this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2026
437 points (96.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

16697 readers
1433 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(not my image. I just find these comical and incredibly dangerous)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GarboDog@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh that’s easy! They’re not :)

[–] protist@retrofed.com -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am guessing most states have a law about “unroadworthy vehicles” that pose a hazard

[–] protist@retrofed.com -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but they they also define "unroadworthy," and this isn't it. To be clear I think these are awful and would prefer they were illegal, it's just that they genuinely aren't a lot of the time

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In South Carolina the law text is broad.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or move or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such an unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And yet I still see Carolina squats on bigass trucks. Their front blind spot has to be hundreds of feet at least.

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I see squats riding around, too, and there is another explicitly written law against that. My impression is that SC cops don’t enforce traffic/vehicle laws at all unless you are doing something especially egregious.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

something especially egregious

Like driving while black?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

common sense?

But seriously, nothing can stick out beyond the body of the car (expect mirrors), not even wheels.

Edit: After checking the laws says the fender has to cover the tire to prevent splashing so it may not apply to rims like that. So back to common sense

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

nothing can stick out beyond the body of the car (expect mirrors), not even wheels.

That might be true for civilised countries.

But then it's also the main reason why cars brought over by US military staff fail the inspection for road worthiness here.

[–] msfroh@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Various US states have fender coverage laws:

  • Fender Coverage Laws: States like California, New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania require the vehicle's fenders or mudguards to completely cover the width of the tire and wheel assembly. If a rim protrudes past the body of the car, it is a ticketable safety violation.

Ultimately, the "slab" culture that popularized swangas remains highly localized to Texas and small pockets of the American South precisely because the rest of the world has closed the legal loopholes that allow them.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 1 points 3 days ago

I thought it was because of the difference in emissions standards

[–] protist@retrofed.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Common sense is not a law...

Also the laws are different in different jurisdictions

[–] Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I am not a lawyer but EU Regulation No 1009/2010 on type approval requirements for wheel guards states:

2.1.1. In the part formed by radial planes at an angle of 30° towards the front and 50° towards the rear of the centre of the wheels (see Figure 1), the overall width (q) of the wheel guard shall be at least sufficient to cover the total tyre width (b) taking into account the tyre envelope as well as the extremes of the tyre/wheel combination(s) as specified by the manufacturer. In the case of twin wheels, the tyre envelopes and total width over the two tyres (t) shall be taken into account.

In short: Nothing is allowed to extend beyond the wheel guards. Now, look at the image above again.

Deviating materially from the type approval makes your car not street legal as far as I understand. But this is a matter for a lawyer. Surely there is a reason why these psychopathic car mods are impossible to find in all of the EU on public roads.

[–] Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well written! But it misses my point entirely.

Common sense is not a law.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I did not quote "common sense" I quoted relevant law. If you want a full legal analysis rather than seeing relevant law, you need to pay a lawyer.

[–] Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Then you replied to the wrong person. I didn't ask for a law citation :)

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Then I misinterpreted your "not a law" response, in the context of the "cite the law" debate above.