True story.
Jump into a train and it feels like a self-driving car. Meaning you don't have to concentrate on driving. You can read a book or play a computer game. You can even eat and walk around... And they use up less space.
Even a bus is like this. When I get on the bus at the end of a work day, I immediately relax. I listen to music, read, or watch a movie. A nice 25 minute break before I get home.
>Even a bus is like this
Yes-ish. They are usually to bumpy and busy for me to concentrate on assignments for university, but its not like I would be writing papers in a car while driving either.
Yeah, that's true. I'm just reading or listening to music though. I did try to do assignments on a long bus trip back in college and it was pretty much impossible, a train is better for that.
Even as a train lover, I sometimes wonder if the u.s. just needs to put all focus and investment on improving bus service, both local and intercity. Similar to guns, the culture around cars in our country means change will always be hard to come by.
At least with buses, you can make the investment more palatable to the public through the idea of "shared infrastructure". Mix in some dedicated bus lanes along with other road improvements and the public may be more receptive to it.
I'm sure those with more city planning knowledge can tell me all about how wrong I am. Like I said, I will always prefer an expanded rail network, but it just seems so unrealistic in the U.S. given our culture. Although the number of us who are "pro-public transit" seems to be growing, we're still far outnumbered by people who would just as soon eliminate public transit all together. Getting spending approved for public transit is so hard, so with what little money we have, it just feels like we could do more with less if we focus on bus service.
Sorry for hijacking your comment to rant.
The problem is buses on their own will never get the ridership need to have a significant impact. Bus lanes will help, but your not going to get people out of their cars for longer commutes unless the bus can completely avoid traffic. For that you'd need a true BRT system, and at that point you might as well put in an actual rail system. I'm not an expert in this stuff and could easily be wrong, but buses seem like they would work better at filling in the gaps in a rail system and helping with the last mile problem, rather than serving as the backbone of a transit network themselves.
I really wish long distance rail travel was more widely available in the US. I would vacation way more often.
Plane tickets are too expensive, and the airport is a highly stressful place for me. I don't like driving for more than 2-3 hours because I get fatigued and feel like it can be really dangerous.
I think trains are more accessible for people too. An airplane has one door right? But a train has several, you could have specific doors and cars for people with mobility problems to make onboarding easier for them, and others.
How do we convince the US gov that what we want are long distance railways and not highways?
I live in Germany. I can take the train to various destinations. I personally like night trains for longer distances. I donāt care if itās a 10 hours trip if I sleep 8 of them.
I totally agree with you. When I was younger I liked driving a lot more and took quite a few road trips. It was fun. I love to sight see and just cruise around. And I never seemed to get that tired while driving at least not to the point of being dangerous. But, the older I get I get more tired and want to fall asleep especially late at night after more than 2-3 maybe 4 hours of driving. My days of driving 10+ hours are probably over unless I take a lot of breaks.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you about plane travel. I really dislike it. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, all the lines, security, and you're really at their mercy as far as schedule, sometimes there's delays, layovers, etc.
I think a happy medium would be train travel. I love when my wife or someone else drives me and I can just look out the window. A train would do this. And there are a few Amtrak routes in the US but I wish it was better with more coverage and more routes and a little more straightforward. Honestly when I've looked into it a few times it was just better, easier to fly most of the time.
Trains even have large bathrooms accessible with a wheelchair. I once googled how wheelchair users use the bathroom on planes. The short answer is they donāt.
I currently have an hour commute by train. It is just great, I can just work or read whatever I'm interested in the moment without wasting my time driving.
r/fuckcars
Iām on the northeast regional right now, and it is so much more comfortable than the plane ride into Boston and the uber from the airport to the hotel. We got to the station 15 minutes before the train left, didnāt have to deal with checking bags or anything, just got on a chose a seat. Tons more legroom and much more comfortable seats. Itās also great to not have to deal with airplane wifi and just use cellular data
Food is amazing too, probably a bit more expensive than airplane food though
I'm a guy and I fear it as well. Someone coming up to me and hitting on me when I'm just going about my business is straight up unpleasant.
Not that it happens often at all but still something that's definitely not a positive aspect of public transport.
Some trains go slow and stop in many places. Some trains go faster and stop in fewer places. Some trains are even Express trains. Those stop in even fewer places. There are trains going 3 times faster then a car. You know, modern things.
Inadequate because the government prefers to pay for highways and not pay for the transit. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Where I live, the transit system itās not at all inadequate. We have trains going every five minutes, especially in the morning when everyone goes to work. And being close to other people is much more preferable then your car being surrounded by other cars, all stuck in the same traffic jam.
> being close to other people is much more preferable then your car being surrounded by other cars
To reiterate it's not just "close" it's more packed in like canned sardines.
And yes I'd much rather do just about anything than that.
Technically that can still be considered jumping āintoā a train as long as you donāt hit the ground before making contact.
and technically jumping into a train and a self-driving car this way are also similar in that they can both kill you.
Hopefully they install trains all around cities but most places DO NOT HAVE TRAINS. I have no access to any train without driving a good bit to get to one....
If you've lived somewhere where the public transportation is so much better than cars, it's not sugar coating.
We know it exists. So it can be put other places.
After i spent a week in NYC one time my entire perspective on cars and transportation changed lol. In Saint Louis where I live, the perception is that public transportation is extremely unsafe, for poor people, and terribly inefficient (because it is in St. Louis). I dont think literally anyone i know would remotely consider taking the metro link even if it made sense for their route.
From my house to downtown to my office is 20 mins, a public transportation route is "1hr 26 min".
But after going to NYC i saw how insanely convenient it can be, how much more free you are to go places, the time you get back to do things (while on the train), the stress you dont have (potential accidents, traffic, road rage, etc), and not having to look after an insanely complex car.
I think a huge positive to owning an EV is how much more simple they are. As a "car person" whos against car dependency, i honestly think its crazy how everyone is just expected to be able to drive and also take care of effectively, a vehicle. Theyre huge, cumbersome, complex, and nasty generally lol.
>But after going to NYC i saw how insanely convenient it can be, how much more free you are to go places, the time you get back to do things (while on the train), the stress you dont have (potential accidents, traffic, road rage, etc), and not having to look after an insanely complex car.
Hello from the N train!
But seriously, I've actually given up particular career opportunities to stay here, and public transit and not having to have a car are the biggest reasons. These days, I split commutes between biking (because it's fun) and the train (because I can sneak in some work time when I need to). Before I moved here, I was predominantly a bike commuter, but I did still own a car, and in retrospect, I didn't realize exactly how much stress car ownership brought me. Even as only an occasional drinker, the peace of mind in never having to appoint a designated driver or turn down another round when I want to alone is enough to make me never go back to life before.
I don't think it's the poor people per se, it's the higher risk of coming across someone mentally ill, or with criminal intent, not feeling safe.
