we need to infiltrate civil engineering standards boards and make protected bike lanes mandatory for all roads with 4 or more car lanes or speed limits over 25 mph. then they'll be the default everywhere because going against code will invite lawsuits
This is the kicker. They are a pretty good solution now, but they could be amazing.
At least in my country they need to hammer out a consistent set of rules and laws regarding their use. Last time I checked the vast majority of them are effectively illegal because under current laws they are too powerful to be considered an assisted pushbike, you cant register them as a roadgoing vehicle because they dont have indicators and brake lights and you cant ride them on the footpath because riding on the footpath is against the law.
Which puts them in that lovely legal space of “Does a cop want to fuck with me today?” Fortunately our police tend to be pretty cool on the subject because they know that technically taking it out of your house is illegal which is dumb.
Nobody does work out of that truck, it has a bed cover and the wheels don’t look like they have any mud or dirt caked in the tread/wheels. It’s a little pavement princess that probably carries one person 75% of the time.
Not only do they slash oil demand, but manufacturing and maintaining an ebike has a fraction of the environmental impact of an electric car. Also, you can do a lot of the maintenance yourself with cheap tools and a small amount of work space. Also also, makes my ass look good~🍑
Also, unironically, e-bikes are more fun than cars. You feel the acceleration much more on a bike than a car despite moving slower, and the breeze going by you feels pretty nice too.
I wish i could also move more people with me on the bicycle
Depending on the size of those people: bike child seat, bike trailer, or they can ride their own bicycle. Cargo bikes can easily carry two kids or one adult without even using a trailer.
It would also be great if there was some sort of heater/AC in it as well
That is called “dress for the weather”. Even snowflake pinko commies like me can do it.
I ride from -20 to +35C in basically any weather and since jackets and shorts exist that’s all that’s needed. My friends have their own bikes they can ride…
People be growing up knowing nothing but absolute car dependency and the infrastructure that comes with it. They cannot fathom any other way of existing.
I should have been more verbose. We as a society (in North America especially but also elsewhere) have suffered through decades of redlining that has resulted in racial and economic divides.
The wealthiest suburbs are being subsidized by the poorest neighbourhoods with all the money being funneled into infrastructure that directly supports car dependency.
In order to participate in society, you are now required to own, maintain and insure your own vehicle(s).
I am suggesting that we’ve been robbed of a way of life where cars are not necessary to survive. Where your kids can hop on their own bikes and safely take themselves to where they need to go without worrying about if they’ll be struck by a car.
I’m talking about active transport not as a hobby for the privileged, but as a normality for all.
Where I am there are hills everywhere. You know that old joke about walking five miles uphill to school in the snow, and ten miles uphill to get home? That’s here. Plus, it’s the UK, so when it snows, the roads and pavements are lethal.
Plus, some people have kids under 5 😉
More seriously though, because of the amount of hills, and the fact that most people work all day, bikes are not the best option here. The nearest supermarket is several miles away with a lot of hills in between. If you’ve got plenty of free time, riding to the shops with the kids could be fun, but for most people public transport is the answer. It’s just a shame that it’s terrible here .
I’d love to get an ebike, but at the moment the price is too high, from what I’ve seen. The cheapest ones seem to be over £1,000, unless you get the little fold up bikes, but they don’t look like they’d be comfortable for a long ride where you’re pedaling lots.
A gravel bike style would be better here too, simply because we’re in the valleys, and lots of the trails are a bit rough.
Back to the point though, getting to the shops and carrying a week’s worth of shopping on a bike with young kids is impractical here. It would be great if it was practical, but other than the hills, we don’t have the infrastructure for the most part. The roads have to be shared, even if it’s just for now, and there are lots of stretches here where there’s not the room for bikes with motor vehicles, and especially not on the pavements. This time of year is even worse - it’s dark in the morning and night, and the weather is usually crap. All of it increases the risk of accidents, and that’s the last thing any of us want.
Well I live in Sweden and we have snow here too buddy. Lousy public transport sucks though, but that’s what you get in a carcentric society, no options…
Exactly, you live in a country that doesn’t shut down because of half a millimetre of snow. We genuinely get public transport shutting down if there’s snow, and we’ve infamously had trains stop running because of the wrong type of leaves on the line. For a country that mostly has adverse weather conditions, we’re absolutely useless if the weather’s anything but dry and sunny.
