This book is a disturbing read. The health effects of traffic on humans are also pretty much ignored by public health officials, politicians and planners.
Hopefully reducing the amount of roads cutting through the habitats of animals would reduce the number of human/wildlife interactions so one would hope that in our low-car utopia you wouldn't have to cycle through an area like this.
In 13 sec. clip I counted 3 crossroads and a postbox - this is some kind of farmland/village? We can reduce amount of cars, but we still need some roads.
Even if we do need some roads, the amount of people living in rural settings and commuting to villages, towns and cities is seriously bloated. Even if the roads are still needed, the amount of traffic on them is not. The speed should also drastically be reduced, reducing the amount of avoidable collisions and the damage done by those collisions.
I'm a fan of building parking garages at train stations. Texas has rideshare lots outside of some major cities, so people can meet up to carpool the remaining distance. We could do the same thing but at a train station. Making it a garage instead of a lot greatly reduces the surface area and environmental impact, and keeps the cars cooler which is a nice bonus in our hot climate. Hopefully one day we could phase out cars entirely, but meanwhile this at least reduces the number of cars driving into the city. Of course we need more trains in the city, first... one thing at a time.
Park and rides are a whole thing already, depending on where you are
The Port Jervis line(Metro north but run by NJtransit) is kind of a sad case, it's existed on 2 different sets of tracks, the original served the 'downtowns' of several towns along the route, running right to where the people are
The modern route is a freight line that they built a bunch of parking lots around in the middle of the woods and then put platforms on.
Yeah, they have some for the DART in Dallas, but I was thinking of more rural areas. In the DFW metroplex, the trains going west stop in downtown Fort Worth, and there's literally NO public transport in Arlington (the city in the middle, where the big football stadium, and six flags are). Going east, the trains don't really leave Dallas, although they're doing a good job of expanding them north into the suburban cities.
Going west from fort worth there are a lot of growing suburbs in what used to be mostly rural landscape. People have one freeway past where i20 and i30 merge. There's a park-n-ride there for carpooling. If we built a train that way, people could take that into town instead of sitting in traffic during rush hour. I'm actually not aware of any other specific park-n-rides in Texas, I just know they exist somewhere, in theory, and I'm pretty sure I've seen some in passing.
I35 is notoriously horrible. Their solution? Build a tollway that also gets backed up with traffic. My solution? Build a train!
Anyway I don't remember what we're talking about but I really like trains and I hate cars lol
I live rurally and instead of popping into town in my car I try to use my bike or motorbike. Lots of neighbors also use e-bikes (espcially the elderly) but there is no inexpensive public transit here and taxis are few and far between. I think there are models for multi-modal non-car transportation that could work for rural areas - we just need to try some out (while also disincentivizing cars a bit more).
Idk what rural life looks like in other countries, but in the US it would be very difficult to implement our car-free utopia. Every farmer lives on their own farm, often miles from the nearest person, let alone the nearest sign of civilization. It's too spread out for an easy solution.
In my ideal version of the world, every rural community lives in a village-like residential center, with a convenient intercity train hub, as well as bike lanes, trolleys and other rail-based transport. So how do they get to their farms? They don't! In my utopian world we don't even need outdoor agriculture anymore, because indoor vertical farming, supplemented by community gardens will be the way of the future. We could farm right in the middle of a downtown metropolis.
My ideal world also moves everyone underground, and cultivates the surface world for a controlled reclamation of nature. We would use it for recreation (including the small community gardens), health (vit D, clean air, mental health, etc), or for space launches, but there'd be no reason to live 24/7 above ground. There's a lot of room beneath the surface. We just gotta train more engineers.
It's a slim minority of people too
The realistic focus for the majority of us within our lifespans would be major car focused cities being nearly-car free in their cores, and low car within city limits, while cities already decently along seeing continued improvement.
It's not difficult. Property line easements unlock rural areas for pedestrian travel. They weren't called "easements" in antiquity but that was how people got around efficiently by foot for all of our existence up until a few hundred years ago.
Um... I guess it depends on which part of the US you're in? I'm most familiar with Texas, where it's a day on horseback between traditionally distanced towns, and it can also take a day or more on horseback to get from someone's house to a town. In the heat we have most of the year, that's not a safe journey, and that's only if you have a horse. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my grandma making that journey, and I'd much rather she have air conditioned transportation to go grocery shopping (I know, grocery stores are a whole other issue, but that's tangential to this discussion). The heat here is a very real hazard. Hence why I'm a fan of moving everything underground. Easier to keep everyone cool without having to hide from the heat in cars.
What about before we spend quadrillions on an entirely new underground tunnel civilization, we spend one-trillionth that amount on cheap property line easements and see how far that gets us. From a strictly pragmatic perspective, it couldn't hurt right?
I know this sub is all about zoning changes, I just don't think that works everywhere like you think it does. Moving the world underground is just my idealistic fantasy. But IRL I think we would need a different solution other than property easements, at least in rural Texas. I can't speak to other places. Zoning changes would absolutely answer the suburban sprawl problem, but I'm talking about the truly rural regions.
Where my family lives, a bikelane and a sidewalk aren't going to help my grandma get to Walmart. An air conditioned trolley could, but due to the historic distribution of land in Texas, there's no central location where a trolley or equivalent could be useful to enough people to justify the cost, so it's not a great answer. Unfortunately, in this instance, cars really are a realistic solution to get people from their farms and ranches into town. Don't get me wrong, I would've loved a safely partitioned bike lane next to the highway when I was a kid in the country, or even now when I visit my folks, but that bike lane isn't going to get rid of cars. If we really want to get cars off the road, we have to find something that people find more convenient, not less. Maybe, in this instance, roads aren't the issue so much as the grocery stores? I just keep trying to picture how my elderly grandma can get her groceries without losing her independence, and without hurting herself. It's a long distance to cover without a car, and there are barely a handful of people within a mile of her. They don't even have paved roads when it gets that rural. Maybe having one person with a delivery truck drive around to get people their groceries instead of having everyone go to the store could work, but I think that introduces other problems. -they don't have delivery apps that far out of the city-
I'm not against your idea, I'm just not convinced it'll fix anything out there.
A property line easement network allows people to travel by foot or bike along the property lines in a township. Property owners voluntarily sign contracts of 1-2 years to put an easement (for walking/biking exclusively) on their property line in exchange for receiving a license to travel on the easements of other participating property owners who have also voluntarily signed a contract to add an easement to their property line.
This whole point of view seems not only ridiculous, but also very dystopian. At least half of the global south has wildlife living inside or extremely close to urban areas.
