457
Electric Cars
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
457 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
12831 readers
630 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Electric vehicles
While I completely agree transit, and walkable cities are much better, EVs are not nothing. More importantly, given the amount of time to build transit and walkable cities, EVs get us many of the advantages NOW
While those are great improvements over fossil fuel based cars, they also exasperate existing issues.
Almost all of these EVs are in the SUV category. These vehicles take up more space on the road and parking lots. This results in less capacity for our road systems causing traffic engineers to incorrectly add more and more lanes to roads. Additionally combined with parking minimums, more and more land is developed into parking lots, which in term increases pollution and increases the heat island effect.
The increased weight and instant torque both causes increased tire dust (as another commenter mentioned) as well as accelerated wear to the roads. The high power figures results in inattentive selfish drivers being able to reach high speeds quickly adding risk for pedestrians.
I understand that the SUV craze existed before EVs were popular however as EVs are normalized it'll only further enforce people buying oversized dangerous sub-4s 0-60 bricks.
Yeah, this comic is putting perfect in the way of good.
Not to mention, there are people who do need vehicles, the trades being one example.
They also increase tyre wear particles due to their greater weight and torque
Also important to remember that not everywhere can be made walkable or makes sense to make public transit. You don't want a bus route that picks up 2 people every day. That's just worse than those 2 people having their own electric car.
A lot of people in the world are living in rural places where public transit is worse for the environment and bikes aren't a realistic way to get from a to b. In these places electric vehicles are the only better alternative.
Not as many people in the world as you think. By definition of remote parts of the world, very small amount of people actually live there.
I lived in a remote part of the world in the village of barely 50 people. We had a small bus coming through it twice a day, and if you needed to go to the town, you just went there in the morning and returned in the evening in the bus. Some people had cars they were using once every couple of weeks, but most people didn't. Bikes and walking was the most used form of transportation. Most of the people there were there for the sole reason of being far away and not needing to rush to the nearest city often, that's kind of the whole thing.
The shit you're describing is mainly uniquely American problem, people living in bumfuck nowhere but commuting to town using their gasguzzler, not only it's not universal, it's actually very not normal.
My perspective is coming from Denmark. Around most of the country, a car is essential. Most of the country is farmland. People live on this farmland, and without a car, getting to work, buying groceries, getting to the doctor, is simply not feasible.
I don't own a car, because I live in a city, but I grew up somewhere, where you can't live without a car.
So why do people live out there? Because they're farmers, construction workers and everything else an area with a lot of agriculture needs.
Are you seriously using denmark as an example of car dependence?
This is the extent of the danish rail network in 1930, there is no reason any part of denmark needs to be car dependent.
Yes I am. I don't expect people to ride a bike 10 km til at bus station in places where it's simply not feasible to make bike lanes.
Edit. Not to mention. You ride a bike 10 km to a bus, then take that bus for 20 minutes to a trainstation, then wait anything between 5 to 55 minutes for a train to show up, then ride that train for 1 hour to get to a big city, and then take another bus for 20 minutes to your job. No way am I spending 4+ hours in transport every day, if a car can do it in 1,5 hours.
your country is the size of the netherlands and equally flat, what precisely is the reason they can do it and danes can't?
Also, 10km at e-bike speed (25 km/h) is not even half an hour, and if there aren't tons of cars on the roads then you don't need bike infrastructure beyond covered parking, so what's the problem with biking that distance?
But can the Netherlands do it? Do they only bike in the rural parts?
Sure, if people could just ride 10 km and then be at work, I see the point in it. But there are A LOT of places that are much further from the bigger cities where the actual jobs are. Out there you'd need to ride 10 km to even get to a bus, that may or may not come by once every hour. That bus can take you to a trainstation where a train will usually come by every hour. Then you can take that train to a bigger city where you can work, but that can easily be an hour. So at this point, if you time your initial bike trip to the bus right, you may already spend in excess of 2 hours, just to get to a large city where the jobs are. Now you need to take another bus to get to your actual job. Meaning 4+ hours round trip. It is not feasible for a person with family to do this.
Sure the person can just move to the city, where houses cost 5x more, and simple appartments cost half their paycheck.
Yes and no. The problem is too much of the world is unnecessarily built that way. This is one of the fundamental reasons why it will take so long to implement: we need to change where people prefer to live.
Note I said “prefer” before y’all get up in arms about forcing people to move. We’ve spent way too many years giving rural people a lot of the same infrastructure as urban people and it’s just not sustainable. The thing is that even relatively small towns can have denser walkable areas and useful transit. Without forcing anyone to uproot, we ought to be able to get a good 80% or more of the population to not require a car.
here in sweden more than 80% of the population already lives in an urban area, and contrary to what some people want to believe it's perfectly fine.
Someone from the US will always chime in about how we’re different, bigger, more spread out, but that’s BS.
We have a fantastic interstate highway system, amazing air travel facilities, but we’ve not spent enough time or money on other possibilities. We emphasized people’s privacy on their own lot at the expense of being unable to walk anywhere
They still kill animals and people, so... Toot the horn elsewhere.
Unlikely. If we keep doubling-down on vehicle infrastructure, the remaining ICE vehicles will see greater vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). It's not just the number of cars out there, it's the number of cars multiplied by the distances that they travel.
Unlikely. The industrial processes and materials used to produce EVs use copious quantities of petrochemicals.
Unlikely. EVs still need the same infrastructure as ICE vehicles, and the chemical process of curing concrete alone is one of the major sources of CO~2~ emissions. As well, the ecological destruction wrought by automobile infrastructure is a significant contributor to climate change.
Hmmm, I haven’t taken mine to a gas station in two years. I must be way overdue.
Now I know you’re moving the goalposts to roads when I was talking gasoline industry, but let me point out where I started
More importantly I do live in a partly walkable town. I do use transit when I can. And yes I have the privilege of living in one of the few parts of the US where intercity rail is decent
Talking only about the gasoline industry when considering climate change is, at best, ineffective. What's more, that's exactly what the cartoon is calling out, i.e. touting the reduction in tailpipe emissions while ignoring all the myriad other ways that EVs are just like ICE vehicles. (Which includes large contributions to climate change.)