I honestly don’t know what we can do here to get better public transport and encourage people away from cars. Once you’re further down the valley, there’s enough room to build other transport methods alongside the roads to allow a transition, but further up, there’s barely enough room for cars to pass each other in some places, which means that buses would struggle too, and there’s no room to make a one way loop to free up space either.
Jacket doesn’t do shit for rain. Believe me, I’m an Aspie and I have too much sensory issues for getting out of home in bad weather. The day it rains is the day i WFH. All the problems stem from the fact that the jacket is too close to the body, generating sweat (and I already sweat too much without it), not to mention it’s not watertight. An enclosed velomobile would probably solve the problem, but I don’t think this sort of vehicle is legal in Poland and can guarantee getting to the office as fast as I’d on a motorcycle or even a moped.
Same. And that includes snow and ice, for those at the back that think that riding a bike in winter is only possible in LA. If people can walk in that weather, people can ride a bike even more easily as the exercise keeps you warmer.
And a small distance to my destination. When my previous job was 8 km from home, I could do the journey in half an hour on a Xiaomi M365 e-scooter, very popular in Poland. But unfortunately our company was absorbed by another one, with office 16 km away, which means prohibitively long (for my sleep-deprived ass) 55 minute commute. And no, public transit doesn’t make it shorter. So a motorcycle driving license it is.
You could say Gen Z “chooses” a lot of things. Gen Z “chooses” not to buy houses (we can’t afford them) Gen Z “chooses” to be mentally ill (not even 10 years ago, “autism” was just “the weird kid”) Gen Z “chooses” to rent Gen Z “chooses” not to buy food Gen Z “chooses” to let climate change fuck the earth Gen Z “chooses” to not have kids (although here we actually don’t want them, but also couldn’t afford them) and so on.
Sounds good overall, should reduce traffic levels significantly and make people consider whether they really need to drive their car in such a compact city.
Not sure if I agree with tolling motorcycles though, they don’t take up anywhere near the same footprint as the average car
The last time I was in NYC I was awoken by some asshole running his motorcycle up and down sixth avenue at five in the goddamn morning. And I was on the 14th floor of a hotel.
The fact that they weren't drawn and quartered in the street shows what a lawless place NYC is.
It’s the only place I know where people have argued with each other on how to best help a tourist out.
Look, this is a city where you have wealthy business owners and blue collar folk living across the street from one another, literary geniuses and creatives living next door to programmers and engineers… the people who live and thrive here are makers and doers, in every avenue of human adventure we can yet think of.
That a bit of noise is all it takes to get you to miss how wonderfully unique this situation is, of all walks of life talking, reading, eating and living with each other, is a damning indictment of how tough you actually are, and how much you bring to the table.
Can’t handle it? Wahh.
E: Each downvote on this comment is an admission that you, the downvoter, are similarly rigid. Prove me wrong.
Nah man, I absolutely don’t think that’s the case, not is that the case for any fellow city folk. My previous post should have made that real clear. We got all walks of life walking and talking, and a lot of us travel too. We see what we have, and what’s out there as well.
One thing you won’t see me doing is talking shit on other people’s home towns, because that’s low class and low quality thinking. I don’t particularly like small towns or suburbs for social reasons, some people do. That’s ok.
Your vehicle doesn’t make you special; wait in traffic like the rest of the motor vehicles on the road.
You’d be PISSED if you were in line at the grocery store with a full cart of groceries and someone with 5 items “filtered” around you without your consent because they’ll be faster.
Why should I wait? Do you know what an air cooled engine is? I incur more risk in driving specifically for the benefits of agility and compactness.
I’m sorry that my ability to go past you makes you upset, but again, I’m exposing myself to significantly more danger specifically for the benefits including the ability to not be stopped by the car in front of me, much higher mpgs, lower cost of ownership, etc.
Do you get mad at bicycles because they don’t operate the same as cars? I pass you in the bike lane all the time on my bicycle.
At least my life will have been more fun and interesting than yours 👍
Also: laws protect nobody until after the fact. Even in your car, you’re expected to keep your wits about you.
Either way, I’m usually passing people at about 10mph faster than they are in slow traffic, about the speed of a bicycle. When someone wants to change lanes, crossing my path, plenty of time for me to slow down and let them do their thing. If I don’t keep moving at least a little bit, my motorcycle will overheat as it is not water-cooled.