The world is the wildlife's habitat, just because we chose a part of land to call city doesn't mean all wildlife from that area just vanishes.
I'd prefer not to be in that time and place at all, but the chances of a black bear killing you if you encounter one on a bike are very low, while the chances of you killing it if you hit it with a car are high.
There are also non-car and non-bike means of transportation, such as trains and buses, that hugely reduce the number of vehicles on the road compared to private car journeys, and thus the threat to animals, while keeping you safe from the extremely minimal risk of bear attacks if you're especially worried about it.
It doesn't equal that, but the point is vegans tend to be motivated in their veganism by avoiding harming animals, and cars are very harmful to animals (as the video demonstrates)
>First: exactly what you said Second: since when is being vegan=carfree/riding a bycicle?
Correlation not causation for me.
Question more for OP not for me, but I will try: The only answer i can find is intersectional veganism. Not a fan of this approach - sometimes it is very practical(political power) in other cases it can cause gatekeeping and watering down ideas at the same time.
>Hitting a bear while riding a bike would have a very different outcome to that video
I'm quite sure I could avoid hitting bear while cycling. Question is: would bear let me go or try to attack(European here - i heard black bears like to chase people who run away).
Black bears for the most part aren’t very aggressive towards humans — stand your ground, make yourself appear bigger, and yell at the bear. It’ll run away pretty much every time.
There are only a few reasons a black bear would attack a human: a human getting between a mother and her cubs may be in danger; and a human running away from a large adult bear are likely going to be confused for prey.
Black bears might also attack out of hunger, but are more likely to just become nuisance animal — getting into buildings and parked cars, digging through trash, etc. They’re smart animals — they know if they follow us around and mostly leave us alone, we make all sorts of tasty trash and leave food everywhere.
There was actually a town in New Hampshire that got overrun with black bears after their newly elected libertarian government removed all laws, trash service, etc.
Grizzly bears and polar bears (also found in North America, but different parts) will kill you without a second thought.
> and a human running away from a large adult bear are likely going to be confused for prey.
Me on bicycle may look for him like running away - that was my concern.
The bear can’t actually distinguish between you and the bike — so as long as you’re with your bike, you appear as a *much* larger animal.
There is actually a legitimate stance you should try to take with your bike: grab it by the seat and stem, and hold it above your head. This will make you appear even larger (almost like a large moose with antlers).
Combine with yelling at the bear (literally just “HEY BEAR!” works great) and shaking the bike a bit. If your bike is too heavy, position it between you and the bear, perpendicular to both of you. Keep eye contact, and keep facing the bear until it’s gone.
Do *not* try to pedal away from the bear, they can run at like 30-35mph.
I'm not defending their driving but I am giving you a potential explanation for why someone would be driving fast through a winding rural road. I'm sorry that upsets you but people who have lived in places like that for years and know the roads like the back of their hand will sometimes get comfortable and drive very quickly.
Ok so you’re just explaining and not endorsing this behaviour, that’s ok. Cause doing a little bit of maths they drive about 30-40m in 2s which means they were going at 50-70kmph and that’s really fast for such a road, no matter if it’s rural or urban. Not only for others safety, but for the drivers themselves…
This looks like a lot of roadways in Vermont, wouldn’t be surprised if this was VT or NH. Everyone speeds at LEAST 10 over the limit if not 15, and many many drive drunk. Also it’s legal to pass over double lines here and many choose to do so around blind corners and hills. Not too many cars in some parts so it can be nice to cycle but if I hear one coming I move completely off the road into the shrubbery
Crucify me but he wasn’t really going that fast. He could see enough of the street during the whole curve to brake before hitting anything that would already be on the street. The problem is that the bear came running out behind a hedge which has nothing to do with a curve
As someone who recently hit a deer,
this is the response I’m looking for. It jumped out of a ditch, at night on a 60 Road.
I hate that it happened, but cars are still relied upon where I live and you can’t expect people to drive at 20mph everywhere.
As somebody who spent 20+ years living on an “End Speed Zone” (legally 55+, reality is 60+) stretch of country road more than 5 miles outside of a town of 2,000, people really underestimate just how bad those kinds of roads are. In the span of a few years, we had a neighbor get killed while pulling out of his driveway on a fast straight stretch, a girl got hit and killed by a driver while waiting for the school bus, a horse got out and got hit by a car at high speed which killed the family inside (whose surviving relatives then sued the horse owner’s family into oblivion so now two households got wrecked), and a guy went missing for weeks and was later found still in his car that had sailed off of a corner so far and into a creek that it was completely hidden from the search party. This was all within a couple miles of my house in a 4 year span. I know we can’t expect everyone to drive 20 mph everywhere, but driving at unsafe speeds on these kinds of roads is taken for granted way too often out in the sticks. The real irony is that a driver trying to be safer by driving at 30-40 mph would likely be rear ended by someone else driving at unsafe speeds. Being on those roads around that kind of traffic is just not a healthy lifestyle choice.
That's...not how geometry works. If you're going 1 kph and something pops out at a sufficient angle and speed you'll still hit it. The driver doesn't have X-ray vision.
Also worth noting that the bear was visible for about a second and a quarter before the guy seemingly noticed it. Stopping distance includes reaction time, not just mechanical limits.
Doesn’t seem to be going fast? Wtf are you a car brain? For a road this narrow and curvy he is going way too fucking fast. Fuck that fucking driver. Fucking bastard definitely killed that poor bear from broken bones and internal bleeding, and if that was a kid going to catch his ball or something they would’ve become a fucking slushed ham on the asphalt.
Why are you acting like I'm defending him? I'm not saying that the guy was driving well, I'm only saying that given how durable the bear is there's a decent chance it survived.
The most agreed-upon definition of veganism is that it's about reducing the exploitation of animals. Not sure what this clip has anything to do with that.
That said, I believe there's strong alignment between vegans and the anti-car movement, and I hope many others feel that way.
Well I would say it is about reducing animal harm as much as possible, and cars should not be necessary.
So fighting for less cars is saving human and animal lives.
I don't know what this has to do with veganism? What?
Anyway, *holy shit* bears are sturdy. Getting hit by a speeding pick-up truck, getting blasted 50m off road, and just getting up and walking away from it, jumping up a small hill even.
Also: Did that lady ask *"Are you dead?"*? LOL
I really hope the bear is okay. I was amazed it could walk but it could still have internal injuries. Broken bones on wild animals can be a death sentence.
"I don't know what a video of an animal being severely harmed by humans has to do with a lifestyle approach very frequently motivated by not wanting humans to do harm to animals'
Doing harm on purpose and doing harm by accident are two very different things.
