this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1129 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck Cars

12080 readers
899 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
(page 2) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Worst thing about this is that pollution is still pretty bad in Paris, they've come pretty far but there's still a lot of progress to be made there

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

The red areas doesn't indicate temperature .... it indicates thrown away cigarette butts

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Cars also got more environmental. I'm/!not saying bike lanes are bad. But this might be a bit biased.

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If someone draws a conclusion from the facts it could be biased, but this is just merely data. You could say that it is framing a certain set of results, (since it doesn't say anything about how pleasant a trip by car is compared to a trip by bicycle for example), but the collection data seems to done perfectly neutral.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If someone draws a conclusion from the facts

The title is framing the statistics with the implication that bike lanes and car restrictions are the cause.

(Fuck electric cars)

[–] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago

I kinda agree . For all we know it might be also fasing out of fossil fuel based heating ( For example the reason for massive improvments of air quality in some cities in Poland is banning of old coal based heating , not banning of cars ). But im not french and i dont know if individual heating using coal or gas furnaces was ever the norm there. Also i think 2007 is a few years after euro 4 emmissions were created , so thats also a signifiact improvment on its own as pepole move slowly from older to newer cars . Basicaly i wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket. Its probably a combination of multiple factors

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

No I totally agree but it would be framing which is not the same as being biased, and the title implies a causation but doesn't actually say there is one. Also could have kept quiet because i don't really disagree with op.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›