Well what are we tolling? Square footage? Noise? Carbon emissions? Deaths and injuries? Yes. Motorcycles are better in some categories and worse in others
Motorcycles are loud and the exhaust can be pretty bad, we don’t want everyone buying one to get around the congestion fees. They still take up more space than a standard bicycle or someone who took the subway.
fair point that I didn’t consider! my assumption would be traffic, seeing as the toll is branded as “congestion pricing” - which wouldn’t really make sense for motorcycles because they make up so little of the actual cause of traffic in NYC (large motor vehicles).
If we’re talking about noise though, and how clean the engine burns fuel, motorcycles are 100% guilty as charged IMO.
Deaths and injuries is a little muddier because there are several factors at play, fault could lie on any individual involved in the accident, or maybe even the road design itself. I don’t think these would be robust enough to use as the sole basis for a toll fee
I and most other people are riding around on stock engines with stock exhausts. Those confirm to stricter quiet standards in Japan than anywhere in the US.
To your second point, modern car engines have efficiency gains due to important innovations like direct fuel injection, whereas most motorcycles are stuck with port injection, a limitation currently forced by the fear of having a very high pressure fuel pump between rider’s legs…
In spite of that, total bike emissions are lower for the same distance vs a car, we’re not lugging an entire chassis, air conditioning etc. The result is that even carbureted bikes from the 80s could go 55-60mpg. Bikes also have much lower engine displacement, your v6 2L has about 2000 cm^3 of air and fuel burned per revolution, whereas most motorcycles are in the 6-800 cm^3 range, per rev.
Manufacturers could make them quieter, but that adds both weight and cost, more of one if you adjust the other. I look forward to electric bikes with great range, as I don’t really do more than 350 miles on my long trips unless I’m late for something.
E: looks like Japan relaxed their standards since 2013, per some internal documentation, see slide 9 for harmonized requirements. Still quiet, all things considered.
Motorcycles are still FAR noisier than cars, even brand new with the OEM exhaust. I don’t think my stock bike is overly obnoxious, but it’s certainly the noisiest vehicle around most of the time. Modern cars you don’t even necessarily notice the engine from further than a few feet away.
Also, motorcycles have lower carbon emissions than most cars, but higher everything else. Can’t exactly fit a catalytic converter on there. NOx, fine particulates, etc, are all much worse than a car’s IIRC.
In the end these factors don’t matter much because motorcycles in the West are mostly a hobby, so there’s typically not enough of us to be a huge societal problem. However, if I’m going in the city I usually opt for my ebike because I live close enough and it doesn’t make sense to annoy everyone with my noisy dinosaur fart machine.
You’re partially correct, older bikes didn’t have catalytic converters. Compliance with Euro 5 means all new models past… 2018 I think, must have one equipped.
As for noise, 75db is louder than a modern car, but we don’t have room onboard to dissipate a lot of the sound energy like a car’s long, standing-wave tuned exhaust does.
I don’t have a car, just a bicycle and motorcycle. I like them both, though I trust my bicycle more when there’s a blizzard.
P.s. I also like fortnine videos, he’s mostly correct (though dead wrong about physicists being the grownup version of engineers) but look at the data for yourself. Keep in mind all these values are far, far lower than they used to be. We shouldn’t stop striving for better, but we should keep things in perspective too: bts.gov/…/estimated-national-average-vehicle-emis…
All in all, car bloat has increased vehicle prices while making autos more destructive to human life, natural ecosystems, and pavement alike. Because the full societal costs of crashes, pollution, and road repairs are not borne by owners of SUVs and trucks, every American is effectively subsidizing car bloat. Even if they drive a sedan. Even if they don’t own a car at all.
If you’re working from home then ubering everywhere is cheaper than insurance for a new driver and once you put gas plus the cost of the car into the equation I totally understand this.
Insurance rates vary greatly with zip code in Canada. I moved just before I was going to buy a car and when I got quoted over $700 CAD per month to insure a Fiat 500 (new driver over 30) I quickly calculated that taking Uber to and from work daily is going to be much cheaper than insurance alone…
This is an easy thing to say, but ride-sharing apps price gouge ridiculously. Have you done the math on this for the average person’s annual needs, or does it just “feel” true? Also I assume your groceries and other regular shopping needs are all getting delivered in this scenario, so need to work all the delivery overhead in annual costs as well. I wish we could get rid of individual cars, but not sure this adds up…
Also, curious on the reality of this in big cities versus more rural areas
If you live within 1 mile of a grocery store you could easily walk, and you don’t need anything else on a regular basis. Use a bicycle and 5 miles becomes just as easy. People lived thousands of years without cars. The problem is our cities are built around cars, and they’re built poorly because of it.