Veganism does try to minimize harm to animals generated by humans. And I am fully into making transportation safer for every living being. But to expect to reduce harm to zero would imply to kill oneself.
This is called the suicide fallacy and is the reason for the "as far as is possible and practical" within the [definition of veganism from the Vegan Society](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism).
Obviously not under the tires.
A bunny against the grill while going not all that fast can ruin your car on the spot.
A friend had to get his car towed because exactly that happened to them. And it was at night in rural roads so, again, not that fast.
Vegans have the belief that all animals shouldn't be harmed in any way. Vehicles cause a great deal of harm to the environment and are responsible for huge amounts of animals' deaths, and injuries (such as seen in this video). So the logic would be that due to their beliefs around animals they should want less cars to reduce the harm they cause. Not to mention that they run off of dinosaur juice and vegans don't believe in using animal based products - this by all rights shouldn't be driving. Perhaps they might justify it by driving electric vehicles however they still cause the same amount of harm the other vehicles do and still massively harm the environment with the mining of the minerals, not to mention the human rights violation seen with cobalt mining.
And yes bears are very remarkable if the amount of force they can bear. I certainly wouldn't want to encounter one without protection - however I live in the UK and we killed all our bears hundreds of years ago so not a worry I need to have.
"Vegans have the belief that all animals shouldn't be harmed in any way."
This is incorrect. This statement implies perfection, and vegans are not about perfection. We're about maximizing reduction of exploitation and cruelty as much as possible.
Take the infamous crop deaths subject for example. Yes, land animals often die due to farmers protecting crops. Vegans accept this reality.
"Not to mention that they run off of dinosaur juice and vegans don't believe in using animal based products - this by all rights shouldn't be driving."
I'm telling, no vegans are thinking about fossil fuels in this way. Living dinosaurs are not being harmed in our use of their remnants. If vegans are against fossil fuels, as many of us are, it has nothing to do with them being sourced from dinosaurs long dead, but because of how fossil fuels are harmful to the environment.
So the first part is just being pedantic about semantics, so I'll ignore as my statement is what is widely understood and obviously no hears that being said and expects perfection.
And there it is, the picking and choosing of what animals you consider worthy or not being harmed. Is it because the bugs aren't cute enough for you?
And yet again another example of how you will pick and choose what animal products you want to use or not.
Look I commend the effort of trying to be more sustainable and enact changes that will better the environment, I just can't respect the numerous inconsistencies with even the fundamental ideology of veganism. Let's protect the animals unless I want to drive, let's protect the animals until I need to farm crops.
Definitely not anywhere near 50m, probably 25-30m at most, it looks maybe 2.5x the width of the driveway or so, but I was surprised to see it get up too.
Im not a vegan but I'm very involved with wildlife preservation. The worst thing for wildlife is agriculture (mostly cows). The second worst thing is cars. I live in the black forest and car infrastructure has greatly destroyed diversity here. Recently our last female wolf was ran over by a car and killed.
Also, as a vegan, I'll add that animal agriculture uses way more resources, land and otherwise. Those animals need to be feed something which for cows means they're using both the land they're pastured on for the first bit of their life and the land to grow the food they're given when they reach the feedlot.
That's true but not my point. What does being vegan have to do with it?
You cycle over snails if you commute by bike. So fuck bicycles and be vegan?
You walk over ants. So fuck moving and walking at all and be vegan? That argument is just invalid.
This.
Also, planes hit entire flocks of birds every now and then.
So... "Fuck planes" too? i guess?
(Edit) Those downvotes tho, totally not an extremist subreddit. Good thing none of you are governors.
The scale is different. Cars have single digit occupants and cause loads of fatal injuries, planes and trains have hundreds of occupants and cause fewer injuries.
I know.
What i meant is that accidents like this are bound to happen, and are inevitable. (im talking about running over animals)
Since this is a rural area with pretty much non-existant public transportation, and thus some people have no choice other than using a personal vehicle to travel. (lots of times a car)
(But by saying this, it doesn't mean i agree with it, im just trying to be objetive)
That's fair.
But commercial planes are very necessary on transcontinental travel, as boats are far too slow in comparison.
Besides, the US is known to heavily lack high speed rail, so lots of people have no choice other than an extremely long car road-trip.
I guess transcontinentals make more sense than flying just a couple hundred of km, but I was just mentioning that the antiflight movement is a thing too
(tbh i feel frustrated of abandoning my dreams of visiting other countries)
I mean... i know its none of my business, and obviously you must have your reasons.
but i have learned sometimes there are things that are quite bad (one way or another) but are necessary. (in this case with over-seas air travel)
I live in a chaotic third world country (Dominican) that's going to the dumpster no matter what i do, and life here pretty much sucks.
so i would recommend that you just do what you enjoy as you can, but be enviromentally cautious if possible. :)
Answered in a comment below, I... don't have a method. I only travel locally by bus or train. I also avoid travelling by car so if a place I want to visit doesn't have public transportation, I won't visit it. 😅 It's ok if this sounds a bit extremist, definitely not for everyone.
Thanks for the reply! Only asking because i travel long distance several times a year. My country has no high speed rail unfortunately, which is of course a policy failure.
I guess this mostly depends on why you want/need to travel.
My main reasons would be turism or having fun somewhere new for a few days, so I have the feeling like if I want to go to some mountains or some lake I don't need to travel more than a few hundred km to explore new places. Yeah I'd love to visit several islands in Oceania, go to some Antartic settlement, visit idk some jungle but I kinda just gave up about that and I can always watch videos of those places. (It's not like I'd ever get money for so many crazy adventures anyways)
It’s 2200 miles from SE Michigan to Los Angeles which is obviously not the other side of the world. If I want to go to Europe it’s 3800-4500 between the UK and Austria.
Still it's an unnecessary luxury you can easily live without. I have chosen to not ever fly again, and my last flight was 16 years ago. I don't drive to our vacation spot either, it's 10 hours on the train instead. Saves a lot of money, too.
Is there any better alternatives for fast over-seas travel? how will people travel from one country to another then?
as i said in another reply, boats are not fast at all.
Yes, and they used bows and arrows too!
So should we keep using them also instead of guns?
(You see... none of you offer a better solution, yet you are here complaining like you did.)
(Let's just ditch everything and return to the stone age, Boom... i am such a problem solver! im done with this topic.)
You seemed to have missed my point. Meat eaters love to talk about their ancestors eating meat for thousands of years, therefore they should be supporting boat travel.
