this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
172 points (91.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

16553 readers
588 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Everyone is an asshole here, blowing through red lights. Fuck everyone involved. Nothing to do with cars or bikes. I'm pissed.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 52 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Nope! Cars and bikes have different traffic laws. Where I live what the cyclist did is perfectly legal because they only have to yield but not stop and they expected the car to stop as it should have.

Just to be clear, this is different states by state. Some states allow a yield at a stop sign for cyclists. Some require a strict stop like ant other vehicle on the road. There may even be stricter city ordinances too. Know your local laws before cycling through a stop.

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Where I live bicycles and cars have to follow the same rules.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My state updated their rules just three years ago. As a cyclist I have noticed a lot of drivers are unaware of this. It's possible there is recent legislation you are unaware of.

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 1 points 17 hours ago

Here in Georgia bicycles are legally classified as vehicles (OCGA 40-6-291) and are required to obey all traffic signs and signals. They also require bicycles stopped at intersections to signal which way they are going, but they never seem to do that here.

To be fair, I assumed it was that way everywhere. Was Idaho the first state to legalize that? (Asking because I'm seeing it referenced as an 'Idaho stop' when searching. That aside, thank you for encouraging me to double check, normally I keep an eye out on changing traffic laws (like the GA slow poke law), but I'm sure I need to reread the book again sometime.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here in the EU, bikes have a lot of places where they get special treatment, but blowing through red lights isn't one of them.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The above post states this occurred at a stop sign and not at a light. They used the words "in my neighborhood" implying that this is also a residential area where there would be less traffic.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Stop signs are no different. Traffic or no traffic, you heed the sign. Only losers blow past the stop sign without stopping. I also use my turn signal when no one is around. It's just what a good and safe driver does. Because muscle memory and good habits save lives in the end. At least they prevent accidents.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think you missed the point about cyclists having different traffic laws. In fact the reason why the have it is for safety. A bike can't speed up quickly like a motor vehicle can so it's safer to maintain speed when possible.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Source? Moving is dangerous, not moving at a stop sign the only danger is from behind, so logically what you’re saying doesn’t even make sense. And i doubt there’s any study to support that.

They changed the law probably mainly so they wouldn’t have to waste time ticketing, it’s very rarely ever about safety.

Also, my old civic can’t accelerate fast, most bikes accelerate faster, so… that can’t be the reasoning. Lots of cars accelerate slowly and e-bikes accelerate faster than fast cars.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You can't move quickly at first and if a speeding car comes by you can't get out of the way. When I was 15 I experienced a driver blowing through the stop sign and hitting my back tire. It was super scary. If I hadn't stopped first I still would have been going fast and wouldn't of gotten hit by the car. That's why if I see that no one is coming I just go through.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (10 children)

I didn't miss it.

In the EU we have sensible rules where predictability trumps bullshit like that. Predictability is an extremely important factor for safety. Speeding up isn't an important factor lol, I've never heard such a silly rationale for allowing a certain vehicle to break the rules. What the actual fuck. 'Murica though, right? 😂

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Have you read your state code on the subject? Laws tend to be written with very specific language to cover edge cases and exceptions. "Following the same rules" is rarely the law as implemented.

If you're comfortable sharing your state or province I'll look up the statute for you if you're interested.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The most dangerous place for cyclists is the middle of an intersection. Bicycles do not have A pillars, and thus no blind spots. If the intersection is clear, the cyclist should continue through without stopping to leave the intersection faster. Bicycles are slow to start, and can only take evasive actions while in motion. So its much safer to not stop.

Those laws are good and make cyclists safer. Some places may have different laws, but any law telling cyclists to stop at all stop signs should be disregarded. Ensuring your own safety is far more important than appeasing bureaucrats.

Edit: Just re-read my own local traffic laws and cyclists can legally treat stop signs as yeild signs here too!

[–] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[–] Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (6 children)

As a cyclist it is safer to yield because bikes can't speed up quickly from a stop. If we maintain speed it's easier to get out of the way if we need to.

[–] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 1 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

I have never bought this argument. I don't believe it's safer to blow through a stop sign. It's just inconvenient to have to stop.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 day ago

I dislike bike riders who are assholes. This isn't that.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

There's literally no lesson here related to not stopping. A car not stopping is independent of the bike stopping or not at a atop sign.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They're certainly right about that last sentence, but not in the way they think.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 day ago

I know that when I'm super angry, my red face can be read as embarrassed by stupid assholes.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›