Our local LRT crashes into cars so regularly, there's a tally on the subreddit sidebar.
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
538 points (97.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
16233 readers
668 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 Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
But if you're on rails, how are you supposed to steer out of the way of obstacles? That would never work
-Some politician probably
The problem is Americans hate other Americans. And they’d rather do the hating from inside their own death cage.
I wish all the money poured into AI instead went into mass transit.
wait hear me out. what if the driverless cars had special roads built for them and they were larger so they could carry more passangers!
And do you know what trains and trams crash into? Its not other trains and trams...
Trains sometimes crash into each other. It isn't common, but it happens
load more comments
(1 replies)
Actually in my city a tram crashed on another tram literally two days ago. Also train hitting trains is a thing. But yes, trams and trains crashing into trams and trains because the tram/train driver's action sure is near zero compared to the number of trams crashing into cars because of the car driver's action.
Edit: so today another crash happened here, must be a shitty week for whoever insures these people:
Hello Rotterdam!
👋
They do
I was going to comment that the only train I have personally seen hit something, hit a car.
What about driverless trains?
Double less crashes.
I honestly doubt it, since the vast majority of crashes occur when there's something not working (e.g. signal won't turn to green, track detection system not working) - scenarios where driverless trains need human intervention anyway.
There was very nasty train crash in Spain a few years ago because the driver was speeding and the train derailed.
Exceptions prove the rule. On top of that, that crash occurred on the border between two train control systems (ETCS and ASFA, if I remember correctly), where there ended up being quite a gap in train protection. As much as the problem was the speeding driver, it was also a dangerous gap in train control where whoever planned it really screwed up.
Sure, my point is that as rare as they are, there are human error accidents that could be avoided if we switched to self-driving trains (and they proved safe). They are already in use at airports and commuter lines.
Problem is, what is the tradeoff. So you switch to driverless trains. First of all, it has only worked in completely isolated systems until now (no mainline railways). Then, you have the problem that when something goes wrong, the consequences in terms of delays are much larger, often making the news, because there's no one there that can just "quickly do something" to get around the problem and keep going. People tend to get stuck in trains for long times when issues arise - see the REM in Montreal. What's the consequence of unreliable public transit? People tend to avoid it more, often switching back to their cars for important trips - a much more dangerous form of transportation.
So how many lives is this "what if" worth? How much can a driver "quickly do" if a train breaks down, anyway?
It's not even a "what if". And besides, there's a saying in the railroad: the safest train is a stopped train. In other words, as soon as you start moving a train, you increase the level of danger, no matter what you do. That's a tradeoff we make as a society. And that tradeoff is much higher in cars than in trains (hence, why public transit can legitimately be seen as a lifesaving measure).
How much a driver can do if a train breaks down depends on the train and how much the driver knows about his engine. Unfortunately, with a lot of the engines being computer controlled, the amount a driver can do has reduced - but there are still plenty of things a driver can repair. And sometimes it's just a matter of bypassing problems. For example, there's a problem on the track and you need to give the driver explicit instructions on how to proceed and what to watch for. That's not something you can easily tell a self driving train to do - that train will most likely be stuck until someone remotes in. Assuming, of course, that the remote connection isn't shot. Then you're absolutely screwed.
And even if the train breaks down completely, it's still important to have someone there so that the passengers aren't left alone. Who can help evacuate the train if necessary. Who can communicate to the passengers and be there directly if there are specific problems that need to be addressed.
Those same computer repairs can be done remotely. Or you have a mechanic on board for repairs, just not driving the train.
Besides, trains already have a dozen crew anyways, serving drinks, checking tickets, etc. No need to risk lives when we don't need to.
I think he was joking
You think people would do that? Go onto the internet and tell jokes?
Are… are you serious?
I'm the joker, baby.
OK ok ok ok OK... (lol) yes, he was probably joking. I thought it might be interesting to add the information anyway, in case anyone took it seriously (seems like a logical conclusion at first glance, after all)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Also, humans driving cars, because it's pretty easy to have fewer 'crashes' when you just omit a heap of crashes.
“the analysis excluded minor incidents involving Waymos that would likely not have been reported to the police had a human been driving,”
¯_(ツ)_/¯ I get your point but also I get their point, they are trying to make the data comparable to the data they are comparing too. It just so happens it makes them look better too.
Interesting. Same data in USA says the robo taxis were almost twice as likely per million miles (I last checked few months to half a year ago) to be in incident as human drivers.
As usual, Musk is most likely the one skewing the statistics.
His cars, whether on commercial "full self driving" mode (which it isn't, at all) or whether they're the commercial robo-taxis, have all kinds of driving and safety issues. Almost everyone other than Musk has very few issues.
view more: next ›