The fact that it feels tiresome is worrying me. That should feel like nothing. 15 kg is not all that much (initially wrote “a joke”, didn’t realize that might sound disrespectful to some), unless you are either 12, 92, or really out of shape.
Have you tried carrying what equates to a toddler by one hand for 3km? Them plastic bag carrying handle bits are going to be digging into your fingers, friend. These days it won’t matter so much of course because the fingers will be frozen anyhow.
Frankly I haven’t used a shopping bag for years because I prefer collapsible cases (approx 40x60 cm) but economically those are even worse to carry farth than, say, 50m.
I might be a bad example indeed. I carry a lot of things in often quite unusual ways. As a male Paramedic working inner-hospital shifts in a 3000 bed hospital complex, well, there is a lot to carry around. And most things don’t have handles either; some resist.
I’m not good with cases, nor shopping bags. I use bags with long handles that I can hang from my shoulders. 12 kg per side won’t even make themselves felt.
Boxes are good to carry to a car.
The talk was about 1 km though, not three I believe? I might be wrong.
Anyhow, a good knapsack with a solid bottom. Two bags with long loops. I can carry 35 kg like that easily. In basic training, we carried that load for 20 km and more.
When I got my new barbells recently, I rented a car. My bench and rack I had delivered.
I don’t work from home but my sister does and yes she did some thorough calculations. And yeah she’s getting her groceries delivered and Ubers/lyfts pretty much everywhere else. There are also local buses that she takes if they’re useful depending on where she’s going. For example there’s a mall that’s about half an hour away but there’s a bus that goes from half a mile down the road to the mall.
We do the same. Having things delivered or using public transport. Takes a bit longer sometimes. Not a problem. Saves us hundreds of bucks per quarter.
Living in a city should mean exactly that. Cars are for place with poorly developed infrastructure. Grossly generalized.
I’m going to download the uber app when I’m not on some miserably slow internet connection and do the math, because I’m curious if it’s cheaper or not.
Right now, worst case scenario is if I have to drive my Samurai to work. It gets ~20 mpg. With insurance and gas and maintainence put together I’m spending about $4.13 to drive to work for one day.
I pay about 12-20 dollars for a trip to or from the airport in my city. Let’s be quite generous and say I only need to take a trip like that once a week, and all my other needs can be met via public transportation.
That’s comically untrue in the Midwest but it holds true in places like Baltimore at least for some.
It would take 9 months of similar rides to equal what I spend on my car in a single month, including the loan, gas, and insurance.
Even if I took an under to and from work every single day which incidentally is about the same as a trip to the airport, it would cost half of what I put in to my car.
That’s true for me, but probably not everyone. I have a newer, upper mid range car that’s not great on gas mileage. And of course, I need my car a lot more frequently than just the ten trips a week. But there’s a string argument to be made in cities where public transit is even halfway decent for ditching a car all together and ubering when you need to get somewhere the bus doesn’t stop.
I’ve been driving 20 years. No points and no recent accidents. I last paid $1300 for 6 months of car insurance on a Hyundai and it’ll probably go up again next time.
That’s $2600 a year or $50 a week and we haven’t spoken about gas, or parking in some locations. Absolutely Uber is an option, or ebike.
I dropped driving 20 years ago. Way too expensive if you don’t earn money with it in some fashion. I’m not a home-worker, but I live in a city. Having a car in a city… That just doesn’t feel right. They should be used to bring stuff into a city. Cites should provide their own means of getting around. The few times when I actually needed a car, I rented one. Way cheaper than owning a car.
It’s like owning a golf course to play golf once a week. Well. Something like that.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here: how is the guy on the phone supposed to know it really is the police on the other side and not just some guy trying to scam his way into a freebie?
You could say that companies should err on the side of caution, but then every potential customer could pull the same, and then how do you weed out the real ones from the fake ones?
You could argue the service should be free anyway, but then we’d be arguing a different point.
It's not like they don't know who owns the car. They should be able to check afterwards if it was a real emergency, and if it was faked, send the bill and maybe report them for impersonating a police officer.
In a normal business that is not a mega corporation you would just do it. You can just activate it for a limited period if you really feel suspicious, after two or three tries you will quickly spot the people trying to abuse the system.