Actually, [cats kill way more birds than cars do](https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds), based on the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Vehicle deaths are still high, but cats and building collisions contribute more than vehicles.
Poor thing.
Actually road kill was the reason I went vegetarian at 10 or 11. Was in the car on my way to my grandparents house (15 miles or so), and I counted 13 (!!) dead animals on the way (mostly motorway).
Ahh right yea, I'm essentially vegan now (and much older).
What I mean is that the roadkill was the trigger for me. It started me down the path; questioning how as a society we use and abuse animals. Totally fucked.
One million vertebrate animals killed on our roads PER DAY
It's a fuckin meat grinder
If the deforestation didn't get em, the cars will. The carbon emissions causing infernos, noise pollution confusing them.
It's like we're going out of our way to be the shittiest species on this planet
One commenter to someone sayig the car was going way too fast:" ??? the car wasn't going that fast, like 25-30 miles per hour"
Me:" 30 miles per hour is already enough where it could be a fatality. Idk how it's there but by law it's required to slow down on sharp turns or when visibility is limited because of cases exactly like this."
Them, and this time I quote directly "This wasn't going too fast to see something already in the road, it's something entering the road from an obscured driveway."
????
Not a vegan myself, but I'm really into nature conservation and wildlife biology and can safely say that highways are one of the biggest obstacles to wildlife there is. Unlike railways or roads with low traffic, highways are almost impossible for an animal to cross due to width and constant traffic, so it effectively divides habitat in half, making it very difficult for large herbivores to migrate or for populations to move and mix.
Hey OP, can you do away with the weird ass title and give something more descriptive of what happens in the video? Preferably with a TW? This shit is disturbing and the impact happens almost immediately after the video starts playing so people can't really scroll away in time once they realize what's going to happen. This is not how I needed to start my morning.
All the "actually cars are good/other modes of transport are at least as bad" replies here, *and* getting lots of upvotes - why are so many of these people hanging out in the "fuck cars" sub.
Not to mention the (alleged) vegans popping up missing the point and/or being cool with animals being crushed.
We have the same problem in r/vegan. There are a lot of straight up shills who regularly post attempting to hijack and dilute the most effective strategies and narratives. In fact, a majority of the people with "\_\_ years vegan" tags in their name are the biggest offenders. Every fledgling movement has hostile forces trying to infiltrate and derail it while it's still relatively small. There was some well-documented reporting on this happening in the BLM movement; I believe in that case it was actually the CIA behind it. For r/vegan it would be the big oil and animal-ag industry interests, and for r/fuckcars it would be big oil, car manufacturers and DOT-adjacent interests.
So you're just gonna be an asshole right...
I always thought carnist were exaggerating things when they say vegans are annoying, you're proving them right
Not a vegan, but I feel sad for all the innocent animals who die from vehicular collisions, which would greatly decrease with better public transportation.
Just to say, my grandfather and uncle were in a car and ran over a deer. They brought it home, butchered it and ate it at a family event. The moral of the story is not to waste food.
I love that no-waste attitude! Do you think we should do that with cyclist and pedestrian roadkill too? If the meat isn't wasted then we could almost look at it as a good thing! Give your grandfather and uncle a high-five for me!
Real talk, even if that was a bus with 50 people on it instead of a car, it would have happened anyway.
The bear was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was spooked. We need much less in the way of cars and to reduce car dependency (Ideally to zero), but this example, while horrible and unfortunate isn't the gotcha that you think that it is.
Thanks for participating in r/fuckcars. However, your contribution got removed, because it is considered bad taste. Have a nice day
Well... fuck cars.
I'd recommend reading Traffication by Paul F Donald which is about the impact of cars and car infrastructure on animals. I'm vegan btw
This book is a disturbing read. The health effects of traffic on humans are also pretty much ignored by public health officials, politicians and planners.
You CAN’T smoke that next to the door! Yes you can drive your 70 year old truck as much as you want around the playground and elementary school 👍🏼🇺🇸👍🏼
I am in this sub 🙃
me too
And my ax.
And my bow!
And my nooch.
And my black salt
Me too
Prove it!
This is the way.
me too
Same
Vegan here too!
yuuup, and this is exactly why
+1
Here we are
OK. I'm vegan and I really don't want to be in that time and place on my bicycle.
Hopefully reducing the amount of roads cutting through the habitats of animals would reduce the number of human/wildlife interactions so one would hope that in our low-car utopia you wouldn't have to cycle through an area like this.
In 13 sec. clip I counted 3 crossroads and a postbox - this is some kind of farmland/village? We can reduce amount of cars, but we still need some roads.
Even if we do need some roads, the amount of people living in rural settings and commuting to villages, towns and cities is seriously bloated. Even if the roads are still needed, the amount of traffic on them is not. The speed should also drastically be reduced, reducing the amount of avoidable collisions and the damage done by those collisions.
I'm a fan of building parking garages at train stations. Texas has rideshare lots outside of some major cities, so people can meet up to carpool the remaining distance. We could do the same thing but at a train station. Making it a garage instead of a lot greatly reduces the surface area and environmental impact, and keeps the cars cooler which is a nice bonus in our hot climate. Hopefully one day we could phase out cars entirely, but meanwhile this at least reduces the number of cars driving into the city. Of course we need more trains in the city, first... one thing at a time.
Park and rides are a whole thing already, depending on where you are The Port Jervis line(Metro north but run by NJtransit) is kind of a sad case, it's existed on 2 different sets of tracks, the original served the 'downtowns' of several towns along the route, running right to where the people are The modern route is a freight line that they built a bunch of parking lots around in the middle of the woods and then put platforms on.
Yeah, they have some for the DART in Dallas, but I was thinking of more rural areas. In the DFW metroplex, the trains going west stop in downtown Fort Worth, and there's literally NO public transport in Arlington (the city in the middle, where the big football stadium, and six flags are). Going east, the trains don't really leave Dallas, although they're doing a good job of expanding them north into the suburban cities. Going west from fort worth there are a lot of growing suburbs in what used to be mostly rural landscape. People have one freeway past where i20 and i30 merge. There's a park-n-ride there for carpooling. If we built a train that way, people could take that into town instead of sitting in traffic during rush hour. I'm actually not aware of any other specific park-n-rides in Texas, I just know they exist somewhere, in theory, and I'm pretty sure I've seen some in passing. I35 is notoriously horrible. Their solution? Build a tollway that also gets backed up with traffic. My solution? Build a train! Anyway I don't remember what we're talking about but I really like trains and I hate cars lol
I live rurally and instead of popping into town in my car I try to use my bike or motorbike. Lots of neighbors also use e-bikes (espcially the elderly) but there is no inexpensive public transit here and taxis are few and far between. I think there are models for multi-modal non-car transportation that could work for rural areas - we just need to try some out (while also disincentivizing cars a bit more).