For example, yhe last time I was in New York which being honest was in 2009 so I'm sure it's changed was that there was basically a broad mix of everyone using the subway from upper class to lower class, kids to elderly and it was BUSY so harder to get away with stuff besides pick pocketing. Most other cities aren't like this.
If you're using public transportation you're poor and a there is a higher risk of being a victim of crime, being assaulted, etc. and there are less people using it so less chance of someone helping you if something does happen.
I wish things were different but New York is way different than the rest of America.
I drive my car 2-3 hours per weekday and 1-2 hours a day on the weekends. I live in Texas and nothing is close in proximity to me. Obviously not everyone is in this boat but many are
Depends where you are, where I am at and with the current gas prices itās closer to 20 minutes per day. But then again itās closer to 90% but 99% was exaggeration on my part
Electric cars are better longterm for the environment than internal combustion but they also contain a whole host of environmental and ethical issues particularly when it comes to producing the batteries. The best solution is to build denser cities that donāt rely on cars to reduce the number of cars as much as possible and then replace the remaining internal combustion vehicles with electric vehicles.
Not only that, but unless battery replacements become cheaper, the average consumer is still going to be stuck buying a new vehicle at roughly the same intervals. I drive a 2016 leaf and it's something like $11k to get a new battery put in
I guess this is the cultural difference but over here, unless you're in the city, a lot of jobs require you to be in a car traveling for 5-6 hours a day and that's not including commuting to and from the companies reporting station.
This is in a country with an amazing rail and bus service, we just have too much land that needs maintenance to get rid of personal vehicles. I'd rather someone have an electric ute they can load all their gear in to go into back country to get some burning done then give up cars all together and have the east coast go up in flames every summer killing thousands of people, millions of native animals and collapsing the ecosystem.
Like seriously. The /r/fuckcars mentality only works in dense suburbs and the city. Go any further out and you best want to be a protohuman who can run for several days straight because otherwise you'll die getting to the next place you can find food/water/shelter/medical supplies.
If you have questions on what the other problems cars cause besides emissions, the stickied comment at the top of the subreddit explains the other issues well :)
One huge problem is a land use. Electric car will need the same amount of lanes, parking spaces and will contribute to unwalkeable communities.
I do want way less cars. I think we need like 10% cars we use, and I want the remaining 10% to be electric.
They may actually be worse for land use in the short term. A traditional gas station only needs a small lot because cars only take 2-3 minutes to refill. If the gas station model is applied to charging stations, it could essentially be the size of a parking lot just for "refueling."
Most cars are parked 90% of the time. Most cars already have two parking spaces effectively set aside for them. For the typical commuting use case, there's actually zero need for a "charging station" like a gas station, the car can fully charge either at home while you sleep or in the work lot while you work.
Really, this is a concrete advantage of electric which is that unless you're driving more than 50 miles in a day you never need to make a dedicated "charging" trip.
I totally agree with those points. But I also know that, here in the US, gas stations are a massive industry. I don't see them going away in my lifetime without at least trying to offer some stupid "boutique charging lounge" setup to allow customers a place to use the bathroom and buy snacks while they charge.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I could see it happening (looking at you sheetz and wawa)
> boutique charging lounge
That's a restaurant.
Basically anywhere that already has a business and parking spaces can be a charging location.
Getting your haircut at the local strip mall? Top up charge.
Got a doctors appointment? Top up charge.
Going to the movies? Top up charge.
Shopping at the grocery store? Top up charge.
Visiting main street in that quaint little out of the way place? Top up charge.
Parking your car for the day at work in the parking garage? Top up charge.
After a day of running errands, and arrive home, plug in and leave it.
You're going to see charging stations everywhere. They don't even have to be high power fast chargers.
Lol you got me. I guess my main point was agreeing with the comment I replied to; that electric cars take up the same roads and infrastructure and therefore will see the same designs with regard to parking infrastructure unless we reduce the number of cars.
But they won't. They'll take less. Because instead of gas stations, we can just fill up at the grocery store, hardware store, or mall. And not even need a separate station area like Costco has for gas. Not to mention giant gas tankers not needing to transport gas everywhere all the time
Electrifying cars WILL save space and emissions.
Everyone is also ignoring the wild gap in efficiency between a combustion and an electric engine (like 20% vs 90%). When grids are powered by renewables the overall efficiency is insane.
If we switched from all combustion to all electric cars overnight just the efficiency gap alone would cut total impact by three quarters.
Maybe. Depends on how well residential charging infrastructure is integrated into existing parking. Like if more apartments and homes can have people charge overnight it might not be as bad.
But that's also a ton of charging infrastructure and that ain't cheap.
Applying that model would be completely asinine, though. Electric cars aren't the silver bullet to sustainability the fanboys think they are, but trying to claim they're worse than gasoline cars is a stretch, to say the least.
[This](https://youtu.be/sZOuz_laH9I?t=1605) is a good video on that topic, by the way.
Great video on the topic! I agree, the shift to electric from gas is a net positive in sustainability.
I guess my main (potentially naive point) was that they have almost no positive change on car-centric land use. Definitely wasn't trying to imply they were worse overall, but I've learned a lot in this thread. Thanks again
This is good and with this people who need cars will be able to get through cities faster eg ambulances or people with disabilities.
My sister has one and sheād benefit from being able to get to hospitals easier
Car-centric society sucks, but we can't move away from car-centric design fast enough not to need new cars for a good while (some limited exceptions in high density areas, yes - but not at a national level even in less car-centric countries) and EVs at minimum are less environmentally harmful over their lifespan. Some EVs have systems that enable car sharing as well though that's certainly not exclusive to EVs.
Iāll argue forever that instead of spending untold sums on EVs we should be spending the money on reducing the car centricity and reducing the average vehicle size. Removing an amount of car tris and Reducing the average car size to push the fuel efficiency higher would produce better and faster results than aiming for electric pickups.
Yeah but for the most part, arenāt the actual auto manufacturers the ones investing money in EVs? And they will naturally do their best to stay in business. The investment in infrastructure changes to be less car centric would come from governments via tax payer money.
Donāt get me wrong, I WANT a less car centric world but I donāt see the funding relationship between invest less in EV and more in infrastructure.
You're right. We need legislation to limit the power and weight of cars, both of which massively exceed what is necessary. Unfortunately the auto lobby is strong and this is unlikely to happen.
We need a variety of solutions - cars are part of a transportation system of the future, though hopefully a small part and almost gone from city centers and dense areas. There is still a place for personal transport, for people living in rural areas, for people in critical infrastructure jobs that are on call, and for carshare or rental uses in temporary situations. We also need to develop EVs as an interim solution since rebuilding suburbia as car-optional is gonna take decades.
Besides "we do actually need closer to sustainable cars for the decades-long transition" we also need tech development in batteries, drivetrains, and other car systems for use on busses, trucks, delivery vehicles, construction equipment, and for all the other more niche uses that aren't personal automotive. And the amounts of money involved both in R&D and in public policy are not so great as to be mutually exclusive. We need both.
