this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
351 points (95.6% liked)

News

23259 readers
3605 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

Why not just make vehicles that can't do insane speeds?

I had a fucking 4-cylinder Ford Ranger from the 80's that topped out at 65mph. I don't mean the speedometer stopped at 65mph, the speedometer went to 80. I mean with the pedal fully floored, that's the fastest I could go.

This is a choice by automakers, just like the oversize way-too-tall child-killing truck hoods are too.

Just making a car that can't go that fast was always a solution and honestly, the fact that we just let automakers make cars that can go like 200mph when they're supposed to be "street legal" is a fucking joke and a half. Nobody needs that shit, but every chucklefuck who wants to bang a young woman thinks some sports car is how they're gonna do it. Fucking pathetic.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Cars are designed for fuel efficiency (well, it should at least be considered.) To make an IC engine efficient, it has to be able to rev higher, and reach higher speeds. So while it can technically reach 100 mph, it's most efficient at 55.

If you make an engine with a top speed of 65mph, and run it at 65mph all the time, it's going to guzzle fuel like an alcoholic going through an angry divorce.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Plus what if the car is loaded down with 5 people instead of just 1? Or something on the roof like a roof box? Now your 65mph top speed is 50. And what about hills?

[–] ares35@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

that may have been the case during the carter administration, but the efficiency curve of a modern car tops out a fair bit higher than 55.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Most cars still do drastically drop off in efficiency past 55mph, wind resistance is still the same as it was in 1975.

Modern cars are more efficient at 70mph than older ones, but they're still less efficient than they were at 55.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago

Okay, but that's only because the top speed is much higher to bring the RPMs down into the efficiency sweet spot.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 9 months ago

Citation needed. Hybrids and EVs at least are actually most efficient at even slower speeds.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

...and EVs are just as terrible for the environment as ICEs in respect to the fact that they're not public transit. They produce more microplastic/microrubber waste from tires because they're heavier than ICE vehicles. More tires on the road, more microplastics.

EVs don't reduce traffic and while there is an energy savings, it would be a lot bigger if we were dumping all those EV batteries into trains and buses, both of which reduce traffic. (and reduce tires on the road)

Beyond this, every EV is a luxury item. I'll start giving a shit about EVs when I can get one with roll-down windows, no AC, no sensors, no rear-view camera, no stereo other than an FM radio, because then you'll see some fucking energy savings over time. Every EV has a bunch of extra shit drawing power in them.

I'm pro-EV, but not for individual consumers. Cars have broken society. It's time to return to public transit.

Especially in places like Seattle, because the promise of "going wherever you want, whenever you want" by owning your own car is a fucking joke its impossible to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time with so much traffic. Buses and trains reduce traffic.

If it's energy savings we're actually going for, EVs as they are aren't the answer.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

If it's energy savings we're actually going for, EVs as they are aren't the answer.

If we take the real awnser of public transportation out of the picture then moving to EVs as a replacement for SOVs does in fact conserve our energy.

An internal combination engine are Only 35-40% efficient as a lot of heat is generated and lost. A gas turbine on the other hand can be as as high as 80% efficient .

It's more efficient for us to burn fuels to generate electricity to power EVs including transmission losses and charging losses than to burn them in ICE vehicles. Again though public transportation is the better solution overall.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the speed limit is 10 then that wouldn't help at all.

To be clear about my position on this though, it's dystopian as could be.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

10mph is also slow enough to be relatively safe during an accident, which kind of makes your point more moot.

EDIT: Under 20mph is pretty safe. 20mph-35mph you're risking higher likelihood of some minor injuries in an accident. 35-55mph is when serious injuries and risk of fatality begin to happen and over 55mph you're dealing with crashes that are almost always fatal. Keeping the top speed to just barely over 55mph actually does help in a lot of ways.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In high school I drove an old Vanagon camper that could hit 65.

With a tailwind.

Downhill.

But it had a bed in the back, which was nice. Weird that my parents didn't let me keep it.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

i had a high miles, no-frills mustang with the base engine (same 4cyl used in the pinto) that was basically the same. it could barely make it to 65 and it took forever to get there.

[–] darkstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You talk as if cars are appliances. Hell, even appliances go overboard. Why does a toaster or fridge need WiFi? Why does my washer or dryer have downloadable custom cycles? Because innovation is what sets companies and products apart. It's not always done "right", but who's to judge if a feature is superfluous? You? What makes you qualified?

Cars aren't just machines to get you from A to B. They certainly can be, but they're also a fashion item, a status symbol, marvels of engineering, and a tool for testing your skill. Cars can be taken to a racetrack and driven hard. Just because something is being misused doesn't mean it should either be illegal or shouldn't be made. Your view on this is incredibly myopic. Just because you aren't into cars doesn't mean the "right" thing to do is make all cars the same. And before you suggest making fast cars track only, that would be absurd and make the hobby even less approachable. Not everyone can have two vehicles (apartment buildings that only allow one vehicle, or a city with limited parking). That would be the same as when governments require permits for a product or activity, but make the permits impossible to get.

