this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
374 points (78.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

12597 readers
958 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

Except people frequently do get charged with murder for pedestrian fatalities, all over the world in fact. If you can prove intent, it's murder.

This is a rubbish take.

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

As a person who spent more than a few days riding around in the back of an Amp-a-Lamps, I've never been to any kind of "accident" scene that was truly an "accident". If you really take the time to look at the scene and trace your finger backwards, you can always see the point where someone got stupid and started the following chain of stupidity. Sometimes others join in the stupid. Sometimes only one person is responsible for the whole stupid. And you are adjudged at least 10% at fault just for being there.

This applies to all those little/minor "accidents" also. Y'all do the stupid. Even me.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Puppies and toddlers have accidents.

Vehicles have collisions.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Would you call a single car roll-over a collision?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it collided with something that caused it then sure, but it could also just be called a rollover. The whole point is to avoid the word accident as it implies no fault when the fault lies between the drivers and the road design/ rules.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago

The term accident does not imply no fault.

For example, I accidentally spilled my coffee.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It collided with the environment, so yes.

My brother unintentionally incinerated himself when he put his car into a tree sideways, I don’t consider it an accident.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago

I'm sorry for your loss.

[–] lowered_lifted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Literally my friend was killed on his bike by a tow truck driver. The driver got like probation or something, maybe. And the company he works for has "move over and slow down, it's the law Tow Lives Matter"

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Assuming those stickers weren't put on due to your friends death, I'm okay with them. Tow truck divers have to work on the side of highways and some have been struck and injured or killed on the job. Cars and their infrastructure suck, but we should still try to protect those who have to work on our roadways.

We can slow down and move over for both cyclists and tow trucks. It doesn't need to be exclusive.

[–] NastyNative@mander.xyz 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While working in auto claims, I handled a case involving a wealthy individual who, after drinking at a country club, caused an accident that sent another car into a pond. Instead of calling for help, he drove home to sober up before contacting the authorities. Tragically, the young driver drowned, and his family had to sue the insurance company. This case stuck with me as a stark reminder of how selfish actions, fueled by privilege, can have devastating consequences.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] multi_flexi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

This is so oversiplyfied that it's basically just a lie.

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why was the car guy named "Singer"? Was there an infamous hit-and-runner named Singer?

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

I think they misspelled "Sicko"

[–] Headofthebored@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

So if you're defending yourself or others from kidnappers (an epidemic these days), use a vehicle. At least that's what I got out of this.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Reminder to everyone, you can downvote bad memes. No offense to the OP, but I don't think it's good optics to have this kind of highly questionable content.

Side note: I gather "singer" must be the author's signature, but it sure looks like the criminal is being identified as a singer for some reason.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

It's a comic by Andy Singer

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 52 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Wtf?

  • Premeditated Intent: Murder
  • Intent without premeditation. Heat of the moment: 2nd degree Murder
  • Doing something you weren't supposed to and killing someone: involuntary homicide
  • Failing to do something you were supposed to and killing someone: negligent manslaughter.

Who made this meme (and topic) and why is everyone so ignorant of the law? This almost certainly is vehicular manslaughter case or... If it can be suggested that it's the pedestrian maybe was partially at fault it might be negligent manslaughter (ex: failed to stop when someone jumped out).

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (4 children)

In the US, deaths deaths cars are treated less harshly than deaths involving firearms. One common example used to teach about jury biases is deaths due to drunk driving. Many jury members can empathize with driving drunk because many Americans have driven after drinking, even if they were under the legal limit

IDK if you should be calling other people ignorant if you didn't even know that much

[–] JargonWagon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

"less harshly" is not what the meme is OP responding to is saying. The meme is saying "vehicular manslaughter goes unpunished and you won't even be arrested" which isn't true at all.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

You can kill someone with a gun and have it be called an accident. You can also intentionally run someone down with your vehicle and have it be called vehicular homicide.

We can say "fuck cars" without false equivalencies.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 74 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (22 children)

Sure. But you know they aren't as close as this makes it. One tool was meant to take life as the primary function. The other to get someplace.

Woman falls down stairs while carrying her baby, she killed him, accident. Woman throws her baby off the balcony, she killed him, murder. Both cases the baby was killed, both sad. But they are different.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 63 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The difference in intent makes sense. The difference in primary function does not, killing a person with a kitchen knife is no better than with a gun.

The problem with car accidents is that it’s difficult to know the intent of a person, especially carelessness kills a lot more people via cars than via kitchen knifes, and we can’t know for sure when it was an honest mistake by the driver.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (9 children)

I think if you ignore the intention of the manufacturer for a moment and focus on the acts of the individual, they'll seem closer.

Both cars and guns are dangerous devices. Both can be used for intentional murder.

Both guns and cars are so dangerous that they should not ever be used carelessly. In fact, it would be the height of recklessness to use either one without constant vigilance. You could easily kill somebody.

But with guns, people generally accept that there is a wrong way to use them, and that it's your fault if you don't have trigger discipline, or if you ever point the barrel at someone without thinking.

On the other hand, the same cannot be said about cars. Just look how people react when you mention defensive driving, a system of disciplines that make driving safer for both the driver and anyone else near the road.

People are so used to getting away with driving poorly that they are willing to accept deaths rather than even hearing about safer driving habits.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Accidental and intentional killing should both be discouraged.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Discouraging accidental death is not achieved via harsh punishment. It's done through safer design and education

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is a bad take lol. You can be charged with manslaughter if it's an accident and murder if you were trying to kill someone with your car.

Blatantly wrong takes like this just increase the cognitive dissonance between the anti car movement and everyone else.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Somebody (@Jhex) else posted that there is apparently research giving some creedence to this.

But I agree, this meme is death-spiral-cult level. It's for fellow anti-car folks to commiserate, but it's probably net negative overall to post memes like this since they can be easily mocked by carbrainers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (14 children)

I suppose when you remove intent and literally all other context, this makes sense.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's worse than that.

You don't generally blame someone for being shot by a random stranger.

But kill a cyclist or pedestrian by car? What did or didn't they do?!?! 🧐

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Its a strange world were somehow we have been conditioned to belive travel on foot or cycling is somewhat "lesser" then travel by car.

Hopefully the notion of "Car is King" dies one day, and we build cities once again for the people living in them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think if you kill somebody through negligent discharge of a firearm the charge would be manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, not murder. And I think that if you intentionally run a person over with your car you'd get charged with murder.

[–] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

If you hit someone with a hammer, it's assault and you go to jail. If you drop a hammer on someone accidentally, it was an accident and nothing happens to you. See how dumb that sounds?

load more comments
view more: next ›