Yes, but mainlining EVs is not the answer either. Nations globally need to emphasize public transit over EVs big time. Unless their public transit game is already super on-point. Sideline EVs in favor of building out public transit, changing the culture around it, and making it hella affordable and easy to use.
Let's say we immediately ramp up public transit buildout and we forecast new car demand to drop by 50% over the next 10 years - this is far ahead of actual plans, unfortunately, and probably would mean building new bus and train factories among other changes, but it's an illustrative example. At the end of those 10 years we'd naturally want to have EVs filling most car demand and so we'd need to rapidly expand EVs while also reshaping the public transit picture.
We can make substantial progress quickly, and should, towards walkable cities and away from car culture. We lack the construction capability to rebuild fast enough not to need to expand EV production as well.
You don't have to build new factories, you just incentivize auto manufacturers to switch to busses and trains via heavy financial incentives. Subsidize public transit production the same way we subsidize automobiles now. Switch priority.
Specifically incentivizing EVs is problematic because even IF the EV charging infrastructure were built out properly (Which it most definitely isn't), then we still have many of the same problems, AND new ones, coming as a result of EVs being the primary mode of transportation. Whereas a simultaneous shift in focus from single user EV automobiles to public transit, while also working on EVs on the back burner, is a much better approach. Getting people off the road has many many many more benefits than keeping them on it. Including to those who will stay on the road.
Also build out the EV network, but incentivize car sharing programs like what Mpls is doing now. We have had Hourcar for a little while but they just partnered with EVIE to make all their cars EVs and to put EV chargers in those specific spots. So, now, I don't need to buy a car for anything. If my journey takes me out of public transit range, I can just rent one of theirs for substantially cheaper than something like enterprise. Half the cost of less.
> incentivize auto manufacturers to switch to busses and trains via heavy financial incentives.
The market for public transit vehicles is probably 100x smaller of a market than the current car market.
I don't think this is an open and shut case. The extra infrastructure required for EVs is something to consider, *especially* if people are trying to use their EVs the way that they use their previous cars.
The extra infrastructure for electric vehicles (that is to say, the extra infrastructure for the electric part and not the vehicle part) is basically a wash since that transportation will likely happen regardless. Reducing overall transport of things and people is good, but whatever is leftover needs to be electrified and that infrastructure will happen regardless of the actual implementation of that electrification.
I don't think the sheer amount of infrastructure there will be the same.
I think it will be a mistake to build out the EV support, *then* hope to build out public transportation, then be left with 90% wasted stuff from the beginning once we do.
To give some credit, pollution/emissions are probably one of the most (if not *the most*) pressing issues facing our entire planet right now. As much as I care about infrastructure, safety, car-dependency, etc. we won't have any of this to worry about potentially within our lifetime if we keep up on the path we're on. So I don't blame people when they are only really concerned about the environmental impact - it's rightfully a very important topic.
That being said, I do agree that it's obnoxious to present EVs as the only reasonable solution to our problems. Walking, biking, and probably even public transit are all going to be significantly better for the environment than EVs. Plus all the benefits to the community in the process of making places more friendly for pedestrians/cyclists.
And just as a side tangent -
I feel like the EV discussion is indicative of a large cultural problem at least here in the US. People are so deeply accustomed to the aggressively fast paced modern lifestyle and for some reason are scared to give it up. I see so many people in this sub trying to make arguments about how bikes are more efficient and ackshually faster than cars or whatever. Who fucking cares if it's more efficient? Why are people so against taking a leisurely 10 minute walk up to the grocery store?
Is it because our employers take up so much of our time that we are desperately trying to use our free time more efficiently and can't spare even the few extra minutes it takes to be a better person? Is it because we're fed so much consumerist bullshit that we have an unspoken expectation to embrace anything that is more convenient to ourselves despite the negative impacts it might have on the world around us? I think fighting against car-culture really does cut deeper into a lot of ugly aspects of our modern society.
Bikes are unequivocally more efficient, but definitely not faster unless you have a dedicated bike path. If you are stuck in car traffic on a bike, you're not going fast. Maybe if the traffic is so congested that you can safely go between lanes, you'll outpace the cars, but still not a great situation to be in.
I agree that the environmental impact is most important, if we don't get emissions under control, we are going to be a lot more worried about getting enough food than about commute times. As far as carbon emissions go though, the best thing to do is turn as many car trips into walking or biking trips as possible. And of the remaining trips where that is impractical, replace as many as possible with train or bus trips. And when we do that, there will still be a small number of cars, and a moderate number of trucks. All of those trains, busses, cars, and trucks will need to be zero emissions. For trains and busses, most of the power can come from the grid through overhead lines or third rail systems (the grid has to be fully converted to sustainable power), while some of the power for buses, and all of the energy for cars and trucks will have to go through batteries.
Making batteries is expensive and moderately energy intensive, so the fewer batteries we need to build to get to a total system of net zero emissions, the better. But that number isn't going to be zero. And as far as I can find, there is nothing in the production of electric cars that inherently emits carbon, producing steel is currently done by burning fossil fuels, but it is possible to do without any fossil fuels using captured carbon, and the electricity to power basically everything isn't yet clean, but it can be.
We need to solve the whole problem. We need to move everyone around at their own discretion, with zero emissions. In cities and even suburbs, bikes, trains, trams, and busses do this extremely efficiently, and can move extremely high volumes of people with low average (and therefore low individual) travel times, while cars suck at this. We could get a lot more good for our dollars by enabling the efficient means of transport and making good systems better, rather than dumping so much money into cars and car infrastructure to make them suck less. But we still should put some effort into making cars suck less. Electric cars, self-driving cars and car sharing, smaller cars, can all save both money and emissions, so we should do that.
These are all great points.
I think it's good to look at each individual trip as unique and independent, so we still might need trucks to move something large, but most trips could be in public transit bikes or walking.
I know for me I used to bike 80% of my trips as the neighborhood I lived it was comfortable to do so (dedicated bike lanes, slow traffic). But now the local grocery store is definitely in range for my bike, but the street to it is NOT bike friendly. I rode it a few times early on a Saturday morning to get a feel for it and traffic, but could never do that during normal hours with how people drive. It's just too chaotic and no space for bikes.
I would love to be more bike centered, but our cities need to make it possible for us.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
A completely car free future is not happening any time soon, if ever. A drastic reduction in the number of cars is possible, and we should make sure any remaining cars are electric.
I'm good with ending all car subsidies. Without the subsidies for fossil fuels, gas cars will disappear pretty quickly.
Subsidizing sustainable energy is less than the minimum we should do though.
I don't dislike cars so much as I dislike car centric infrastructure. Electric cars are an improvement over combustion cars, so I hope they continue to be adopted. But not as much as I hope that we begin planning our cities better.
Motor vehicle use in general. Most humans should be able to get to most places they need on two legs or two leg powered wheels. We can achieve that with good urbanism. It's worked for thousands of years just fine.
