this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
624 points (98.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9692 readers
1389 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 71 points 6 months ago (5 children)

To make matters worse; lots of the trucks listed that I see on the roads have aftermarket larger "off road" tires and lift kits, making them a good 12+ inches taller than stock.

And of course, I see them hauling stuff in the bed or on a trailer about 20% of the time at most. But gawd damnit, they're exercising their rahhts!!

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 36 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think 20% is too generous.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

I once saw a pickup hauling 2x4s. I only noticed because they were too long and not tied down so they dumped them all over an intersection.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 15 points 6 months ago

20% in Emotional Support Vehicles? That's a lot!

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

12 inches for the last one is an extra 6.5 ish feet.

Edit: 10.43/1.60 times 12 inches is my calculation.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I saw a truck the other day hauling some downspouts in its bed. Except the bed was so short the spouts were sticking out about 3' over the side of the truck.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

making them a good 12+ inches taller than stock.

and much safer and more fuel efficient.

wait a moment... it makes a shitwagon EVEN worse handling and more gas guzzling?

Holy shit batman, it's almost as if the owners of these shitwagons are giant assholes

[–] PedestrianError@towns.gay 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@mojofrododojo @Lettuceeatlettuce I saw something really wild today. This dude had a Dodge Ram that was lifted… but the tires were small, probably smaller than the recommended size tire for the truck. He was vrooming through a downtown area rolling coal at people dining outside bars & restaurants. So cool. 🙄

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (4 children)

That probably has something to do with the fact that the M1 Abrams was not intended as an overpriced status object designed purely to make spoilt and privileged suburbanites make themselves feel superior to anyone walking in the street.

[–] redthings@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, giant trucks are also designed to be exempted from emissions standards

[–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

It is, but under the CAFE standards, it ends up being true.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

An M1 probably has better range and usability, storage etc.

[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Does it have android auto though? I'm not paying the army a monthly subscription for my navigation.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No need. It has AEGIS. That main battle tank knows where it is at all times.

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I’m sure you can get an aftermarket upgrade for it. Rugged version perhaps.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I want to say that these trucks do have legitimate use cases, however, if you look at the available features, and compare that against the use case for a truck like these, then you'll probably be confused as to why many of the features are even available at all.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

A lot of those purposes can be better served by other vehicles. Work vans provide pretty much the same cargo space except enclosed. Plus the most popular style has a giant crew cab and a tiny bed, which is the opposite of what you want unless you're towing a trailer and have a bunch of people to haul around. So unless you own a lawn care company you don't really need it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 6 months ago

It's ok, those trucks all have crumple zones. The driver will be completely safe when the vehicle makes impact! /s

[–] no_comment@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago
[–] RandomApple@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago

I wanna see someone add the EU type trucks/vans to this photo for comparison.

[–] schwim@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It's obvious that whoever made that has never looked through any of the portals on an M1A1.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I assume they were drawing the view with hatches up. If the scenario calls for hatches to be closed, there are greater concerns for a pedestrian than getting run over!

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

M1A1 also comes with a pop-up crew commander for extra visibility!

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

...are you quite sure that's not supposed to be port hole?

[–] schwim@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Google VTT 1 - Schwim Dandy 0

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Power Wagon" Who named these, some 5yo? What about the "Cool Machine", " Fast Cruiser", "Speed Demon"? You can have those for 20%.

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

The Power Wagon name goes all the way back to a WW2 military transport manufactured by Dodge (i.e., a powered wagon in army parlance).

It's dumb, but there ya go.

[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Power Wagon is an old badge, dating back to the 40's. I believe it was the first 4x4 civilian truck... I'm likely wrong. The heavy duty versions were called Power Giants.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Seems like I need to trade my truck in for an Abrams. Anyone know a good dealer?

[–] tyrant@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This chart is confusing. Are these kids all different heights?!

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago (2 children)

same heights, the measures on the kids are their distances to the bumper

[–] tyrant@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Also, now that I'm looking more... Those would be some giant 5 year old kids

[–] 7eter@feddit.de 10 points 6 months ago

... 4 m - 3 yo enters the room

[–] tyrant@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Ohhhh I get it. Thanks!

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What is the source for this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

For shits and giggles, what about trains, planes, and cargo ships? Anyone bored enough to add those too?

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 50 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] Ohi@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

This is....perfect.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago
[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Trains don't usually interact with children on tracks.

Planes don't usually interact with children in the sky.

Cargo ships don't usually interact with children in the ocean, and when they do they're at floating height not standing.

[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, not USUALLY. This guy...

[–] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

He's probably a maritime engineer. "The front doesn't USUALLY fall off I want to make that clear"...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GiovaMC1@lemy.lol 4 points 6 months ago
[–] gingernate@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Looks like a 579 not a 587.

load more comments
view more: next ›