Even if people could abuse the system for free aubsceiptions, I don’t agree with the fact that preventing people from getting free subscription is a higher priority than helping a mother getting her 2 years old back.
Won’t someone think of the billion-dollar megacorps‽ They may lose a few bucks saving kidnapped children on the off-chance some fakers pretend to be cops! GASP!
You’re acting as if this is some sort of widespread form of criminal activity and that it’s not already a crime to impersonate a cop or to commit wire fraud while committing a kidnapping. Because who gives a shit about any of that when a few bucks could be made?
how is the guy on the phone supposed to know it really is the police on the other side and not just some guy trying to scam his way into a freebie?
Cop only number or internal group to transfer to? Fax number to send a warrant with contact info so VW can call back and investigate if need be? Get the police department number, google to confirm they’re legit, and call back? Thats just off the top of my head.
If VW doesn’t have an option like that its poor design. If the guy didn’t know, poor training. One or both are gonna be resolved now that the spotlight is on them.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here: how is the guy on the phone supposed to know it really is the police on the other side and not just some guy trying to scam his way into a freebie?
At the individual level this is actually pretty simple. I work in IT and when I used to do security training the way we’d validate is with a known contact.
In this situation you get the contacting officers name and department, disconnect the call, call the non-emergency listed number for that department and ask for that officer by name.
There’s a lot of other failure point potential in this scenario but validating the person calling is actually law enforcement shouldn’t be one of them.
I hammered into my elderly parents that if they ever get a call/text from their “bank”, “tax department”, “insurance”, or literally anything - ask for a case number and hang up. Then call the number listed on the official website.
Now they’re telling everyone they know about it. Good on them.
I'm old enough to remember when the roads were fixed as routine maintenance, rather than using infrastructure money for a quick bodge just before an election.
My hometown in the US still does it like that! And they’re stunningly efficient. There was one time we had to go around an enormous detour because the biggest road in town was being redone in like a 2 mile stretch. They did the entire thing overnight in one giant marching construction worker swarm. A few towns over from us did something similar earlier this year but with their local stretch of highway. It was maybe a 15 mile redo all at once took just a few days (they did one lane traffic on one side than the other for that one, small highways). Compare that to where I’m at in Seattle right now Madison has been fucked for like 2 years and I swear none of the roads have actually been resurfaced it is just one construction patch after another when like a pipe needs fixed or something.
I hear it takes weeks to do properly. I’m not a road building expert, but there are many things that go into it, and stuff needs to cool of and consolidate.
To clarify the construction was all done overnight but it hardened/set up for a couple days after and they kept it blocked. Definitely wasn’t weeks though it was like 3 days for people to start driving on it.
Mentioned in the other response construction was overnight and they kept it blocked a couple days after to set up. Very short turnaround though. The only other times I’ve seen so many construction workers on one site is people building towers in Seattle so it was a little shocking to see in a town of 25k people. But also explained why sometimes I would be gone for a weekend and come back to new roads. One of the things is the roads there get obliterated quickly. The winters are somewhat harsh, it is a farming town so lots of big equipment chewing them up, and right on a main highway that people use to get into Washington. They have to be redone often and I think the area has just enough funding and experience to be on top of it.
Pretty sure they built the transcontinental railroad in the time it took my city to add one 2-3 mile auxiliary lane to the side of a road with 2 pre-existing lanes in the same direction and an existing hard shoulder.
I’m from the EU and sadly this has become more and more the norm here. I remember a time when we had very little SUVs here but now they seem to be everywhere. And it’s a really busy capital city, so the streets are narrow. I can’t understand why people would buy big cars here…
Its not just SUVs in western Europe, EU crash regulations for cars hitting pedestrians have forced cars to be higher and taller at the front. Unless the seating position also rises then you lose visibility of the very front of the car. If the seating position has to rise then so does the roof and this often means the floor rises too.
Sure, these ridiculous American trucks are far far worse, and SUVs are just generally bad, but its normal cars as well.
As someone with a utilitarian need for a truck in the US, you are correct. I m7ch rather drive a Fiat Panda than my 2013 Tundra. However, I try to keep my lights low (they are adjustable from inside the cab) so as not to blind others when on the road.
Still, there should be a federal ban on these stupid things, annd these, not to mention a federal law regulating how high headlights can be from the road (looking at you Ford F-250)
Sadly, we cannot really ban them as they are utility vehicles that a small portion of the population needs. However, I still see freakin’ ads that frame them as fancy cars.