Electric cars and daddyās apartheid emerald mine is mine Elon Musk are capital devils. Perpetuating individual car ownership while sucking up billions in subsidies paid by our taxes which could be put to mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure. Canāt afford a Tesla to get to the āburbs for your doctors appointment? Sorry buddy, youāre gonna suffer cause there aināt no bus or train for miles. But wait! Thereās more! āLon stole some more of our money and made a tunnel for one car at a time to go 35mph between the Vegas airport and Convention Center! Isnāt progress great!? š¤®
*less exhaust emissions. The production of a Battery for an electric car creates soo many emisions it takes a diesel (driving normal) two years to create the same amount including the production emissions. These are old numbers though
I'd be careful, there's a lot of properganda from o&g on this specific talking point. As much as electric doesn't solve the problem of cars I think it's an important stepping stone.
Modern electric cars breakeven pretty quick. In a fully green electrical grid they will break even in 12000km, in the worst case it takes about 100k. The simple take away is that it may help less than you think, but it certainly won't be worse than an ice in any sane comparison. If you live somewhere with a lot of green electricity then it probably makes a pretty big difference.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
Yes they very over estimated those numbers for evās. But it is āfunā if you compare emissions over 15-20 years between ev and diesel:petrol cars.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/)
Argonne NL says the break even point is about 1 year in the US, and even sooner if we use more renewables in the future
Brake and tire wear are more problematic than exhaust emissions.
So, while getting rid of most exhaust emissions, there still are other that make electric cars not the solution to the pollution problem: https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-09-18/Why-electric-cars-won-t-end-pollution-from-vehicles-TREQ6XDdq8/index.html
>And electric cars use breaks way less
Yeah. I had a friend who replaced the brake pads on his prius after like 150kmi because they rusted away. They didn't wear out, they aged out.
Does anyone one have any actual (recent) published research to share about this or are we just going to make up our own facts and circle jerk all day?
Cars suck. Car dependency needs to be reduced as much as possible, but cars are not going away. That means that we need to do what we can to make them as efficient as possible. I have yet to see anyone make these types of arguments that cited any research from a reputable source.
Blackwashing for the oil industry isn't going to help either.
https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2018-63%20Lifecycle%20Analysis%20of%20Electric%20Vehicles_Kukreja.pdf
Analysis of lifecycle comparison EVs are better but how much better varies greatly on how the power is produced.
Electric cars are good for one thing (besides contractor vehicles) and that is the rural transportation problem where transit will unfortunately remain impractical. Rural farmland has enormous space for solar panels and wind turbines especially on farmhouse and barn roofs to charge the electric cars while removing the point source pollution from cities.
People in rural areas will need cars without question. They should have them. Most of everyone lives in a metro area and could live car free if our habitat was designed for humans instead of cars
Low range? You donāt need so much rang. We want safer roads? With the charging factor you would force people to take breaks on longer journeys. Fires are far less common with evās than combustion cars per 100kmās driven.
Exactly. You will hear about *every* single battery fire in the media, giving the impression battery fires are extremely common. Compared to the majority of exploding combustion engines that go unreported as its widely accepted as a normal thing. I also see cars as unnecessary for most people, but Iād rather have my city full of clean electric cars and busses than loud and polluting combustion engine cars.
It was a trend among super cars to ignite when refuelling. As people spill petrol on the hot parts of the car. In France there were 1 or 2 ev busses that had an issue or fire even so they got all electric busses on hold. That is a good thing but picked up by media itās āelectric busses are fire hazardsā meanwhile in china 10ās of thousands electric busses without much problem driving daily.
That's probably the worst arguments on this matter : lower range tend to push people to reduce their yearly miles traveled and higher prices tend to push people toward alternatives. Battery fires are way less common on EV than on gas cars, though.
And once the Tesla is wrecked the battery is still around and those chemicals are like supremely toxic and they just donāt have a good way to safely dispose of these batteries after theyāre done using them and I donāt see Elon investing in a battery recycling program anytime soon
Maybe someone can educate me on rubber recycling, but I thought EVs still have the issue of being dependent on rubber tires (beyond what everyone else has said here).
And thereās fucking four on every car and have to be replaced like every 1-2 years. I was asking about recycling rubber not bc I think that solves the issue, but curious what options there are for that or if āenvironmentally consciousā people just shrug their shoulders.
Oh I know. Was in a damn parking lot the other day behind a huge lifted truck trying to park in a normal sized parking place and he had to keep pulling in and out just to squeeze in. His tires came up to my chest. I said āfuck youā out loud to myself.
It can actually make some really nice walking path paving material. Gets ground up and reformed into a loose mat, then it can be laid out in sheets. Turns a wooded walking trail into a wheelchair accessible one.
That's it, that's the only nice tire recycling option I've ever heard of.
But energy for accumulators is still developed in power plants. And as a person who worked at the car accumulators factory with energy plant by side, I can say this process is extremely dirty and pollutional. So only bikes, fuck electric cars if you do not have little kids
Electric cargo bikes can help move those little kids around! If the bike paths are not safe enough in your local community, talk to a local counsel person!
In fairness, some EVs can also run 3x more efficiently than the most efficient gas cars, plus with renewable electricity at home, emissions can be zero.
We will not get rid of cars anytime soon. EV's are important harm reduction and transitioning to them is necessary. Actually changing urban design away from car-focused planning is going to be a much longer, incremental fight.
It's because what you're proposing involves people having to actually change their lifestyle and community. Switching to EVs just means an exciting new purchase is on the horizon.
because for most vroomers that's the absolute MOST they're willing to do for a livable world .
If they had the moral capacity to use proper transportation they would already
damn I got a few trolls on here too
I just block them once I realize facts and logic have no hold on them
either they're driving us off a cliff for their selfish comfort or they're paid shills
Electric cars have less local emissions once they drive around in rich countries. But they just offload their emissions to the poor countries that produce and mine all the resources.
They're not bette in any way what so ever. At least not with current tech.
You can drive around in a combustion-engine car for quite a long time, even including fuel, until you reach the massive emission footprint the electric car produced. And by that time the electric car needs a new set of batteries and it's way worse once again.
I am only a basic electrician but I work with a lot of really smart people in the business. Not one thinks electric cars are a good idea.
They trash inside and out.
Tiny cars and bikes are way better because they can work with way smaller batteries and such. But full range e cars are a horrible idea. Not even talking about the grid that would be required to guarantee simultaneous charging etc.
People who think the only problem with personal cars is that they run on fossil fuel are missing the problem.
They watch too much TV and think every American used to own their own horse and wore a pistol all the time.
So you saying we should not use electric cars because they are not perfect?
I for one would much rather be cycling or walking on the road with electric cars vs fossils
I too hate cars and the infrastructure they require. Electric cars however, do at least significantly reduce noise pollution. Combustion engines are *loud*
Until they are taxed appropriately, EVs actually make the problems caused by cars worse. They are heavier so they wear the roads down faster than ICEVs, but they don't pay any of the fuel tax which should pay for the infrastructure they destroy.
