this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
145 points (97.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

15376 readers
9 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
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
145
Woman yells ‘tourist’ before ramming Key West cyclist with minivan, fleeing, cops say (www.local10.com)
submitted 3 days ago by lechekaflan@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Madrigal@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The officer concluded that Sacco “was experiencing an episode of road rage which caused her to actually and intentionally increase the speed of her vehicle and strike (the victim) against her will.”

Police arrested Sacco on charges of leaving the scene of a crash involving injuries and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

Why not attempted murder?

[–] 474D@lemmy.world 48 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Because it would be the easiest way to lose the case. Attempted murder in the legal sense and common sense are two wildly different things

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 33 points 3 days ago

Regrettably accurate. It does often feel as if car murderers get off really easily in the US.

If I was going to be an assassin, all I'd need was an average truck.

[–] potatopotato@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This always confuses me because if you're being arrested and you so much as sneeze on the officer you're gonna get charged with attempted murder of a peace officer.

[–] tazeycrazy@feddit.uk 9 points 3 days ago

It's usually assault on a peace officer. They are laws written for law enforcement protection and sometimes apper to ignore self defence or resistance as a automatic response. So if a cop assaults you you can't assault back.

[–] cravl@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would love to live in a society where police are genuinely and unironically referred to as peace officers. It would be a step in the right direction—the destination of course being a society where they need not exist, at least in their current form.

Unpopular ^(or popular but unspoken) opinion: Despite what the ACAB crowd would proclaim, I believe there are plenty of officers out there who may deserve such a title already, for trying their best in spite of being painfully aware of the system's shortcomings and the public's perception thereof.

[–] Fluke@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There are not "plenty". I will concede that there are, in theory, a few.

Those that join the police force with such positive things in heart and mind either get ground down and quit, a burned out cynical husk of a person, or get corrupted.

Very few have the diplomatic skills as well as the temerity to be able to stick it out. Those very few that can and do are working within a system that is at best so obsessed with measurable statistics there is no leeway for officer discretion, and at worst actively designed to incarcerate as many as possible.

Which version of the system you get exposed to is mostly a matter of one's skin colour and apparent wealth, which strongly suggests the number of "good ones" is so vanishingly small as to be statistically insignificant.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

I guess over there there isn't a law particularly meant for addressing causing death by driving dangerously?

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Because to get a warrant for an arrest the police have to pretty conclusively show something is true*. The prosecutor can always add charges before trial. This gives them time and an excuse to collect evidence without allowing the suspect to flee.

*Unless that person is black.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

I DON'T WANNA HAVE TO DO THE THING THAT NO ONE IS MAKING ME DO!

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 8 points 3 days ago

Because you can’t murder people when you’re behind the wheel, driving is sacrosanct.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 days ago (3 children)

IMO hit and run should always maximise the penalty of the other charges, or at least the charge the striker ran from. They intended to and effectively tried to avoid responsibility, which implies they would do it again if they thought they could get away with, and may have done before.

[–] synae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago

I was once in an accident, was transported by ambulance to the hospital, treated and brought home, then received a call from the hospital saying the cops were looking for me and if I didn't "turn myself in" they would charge me with hit-and-run.

So, while I might agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it is absolutely not something we should grant law enforcement extra power to fuck over people's lives with.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think yelling before hitting should be treated as intent.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

But assault and murder laws dont apply as soon as you get into a car.

Luigi made a mistake, he should have run that CEO down in an "accident".

[–] core@leminal.space 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That implies premeditation. Running can just be because of panic.

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

I'm also okay with harsher penalties for people that demonstrably can't be trusted to do the right thing, for example by panicking and fleeing the scene.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How are you going to live in a place that's 97% reliant on tourism and then be mad that you saw a single tourist?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Weird thing to focus on. Tourists can be incredibly annoying. Not everyone can just move instantly due to that fact. But regardless the problem here is not that she wrongly judges tourists in general, it's that she is a murderous psychopath.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Weird to comment on the motive? If the driver had shouted a slur before hitting this person, would that be a weird thing to focus on?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If the psycho had said "damn Mexicans!" While living in texas and then commiting the same crime, and then the commenter said "why would you live in Texas if you hate Mexicans?" Then yeah that seems equally a weird thing to focus on. It's not like if she lived somewhere without people she hated it would make her any less hateful.

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

I can see the perspective you've laid out, though in a broad sense, when a person commits a wrongdoing of any sort, is it not reasonable to ask and discuss why they did the thing? Seems reasonable to me.

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

When the discussion is "she shouldn't live there if she is annoyed by tourists", then no. That's just op feeling defensive.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The discussion was 'the motivation for this action is x', followed by 'talking about the motivation at all is weird'. The minutiae isn't relevant to my initial point.

This seems to boil down to what is considered 'weird' behaviour. I guess I have a different view than you do as to what is strange to have a discussion about.

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

It will always be weird to defend tourists and that's obviously all this was. Maybe you can point to any value of the discussion that I missed? "Wah tourists are good for you" is not valuable imo

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

See I think we have different interpretations of the parent comment. You've read it as a critique of tourism and consider it "obviously all this was".

I read that same comment and see the pondering thought of 'why not move if you dislike it so much?' in the same way I would if this were a story of a tenth generation Texan being angry about the heat and expressing that anger via some violent measure.

The comment doesn't read as 'tourism is the problem' to me at all, which has been why I've described it as a comment on motivation and see it as a valid discussion point. Even when I reread it and play around with where emphasis might be in the sentence if it had been spoken aloud and not written, it feels like a stretch to say it's either pro or anti tourist.

Sort of a flaw with quick off the cuff comments in a text based medium, but oh well.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Key west has been a tourist area for a good hundred years. Are you really excusing her that she had no time to move out, nor did the last three generations of her ancestors?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Doesn't matter if it has been a tourist area for 10,000 years. Whether or not she should live there has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to whether or not she is allowed to be a psycho. The answer will always be no

I think the subtext here is that you are typically the annoying tourist (and thus defensive of something irrelevant to anything) and I'm typically annoyed by the tourists where I live. I'm not moving and I'm not hurting anyone either. I'm allowed to be annoyed. People are stupid and even more so on vacation.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

No, I think the subtext is that it's asinine to be annoyed* by tourists, especially when you live in a place who's economy depends on them

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah I'm aware that annoying tourists cry in this very manner. Oh God guys my common understandable opinion is ASININE. The humanity!

I don't live in some place that would be a shithole if not for tourists. But even if I did, people who have zero spatial awareness would still be annoying.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So, you understand how all this comes off as you running defense for someone that purposely rammed a person on a bicycle? Because it seems like you don't understand that. I want to know if this is a bit, or if you're really just this dense

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

It isn't and it doesn't. What a weird troll

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I thought it was that she used a car.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

Better a tourist than a terrorist like her.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The entirety of Olivia Street is 1.2 miles (1.9km) long, it passes the Hemmingway house.

The majority of that road is one direction and looks like this

It's an island... Not exactly a high speed area anywhere.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 3 points 3 days ago

Yep. And a ton of the roads have cars parked basically every possible free spot.

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

I missed a comma and read “fleeing cops say” and thought “yeah, that tracks”