Czech ad for Amarok V6
“The new Amarok V6. Pick-up truck for every day. Powerful and comfortable”
I suggest making it illegal to have them in any color other than matte excavator yellow (for construction) or green camo (for hunting and forestry).
EVs also greatly reduce brake dust, as most use regenerative braking under normal circumstances, leaving traditional braking for hard (emergency) braking.
New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. In other words, EVs have a tire-pollution problem, and one that is poised to get worse as America begins to adopt electric cars en masse.
Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.
edit: To be clear, EVs are better than ICEs and every car should be an EV. But EVs also suck and we still need to transition away from car dependence.
The comprehensive study has found that in everyday driving, particulate emissions from tires are 1,850 times greater than the equivalent exhaust emissions. This is only made worse by the heavier battery packs fitted to electric vehicles, which increase vehicle mass and, in turn, place further strain on the tires.
edit: this is not to say the tire particulate has the same greenhouse effect. Experts overwhelmingly agree that EVs are better for climate change. But EVs are still bad for the environment.
My EV is under 4000 pounds what about all those 8000 pound trucks SUV on the road. Ford latest Raptor or what ever it is is heavier the the F150 Lighting EV. Brake dust shouldn’t even matter on a EV, I’ve 170k on my original Brakes. Gas cars still use electric the “gas refinery” and the pollution from the refinery. And there’s still much less environmental impacts like no oil changes no NOX no Co2 and ETC.
Your EV is worse, per distance and per capita, than any non-car mode of transportation. Compared to ICEs, it’s better in one particular way, worse in others, but still causes major environmental damage through bad land use. Cars are one of the biggest killers worldwide, and EVs may make that problem worse.
Oh yes, I forgot about how brake dust is burning towns to the ground because of extreme weather and inundating low lying regions with rising sea levels.
Do you seriously think a community called “fuck cars” is trying to defend gasoline cars over EVs? This is a public transportation gang good sir, madam, or otherwise.
I was talking about tire dust being worse than brake dust. Was that a typo?
Literally no one is arguing that EVs aren’t better for the climate than ICEs. But a lot of the climate harm of cars is not just tailpipe emissions, but bad land use. Pavement, parking lots, urban sprawl, are major contributors to climate change. I don’t understand this idea that if we push to move away from cars, it will encourage ICE use. It’s an inane argument.
edit: I also haven’t seen studies of how much air particulate matter from tires contributes to the greenhouse effect. I don’t doubt it’s still better than ICEs, but it could still be significant.
You said tire pollution is potentially worse for the environment than tailpipe emissions. That is a wildly irresponsible thing to say. That’s what I was objecting to.
There absolutely are people arguing that ICs are better for the environment, as if climate change doesn’t affect the environment.
If you’re going to buy a new car, don’t, but if you’re going to buy one anyway, prioritize reducing of ghg emissions.
Edited: changed “euphemistically” to reducing, my fault for not proofreading my auto correct (I use swore typing on my phone so sometimes things go really sideways)
Then you’re responding to the wrong comment. The comment you’re responding to is one where I say that tire pollution is worse than brake pollution. In the thread where I say that tire pollution can be worse in some ways than tailpipe emissions, I specify that EVs are still better than ICEs for the climate.
So you’re responding to a comment where I didn’t say what you claim I said, while accusing me of holding a position I don’t hold.
I don’t think I’m in the wrong comment chain, and I think I commented before you clarified re climate change.
Also I’ve edited one of my comments explaining a really weird auto correct replacement i didn’t catch, which may explain why you feel I’m accusing you of things.
Thanks for observation that noone asked. I don’t need to argue in a topic where one fact ends the “discussion”.
EV’s are full of unrecyclable garbage, same with your shitty solar panels and wind turbines, you know nothing and therefore it’s pointless to argue with you, so I’m not going to do it.
I’m not sure what you were expecting. It is not unreasonable to ask for actual reasons to support your ideas, especially hot takes like “petrol will always be superior”.
👆 This guy is a troll. He’ll say whatever he can to get a rise out of people. He doesn’t argue with any sort of consistent logic and just deflects once he can’t figure out what to say next. Not worth engaging
You’re not going to get actual reasons. This guy is a troll. He has spent the entirety of his day old account picking fights and deflecting the logical retorts. Just thought you should know
Hey, this guy you’re arguing with is a troll, although you probably already figured that out. He declared yesterday that he lives to be an asshole and spends his time mostly picking fights and deflecting the ones he’s losing. Just thought you should know that you’re engaging someone who doesn’t argue in good faith
Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.
