this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Fuck Cars

9656 readers
443 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VonReposti@feddit.dk 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just tow it beyond the environment.

[–] Kempeth@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Just pipe it to /dev/null

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. Out of the environment!

So it's no longer in an environment.

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing.

There's nothing out there.

Just sea and birds and fish.

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a couple thousands cars, sixteenhundred tons of fat oil and two-hundred tons of marine diesel.

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

fire

and the burning ship

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Whether you like it or not, our modern society can't function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc. Focusing on the fact this vessel dares to carry cars, rather than the fact the fire was able to spread between presumably multiple decks, and cause the entire cargo to burn.

Sprinkler systems on vessels is very much a thing.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can’t function without cars entirely, we still need delivery vehicles etc.

yeah, okay. But we need far fewer than we have. So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?

And yes "this should have been made safer" is another point - but that doesnt invalidate the other.

[–] Kempeth@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So producing them and shipping them around the globe needs to be reduced dramatically. So that point still kinda stands?

The supply side is the wrong place to tackle this problem though. If you limit the amount of new cars that may be produced, people will simply drive their older ones for longer.

[–] HamBrick@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Driving an older car, and by extension not buying a newer car, decreases demand and would improve the amount of these cargo ships on the sea, thus lowering the opportunity for this to happen. I’m not sure if your comment was for or against people driving their older cars, but I think driving an older car is better than upgrading and buying a newer car

[–] Kempeth@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

An older more polluting car migth not be the better option. But if the new car is one of those giant murde boxes then it's not going to be an upgrade either.

[–] deft@ttrpg.network 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no infastructure needs to change. less roads more rails that simple. walkable cities and transit in between cities

[–] Kempeth@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago
[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

totally correct

[–] otarik@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good luck fighting a burning EV with sprinklers!

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

good luck doing it with a burning gas powered car!

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fuel and other hydrocarbons float on water, which makes them very difficult to extinguish.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

and a burning car is a whole lot of burning material

it's not a tiny piece of wood - in many cases you'll detect it first, when there's actually a whole lot and flames/smoke escaping from the car.

[–] onichama@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

They corrected the number of cars up to 4000 (:

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"Of the 3000 cars onboard, 25 are electric and one of those has apparently set light to the whole cargo"

BULLSHIT!

Nobody said so.

But "journalists" nowadays are full of shit and all reporting "currently there's no proof that some electric car started the fire" (always with #electriccars) - what everyone reads as "yeah, sure the electric car was it!"

meanwhile electric cars are actually LESS likely to start a fire and still nobody in the know has actually claimed electric cars had ANYTHING to do with it.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The article linked in the post says:

A spokesman for the Coast Guard said earlier today that the fire is believed to have started in one of the electric cars. Later in the evening, the Coast Guard said that nothing is yet known about the cause.

So yeah they aren't sure but it's coming from the coast guard not the journalist.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Other people actually reported that coast guard not only responded with "we don't know anything yet", but also with "nobody of us would have told you a cause and we don't know who did"

I've not seen any proof apart from wild speculation by owner/journalists yet.

And yes, the owner too pointed at electric cars - but neither people on board nor anybody near the ship was telling about that. So I'd guess that's just repeating headlines too.

My point was: don't claim "maybe it was electric cars"! because people don't understand "maybe"

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

German news said there might have been a Short circuit near those cars, once the Battery catches fire you basically can't put it out.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I said there might have been aliens, testing new beam weapons - anything is possible.

we'll never know‽ /s

[–] ghariksforge@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dutch authorities have said that the fire was started by an electric cars battery.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

yeah, right now there's a lot people claiming that it was probably some electric car.

it's now a different scenario to right at the start, when we had nobody in the know giving that claim.

it will be another scenario again, when we finally have people look at it scientifically - after everythig has settled down. But then again that's the point when nobody will care anymore.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

because it's impossible that the other 3000 cars filled with an explosive liquid could have ignited the fire. No, it's definitely impossible, those fuel tanks never leak, and gas vapor never explode

[–] vaultdweler13@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure they don't ship cars with gasoline in em, thats extra weight that doesnt need to be there let alone the fire hazard.

The electric cars on the otherhand most likely have the batteries built into the fucking frame.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tbh all cars have at least one battery. Or it might have been some order random accident that has nothing to do with the cargo. I think we need more info on this

[–] vaultdweler13@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While that's true I was more pointing out the falsehood in the other commentor, and while most cars have batteries lets not pretend a batter the size of a cinder block is the same as one the size of a mattress.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

well that and it's different chemistry (lead vs lithium)

…aaaand EVs have those old lead-acid batteries too. (btw: we should finally ditch those for LiFePo or similar)

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I mean statistics are clear on that one… :D

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What journalist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hembrow

If you read the actual article by a journalist they don't say it's a certainty. Maybe the problem is people like you who can't tell a journalist from a random guy.

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

If you read the actual article by a journalist they don’t say it’s a certainty. Maybe the problem is people like you who can’t tell a journalist from a random guy.

did you even read what I wrote?

I specifically said that journalists are writing "there's no proof that it wasn't" and that other people are reading "it was" into it.

It's exactly that. People are unable to read/understand.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This could happen with every other ship as well, with every cargo.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fewer shipments would be needed for more efficiently sized vehicles, so it would happen less.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cargo containers are a standardized sizes and they fit a certain number of cars, the only way to fit more is to make cars small enough that they're simply unsafe in an accident.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Smaller cars are great. "Unsafe in an accident" is dependant on speed, and if you're just driving in a city you don't need a vehicle designed for highway speeds.

Also other vehicles do exist.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you only drive in a city then you don't need to own a car at all, so that point is moot.

Small cars from the 80s/90s are a death trap even at slow speeds and making them safe requires them to be bigger, even if it's only for slow speed accidents. Heck, speed limits in cities can go as high as 55mph/90kph, that's pretty freaking fast and not a speed I would love getting hit at in a Kei car (my brother has one, you're safe in it because of how small it is and how thin everything is around you).

[–] DAT@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Small cars from the 80s/90s are a death trap even at slow speeds and making them safe requires them to be bigger

it's probably not the 90s you're thinking about.

90s cars had airbags, large crumple zones and seat belts. Those were pretty safe already. Maybe you are thinking 60s and 70s?

Yes, 90s cars were fucked if hit by 3t of steel at 180km/h, yes. But so are current cars.

And less heavy cars that run into you, made less safety needed. So if we were to build only light (say sub 1t and driving 80km/h max) cars to modern standards, we would all be way better off. But people are assholes, so that won't happen.

[–] homoludens@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

The ship is expected to keep burning for weeks.

Actually, it might also sink and release up to 2,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (plus molten plastic, metals etc.) to the Wadden Sea which is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as an important biosphere reserve.