Other countries have figured out how to handle this situation in different ways. Germany has a harder test for getting your license. Not every idiot can pass. Some countries in Europe make fines a percentage of your income instead of a flat fee. That means breaking the law hurts everyone to a similar degree, rather than rich people paying the fine without a second thought as just the cost of doing business. If you really have a problem with cars then at least get creative with your solution. Trying to stamp them out is genuinely worse than this proposed bill.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Excuse me, I live in a country where little kids are dying because to get around regulations about cars vehicle companies started pumping out giant SUVs and trucks that are outright designed dangerously and put more pedestrians in danger (you literally can't see kids over the top of the hood).

I would give a shit about "doing it a different way" if I had any faith that US congress could pass anything let alone as something as useful or "complex" as actually fining rich people related to what they're worth.

Nobody in charge gives a shit about what I think anyway, you're myopic thinking a bill like this would actually pass or that the US federal or state governments actually give a shit about the well-being of their citizens. Pro-tip: they don't.

[–] darkstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It feels like you completely ignored my argument against outlawing fast cars and simply moved to your argument about SUVs and trucks. If you choose to hand-wave my points because you're "thinking of the children", then I see no merit in your argument. And you're saying that what I said is invalid because I believe the bill will pass? But that you can say whatever because you're fed up with the government's ineffectiveness so you're just being bombastic? That detracts from your own statements, if you're admitting your own rhetoric is just for effect because you have no faith in politicians.

I'm not talking about SUVs, trucks, politicians, or the US legal system. You made a point that cars that drive over 65 shouldn't be made, and I countered. I don't hear anything from you except "politicians won't fix it" while turning around and saying "fast cars should be illegal", which would require those very same politicians you've lost faith in to somehow be effective enough to pass that very legislation.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

“fast cars should be illegal”

Literally did not say that, I just said "why not just not make them."

Maybe I'm not engaging with your argument because you're doing dumb shit like this and misrepresenting the point.

Also, once again, nobody in charge gives a shit what I say, I'm just some guy on the internet without an ounce of influence. Do you really need to win this argument with a nobody? You're acting like I'm the governor ready to pass the bill! Guess what, I'm not Gavin Newsom, thankful to say.

[–] darkstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Buddy, I hope you have a better day than you're currently having. I'm not sure what purpose putting your opinion on the Internet served if you were going to pretend it and any responses to it are pointless. Take care of yourself, man. You're talking like nothing and nobody matters. In the cosmic sense, you're right. Humanity, is just a flash in the pan, so none of us individually matters. In a human sense, even a small act of kindness might change somebody else's life, and I think those moments DO matter. I don't want to tell you how to live your life and I genuinely hope you don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I do actually hope you can live just a small amount less cynically and can see some positivity, despite how our political system and news keep pushing the negative in our faces day after day. I don't think hope is just for fools.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t think hope is just for fools.

Are you gonna magically pay for my $16k a month cancer medication? Fuck off.

Hope is for fools.

Hope is for idiots who have never faced real hardship so they don't actually know what it's like to be in a position where there is no hope.

Why don't you ask the kids in Gaza what they think about hope? You know, the place that's been under siege for decades and where the average age is 16 because all the actual adults keep getting killed? I'm sure they'd love to hear your bullshit spiels about hope you out of touch wanker.

[–] darkstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I lost my job six months ago and am currently struggling to find another. Even if I did find another job that paid what I was getting paid before, I would not and could not pay for your cancer medication. But that doesn't mean I would choose to turn a blind eye to it. I would continue to fight for basic human rights to water, food, a home, and healthcare, because that's what I've believed in and will continue to believe in. Maybe I wouldn't change anything in your lifetime or mine, but I'll still try. And maybe in a few generations, once we're gone, we opened the door for them to have those things that allow us to keep our dignity.

I won't pretend to know how you feel, so I won't give you any platitudes. How you choose to live your life is your own decision, and I won't insult you by pitying you. Your struggle doesn't mean it's impossible for you to make somebody else's life any better or worse, though, just through simple human interactions. Sure, people are starving, dying, and going through much worse than me, or even you. That takes nothing away from the problems we encounter, the joy or pain we feel. I'll do what I can to influence my circumstance, because nobody gets to tell me I can't do something. When possible, I'll try to do the same for others, even if nobody sees it or gives me a pat on the back. I'll hold out hope that others might do the same for me when they can, but I won't expect it because I'm not owed it.

I'm not saying any of this to prove I'm better than you in any way or to win an Internet argument. Call me whatever names you like. I promise I won't respond beyond this comment. I simply wish you well, or at least better than at present.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Literally, please physically go to Gaza and tell this to the kids there. See how they feel about the idea.

Also being able to be without work for six months really kind of shows your privilege. No wonder you're up your own ass. You literally have no idea what it's like out there in the world.