I’m not seeing anything about how brake dust is nearly as big of a problem. Literally dozens of articles about how bad tire pollution is. I’m not even mentioning microplastics! Tires are the biggest source.
Forgive me, but the articles suggested that the problem with tires was their deteriorating into miroplastic particles with use. What other miroplastic problem with tires is there that you’re not mentioning?
You’re right, I wrote that confusingly. I mean to say that the research I linked to is just about air pollution from tires. There are also non-air pollution consequences, as microplastics leak into our food supply, drinking water, our environments, our oceans, etc. This is no small matter.
Everyone who cares about the environment is in favor of EVs over ICEs, but some bad effects will actually increase with EV use. We need to transition every remaining car to EV, but we also need to transition society away from cars.
Yes, much heavier. It wouldn’t be such a big problem if car sizes weren’t exploding, and if people didn’t demand such absurdly high battery ranges “just in case”, even though their daily commute is not 300 miles. Consumers also seem to want unnecessary power instead of efficiency, negating some of the benefits of the transition.
I have an EV that I just charge at home when I need to, once every 5-8 days depending, and then in the morning unplug it. That covers driving to work, shopping, gym, school runs and occasional trips to the airport. The stats show most cars never go more than 20-30 miles on average. Maybe there are some hyper commuters, or people who drive hundreds of miles per day but they’re atypical, not the norm.
I’ve had the car 6 months and haven’t even tried using a public charger. That said, public charging infrastructure in Ireland is very spotty and if I did need to make a long journey I probably would be concerned about where I was going to charge and have to plan ahead. I am expecting that since over a 1/5th of new car sales are electric that the situation will improve over time. The UK is much better, France / Germany are even better and Norway is insanely good. Demonstrates it is possible and will happen eventually.
I think governments could do much to alleviate range anxiety if every public charger was required to be visible in a national database - occupancy, cost, reliability, rate of charge and other information so that apps could be built around it. At the moment it’s a hodge podge of apps which seem to have their own partnerships with different providers so it’s very hard to know all the chargers from a single app.
here is the RAC - a major road assistance company in the UK & Ireland - explaining EV particulate emissions. Basically, no the particulates aren’t any worse from an EV and are actually better compared to ICE, both brake and tyre.
Doesn’t mean particulates are good in any circumstance, but this argument, that somehow EVs are even worse, which is largely being propagated by people & groups with a vested interest in ICE cars is a complete nonsense.
No dummy, the RAC is one of the biggest automotive companies in the UK. Tyre repair companies also say it. Common sense says it. If tyre tread on EVs was substantially less than ICE vehicles it would be borne out by data but it is not.
It literally is borne out by data though. The way that source wriggles around is crazy.
They carefully pick the worst case scenario tire wear number then use it as a baseline for the mathematics that underlie the sentence
the tyres would be bald in less than 1,358 miles, or two months’ worth of driving
and extrapolate that out to
we now know that tyre wear is nowhere near as big a contributor to particulate matter emissions as some media coverage has suggested
The dancing around weight and tire wear is even more absurd:
modern electric vehicles aren’t actually that much heavier than many modern petrol or diesel cars, especially with the recent trend towards bigger and heavier SUVs
and a long section about taxi tire math that ends with the buried admission
Ryan notes that his diesel taxis do tend to get an extra 5,000 to 10,000 miles of lifespan out of their front tyres
But even if you aren’t interested in reading that source with a critical eye and recognizing the ways it manipulates language and information to make a point (I’m still not clear why a towing company wrote this), you can literally just look next to the authors name and see:
Author of this report commissioned by the RAC
I genuinely cannot understand why you’d choose to believe a dubious blog entry from a towing company over research from literally any other source.
Shame on you for making me bring out the [ ] over the British equivalent of a triple a guide.
But even if you aren’t interested in reading that source with a critical eye and recognizing the ways it manipulates language and information to make a point (I’m still not clear why a towing company wrote this), you can literally just look next to the authors name and see:
The RAC isn’t just a “towing company”. It provides a range of motor services like breakdown assistance, insurance, vehicle inspections, servicing, fleet management. Therefore it happens to know a great deal about automotive matters unlike say Forbes or some other outlet which does not. It’s also not some stealth EV proponent controlled by some shadowy puppet master, it just happens to have knowledge from supporting fleets of EVs of their outcomes. The AA, a similar organisation also debunks EV myths, again coming from a position of experience.
