this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
68 points (93.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

16591 readers
701 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
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
68
Richmond, Virginia wants lawmakers to drop the legal limit from a 0.08 blood alcohol level to 0.05. Drinking was a factor in 37 percent of the city’s crashes (www.axios.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Orwi@programming.dev to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 23 points 1 day ago

I don't see this making much difference unless those 37% of crashes were done by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. My guess is that the alcohol related crashes were probably above anyway.

Sure it'll catch a few more in that interval after the crash has already happened or in random stops, but if they actually want to avoid the crashes they need other measures. Lower speed limits would help more, but I guess it's more important to focus on finding more people to blame than to avoid the crashes.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 22 hours ago

I was going to say its hypocritical to require bars to have parking spaces while also complaining about drunk driving, but Richmond eliminated parking minimums in 2023. Changing the laws around drunk driving does little to curb it unless there are alternatives to driving. And Richmond is doing some of those. They have a bus only transit system, which includes a partial BRT with partial signal priority, and all busses are all fare free.

Most of the main routes stop at midnight, and the partial BRT runs until 1AM. Its late enough to be feasible for a night out at the bar, but only a prudent one where you're consistently aware of the time.

Richmond's city council seems to be doing a decent job by american standards.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago

Locking people in cages won't improve car dependency, bike/ped safety, public transit, etc.

When all you have is a fascist hammer, everything looks like a reason to encage and torture people.

[–] Godnroc@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a really stupid way too say 63% of crashes did not involve alcohol. Why not focus on that number instead?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is apparently part of a comprehensive plan to bring traffic deaths to 0.

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2026/08/27/richmond-vision-zero-dangerous-streets

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

It is possible to get to very near zero deaths.

They could do this by setting much lower speed limits and strictly enforcing them. They'd also need a public awareness campaign, etc. Say, 40MPH on freeways, and 25 everywhere else. There would still be outliers, the rare death would still occur, but it would be damn near zero. Obviously, though, they'd be voted out of office at the next election, so they'd never dare try it.

And, since this is "fuck cars", removing cars completely from downtown streets, replaced with walking, bicycles, and some electric vehicle transportation for the elderly, large parcel deliveries, etc. would also help. Solar panel covered walkways, more trees, and under path heating for snow melting would be good. Though I don't think they get a lot of snow in Virginia. There are many, many ways we could improve our lives, if we'd put aside the petty billionaire-manufactured differences we let divide us, and pulled together instead.

What's needed now is a comprehensive vision, a popular, widespread, realistic visualization of how life could be that avoids showing the social "woke" parts and concentrates on things both sides would agree with. The internet has taught us we need to avoid the trigger subjects because if too many people lock onto those, that's all they'll talk about. Show the bicycles, walkways, trees, solar panels, electric cars, etc. Leave out the people altogether, except sketches like architects use for scale reference. Just show the infrastructure, let people imagine who it's for on their own. Nothing too futuristic, people need to visualize how their current world could be better. If we use AI for anything, it should be stuff like this--use their tools against them.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Reading the document I linked, it seems the prevailing philosophy is, "What is the LEAST we can do to prevent traffic deaths?" They want to find dangerous streets and intersections and then maybe step up police enforcement, which does nothing. We need infrastructure change. Since they've started their project, traffic deaths have doubled, which, you know, maybe is a sign that their approach does not work.

But maybe the idea is just so the city can pretend to care without having to burn any political capital pissing off the auto autocracy.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Putting people in torture cages is profitable for the people whom politicians serve. That's why it's literally the only thing they'll do.

Since they’ve started their project, traffic deaths have doubled, which, you know, maybe is a sign that their approach does not work.

More prisons needed. \s

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

Probably. "How can we use this project to arrest more people, preferably minority?"

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Spoiler: They won't follow through on any of that "comprehensive plan" except for the part where they put people in torture cages.

Edit: Read "the comprehensive plan"... Putting people in cages is their only idea.

[–] hash@slrpnk.net 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Part of me doesn't understand how tweaking a legal limit is likely to have meaningful impacts on crash statistics, but I guess that part is wrong since studies on Utah's .05 limit change in 2018 have shown reduced crashes, so do it.

On another note: isn't it wild that the only legal way to get home from the bar is to pay to be driven in a car?

[–] Emi@ani.social 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Or you take the night bus, unless you live in America. Idk how it is in other countries but we have night busses in Czech republic and you can always walk since there's a pub pretty much on every corner.

[–] hash@slrpnk.net 5 points 22 hours ago

Where I live there are public intoxication laws which apply to both walking and public transit. And that isn't super uncommon outside the US.

Also, it's absolutely nuts that a DUI in an F-150 on the freeway and a DUI on an ordinary bicycle are considered the same legally.