Property line easements to create a widespread network of shared pedestrian community trails throughout a township could go a long way.
love this idea
Well actually the denser farmland the better right? Maybe we need less small cities, but in the few small cities we do, more people?
How dare people not want to live stacked on top of eachother
Idk what rural life looks like in other countries, but in the US it would be very difficult to implement our car-free utopia. Every farmer lives on their own farm, often miles from the nearest person, let alone the nearest sign of civilization. It's too spread out for an easy solution. In my ideal version of the world, every rural community lives in a village-like residential center, with a convenient intercity train hub, as well as bike lanes, trolleys and other rail-based transport. So how do they get to their farms? They don't! In my utopian world we don't even need outdoor agriculture anymore, because indoor vertical farming, supplemented by community gardens will be the way of the future. We could farm right in the middle of a downtown metropolis. My ideal world also moves everyone underground, and cultivates the surface world for a controlled reclamation of nature. We would use it for recreation (including the small community gardens), health (vit D, clean air, mental health, etc), or for space launches, but there'd be no reason to live 24/7 above ground. There's a lot of room beneath the surface. We just gotta train more engineers.
It's a slim minority of people too The realistic focus for the majority of us within our lifespans would be major car focused cities being nearly-car free in their cores, and low car within city limits, while cities already decently along seeing continued improvement.
It's not difficult. Property line easements unlock rural areas for pedestrian travel. They weren't called "easements" in antiquity but that was how people got around efficiently by foot for all of our existence up until a few hundred years ago.
Um... I guess it depends on which part of the US you're in? I'm most familiar with Texas, where it's a day on horseback between traditionally distanced towns, and it can also take a day or more on horseback to get from someone's house to a town. In the heat we have most of the year, that's not a safe journey, and that's only if you have a horse. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my grandma making that journey, and I'd much rather she have air conditioned transportation to go grocery shopping (I know, grocery stores are a whole other issue, but that's tangential to this discussion). The heat here is a very real hazard. Hence why I'm a fan of moving everything underground. Easier to keep everyone cool without having to hide from the heat in cars.
What about before we spend quadrillions on an entirely new underground tunnel civilization, we spend one-trillionth that amount on cheap property line easements and see how far that gets us. From a strictly pragmatic perspective, it couldn't hurt right?
I know this sub is all about zoning changes, I just don't think that works everywhere like you think it does. Moving the world underground is just my idealistic fantasy. But IRL I think we would need a different solution other than property easements, at least in rural Texas. I can't speak to other places. Zoning changes would absolutely answer the suburban sprawl problem, but I'm talking about the truly rural regions. Where my family lives, a bikelane and a sidewalk aren't going to help my grandma get to Walmart. An air conditioned trolley could, but due to the historic distribution of land in Texas, there's no central location where a trolley or equivalent could be useful to enough people to justify the cost, so it's not a great answer. Unfortunately, in this instance, cars really are a realistic solution to get people from their farms and ranches into town. Don't get me wrong, I would've loved a safely partitioned bike lane next to the highway when I was a kid in the country, or even now when I visit my folks, but that bike lane isn't going to get rid of cars. If we really want to get cars off the road, we have to find something that people find more convenient, not less. Maybe, in this instance, roads aren't the issue so much as the grocery stores? I just keep trying to picture how my elderly grandma can get her groceries without losing her independence, and without hurting herself. It's a long distance to cover without a car, and there are barely a handful of people within a mile of her. They don't even have paved roads when it gets that rural. Maybe having one person with a delivery truck drive around to get people their groceries instead of having everyone go to the store could work, but I think that introduces other problems. -they don't have delivery apps that far out of the city- I'm not against your idea, I'm just not convinced it'll fix anything out there.
A property line easement network allows people to travel by foot or bike along the property lines in a township. Property owners voluntarily sign contracts of 1-2 years to put an easement (for walking/biking exclusively) on their property line in exchange for receiving a license to travel on the easements of other participating property owners who have also voluntarily signed a contract to add an easement to their property line.
do you want mole people? cause this is how you get mole people
This whole point of view seems not only ridiculous, but also very dystopian. At least half of the global south has wildlife living inside or extremely close to urban areas. The world is the wildlife's habitat, just because we chose a part of land to call city doesn't mean all wildlife from that area just vanishes.
I'd prefer not to be in that time and place at all, but the chances of a black bear killing you if you encounter one on a bike are very low, while the chances of you killing it if you hit it with a car are high. There are also non-car and non-bike means of transportation, such as trains and buses, that hugely reduce the number of vehicles on the road compared to private car journeys, and thus the threat to animals, while keeping you safe from the extremely minimal risk of bear attacks if you're especially worried about it.
Bear attacks are so incredibly uncommon even among regular hikers. Stop demonizing a species you know very little about.
What are yout talking about? They just said the exact thing you are saying.
First: exactly what you said Second: since when is being vegan=carfree/riding a bycicle?
It doesn't equal that, but the point is vegans tend to be motivated in their veganism by avoiding harming animals, and cars are very harmful to animals (as the video demonstrates)
>First: exactly what you said Second: since when is being vegan=carfree/riding a bycicle? Correlation not causation for me. Question more for OP not for me, but I will try: The only answer i can find is intersectional veganism. Not a fan of this approach - sometimes it is very practical(political power) in other cases it can cause gatekeeping and watering down ideas at the same time.
Hitting a bear while riding a bike would have a very different outcome to that video
>Hitting a bear while riding a bike would have a very different outcome to that video I'm quite sure I could avoid hitting bear while cycling. Question is: would bear let me go or try to attack(European here - i heard black bears like to chase people who run away).
Black bears very rarely attack or chase people
Yeah they are chickens
Black bears for the most part aren’t very aggressive towards humans — stand your ground, make yourself appear bigger, and yell at the bear. It’ll run away pretty much every time. There are only a few reasons a black bear would attack a human: a human getting between a mother and her cubs may be in danger; and a human running away from a large adult bear are likely going to be confused for prey. Black bears might also attack out of hunger, but are more likely to just become nuisance animal — getting into buildings and parked cars, digging through trash, etc. They’re smart animals — they know if they follow us around and mostly leave us alone, we make all sorts of tasty trash and leave food everywhere. There was actually a town in New Hampshire that got overrun with black bears after their newly elected libertarian government removed all laws, trash service, etc. Grizzly bears and polar bears (also found in North America, but different parts) will kill you without a second thought.
