this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
307 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12550 readers
685 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
 

The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.

I'm really not a fan of the cops arguing that the cyclist was partly to blame, though, and a €1000 fine is pretty damn low for breaking someone's leg and wrecking a good six months of their life.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

The article lists four things about the cyclist.

  1. "not wearing a helmet"

Admittedly a no-go for me. There a lots of options for anyone.

  1. "was wearing “relatively” dark clothing"

"Relatively" already gives the impression that we aren't talking black, just that it wasn't a signal or hi-vis color.

  1. "using an earphone"

This wording makes me think the cyclist used one earbud and not both or full headphones. So he could hear his surroundings well.

  1. "his front light may not have been working"

Not even a fact, but a possibility.

To summarize, he was a traffic participant in a non-signal color, listening to music. That's it.

Of course cyclist are more vulnerable than cars, but anyone who sees fault in the cyclist behavior is often overlooking similar or worse behavior in drivers.

Nobody ever asks the owner of a black car if they have a death wish or ask someone to turn of the radio, because they can't hear the traffic as well.

I wish people would hold all traffic participants to the same standards.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 day ago (2 children)

More importantly the driver hit the cyclist from behind. The front light, helmet and earphones are all irrelevant to the accident. It doesn't matter if you hear that a car is behind you or not, if the car just slams into you. If you cycle somewhere except extremely rural areas you will hear cars all the time and you can't turn around to look at every car approaching form behing

What would be relevant instead are back lights and reflectors. The article mentions that the police had found a back light, which indicates it was broken off the bike by the hit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

areas you will hear cars all the time and you can't turn around to look at every car approaching form behing

I do that and cars significantly slow down because they think I will turn left.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

In true carbrain fashion, not only they ignore the existence of turn lights, they also ignore the existence of turn signals.

load more comments (2 replies)