire concept around "if only they just didn't choose to break the law" is a moral argument that places sole blame onto the individual for externalities that occurred as a result of the punitive nature of modern justice systems because they are based on the assumption that the individual "deserved to be punished because they are a 'bad person' for repeatedly 'breaking the law', so the consequences are their fault" instead of taking into account the material circumstances, understanding that humans are fallible creatures who unconsciously make mistakes, and not assign blame or punishment as it is inefficient at repressive, especially when those externalities have far reaching consequences for those of lesser means resulting in the punishment being unfairly weighted based on financial status. Instead, we need to improve our roadways to influence drivers through affecting the material conditions directly at the root cause.

And cool, that's your anecdotal take on Toronto and a single service exclusive to disabled people. What about non disabled people? They exist, in Toronto, you can go read those anecdotal accounts in the FuckCars sub on Reddit who speak about how car-centric areas of Toronto still are. Their anecdotal accounts are just as valid as yours. You simply assume that there are no situations that would be limiting to someone. I am making the opposite assumptions.

I emphatically disagree that it is "fundamentally reasonable and sound". I am fundamentally opposed to this kind of justice system and believe it to be systemically flawed and oppressive. Though this is getting into the larger topic about the validity of hierarchical, punitive justice systems. The entire point is cities need to stop relying on ineffectual and harmful stop-gap methods and instead improve the damn urban design which is proven to be leagues more effective without the systemically harmful side effects.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

This right here is a moral argument. You're suggesting that people are repeatedly making a conscious decision to "break the law".

Well, that's exactly the case. People have speedometers in their cars and speed limits are posted in visible places. If someone is incapable of seeing the speed limit or the speedometer or someone is incapable of comparing one to the other, then they are not fit enough to drive.

In my area they are extensively using a system called "section control", where cameras take a picture of your license place when you enter and exit a certain section, and from the time it took you to get from A to B they calculate your average speed. That way speeders are caught at a rate of almost 100%. And suddenly everyone manages to drive at a fair margin below the speed limit.

Because it's a concious decision to break the law and drive too fast. And if people choose to do so, they should expect to be fined and shouldn't expect compassion.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Moral judgements about individual choices and behavior are not necessary here. The fact is that the behavior of problem drivers, however it came to occur, threatens public safety and must be discouraged if we want to protect the lives of innocent people. I will readily admit that it is a moral judgement that public safety is more important that the convenience of a relative few, you've got me there.

I suppose it's not ideal that discouraging dangerous driving has to take the form of punishment but I'm not sure how else this important goal could be accomplished. Is there anywhere in the world that has successfully addressed this problem using other methods? For better or for worse people respond to these incentives, and in the absence of better alternatives we have to accept this reality if we want government to be effective.

It's not ideal that wealthier people are discouraged less by monetary fines, but the province of Ontario does also impose non-monetary demerit points that will eventually lead to license suspension regardless of the ability to pay.

I don't expect you to take my word or anyone else's for this, feel free to look up a TTC system map and review some of the schedules if you want to have a better idea of just how much coverage the TTC provides in Toronto, all with prices much lower than the total cost of ownership of a private vehicle.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 hours ago

Is there anywhere in the world that has successfully addressed this problem using other methods?

Yes, Not Just Bikes on YouTube has done videos on some. Other mentions are the Autobahn, but that's a special case which is also predicated by the structure of the road system. and Paris has been expanding its efforts to retro fit roads in certain areas into green spaces and pedestrian/cycling infrastructure, which effectively removes speed limits. Not to mention all the eras of industrial society before the personal car became the dominant model of transportation but I get that Pandora's Box has been opened and that evil ain't going back in any time soon but I do fundamentally believe it should be a goal of getting back to.

I'm not saying speed limits are completely useless but you have to first take in the material conditions of the road and understand people are going to drive at the speed that is most comfortable to them. That's just how humans generally are. That's why I mentioned that most speeding is simply an absent minded mistake. Paying strict attention to the speedometer slipped their attention among the many other things you need to keep observant of while driving or just simply were pulled into complacency by a boring, routine drive

It just isn't an effective method of trying to force people to drive at an arbitrarily predetermined speed even if the road conditions are safe to do so. Also, due to the systemic structures which dictate the overarching experience that I personally find unjust, I fundamentally oppose a political entity having the hierarchical authority to take away someone's means of being able to travel or imposing financial penalties but that's getting into much deeper politics than I care to get engaged with. I'm too tired for that right now