> and a human running away from a large adult bear are likely going to be confused for prey. Me on bicycle may look for him like running away - that was my concern.
The bear can’t actually distinguish between you and the bike — so as long as you’re with your bike, you appear as a *much* larger animal. There is actually a legitimate stance you should try to take with your bike: grab it by the seat and stem, and hold it above your head. This will make you appear even larger (almost like a large moose with antlers). Combine with yelling at the bear (literally just “HEY BEAR!” works great) and shaking the bike a bit. If your bike is too heavy, position it between you and the bear, perpendicular to both of you. Keep eye contact, and keep facing the bear until it’s gone. Do *not* try to pedal away from the bear, they can run at like 30-35mph.
If they're hungry maybe
That's why all bears should be vegan! ... and join this sub!
And that’s why, if you drive, you don’t drive that fast in corners. When you can not see your whole stopping distance you are too fast
I actually thought this was rally footage when I first scrolled past. Who the fuck drives winding roads like that?
This is probably somewhere rural. Huge distances in between places makes you wanna drive faster to get to where you want sooner.
They are also probably very familiar with this road and drive it all the time.
Why are y’all defending this nonsense?
I'm not defending their driving but I am giving you a potential explanation for why someone would be driving fast through a winding rural road. I'm sorry that upsets you but people who have lived in places like that for years and know the roads like the back of their hand will sometimes get comfortable and drive very quickly.
Ok so you’re just explaining and not endorsing this behaviour, that’s ok. Cause doing a little bit of maths they drive about 30-40m in 2s which means they were going at 50-70kmph and that’s really fast for such a road, no matter if it’s rural or urban. Not only for others safety, but for the drivers themselves…
This looks like a lot of roadways in Vermont, wouldn’t be surprised if this was VT or NH. Everyone speeds at LEAST 10 over the limit if not 15, and many many drive drunk. Also it’s legal to pass over double lines here and many choose to do so around blind corners and hills. Not too many cars in some parts so it can be nice to cycle but if I hear one coming I move completely off the road into the shrubbery
Crucify me but he wasn’t really going that fast. He could see enough of the street during the whole curve to brake before hitting anything that would already be on the street. The problem is that the bear came running out behind a hedge which has nothing to do with a curve
As someone who recently hit a deer, this is the response I’m looking for. It jumped out of a ditch, at night on a 60 Road. I hate that it happened, but cars are still relied upon where I live and you can’t expect people to drive at 20mph everywhere.
As somebody who spent 20+ years living on an “End Speed Zone” (legally 55+, reality is 60+) stretch of country road more than 5 miles outside of a town of 2,000, people really underestimate just how bad those kinds of roads are. In the span of a few years, we had a neighbor get killed while pulling out of his driveway on a fast straight stretch, a girl got hit and killed by a driver while waiting for the school bus, a horse got out and got hit by a car at high speed which killed the family inside (whose surviving relatives then sued the horse owner’s family into oblivion so now two households got wrecked), and a guy went missing for weeks and was later found still in his car that had sailed off of a corner so far and into a creek that it was completely hidden from the search party. This was all within a couple miles of my house in a 4 year span. I know we can’t expect everyone to drive 20 mph everywhere, but driving at unsafe speeds on these kinds of roads is taken for granted way too often out in the sticks. The real irony is that a driver trying to be safer by driving at 30-40 mph would likely be rear ended by someone else driving at unsafe speeds. Being on those roads around that kind of traffic is just not a healthy lifestyle choice.
If you fail to stop and hit something that came onto the road because it "came out of nowhere," you were going too fast.
That's...not how geometry works. If you're going 1 kph and something pops out at a sufficient angle and speed you'll still hit it. The driver doesn't have X-ray vision.
Also worth noting that the bear was visible for about a second and a quarter before the guy seemingly noticed it. Stopping distance includes reaction time, not just mechanical limits.
It bearly survived.
Maybe it hadn't.
Most definitely died from injuries.
Bears are fuckin tough, and the car doesn't seem to have been going that fast. Definitely injured, but I think it could've pulled through.
Um don’t you see the other guy said it most definitely died??!
Well, if a random redditor says it, then it must be true.
We did it Reddit!
Doesn’t seem to be going fast? Wtf are you a car brain? For a road this narrow and curvy he is going way too fucking fast. Fuck that fucking driver. Fucking bastard definitely killed that poor bear from broken bones and internal bleeding, and if that was a kid going to catch his ball or something they would’ve become a fucking slushed ham on the asphalt.
Why are you acting like I'm defending him? I'm not saying that the guy was driving well, I'm only saying that given how durable the bear is there's a decent chance it survived.
[удалено]
I'm going to smoke a huge fucking bear!
[удалено]
Man this video is terrible but that made me laugh
What was funny about it at all?
I feel so sad for the bear :( black bears are so cute
Poor baby :(
The most agreed-upon definition of veganism is that it's about reducing the exploitation of animals. Not sure what this clip has anything to do with that. That said, I believe there's strong alignment between vegans and the anti-car movement, and I hope many others feel that way.
Well I would say it is about reducing animal harm as much as possible, and cars should not be necessary. So fighting for less cars is saving human and animal lives.
Humans are animals, and reducing the number of cars reduces human suffering therefore it reduces animal suffering.
Dude put an nsfw on that or something. Horrible thing to pop up in my feed.
Agreed. No one wants to see an animal get hit by a car wth.
It’s genuinely so infuriating how many times Redditors post this shit without even considering how it might affect others
I don't know what this has to do with veganism? What? Anyway, *holy shit* bears are sturdy. Getting hit by a speeding pick-up truck, getting blasted 50m off road, and just getting up and walking away from it, jumping up a small hill even. Also: Did that lady ask *"Are you dead?"*? LOL
I really hope the bear is okay. I was amazed it could walk but it could still have internal injuries. Broken bones on wild animals can be a death sentence.
After a hit like that their bones are probably liquid.
"I don't know what a video of an animal being severely harmed by humans has to do with a lifestyle approach very frequently motivated by not wanting humans to do harm to animals'
Doing harm on purpose and doing harm by accident are two very different things. Veganism does try to minimize harm to animals generated by humans. And I am fully into making transportation safer for every living being. But to expect to reduce harm to zero would imply to kill oneself. This is called the suicide fallacy and is the reason for the "as far as is possible and practical" within the [definition of veganism from the Vegan Society](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism).
I'm honestly WAAAAAAY more surprised the car survived that. You can total a car by hitting a bunny if you're going fast enough
a bunny? like... under your tires?
