127
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
127 points (95.7% liked)
Fuck Cars
16828 readers
461 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
You are absolutely going to need some peer review or corroborating reference for an article produced and published by an organisation who's entire success premise is based on a particular outcome to said article.
That's "A study on how smoking does not cause lung cancer posted on the Marlboro website" levels of suspected bias.
It's probably legit, but it looks suspicious.
How's about you rebut it, your way, first, m'kay.
You're prolly legit, but you're sus.
Ah, I see, weak citation then deflection.
That gives a pretty accurate understanding of what to expect from a conversation with you.
If you don't understand that questioning the impartiality of a source is a rebuttal I'm not sure there's much else for us to discuss.
No need to further rebut weak citations, have fun with your delusions.
Are you Bell, or Howell? Mirror salesperson?
What about peer reviewed articles showing that photo radars don't work? Published by organization who’s entire success premise is based on a particular outcome to said article of course. That would also be interesting to see.
i'd imagine they exist and would be equally if not more suspicious because fiscal benefit tends to bring a higher likelihood of shenanigans.
By "don't work", do you mean the physical camera's are unreliable and malfunction or that they don't work as a measure to reduce speeding and increase safety? both ?
Reduce speeding and increase safety of course.
Unobvious enough that i had to ask for clarification, but that could just be me.
Here is the equivalent of the other side :
https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/the-latest-data-shows-speed-cameras-dont-save-lives
I'm assuming you're looking at the title and that it's from a website called "carexpert" and assuming that it's not entirely unbiased.
As well you should be.
I'm not espousing centrism, i'm expecting some basic citation vetting.