thats what happen when the hood of cars become taller than actual children. Ford is responsible for countless of deaths.
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
435 points (96.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
12956 readers
1588 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, letβs 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 doesnβt fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Children
*Adults
I'd phrase it "The situation with huge oversized vehicles is out of control!". We want standards back not "everything goes" in the name of profit.
Both vehicles involved are the type that make it impossible to see kids standing 10 feet away. These should he banned unless a second person is spotting, like what you'd do around construction vehicles.
A 9-year-old girl is dead after being hit by a truck...
The driver of the pickup was not injured in the collision.
π
You forgot:
The truck was not damaged by the unprovoked child ambush
Now there's peak carbrain, just phrase it as insanely as when cops shoot a completely innocent person for no reason.
jfc like anybody asked, why even include that
I see it in every article when a pedestrian or cyclist is killed, as if there was a chance the driver would be even mildly injured. Or that anyone would care, seeing how they killed someone else.
It's infuriating.
Because property has more rights than people in a hypercapitalist hellworld.
The vehicle didnβt hit them. A person driving the vehicle did. Stop with this regurgitation of passive police reports.
"9-year-old... hit by truck." Someone should go have a talk with these trucks.
Yes. The car the person was in didn't hit them. When it got close enough, it transformed. Then the person spiderman'd off their wheel (now 10ft in the air) and kicked the poor little girl.
If we want to be correct, a car doesn't work like a gun. Bullets kill people. Guns shoot bullets and people shoot guns. Saying "Guns shoot people" or "people shoot people" isn't a stretch.
When dealing with collisions, saying "the vehicle didn't hit them, the person did" means the one hit never came into contact with the car.
Neither does a shooting victm come into contact with the gun or shooter. This is why the analogy works for guns and not cars.
That person was most definitely hit by a car. But today, like a hudered years ago and for the forseeable future, someone was driving that car. So yeah, they were hit by the drivier of the car. But they werem't hit by the driver and not the car. Then they must've stopped driving and given the victim a run for their money with a baseball bat. Which, again, most definitely did hit them.
Putting the news site aside, you are in a community called "fuck cars". We focus on the issue with big cars, not reckless drivers.
We point out how ridiculous it is that north america gives multi-ton death machines to 16 year olds, alcoholics, senile people, and everyone in between because you can't take away peoples driving licenses when there is no alternative transportation.
If you are here looking for humans to hate, you should probably find a different community.
No, actually please stop with regurgitating weird language constructs.
Everybody knows that a car doesn't drive itself (STFU Tesla fanboys, it doesn't) and that a driver is responsible.
That, and yes, a vehicle DID hit them. It's not like the driver stopped, got out and beat the shit out of the toddler, his car, driven by him (doh) hit the toddler and killed her.
No, its still passive voicing that intermediates between the actor and the act.
The vehicle struck the child
vs
The driver struck the child
is analgous to
The bullet struck the child
vs
The cop shot the child
EDIT:
With the active phrasing... you can just append a following clause to give more detail, and it flows naturally.
The driver struck the child [with the truck] , [unaware of their presence].
The cop shot the child [unintentionally] / [with their service pistol], [while pursuing a suspect].
These kinds of statements are active voiced, and also more fact/detail content heavy.
It is entirely possible to use active voicing and also be precise... you're bending over backwards with your hyperbolic example.
The whole point of using passive voicing is that it works on the reader at a subconscious or subliminal level.
Yes, 'everybody knows' that a car doesn't drive itself, but phrasing and vocabulary have always been key elements of propaganda, because only more literate, more critically analytic readers realize what is happening in a more conscious way.
But in this case it's actually the vehicle that is the problem. These trucks are simply unsafe and shouldn't exist. The blame is to be put on the car manufacturer. Of course the drivers are at fault but I bet they didn't want to squish their kids. They bought a car, assuming it should be safe to drive.
Still, fuck the drivers too.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
"Charges pending"
Gotta love how its "save the kids, protect the future" up until thier precious cars are at stake.
