Utter tosh.
The Telegraph (who funded this study) have a huge list of anti-EV articles, nearly all of which are technically incorrect and often self-contradictory. They clearly have an agenda and it's likely funded by the oil industry.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4083 readers
256 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not entirely untrue. Electric vehicles tend to be heavier than petrol or diesel vehicles, and heavier vehicles cause more wear to road surfaces than lighter ones.
That isn't to say electric vehicles are bad idea because of that though.
But still fractionally as heavy as lorries, which /do/ cause most of the potholes. But the article is designed to trigger our base feelings of anger about paying for a road surface that's often in poor condition.
The car park argument is pretty silly too. Older multi-stories have greater problems from cars being wider, longer and taller than what they were designed for. But again, with the news of the multistorey car park collapsing in New York not that long ago, it's triggering fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the reader.
Objectively, it's a really good example of how to write a manipulative 'news' story that preys on human emotion. That doesn't make it /true/ though.
I like how twice is in large font because they think you’re stupid. They know people don’t read articles, just headlines because it’s just too boring a story unless it’s part of a sustained drip feed of nonsense stories like car parks collapsing or cobalt killing everyone’s first born
Anyone could think this is the oil companies paying to discredit EV's.
It’s a daily mail website, their farts are responsible for global warming
Ah OK, back on reddit, i automatically downvoted anything from the Daily Heil, I'll continue to do so here.
Truth. Just a few more weeks before we start getting the "Experts say the WORST winter an hundred years is predicted." ~~headlines~~ bullshit
This research, analysed by The Telegraph
Translation, sensationalised for click bait
Then why did you post it?!
To start, and have people engage in a discussion.
Damage to road surfaces increases by 2^4^ with weight. Link
A 2 tonne vehicle will do 16x as much damage as a 1 tonne.
EVs tend to be heavier, but for example, a Nissan Leaf weighs 1580KG, a Ford Puma weighs 1280KG and a a chelsea tractor weighs 2770KG.
So a Leaf vs the best selling car in the UK (Puma) is close to 2x the damage.
But a Range Rover vs the Puma is getting on for 20x the damage.
This article does seem to be anti-EV. And I hope that the new regulations that come in are based on weight, not just being a BEV.
Can't recall the figures off the top of my head, but even the BMW 3-Series (G20) is about as heavy as equivalent Tesla's. Of course you'll find lighter Japanese vehicles with smaller engines, but the article does seem to ignore how heavy ICE vehicles can get and how light BEV's can be...
Electric cars, which are roughly twice as heavy as standard models, could also cause serious damage to car park floors with especially older, unloved structures most at risk of buckling, experts have said.
If you're curious, this is why
Which electric car is "roughly twice as heavy" as a comparable internal combustion car?
the hummer ev weighs 2500lbs more than a hummer h2 and over 4000lbs heavier than a new tahoe.
but, afaik, the two new vehicles arent sold there. as far as more normal vehicles, yeah there might be some weight penalty but they arent 2z heavy.
The Hummer EV is the single most extreme example of an EV, an abnormal big monster car with an abnormal big monster battery. But still those 2500 lbs mean that it's just about 50% heavier than the Hummer H2 (starting at 6400 lbs vs EV's 9000 lbs), which, though also being an abnormal big monster car, still was much smaller than the EV, which is 13 inch longer and 5 inch wider than the H2's long version.
Oh no! They'll actually have to build roads to a proper standard now!
The research was done by the Asphalt Industry Alliance (https://www.asphaltuk.org) who complain that there is a 1.30bn shortfall in the carriageway budget.
They have a point - potholes are worse than they’ve ever been - but one has to wonder if they would bump up the numbers to try and get more funding 🤔
EVs don't fix congestion, don't fix particulates from tyres, don't fix tyre noise (which dominates above 30mph), don't fix crash deaths, don't fix road damage, don't fix energy usage and don't fix cars contributing to sedentary lifestyles.
Perhaps we should also be looking at some other solutions while we transition to from ICE vehicles EVs.
all of this is incorrect or misleading. in order:
congestion is far better in an EV than ICE. particulates from tyres and brakes are far worse in hotter engines, EVs use engine braking for 70-80% of all travel.
crash deaths are hardly EV specific.
nor is road damage.
after 15k miles the carbon debt is paid off and you can recycle the battery at end of life.
people need to travel to work.
im all for arguments against EVs but none of these are valid and have been debunked over and over and over again.
I think above point was that EV's aren't a cure all just because they run on electric instead of fossil fuels. They still have many of the same problems as regular cars so more should be done to get people on better modes of transport instead (e.g. trains, bikes etc).
you cant say that black is white and ask people to accept the conclusion. Bikes are great for personal travel but for example I carry equipment everywhere all over the country. Its not a solution unless your perspective is that I cant go to work, which is absurd.
Most trips aren't being taken by people carrying equipment to work. The good thing about promoting alternative methods of travel is that people who really need to drive (like yourself) aren't hindered by those only driving as it's the most convenient. Driving in the Netherlands is excellent partly because they have great cycling and public transport infrastructure.
You might find this video informative from Not Just Bikes about driving in the Netherlands - https://youtu.be/d8RRE2rDw4k
again with the false premise. The vast majority of traffic is business related, not just commuting. Wether someone goes to the park on a bike or not is just a side issue, and not what the original post was about.
According to the National Travel Survey 2021 only 3% of car trips are for business (see chart 10). The vast majority of trips are for leasure/commuting/shopping which can be done via other means.
Most people use the mode of transport most convenient for them, so the trick is to make more effecient modes of transport (i.e. not cars) the most convenient.
This is frustrating for me. Business isn’t just cars, it’s vans, heavy goods and everything else on the road, which all need to be decarbonised. I’m not against bikes, or whatever you’re on about. I’ve done my best here but I can’t keep typing the same thing over and over
I might be missing something but how do EVs help with congestion? Do more people car share with an EV?
are you actually missing something or on a wind up? Congestion is a problem of air quality.
@snacks @TheDolphinsWereRight
There's congestion which is a stuffed up nose, as with hay fever, and there's congestion which is 21 vehicles on a piece of road with capacity* for 20.
In context of EVs the latter would seem the more obvious to most of us in English.
(*It is more complex than that, of course, but a relative shortage of usable slots between and for vehicles is the essence)
My solar pays off itself by charging my car in only 4 yrs!
My electric ID3 is safer than my previous manual car (Golf). Smart stopping, adjusts to speed limits and cars in front automatically, no roll at all on hill starts, so nice to bring to a stop and go again that I now let so many more people cross / out, acceleration so crazy good that it makes over taking much quicker and easier (critical for where I live), lane detection, sleep protection etc. Generally made me a belter driver, and much more able to focus.
Now I know a lot of that is with modern automatics - but some of it is a pretty uniquely from EV. Not to mention it's an incredibly fun drive and so responsive.
Bonus - still much better carbon wise than ICE and able to be recycled much better.
Heavier than my Golf? Probably - but weighs less than a ton of SUVs and Range Rovers.
There's a lot of obvious big-oil funded propaganda against electric cars being posted on Lemmy....
This is not a problem even if it's true.
view more: next ›