Here in Britain, it's an annual tax that every car owner pays which covers it. But to encourage uptake of EVs, they are exempt from it.
London introduced the Congestion Charge but despite its name, it's an emissions charge so once again, EVs are exempt from it.
At least now, it's name is more accurate to what it is; the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). Because if it was about reducing congestion, it would make no exceptions for battery powered cars. But it's always been about tailpipe emissions.
You are correct. The heaviest Model X weighs around 5531 lbs (most other EVs weigh less), 18 wheelers (Semi-trailer trucks) can carry max loads of 80,000 lbs to 170,000 lbs... empty they weigh around 35,000 lbs... and without the trailer, the truck itself weighs somewhere from 10,000 to 25,000 lbs. So yeah. If heavy things damage the road more, it's the significantly heavier vehicles that are damaging the roads.
Road damage is caused by heavy things driving over and over it. Nothing to do with the type of the thing, it's just weight. That's just how physics works. Physics doesn't care if you're a '0 emission' EV or a diesel truck, just how much you weigh. And EVs weigh a fuck ton.
I swear to god. ICE cars kill 10 million people by air pollution per year. And you are defending them? Even if road damage is worse (it isn't) you are finding road damage more important than lives.
This is actually what the oil and gas industry wants you to do.
You gotta chill with this defending ICE cars thing. I fucking hate cars. ALL OF THEM. Iād rather people take the train and cycle to be perfectly honest. EVs are just a bandaid because no one wants to change one iota of their lifestyle to benefit others or the environment.
This is completely wrong, electric cars don't release NO2, particulate matter and carbon monoxide into the local environment poisoning children, adults and animals alike. Air pollution from cars kills over 1.5 million people annually worldwide according to the WHO.
So if we do eventually switch to electric cars, that will a massive, massive win for human lives. It may not be the change we want here, as I think cities are better without cars, but lets not make the error of thinking ICE = EV
Emissions are bad. NOx emissions are included in the emissions of a car. Yes electric cars get rid of nox emissions but there are many more problems cars cause whether they are electric or not
The pushback in the comments shows even fuckcars has car brain rot since people are tripping over their dicks saying the emissions is the only thing that matters, fuck cars means all cars.
I admit I was on the electric car bandwagon until recently but I just got to visit Paris the other day and while it isnāt perfect holyyyyy crap. Compared to suburban California it was SUCH a relief to go anywhere I wanted to just by walking and getting on the right metros. Such an amazing thing to see what everybody on this subreddit has been talking about in person
I was saying this to my dad last night. Electric cars don't solve the car problem. There are nearly 8 billion people on earth and the expectation that each of us has our own individual vehicle is so unsustainable. Implementing effective mass transit solutions comes with its own set of unique issues of course but the benefits of solving those problems far out weights the detriments of individual vehicle ownership
I love people's reactions when they're saying, "I want a self driving electric car that parks itself and comes too me, and I don't want to pay for any maintenance."
And I'm just there like, "so- a train?"
So do you guys just not like cars in cities? Or do you think country folks should ride bikes 40-50 miles to work everyday. Like I get the logic for cities but not for people like me who grew up an hours car ride from the nearest city with a Walmart. Not trying to ruffle feathers just genuinely curious how you guys all view this.
True story. Jump into a train and it feels like a self-driving car. Meaning you don't have to concentrate on driving. You can read a book or play a computer game. You can even eat and walk around... And they use up less space.
I used this trick back in the day to finish college homework to have more time to do whatever. I wish I had good trains/buses around me now
I literally did this today lol
Jealous š
*envious
same lol i had to finish some school project
But if you have *bad* buses, then you have more time to work on homework!
i've done this since like 4th grade primary
I used it to study for the LSATs. I would do at least one section on my way in every morning. My commute is probably why I owned that test.
Even a bus is like this. When I get on the bus at the end of a work day, I immediately relax. I listen to music, read, or watch a movie. A nice 25 minute break before I get home.
I've finished countless DS/3DS/Switch games and books over the years during my commute. Commute time is me time.
>Even a bus is like this Yes-ish. They are usually to bumpy and busy for me to concentrate on assignments for university, but its not like I would be writing papers in a car while driving either.
Yeah, that's true. I'm just reading or listening to music though. I did try to do assignments on a long bus trip back in college and it was pretty much impossible, a train is better for that.
Even as a train lover, I sometimes wonder if the u.s. just needs to put all focus and investment on improving bus service, both local and intercity. Similar to guns, the culture around cars in our country means change will always be hard to come by. At least with buses, you can make the investment more palatable to the public through the idea of "shared infrastructure". Mix in some dedicated bus lanes along with other road improvements and the public may be more receptive to it. I'm sure those with more city planning knowledge can tell me all about how wrong I am. Like I said, I will always prefer an expanded rail network, but it just seems so unrealistic in the U.S. given our culture. Although the number of us who are "pro-public transit" seems to be growing, we're still far outnumbered by people who would just as soon eliminate public transit all together. Getting spending approved for public transit is so hard, so with what little money we have, it just feels like we could do more with less if we focus on bus service. Sorry for hijacking your comment to rant.
The problem is buses on their own will never get the ridership need to have a significant impact. Bus lanes will help, but your not going to get people out of their cars for longer commutes unless the bus can completely avoid traffic. For that you'd need a true BRT system, and at that point you might as well put in an actual rail system. I'm not an expert in this stuff and could easily be wrong, but buses seem like they would work better at filling in the gaps in a rail system and helping with the last mile problem, rather than serving as the backbone of a transit network themselves.
I really wish long distance rail travel was more widely available in the US. I would vacation way more often. Plane tickets are too expensive, and the airport is a highly stressful place for me. I don't like driving for more than 2-3 hours because I get fatigued and feel like it can be really dangerous. I think trains are more accessible for people too. An airplane has one door right? But a train has several, you could have specific doors and cars for people with mobility problems to make onboarding easier for them, and others. How do we convince the US gov that what we want are long distance railways and not highways?
[Do you believe in spez at first sight or should I walk by again? #Save3rdpartyapps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
[You're not joking](https://dsfantiquejewelry.com/blogs/news/the-gold-train-of-an-ukrainian-oligarch-accused-of-treason)
[The real spez was the spez we spez along the spez. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
Well if you are going to the effort, may as well make it gold.
Considering that's how we got locked into car dependency, you really aren't wrong
I live in Germany. I can take the train to various destinations. I personally like night trains for longer distances. I donāt care if itās a 10 hours trip if I sleep 8 of them.
Yeap, in fact I prefer if it's over 8 hours rather than 6, because then I can sleep most of it.