Also why tf do cops have a giant ass pickup truck now
A fleet should be a mix so when an actual pickup truck might be needed one is available.
I imagine the mix is out of proportion though for some stupid reason.
This may be an ignorant question, but... Asking from a European perspective, where pick-ups aren't super common, what do the police have to do in North America that would require a pick-up truck?
The police need vehicles capable of 4x4 in rural communities and rough dirt roads. This is to access the entire comunity but also give better success in chasing the drunk dodge ram driver into the corn field. The police also sometimes have things like trailers for crime scene investigation or boats for water based policing, they need a vehicle capable of towing those.
They also use some unmarked trucks for traffic control as they blend in better allowing them to do radar more effectively.
ram other pickups
that's literally about it
SUVs/pickups are occasionally required for tossing stuff in the back to move it, like garbage/belongings/etc
Pickup trucks are not required for tossing stuff in the back. Because Europeans do need to transport stuff, from piles if dirt to wooden kitchens which need to be installed. And all of it most often doesnt happen with a pickup truck.
Or this kind of car for loading open air ("Pritschenwagen" in german)
All with normal grill-hight and probably a lower truckbed than pickup trucks
Or just a trailer. A lot of germans have something like this in their garage and use it only when needed instead of driving around with an integrated trailer all the time as people with a pickup do.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Itβs Alberta, everybody and everything has a massive pickup truck. Itβs the Texas of Canada, especially Calgary.
Sometimes, theyβre in the cop fleet because of civil asset forfeiture. Same reason they sometimes have Porsches and shit like that.
I don't want to ban pick up trucks.
Instead, put 15km/h (10mph) speed limits in residential areas, 40km/h (25mph) speed limits on arterial roads, and an 105km/h (65mph) electronic highway speed limiter, exclusively for vehicles with bonnet height above 40" or 1m. That will mitigate the danger these vehicles have on our roads.
Enforcement, or the need for constant traffic surveillance, has already been raised as a problem with this approach. People tend to drive as fast as they feel safe on most streets, with the occasional unaware jerk screwing everything up. The threat of a possible ticket doesn't really work, or else we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.
A better approach is re-engineering streets for traffic calming. Basically threaten drivers with breaking or damaging their vehicle if they try too drive fast and/or in a straight line. Way more effective.
I agree, but I living in Toronto I found that people wanted to go 20-30% above the limit, so when it was 60 drivers would go 75-80, now it's 50 so they go 60-65.
Vehicle-specific speed limits are long overdue. Even having 2 or 3 categories would go a long way.
Height limits for the front grille as well. So many trucks are up to my neck. It's ridiculous.
don't forget to give these drivers the finger and flash your high beams at them when they drive towards you at night!
so sick of getting blinded by headlights, flashing somebody, and then they flash their "high beams" back but it's almost impossible to tell the difference
I do want to point out that while aiming and headlight height are a factor that makes it worse, it's the sheer brightness in the first place that's the main issue with headlights
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
That would only work if it's enforced. It'd be significantly harder to enforce that than a ban. I'll take the ban please.
I hate these high front ends now. Not only can you not see pedestrians, they are terrible for off-roading which is their supposed purpose. When go up any sort of incline you canβt see the road at all. A slanted down front end is better for visibility, aerodynamics, just about everything. This trend is stupid.
It's not stupid if you're an oil company trying to increase profits, then it makes perfect sense to make your oil guzzling death machine as big, bulky and inefficient as possible.
These trucks don't off road. They are pavement princesses.
a slanted down hood is required if you want to sell your cars in EU and most countries of Asia. Anything else negligent homicide, and the car makers should be held accountable
Their solution is to add a trail cam on the front so you can run over kids with impunity while also watching your line while off-roading.
And I bet the car brains blame the children.
Had someone tell me that arresting a child for walking to the park alone was ok because of all the cars.
Why were the outside??
Also: kids these days!!
view more: next βΊ