• dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elect me dictator of the world and I will implement my pickup truck and SUV tiered licensing scheme: Before you are allowed to have an F-150 or Escalade, first you must complete a 4 year probationary period of driving, say, a Suzuki Samurai.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one loves driving a samurai.

          A samurai is a jeep for people who can afford little more than a lawn mower.

          It rides like you’re in a trash can being pulled by an angry mule.

          A Suzuki samurai can get you places, as long as they’re either at least down wind or down hill from where you’re currently at.

          You can take the samurai off road but you’ll find the experience of driving on smooth asphalt dangerous enough.

          • 1847953620@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            wranglers are samurais for people who are mentally stuck in high school who need to be seen as cool, and massively overpay to do so.

            They take an “offroading vehicle”, modify it further, reduce the efficiency and ruin the on-road handling, slap a light bar on top, and then drive it to the mall and back.

            But it’s alright, because the marketing team at Joop™ told them it’s the Real American Young Man©'s utilitarian vehicle, starting at 175% of what a competing vehicle from any other brand would cost, with 30% of their reliability.

            Good thing you brought that Wrangler™ to drive onto the dirt path to your favorite drinking spot in the mountains, not like anything else would’ve gotten you there.

            Or for the 1% that actually crawl rocks, it’s a good thing to constantly prove that with enough torque, and getting out, making sure you won’t hit, and getting back in, the coefficient of friction of a surface still behaves the same way. Kinda crazy how other people just go around and get to the same spot with final drive ratios that keep their vehicles useable elsewhere. What’s the fun if you don’t spend 15 minutes not going around?

            It’s ok though, the guys with green and beige tacomas with all their gear strapped to the cage day in and day out are even more insufferable. That moment as they hop out in their cargo shorts and Tevas on their way to order another IPA hoping a girl will hear their stories about their once-a-year “overlanding” trips is so worth it. They’re higher-end, more refined, because they drive Tacomas™. But the way they wear their wayfarers inside and the Patagonia t-shirts tell them “it’s ok baby, I’m also chill”

            • teamevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yo, my stock 03 TJ X is a beast…and can do lots of fun shit…but my 20 Tacoma can do all the same shit…but I care a lot less if I ding the wrangler…it pains me to see the auto abortion that jeep has become

      • Demuniac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just ban them outright. What’s the point? You want to move things around, get a bus

    • yyyesss?@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      This isn’t lack of ability, it’s on purpose. I have had this type explain how clever they are for parking like this to keep other drivers from dinging their truck

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looks like an unusually considerate truck owner to me.

    “No care in the world” diagonal parking could’ve used 6 parking spots instead of a "mere"4.

  • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love parking as close as I can to these people. My car is already scratched and dinged up from random shit over the years.

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have an ancient and quirky 4x4, it’s painted with bedliner, and I do the same. It’s narrow enough to fit in a parking space that another vehicle is partially in.

  • spudwart@spudwart.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can blame the driver for parking poorly, or you can blame the manufacturer for making a massive truck that can barely fit into a standard parking space, or you can blame car-centric infrastructure for making it so that everyone has to drive, even those that are insecure about their length.

    • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I blame all three + the driver again for buying this stupid fucking truck they probably don’t even need and won’t benefit them 99% time. But hey, it excels at killing children in driveways, so that’s something.

      • spudwart@spudwart.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People are easily manipulated at scale ( No one is immune to Propaganda ). Fear marketing is more powerful to those who are anti-social, and car centric infrastructure perpetuates an anti-social society by sprawling people out and segregating them in transit through a car, and segregating them in their homes based on class.

        Everyone in the US needs a car, whether they want one or not.

        He definitely could’ve parked better, but the greater issue at hand is if driving was a requirement in the US but instead a luxury, The privilege of driving would be restricted to those who can pass a more rigorous driving test. But since in the US, public transportation has been designated as being for the poor and the desperate, their upkeep and social understanding of them has reflected this.

        No one wants to ride the bus or take a train in the US because “Ah it’s dangerous, everyone gets stabbed, shot and bludgeoned there!!”. The reason for this is deceptively simple, if you designate something as only being for a class of people that is known to fall into violence as a result of their material conditions, then that thing as well as everything else that they use will reflect that negative connotation.

        But similarly, should cars and trucks not have a similar reputation? As cars and trucks are in frequent accidents and so many complain about bad drivers. Road rage, and police chases. Why don’t cars have the same negative connotation as public transportation? Because you, me and most people who are not in the “poor and the desperate” category use them. If any negative issues come to light at all, the solution isn’t to avoid driving, the issue is to improve the driving experience, hence all these absurd massive tank trucks.

        The “reason” I alluded to that was deceptively simple earlier, is not that if something becomes associated with bad events and behavior it will become undesirable. the deceptively simple reason is In-Group/Out-Group bias.

        Because those with middle-class wealth all the way to the richest all use Cars, naturally this form of transportation sees the most improvement. But since public transportation is only used by the poor and the desperate, it sees neglect instead of improvement.

          • spudwart@spudwart.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I will concede, my value on trucks was incorrect, but that does not invalidate an entire argument, especially since the entire argument did not depend on that detail.

            • vithigar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Literally nothing in your meandering comment addressed the sentiment that motivated the one you were responding to. Id est, lots of people with large trucks do not need large trucks and could do just fine with a smaller truck or even a sedan.

              • spudwart@spudwart.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Whether a truck or a small truck or a sedan. A poor park job is done by a poor driver. And Poor driver doesn’t need to have a license.

                But in a world where automobiles are your only means of transportation, the need to make Driver’s Licenses easy access increases.