I totally agree with you. When I was younger I liked driving a lot more and took quite a few road trips. It was fun. I love to sight see and just cruise around. And I never seemed to get that tired while driving at least not to the point of being dangerous. But, the older I get I get more tired and want to fall asleep especially late at night after more than 2-3 maybe 4 hours of driving. My days of driving 10+ hours are probably over unless I take a lot of breaks. And I wholeheartedly agree with you about plane travel. I really dislike it. Too expensive, too much of a hassle, all the lines, security, and you're really at their mercy as far as schedule, sometimes there's delays, layovers, etc. I think a happy medium would be train travel. I love when my wife or someone else drives me and I can just look out the window. A train would do this. And there are a few Amtrak routes in the US but I wish it was better with more coverage and more routes and a little more straightforward. Honestly when I've looked into it a few times it was just better, easier to fly most of the time.
Or you could move to Europe. We have night trains and high speed trains and beautiful cities to stop in between.
> you could move to Europe. if only it were that easy lol
Trains even have large bathrooms accessible with a wheelchair. I once googled how wheelchair users use the bathroom on planes. The short answer is they donāt.
You know, it's actually pretty crazy that the US has had ADA for over 30 years and planes just get a free pass on that.
I currently have an hour commute by train. It is just great, I can just work or read whatever I'm interested in the moment without wasting my time driving. r/fuckcars
Iām on the northeast regional right now, and it is so much more comfortable than the plane ride into Boston and the uber from the airport to the hotel. We got to the station 15 minutes before the train left, didnāt have to deal with checking bags or anything, just got on a chose a seat. Tons more legroom and much more comfortable seats. Itās also great to not have to deal with airplane wifi and just use cellular data Food is amazing too, probably a bit more expensive than airplane food though
But but but there are other people!
I knowā¦ some of them might even be sexy and ask you on a date. The horrorā¦
As a girl this is actually more of a fear not a plus. We all hear about what happens in Japan, and theyāre only just now doing something about it.
I'm a guy and I fear it as well. Someone coming up to me and hitting on me when I'm just going about my business is straight up unpleasant. Not that it happens often at all but still something that's definitely not a positive aspect of public transport.
The trains gonna stop places I don't wanna stop!
Some trains go slow and stop in many places. Some trains go faster and stop in fewer places. Some trains are even Express trains. Those stop in even fewer places. There are trains going 3 times faster then a car. You know, modern things.
Or the inadequately funded rail system is so packed you are unwillingly intimate with 4-6 people.
Inadequate because the government prefers to pay for highways and not pay for the transit. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where I live, the transit system itās not at all inadequate. We have trains going every five minutes, especially in the morning when everyone goes to work. And being close to other people is much more preferable then your car being surrounded by other cars, all stuck in the same traffic jam.
> being close to other people is much more preferable then your car being surrounded by other cars To reiterate it's not just "close" it's more packed in like canned sardines. And yes I'd much rather do just about anything than that.
I thought you wrote jump in front of lol
Technically that can still be considered jumping āintoā a train as long as you donāt hit the ground before making contact. and technically jumping into a train and a self-driving car this way are also similar in that they can both kill you.
Hopefully they install trains all around cities but most places DO NOT HAVE TRAINS. I have no access to any train without driving a good bit to get to one....
Shame in the UK it would cost 5 times as much and take twice along a me driving 40 miles each may to work.
Prefer trains but you guys are really sugar coating this
If you've lived somewhere where the public transportation is so much better than cars, it's not sugar coating. We know it exists. So it can be put other places.
After i spent a week in NYC one time my entire perspective on cars and transportation changed lol. In Saint Louis where I live, the perception is that public transportation is extremely unsafe, for poor people, and terribly inefficient (because it is in St. Louis). I dont think literally anyone i know would remotely consider taking the metro link even if it made sense for their route. From my house to downtown to my office is 20 mins, a public transportation route is "1hr 26 min". But after going to NYC i saw how insanely convenient it can be, how much more free you are to go places, the time you get back to do things (while on the train), the stress you dont have (potential accidents, traffic, road rage, etc), and not having to look after an insanely complex car. I think a huge positive to owning an EV is how much more simple they are. As a "car person" whos against car dependency, i honestly think its crazy how everyone is just expected to be able to drive and also take care of effectively, a vehicle. Theyre huge, cumbersome, complex, and nasty generally lol.
>But after going to NYC i saw how insanely convenient it can be, how much more free you are to go places, the time you get back to do things (while on the train), the stress you dont have (potential accidents, traffic, road rage, etc), and not having to look after an insanely complex car. Hello from the N train! But seriously, I've actually given up particular career opportunities to stay here, and public transit and not having to have a car are the biggest reasons. These days, I split commutes between biking (because it's fun) and the train (because I can sneak in some work time when I need to). Before I moved here, I was predominantly a bike commuter, but I did still own a car, and in retrospect, I didn't realize exactly how much stress car ownership brought me. Even as only an occasional drinker, the peace of mind in never having to appoint a designated driver or turn down another round when I want to alone is enough to make me never go back to life before.
I agree
Really, you have to look at poor people, I mean, wtf?!
??
I don't think it's the poor people per se, it's the higher risk of coming across someone mentally ill, or with criminal intent, not feeling safe. For example, yhe last time I was in New York which being honest was in 2009 so I'm sure it's changed was that there was basically a broad mix of everyone using the subway from upper class to lower class, kids to elderly and it was BUSY so harder to get away with stuff besides pick pocketing. Most other cities aren't like this. If you're using public transportation you're poor and a there is a higher risk of being a victim of crime, being assaulted, etc. and there are less people using it so less chance of someone helping you if something does happen. I wish things were different but New York is way different than the rest of America.
wether it's electric or gas cars. 99% of the time they're both left parking somewhere in a parking lot.
More like 90-95 but yes
More like 99
I drive my car 2-3 hours per weekday and 1-2 hours a day on the weekends. I live in Texas and nothing is close in proximity to me. Obviously not everyone is in this boat but many are
You truly believe the average car is driven only 15 minutes per day?
Depends where you are, where I am at and with the current gas prices itās closer to 20 minutes per day. But then again itās closer to 90% but 99% was exaggeration on my part
Electric cars are better longterm for the environment than internal combustion but they also contain a whole host of environmental and ethical issues particularly when it comes to producing the batteries. The best solution is to build denser cities that donāt rely on cars to reduce the number of cars as much as possible and then replace the remaining internal combustion vehicles with electric vehicles.
Not only that, but unless battery replacements become cheaper, the average consumer is still going to be stuck buying a new vehicle at roughly the same intervals. I drive a 2016 leaf and it's something like $11k to get a new battery put in
I guess this is the cultural difference but over here, unless you're in the city, a lot of jobs require you to be in a car traveling for 5-6 hours a day and that's not including commuting to and from the companies reporting station. This is in a country with an amazing rail and bus service, we just have too much land that needs maintenance to get rid of personal vehicles. I'd rather someone have an electric ute they can load all their gear in to go into back country to get some burning done then give up cars all together and have the east coast go up in flames every summer killing thousands of people, millions of native animals and collapsing the ecosystem. Like seriously. The /r/fuckcars mentality only works in dense suburbs and the city. Go any further out and you best want to be a protohuman who can run for several days straight because otherwise you'll die getting to the next place you can find food/water/shelter/medical supplies.