If the towing company is so smart and has all the data and experience, why do they have to commission reports that they then deploy every narrative manipulation technique in the book towards when reporting upon?
Couldn’t they just publish all their good data in a peer reviewed journal?
The Guardian article mentions that there’s some hope of mitigating that problem though:
The average weight of all cars has been increasing. But there has been particular debate over whether battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are heavier than conventional cars and can have greater wheel torque, may lead to more tyre particles being produced. Molden said it would depend on driving style, with gentle EV drivers producing fewer particles than fossil-fuelled cars driven badly, though on average he expected slightly higher tyre particles from BEVs.
Dr James Tate, at the University of Leeds’ Institute for Transport Studies in the UK, said the tyre test results were credible. “But it is very important to note that BEVs are becoming lighter very fast,” he said. “By 2024-25 we expect BEVs and [fossil-fuelled] city cars will have comparable weights. Only high-end, large BEVs with high capacity batteries will weigh more.”
That might be so in Europe. I am not so optimistic about the US, where car sizes keep increasing. We seem to want to “consume” the extra efficiencies with more powerful engines and bigger range.
I have already responded to multiple people who asked for sources, which you apparently didn’t bother to check. One source I cite mentions a 20-50% increase in tire wear. A simple internet search will bring up literally dozens of articles.
It’s always amazing how the laziest and nastiest people on the internet, like yourself, are always the most ignorant. You don’t need to start shit to support your point.
You are angry about people not finding it despite wanting to prove your point not me. Add the source into OP instead of bitching at people who were not part of your conversation with others. Or don’t be rude about it.
Here is Kwik Fit, the largest tyre repair / refit retailer in the UK saying the complete opposite. They say that conventional tyres wear faster. The downside of EV tyres is they’re still more expensive. It’s not hard to find similar points made by others who have the knowledge to make the comparison.
You’ve completely misunderstood. EV tires are designed to wear slower because EVs eat through tires faster. If you put more expensive wear resistant tires on a lighter conventional car, it would obviously wear even more slowly.
Your link is not journalism. It doesn’t even cite its sources. It’s literally a blog entry by a tire company encouraging you to buy tires. The multiple experts cited in the actual news articles I posted say increased tire wear from EVs is a huge environmental problem.
Wait, so you you’re saying EV tyres are designed to wear slower, and yet they eat through tyres faster? Did that even make sense in your head? And if this design is a thing (slower wearing I mean) then why don’t ICE vehicles also do it?
And no EV tyres are not more expensive because of whatever you imagine but because of simple market forces - EVs are less common therefore, tyres cost more.
And yeah my link is not journalism. It’s pointing to actual companies that deal with breakdowns and replace tyres. The sort of people most people would implicitly trust to know what they’re talking about.
I don’t know if you’re willfully misreading me. I am saying that EV tires only wear slower when they do because they have to be specifically designed to withstand the extra friction. But EVs wear equivalent tires faster than non-EVs because EVs are heavier. If you don’t understand this, I’m not sure how to explain it to you.
Imagine someone saying “Chairs for obese people last longer than those for normal weight people.” That may be, but only because they are designed that way. You can’t change the laws of physics. EVs are heavier. As the many experts across the actual journalistic sources I cited say, that means more friction and more wear.
What is the climate denialist outfit you’re referencing? Each article cites multiple experts and different sources making multiple different claims. None of them rely on a “single study” and they are all from high quality sources, so your claim is ridiculous on its face.
Just don’t go race mode everyday and and it will be reduced to just heavier weight. Get smaller than supers sized truck and it will compensate for the weight as well.
What does this mean? What is the “it”? What does “compensate” mean? Equivalent EVs are heavier. At the same speeds, tires will wear faster and accidents will kill more people.
Yeah but for some reason people drive for a cap of coffee in freaking truck. Also i think you understand what i reacted to, if not you can use “show context” above my replies all the way till the beginning of this thread.
No they don’t massively increase tyre dust. In fact, if you go to motoring organisations, or actual tyre repair / refit companies they will tell you straight out that tyres on EVs don’t wear any faster than regular tyres. The only difference really between an EV tyre and a regular one is the cross section which is different to account for the generally higher weight of an EV.
fuck_cars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.