  • coaxil@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haha emotional support truck! Must be tough at times have a micro peen and no cunnilingus skills!

      • Hexarei@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point is less about body shaming and more about shaming the person’s “small dick energy”. Eg the kind of behavior you’d expect from someone who thinks dick size matters a ton and would buy nice things to try and compensate for their lack of size.

        • Moneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I still think we need another phrase. It’s the same logic that people (myself included) used to defend using gay as a slur.

          • Hexarei@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like something a small dick would say ;-)

            Hmmm. I feel like one of those words is far more charged than the other, but I agree that it’d be nice if we had better alternatives. The problem is that it’s making fun of a certain specific attitude that some men have that tends to extend to high levels of care about the size of their junk, and there’s not quite an equivalent concept for another topic. I mean, it’s basically a way to call someone “insecure about things about yourself that you can’t change or control, so you spend your time grasping at whatever material gains you can in order to try and have some semblance of Identity beyond those insecurities”.

            • Moneo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah I’m not trying to say they are facing similar challenges just that the rationalization for using the term seems the same.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Small dick energy is sorta like ham planet energy. It’s not about body shaming at all because bodies are physical and we’re talking energy.

          QED

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey as somebody with a small dick I really appreciate your adding that bit in about cunnilingus skills.

      I can always go into the slime if I want to get her off

  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unrelated, but did you know that most cars and trucks only carry one spare tire?

    So if, god forbid, something happened to more than one tire, it becomes significantly more difficult to deal with.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Would that make it take up extra space for even longer than it does already? (don’t get me wrong, I’m with you, but doesn’t that just make it even worse for others who would like to park there?)

  • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This just shows the laziness and incompetence of truck drivers. I could see this being an easy mistake to make since he’s pretty close on all the lines, but it really doesn’t take that long to correct it when you get out of your truck lol.

    Without more context, at least he parked away from others in an empty part of the lot.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why bad parking is the worst. Any individual incident of shitty driving could be some momentary distraction or lapse of judgement. Things happen that people can’t take back.

      But with parking, it’s always fixable. That way you KNOW they are a cunt, whether they did it on purpose, or noticed and didn’t fix it, or most likely never gave enough of a shit to even try in the first place.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        whether they did it on purpose, or noticed and didn’t fix it, or most likely never gave enough of a shit to even try in the first place.

        That’s about as succinct as it gets when describing these types. I’ll need to remember it.

    • Fubar91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idiot drivers*

      Happens with all vehicle’s. Not everyone that owns a truck has a room temp IQ like the person depicted here.

  • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am the guy that parks right beside him. In my designated spot. Takes a photo of his car and plate. Walks away. That drama is his drama.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      What would a photo do? Prove to your insurance you put your vehicle in a situation that it could be damaged? Your insurance has clauses to prevent paying out in those situations.

      You’re asking for trouble and a fight and potentially a bill that you created for yourself actually.

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I’m in my space, and that person can’t manoeuvre out of their space. That’s their fault. Not mine.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So you’re intentially putting your car in a situation where it can be damaged, and you’ll admit that to your insurance so they can not pay out to you?

          They would ask why you parked there and not somewhere else. Taking the picture proofs your intent even….

          Insurance isn’t stupid they know these games and people do this stuff intentionally all the time, you’re not going to have an easy slam dunk victory. There’s plenty of precedent from people thinking it’s a smart idea before. Give your insurance clauses a read, there’s clauses about you not putting your vehicle in situations, doing everting you can to avoid a collision…

          • hstde@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sometimes you don’t have a choice. Either park there or nowhere. Examples include, but are not limited to: designated parking spaces, or full parking lots.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sometimes you don’t have a choice

              Once I see a picture of that scenario, I’ll believe it. As it stands now it’s coming across as the sort of thing a person makes up on the fly.

              In this picture, this truck is obviously parked in a place with an overabundance of parking.

            • schmidtster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Plenty of empty stalls in this picture though, and you better have images to prove that point.

          • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Insurance isn’t gonna pay out either way. In this situation they’d say they don’t have enough information to determine who is at fault and close the claim.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        insurance has clauses to prevent paying out

        Oh man what a sick gotcha it’s not like that’s the entire purpose of a for profit insurance system.

        Alternatively, the lovely thing about driving an old beater is that you have nothing to lose in situations like this.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Goes both ways, the clauses also prevent people from abusing the system and intentionally damaging their vehicles to get repaired.

          If you have a legitimate claim, there is nothing you should worry about.

          I’m glad my premiums don’t go up because someone intentionally hit a car marginally in their lane “because I had the right of way”, instead of just moving slightly over to avoid the collision.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Amen. I hate bitter people and I hate it even more when they start playing games with my stuff to prove their point.

      • Jamie@jamie.moe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The last vehicle to move is the one at fault, even if someone else parks right up on them.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nope that is not even true in the slightest actually, your insurance has clauses that you have to do what you can to prevent accidents and claims.

          You can be hit by a vehicle and still be found 100% at fault in plenty of situations.

          Play stupid games and find out.

    • Gnugit@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So will I, unless it’s a heap of crap that looks like the driver doesn’t care about their paint…

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    That guy is taking up like 50 bike parking spots.

    Perhaps stores should set up a handful of “big car” parking spots at the very far end of the lot and let these losers walk.

    • Tenthrow@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the way it should be but they don’t care they park anywhere they want.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is already the way it is. At least where I work, the people who park across multiple spots do so at the far end of the parking lot where nobody else is parking.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Looks like this truck is already far enough out to be behind the convenient spaces. Either that or the lot serves a store with no demand.

      Either way there are no cars surrounding the truck in this photo, indicating that nobody is actually being harmed or even inconvenienced.