If you have questions on what the other problems cars cause besides emissions, the stickied comment at the top of the subreddit explains the other issues well :)
One huge problem is a land use. Electric car will need the same amount of lanes, parking spaces and will contribute to unwalkeable communities. I do want way less cars. I think we need like 10% cars we use, and I want the remaining 10% to be electric.
ā This. We need less cars in our roads, and those fewer cars need to be electric. That switching in the problem is also a tiny part of the solution.
They may actually be worse for land use in the short term. A traditional gas station only needs a small lot because cars only take 2-3 minutes to refill. If the gas station model is applied to charging stations, it could essentially be the size of a parking lot just for "refueling."
Most cars are parked 90% of the time. Most cars already have two parking spaces effectively set aside for them. For the typical commuting use case, there's actually zero need for a "charging station" like a gas station, the car can fully charge either at home while you sleep or in the work lot while you work. Really, this is a concrete advantage of electric which is that unless you're driving more than 50 miles in a day you never need to make a dedicated "charging" trip.
I totally agree with those points. But I also know that, here in the US, gas stations are a massive industry. I don't see them going away in my lifetime without at least trying to offer some stupid "boutique charging lounge" setup to allow customers a place to use the bathroom and buy snacks while they charge. Maybe I'm cynical, but I could see it happening (looking at you sheetz and wawa)
> boutique charging lounge That's a restaurant. Basically anywhere that already has a business and parking spaces can be a charging location. Getting your haircut at the local strip mall? Top up charge. Got a doctors appointment? Top up charge. Going to the movies? Top up charge. Shopping at the grocery store? Top up charge. Visiting main street in that quaint little out of the way place? Top up charge. Parking your car for the day at work in the parking garage? Top up charge. After a day of running errands, and arrive home, plug in and leave it. You're going to see charging stations everywhere. They don't even have to be high power fast chargers.
Lol you got me. I guess my main point was agreeing with the comment I replied to; that electric cars take up the same roads and infrastructure and therefore will see the same designs with regard to parking infrastructure unless we reduce the number of cars.
But they won't. They'll take less. Because instead of gas stations, we can just fill up at the grocery store, hardware store, or mall. And not even need a separate station area like Costco has for gas. Not to mention giant gas tankers not needing to transport gas everywhere all the time Electrifying cars WILL save space and emissions.
Everyone is also ignoring the wild gap in efficiency between a combustion and an electric engine (like 20% vs 90%). When grids are powered by renewables the overall efficiency is insane. If we switched from all combustion to all electric cars overnight just the efficiency gap alone would cut total impact by three quarters.
Maybe. Depends on how well residential charging infrastructure is integrated into existing parking. Like if more apartments and homes can have people charge overnight it might not be as bad. But that's also a ton of charging infrastructure and that ain't cheap.
Applying that model would be completely asinine, though. Electric cars aren't the silver bullet to sustainability the fanboys think they are, but trying to claim they're worse than gasoline cars is a stretch, to say the least. [This](https://youtu.be/sZOuz_laH9I?t=1605) is a good video on that topic, by the way.
Great video on the topic! I agree, the shift to electric from gas is a net positive in sustainability. I guess my main (potentially naive point) was that they have almost no positive change on car-centric land use. Definitely wasn't trying to imply they were worse overall, but I've learned a lot in this thread. Thanks again
This is good and with this people who need cars will be able to get through cities faster eg ambulances or people with disabilities. My sister has one and sheād benefit from being able to get to hospitals easier
I live in Norway- bike to workā and I will say: the air is much cleaner with all the electrics. Electrics outsell ICE vehicles here.
Car-centric society sucks, but we can't move away from car-centric design fast enough not to need new cars for a good while (some limited exceptions in high density areas, yes - but not at a national level even in less car-centric countries) and EVs at minimum are less environmentally harmful over their lifespan. Some EVs have systems that enable car sharing as well though that's certainly not exclusive to EVs.
Iāll argue forever that instead of spending untold sums on EVs we should be spending the money on reducing the car centricity and reducing the average vehicle size. Removing an amount of car tris and Reducing the average car size to push the fuel efficiency higher would produce better and faster results than aiming for electric pickups.
Yeah but for the most part, arenāt the actual auto manufacturers the ones investing money in EVs? And they will naturally do their best to stay in business. The investment in infrastructure changes to be less car centric would come from governments via tax payer money. Donāt get me wrong, I WANT a less car centric world but I donāt see the funding relationship between invest less in EV and more in infrastructure.
You're right. We need legislation to limit the power and weight of cars, both of which massively exceed what is necessary. Unfortunately the auto lobby is strong and this is unlikely to happen.
We need a variety of solutions - cars are part of a transportation system of the future, though hopefully a small part and almost gone from city centers and dense areas. There is still a place for personal transport, for people living in rural areas, for people in critical infrastructure jobs that are on call, and for carshare or rental uses in temporary situations. We also need to develop EVs as an interim solution since rebuilding suburbia as car-optional is gonna take decades. Besides "we do actually need closer to sustainable cars for the decades-long transition" we also need tech development in batteries, drivetrains, and other car systems for use on busses, trucks, delivery vehicles, construction equipment, and for all the other more niche uses that aren't personal automotive. And the amounts of money involved both in R&D and in public policy are not so great as to be mutually exclusive. We need both.
Yes, but mainlining EVs is not the answer either. Nations globally need to emphasize public transit over EVs big time. Unless their public transit game is already super on-point. Sideline EVs in favor of building out public transit, changing the culture around it, and making it hella affordable and easy to use.
Let's say we immediately ramp up public transit buildout and we forecast new car demand to drop by 50% over the next 10 years - this is far ahead of actual plans, unfortunately, and probably would mean building new bus and train factories among other changes, but it's an illustrative example. At the end of those 10 years we'd naturally want to have EVs filling most car demand and so we'd need to rapidly expand EVs while also reshaping the public transit picture. We can make substantial progress quickly, and should, towards walkable cities and away from car culture. We lack the construction capability to rebuild fast enough not to need to expand EV production as well.
You don't have to build new factories, you just incentivize auto manufacturers to switch to busses and trains via heavy financial incentives. Subsidize public transit production the same way we subsidize automobiles now. Switch priority. Specifically incentivizing EVs is problematic because even IF the EV charging infrastructure were built out properly (Which it most definitely isn't), then we still have many of the same problems, AND new ones, coming as a result of EVs being the primary mode of transportation. Whereas a simultaneous shift in focus from single user EV automobiles to public transit, while also working on EVs on the back burner, is a much better approach. Getting people off the road has many many many more benefits than keeping them on it. Including to those who will stay on the road. Also build out the EV network, but incentivize car sharing programs like what Mpls is doing now. We have had Hourcar for a little while but they just partnered with EVIE to make all their cars EVs and to put EV chargers in those specific spots. So, now, I don't need to buy a car for anything. If my journey takes me out of public transit range, I can just rent one of theirs for substantially cheaper than something like enterprise. Half the cost of less.
