Fuck Cars

12813 readers

1275 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 Civil

You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speech

Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass people

Don'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 topic

This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No reposts

Do 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:

[meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
[article] for news articles
[blog] for any blog-style content
[video] for video resources
[academic] for academic studies and sources
[discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
[meme] for memes
[image] for any non-meme images
[misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories

Recommended communities:

!yimby@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

toaster@slrpnk.net

grue@lemmy.world

Toaster1@lemmy.world

243

Why is insurance not mandatory for cyclists? Well, they can't do this for a start (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 2 days ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

we definitely do not have enough information here to determine right of way, visibility, or culpability

lolwat? Yes, the SUV driver is clearly also at fault and was going way too fast, but the accident is almost definitely caused by the jeep.

They are either turning left or going straight, those are the only two options, and it is clearly not safe to have done so. They did not yield or stop for oncoming/cross traffic, period. Visibility is not a valid excuse, they didn't stop until they were well within the SUV's lane.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

The SUV was very far when the jeep entered the intersection. The SUV didn't even appear in the video when the jeep started crossing. If that SUV weren't speeding that much that was perfectly safe to cross. How can the jeep imagine that the SUV was going that fast? When it entered the intersection the SUV might have even been too far to see how fast it was really going.

[–] hypnicjerk@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

nobody asked, dumbass
how the hell is visibility not a valid excuse when you have no idea when the suv actually entered their field of vision. the angle gives us no info about that entire side of the street. how are they supposed to stop for a car that could easily have only come into view after they've entered? is there cross traffic offscreen that could have obscured their view? are there stop signs or red lights? is this even a straight road beyond the segment we can see? clearly you have all the info so please share.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you can't see safely into an intersection, you go slowly until you know it's safe. Apparently you shouldn't have a license.

Doesn't matter if there's a stop sign or not, this type of intersection requires the SUV driver to yield, if not stop entirely.