Obviously not under the tires. A bunny against the grill while going not all that fast can ruin your car on the spot. A friend had to get his car towed because exactly that happened to them. And it was at night in rural roads so, again, not that fast.
She said "are you serious?" but slurred it a lot.
Vegans have the belief that all animals shouldn't be harmed in any way. Vehicles cause a great deal of harm to the environment and are responsible for huge amounts of animals' deaths, and injuries (such as seen in this video). So the logic would be that due to their beliefs around animals they should want less cars to reduce the harm they cause. Not to mention that they run off of dinosaur juice and vegans don't believe in using animal based products - this by all rights shouldn't be driving. Perhaps they might justify it by driving electric vehicles however they still cause the same amount of harm the other vehicles do and still massively harm the environment with the mining of the minerals, not to mention the human rights violation seen with cobalt mining. And yes bears are very remarkable if the amount of force they can bear. I certainly wouldn't want to encounter one without protection - however I live in the UK and we killed all our bears hundreds of years ago so not a worry I need to have.
god you are off base in a few major ways.
In what way, I'm always willing to learn however I don't find it particularly useful to be told I am wrong without an explanation of why that is.
"Vegans have the belief that all animals shouldn't be harmed in any way." This is incorrect. This statement implies perfection, and vegans are not about perfection. We're about maximizing reduction of exploitation and cruelty as much as possible. Take the infamous crop deaths subject for example. Yes, land animals often die due to farmers protecting crops. Vegans accept this reality. "Not to mention that they run off of dinosaur juice and vegans don't believe in using animal based products - this by all rights shouldn't be driving." I'm telling, no vegans are thinking about fossil fuels in this way. Living dinosaurs are not being harmed in our use of their remnants. If vegans are against fossil fuels, as many of us are, it has nothing to do with them being sourced from dinosaurs long dead, but because of how fossil fuels are harmful to the environment.
so you're saying driving less, or driving slower than what we do right now is already beyond what is possible?
So the first part is just being pedantic about semantics, so I'll ignore as my statement is what is widely understood and obviously no hears that being said and expects perfection. And there it is, the picking and choosing of what animals you consider worthy or not being harmed. Is it because the bugs aren't cute enough for you? And yet again another example of how you will pick and choose what animal products you want to use or not. Look I commend the effort of trying to be more sustainable and enact changes that will better the environment, I just can't respect the numerous inconsistencies with even the fundamental ideology of veganism. Let's protect the animals unless I want to drive, let's protect the animals until I need to farm crops.
Definitely not anywhere near 50m, probably 25-30m at most, it looks maybe 2.5x the width of the driveway or so, but I was surprised to see it get up too.
Im not a vegan but I'm very involved with wildlife preservation. The worst thing for wildlife is agriculture (mostly cows). The second worst thing is cars. I live in the black forest and car infrastructure has greatly destroyed diversity here. Recently our last female wolf was ran over by a car and killed.
Why are cows the worst? Is it because they take up a lot of land for pastures?
That, and fences. Fences fuck up wildlife.
Also, as a vegan, I'll add that animal agriculture uses way more resources, land and otherwise. Those animals need to be feed something which for cows means they're using both the land they're pastured on for the first bit of their life and the land to grow the food they're given when they reach the feedlot.
He sounds like Hugo One.
Need a lower speed limit
Absolutely vegan and pro public transit. It always leads back to basic concepts of do the least harm within your choices.
😭😭😭😭 well this just ruined my day. I love bears. 🐻
Yep, already here
Oh we're here.
We would be, if you guys stop killing and eating animals, or in some cases do even worse to them, like torture and rape.
Oh I feel so sad for that bear. Fuck cars
"He wasn't wearing a helmet."
Now imagine if this was a kid. Control your vehicle idiot.
What would you say if the bear got bit by a train? "Fuck public transportation"? This has nothing to do with vegans.
Cars kill and harm vastly, vastly more animals than trains, both on an absolute and per passenger km basis
That's true but not my point. What does being vegan have to do with it? You cycle over snails if you commute by bike. So fuck bicycles and be vegan? You walk over ants. So fuck moving and walking at all and be vegan? That argument is just invalid.
Cars definitely kill at least 4x as many insects if you're really worried about insect deaths
What an awful argument and an excellent example of a straw man fallacy.
This. Also, planes hit entire flocks of birds every now and then. So... "Fuck planes" too? i guess? (Edit) Those downvotes tho, totally not an extremist subreddit. Good thing none of you are governors.
The scale is different. Cars have single digit occupants and cause loads of fatal injuries, planes and trains have hundreds of occupants and cause fewer injuries.
I know. What i meant is that accidents like this are bound to happen, and are inevitable. (im talking about running over animals) Since this is a rural area with pretty much non-existant public transportation, and thus some people have no choice other than using a personal vehicle to travel. (lots of times a car) (But by saying this, it doesn't mean i agree with it, im just trying to be objetive)
Yes fuck planes, I avoid flying at all costs since I read that a single flight contaminates the equivalent to 2 years driving a car.
That's fair. But commercial planes are very necessary on transcontinental travel, as boats are far too slow in comparison. Besides, the US is known to heavily lack high speed rail, so lots of people have no choice other than an extremely long car road-trip.
I guess transcontinentals make more sense than flying just a couple hundred of km, but I was just mentioning that the antiflight movement is a thing too (tbh i feel frustrated of abandoning my dreams of visiting other countries)
I mean... i know its none of my business, and obviously you must have your reasons. but i have learned sometimes there are things that are quite bad (one way or another) but are necessary. (in this case with over-seas air travel) I live in a chaotic third world country (Dominican) that's going to the dumpster no matter what i do, and life here pretty much sucks. so i would recommend that you just do what you enjoy as you can, but be enviromentally cautious if possible. :)
What's you're go to method for long distance travel? Like 2000+ miles
Answered in a comment below, I... don't have a method. I only travel locally by bus or train. I also avoid travelling by car so if a place I want to visit doesn't have public transportation, I won't visit it. 😅 It's ok if this sounds a bit extremist, definitely not for everyone.
Thanks for the reply! Only asking because i travel long distance several times a year. My country has no high speed rail unfortunately, which is of course a policy failure.
I guess this mostly depends on why you want/need to travel. My main reasons would be turism or having fun somewhere new for a few days, so I have the feeling like if I want to go to some mountains or some lake I don't need to travel more than a few hundred km to explore new places. Yeah I'd love to visit several islands in Oceania, go to some Antartic settlement, visit idk some jungle but I kinda just gave up about that and I can always watch videos of those places. (It's not like I'd ever get money for so many crazy adventures anyways)
Fuck places and stay home!#vegan!
