this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
676 points (96.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
12234 readers
2032 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For the record, this is about preventing accidents, not "terrorism." (If nothing else, you can tell by the fact that the other sides of the pedestrian platform aren't protected.)
I'm pretty far out on the radical fringe, but this title is too sensationalized even for me. Tone it down next time, please.
It feels like 5 years ago, but it was only back in January that a man used a truck to kill 14 people in a ramming attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, LA. The city had been warned, and knew of the need to have bollards installed, but cheaped out on temporary bollards, which were apparently malfunctioning at the time of the attack. There had been a vehicle-ramming attack at the Christmas market in Magdeburg in December, and an attack in Munich following in February.
I'd say that the title is right on. Car terrorism is a thing.
I'm certainly not denying that actual car terrorism is a thing now, in the 2020s. But that's very different than claiming it was being described in a comic from almost a hundred years ago, or claiming that the single-direction barricade depicted was intended to be a countermeasure for it (let alone an effective one).
I don't think that that was the claim. We have car terrorism now, and since the 1980's according to the Wikipedia list of incidents, and bollards can help protect potential victims. It's not a new technology, they knew about them in 1931, so what's our excuse for not installing them?
Usually this is just an indicator that you aren't actually on the radical fringe. Not trying to contradict your point or anything, but this is a sort of overton window-shifting rhetorical tactic that gets on my nerves because it actually works against a movement. Even if you didn't realize you were doing it.
Regarding the opinion on terror rhetoric though, I do think it's a fine strategy to call what cars do to our street like terrorism. It's usually not definitional political terrorism (Usually), but the situation we have today required political choices which have resulted in actual terror on our streets. It's a bold choice of words, and sometimes you have to be bold to hammer home a point.
And on that count... It should be "crash", not "accident". "Accident" partially aliviates blame and suggests an inevitability.
Alright, back into my pedantist cage.
I often make that point myself, but in this particular instance I chose "accident" deliberately in order to emphasize the lack of malicious intent.
Anyway, it can be a fine line between shifting the Overton Window and destroying your credibility, and IMO this was just on the wrong side of it. I'm not unsympathetic to the strategy of hyperbolic rhetoric you're talking about (which is why you'll notice I didn't remove the post or demand OP actually change the title); I'm just trying to dial it back a tad. Besides, IMO we shouldn't cheapen the word "terrorism" because then it loses its impact when we use it to describe when drivers actually do engage in violence against cyclists/pedestrians deliberately.
I think the problem here is that terror and terrorism are quite different things. Saying car terrorism implies the intention is to cause mass terror. You can't really accidentally or unknowingly commit a terrorism. Call cars death machines or a scourge, but calling them terrorists seems inaccurate, and maybe more importantly, not useful. It seems to shift the blame from the system that leads to car dominance towards individual drivers as terrorists.
Not pedantic. Matters. Thank you.
We need to start using differently terminology. While injury and deaths prevented by such an island may not rise to the level of “terrorism”, they’re no “accident”. When it’s reckless endangerment, that’s not accidental.
The correct way to prevent car based terror of pedestrians was invented in ireland a century ago. I think there's a drink named after it.
That or random anti vehicle mines.
anti vehicle mines are preferable to most Americans, and they are patriotic
Oof, hate it here.
Guinness, for strength!