this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
44 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

16079 readers
120 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
 

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Steve@communick.news 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That 100mph fine seems worth it
I can go 4x the speed for only 2.5x the fine
That's a deal

But seriously. We'll do anything to not build slower streets.

[–] Mitchie151@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That fine is so insubstantial it's more like a ticket to ride.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

$500 for 100mph is probably cheaper than going to a track day... (after accounting for the probability of enforcement)

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Reminds me of signs in Oregon “No littering, $500 maximum fine"

Like why the fuck would you put the max when it's low? Talk about a Cobra Effect..but that's the point, it's not desired to be effective, might inadvertently make driving slightly less appealing and cut some infinitesimal slice of big oils profits to be able to cross the street safely.

[–] thericcer@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago

I mean, it should be if you break it (within accepted gauge tolerance) you should lose the right to drive. No grace given. People will learn quickly to obey the limits. Easy.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Mediocre policies, it'd be better to:

  • Install speed bumps
  • Make fines progressive by income, about 1% of yearly net discretionary income (plus 2% of all other assets and their growth, including bonuses and stocks).* Fines cannot be paid for by raising rent and so on. The assets is higher because someone who has those, is likely to be influential, and therefore must serve an exemplary role.
  • Install roundabouts and traffic calming measures

* Assuming a conservative estimate of the discretionary income - to be about half that of disposable incomes -, in the US that'd yield a median discretionary income of about $31,000 a year (2026). So a fine would then be about $310.

If we take a random amount of $40k in stocks and bonuses, that gets bumped up to $1,110 as a fine.

Someone whose discretionary income is about $5,000 and nothing else, then would have a fine of $50.

A fascist billionnaire would be fined $10 billion, probably closer to $100 billion (to negate the growth of assets).


Instead of a labourer having to pay 15% of his monthly wage and getting robbed, while the fascist billionnaire pays what might as well be nothing, both now face equal consequences.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Isn't 16mph 11mph+? And isn't 26mph also 11mph+?