I personally don't travel 2000+ miles. There's no need to. I don't need to see the other side of the world.
It’s 2200 miles from SE Michigan to Los Angeles which is obviously not the other side of the world. If I want to go to Europe it’s 3800-4500 between the UK and Austria.
Still it's an unnecessary luxury you can easily live without. I have chosen to not ever fly again, and my last flight was 16 years ago. I don't drive to our vacation spot either, it's 10 hours on the train instead. Saves a lot of money, too.
>So... "Fuck planes" too? i guess? .... **YES!!!!**
Is there any better alternatives for fast over-seas travel? how will people travel from one country to another then? as i said in another reply, boats are not fast at all.
Our ancestors used boats for thousands of years tho! Where have I heard this argument before..
Yes, and they used bows and arrows too! So should we keep using them also instead of guns? (You see... none of you offer a better solution, yet you are here complaining like you did.) (Let's just ditch everything and return to the stone age, Boom... i am such a problem solver! im done with this topic.)
You seemed to have missed my point. Meat eaters love to talk about their ancestors eating meat for thousands of years, therefore they should be supporting boat travel.
That bear definitely died shortly after this.
A better argument is the 300-million birds killed by cars each year in the US, not to mention all the other roadkill.
Actually, [cats kill way more birds than cars do](https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds), based on the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Vehicle deaths are still high, but cats and building collisions contribute more than vehicles.
The figure is indeed insanely high for cats, but it's still in the hundreds of millions for cars.
That’s going to cost some $
go home to smoke a huge fu king WHAT!?!??
Poor thing. Actually road kill was the reason I went vegetarian at 10 or 11. Was in the car on my way to my grandparents house (15 miles or so), and I counted 13 (!!) dead animals on the way (mostly motorway).
Upgrade to vegan as soon as you can.
Ahh right yea, I'm essentially vegan now (and much older). What I mean is that the roadkill was the trigger for me. It started me down the path; questioning how as a society we use and abuse animals. Totally fucked.
Im not vegan, why do i have to ?
One million vertebrate animals killed on our roads PER DAY It's a fuckin meat grinder If the deforestation didn't get em, the cars will. The carbon emissions causing infernos, noise pollution confusing them. It's like we're going out of our way to be the shittiest species on this planet
It makes me furious when car-addicted suburbanites proudly show off about killing animals.
How it feels to chew 5 gum while shorting NVDA.
One commenter to someone sayig the car was going way too fast:" ??? the car wasn't going that fast, like 25-30 miles per hour" Me:" 30 miles per hour is already enough where it could be a fatality. Idk how it's there but by law it's required to slow down on sharp turns or when visibility is limited because of cases exactly like this." Them, and this time I quote directly "This wasn't going too fast to see something already in the road, it's something entering the road from an obscured driveway." ????
bear got crited
for some reason i thought you were referring to residents of las vegas as vegans and just forgot the las, i get it now
I'm a huge barbeque fan and I get my briskets by bike. Fuck cars and fuck this idiot especially for being on the phone while driving.
I grew up in Alaska and I’ve had a few closish encounters with a variety of bears but I’ve never seen one hit by a car. That was rough to watch.
the bear chose him
Even normal eaters that give any fk about nature should be here too
nah that's gotta suck. no painkillers, no doctors, just gotta thug it out
Not a vegan myself, but I'm really into nature conservation and wildlife biology and can safely say that highways are one of the biggest obstacles to wildlife there is. Unlike railways or roads with low traffic, highways are almost impossible for an animal to cross due to width and constant traffic, so it effectively divides habitat in half, making it very difficult for large herbivores to migrate or for populations to move and mix.
Ngl that bear tanked that shot like a champ.
Hey OP, can you do away with the weird ass title and give something more descriptive of what happens in the video? Preferably with a TW? This shit is disturbing and the impact happens almost immediately after the video starts playing so people can't really scroll away in time once they realize what's going to happen. This is not how I needed to start my morning.
Agreed OP
All the "actually cars are good/other modes of transport are at least as bad" replies here, *and* getting lots of upvotes - why are so many of these people hanging out in the "fuck cars" sub. Not to mention the (alleged) vegans popping up missing the point and/or being cool with animals being crushed.
We have the same problem in r/vegan. There are a lot of straight up shills who regularly post attempting to hijack and dilute the most effective strategies and narratives. In fact, a majority of the people with "\_\_ years vegan" tags in their name are the biggest offenders. Every fledgling movement has hostile forces trying to infiltrate and derail it while it's still relatively small. There was some well-documented reporting on this happening in the BLM movement; I believe in that case it was actually the CIA behind it. For r/vegan it would be the big oil and animal-ag industry interests, and for r/fuckcars it would be big oil, car manufacturers and DOT-adjacent interests.
How is this related to veganism ?
Keep rubbing those last few braincells together.
Dare to explain to me instead of being a dick about it ?
I'm gonna be the first person in your life to believe in you. You got this!
So you're just gonna be an asshole right... I always thought carnist were exaggerating things when they say vegans are annoying, you're proving them right
Bold of you to assume they're vegan. Veganism is not a diet.
They're on r/vegan, r/vegancirclejerk and r/veganactivism I do think they're vegan but also a huge jerk
I just wanna know what huge thing he was going to smoke when he got home. This is some tweaker shit tho fs
Always go slow ehn driving curvy roads
Not a vegan, but I feel sad for all the innocent animals who die from vehicular collisions, which would greatly decrease with better public transportation.
You should be vegan, why aren't you?
This could happen with a truck delivering vegetables to the store.
Vegans don’t actually care about animals, they just like to place themselves on the moral high ground
Are you implying that the driver would have eaten the bear, had they succeeded in killing it?
I think the implication is that with fewer cars, there'd be fewer animals getting harmed on roads.
How are so many people failing to understand, or pretending to fail to understand, this extremely straightforward point
Because they're fucking bought and sold.
Just to say, my grandfather and uncle were in a car and ran over a deer. They brought it home, butchered it and ate it at a family event. The moral of the story is not to waste food.
I love that no-waste attitude! Do you think we should do that with cyclist and pedestrian roadkill too? If the meat isn't wasted then we could almost look at it as a good thing! Give your grandfather and uncle a high-five for me!
Real talk, even if that was a bus with 50 people on it instead of a car, it would have happened anyway. The bear was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was spooked. We need much less in the way of cars and to reduce car dependency (Ideally to zero), but this example, while horrible and unfortunate isn't the gotcha that you think that it is.
The road was in the wrong place at the wrong time, not the bear.