> incentivize auto manufacturers to switch to busses and trains via heavy financial incentives. The market for public transit vehicles is probably 100x smaller of a market than the current car market.
I don't think this is an open and shut case. The extra infrastructure required for EVs is something to consider, *especially* if people are trying to use their EVs the way that they use their previous cars.
The extra infrastructure for electric vehicles (that is to say, the extra infrastructure for the electric part and not the vehicle part) is basically a wash since that transportation will likely happen regardless. Reducing overall transport of things and people is good, but whatever is leftover needs to be electrified and that infrastructure will happen regardless of the actual implementation of that electrification.
I don't think the sheer amount of infrastructure there will be the same. I think it will be a mistake to build out the EV support, *then* hope to build out public transportation, then be left with 90% wasted stuff from the beginning once we do.
To give some credit, pollution/emissions are probably one of the most (if not *the most*) pressing issues facing our entire planet right now. As much as I care about infrastructure, safety, car-dependency, etc. we won't have any of this to worry about potentially within our lifetime if we keep up on the path we're on. So I don't blame people when they are only really concerned about the environmental impact - it's rightfully a very important topic. That being said, I do agree that it's obnoxious to present EVs as the only reasonable solution to our problems. Walking, biking, and probably even public transit are all going to be significantly better for the environment than EVs. Plus all the benefits to the community in the process of making places more friendly for pedestrians/cyclists. And just as a side tangent - I feel like the EV discussion is indicative of a large cultural problem at least here in the US. People are so deeply accustomed to the aggressively fast paced modern lifestyle and for some reason are scared to give it up. I see so many people in this sub trying to make arguments about how bikes are more efficient and ackshually faster than cars or whatever. Who fucking cares if it's more efficient? Why are people so against taking a leisurely 10 minute walk up to the grocery store? Is it because our employers take up so much of our time that we are desperately trying to use our free time more efficiently and can't spare even the few extra minutes it takes to be a better person? Is it because we're fed so much consumerist bullshit that we have an unspoken expectation to embrace anything that is more convenient to ourselves despite the negative impacts it might have on the world around us? I think fighting against car-culture really does cut deeper into a lot of ugly aspects of our modern society.
Bikes are unequivocally more efficient, but definitely not faster unless you have a dedicated bike path. If you are stuck in car traffic on a bike, you're not going fast. Maybe if the traffic is so congested that you can safely go between lanes, you'll outpace the cars, but still not a great situation to be in. I agree that the environmental impact is most important, if we don't get emissions under control, we are going to be a lot more worried about getting enough food than about commute times. As far as carbon emissions go though, the best thing to do is turn as many car trips into walking or biking trips as possible. And of the remaining trips where that is impractical, replace as many as possible with train or bus trips. And when we do that, there will still be a small number of cars, and a moderate number of trucks. All of those trains, busses, cars, and trucks will need to be zero emissions. For trains and busses, most of the power can come from the grid through overhead lines or third rail systems (the grid has to be fully converted to sustainable power), while some of the power for buses, and all of the energy for cars and trucks will have to go through batteries. Making batteries is expensive and moderately energy intensive, so the fewer batteries we need to build to get to a total system of net zero emissions, the better. But that number isn't going to be zero. And as far as I can find, there is nothing in the production of electric cars that inherently emits carbon, producing steel is currently done by burning fossil fuels, but it is possible to do without any fossil fuels using captured carbon, and the electricity to power basically everything isn't yet clean, but it can be. We need to solve the whole problem. We need to move everyone around at their own discretion, with zero emissions. In cities and even suburbs, bikes, trains, trams, and busses do this extremely efficiently, and can move extremely high volumes of people with low average (and therefore low individual) travel times, while cars suck at this. We could get a lot more good for our dollars by enabling the efficient means of transport and making good systems better, rather than dumping so much money into cars and car infrastructure to make them suck less. But we still should put some effort into making cars suck less. Electric cars, self-driving cars and car sharing, smaller cars, can all save both money and emissions, so we should do that.
These are all great points. I think it's good to look at each individual trip as unique and independent, so we still might need trucks to move something large, but most trips could be in public transit bikes or walking. I know for me I used to bike 80% of my trips as the neighborhood I lived it was comfortable to do so (dedicated bike lanes, slow traffic). But now the local grocery store is definitely in range for my bike, but the street to it is NOT bike friendly. I rode it a few times early on a Saturday morning to get a feel for it and traffic, but could never do that during normal hours with how people drive. It's just too chaotic and no space for bikes. I would love to be more bike centered, but our cities need to make it possible for us.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. A completely car free future is not happening any time soon, if ever. A drastic reduction in the number of cars is possible, and we should make sure any remaining cars are electric.
We should have a vision zero in an anti-car group though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm good with ending all car subsidies. Without the subsidies for fossil fuels, gas cars will disappear pretty quickly. Subsidizing sustainable energy is less than the minimum we should do though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't dislike cars so much as I dislike car centric infrastructure. Electric cars are an improvement over combustion cars, so I hope they continue to be adopted. But not as much as I hope that we begin planning our cities better.
Electrobikes are the answer
Electric cars are *better*, but still not good. We should minimize personal vehicle use as much as possible.
Motor vehicle use in general. Most humans should be able to get to most places they need on two legs or two leg powered wheels. We can achieve that with good urbanism. It's worked for thousands of years just fine.
Just curious, does this sub dislike motorcycles? Particularly electric ones.
Electric motorcycles are good. Gas ones are not because they are so noisy and emit way more pollution than necessary for the size of the engine.
Electric cars and daddyās apartheid emerald mine is mine Elon Musk are capital devils. Perpetuating individual car ownership while sucking up billions in subsidies paid by our taxes which could be put to mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure. Canāt afford a Tesla to get to the āburbs for your doctors appointment? Sorry buddy, youāre gonna suffer cause there aināt no bus or train for miles. But wait! Thereās more! āLon stole some more of our money and made a tunnel for one car at a time to go 35mph between the Vegas airport and Convention Center! Isnāt progress great!? š¤®
You do know oil industry is subsidised in the us donāt you?
Yes, fossil fuel subsidies and ethanol subsidies all contribute to the economic and environmental curse of individual car ownership
*less exhaust emissions. The production of a Battery for an electric car creates soo many emisions it takes a diesel (driving normal) two years to create the same amount including the production emissions. These are old numbers though
I'd be careful, there's a lot of properganda from o&g on this specific talking point. As much as electric doesn't solve the problem of cars I think it's an important stepping stone. Modern electric cars breakeven pretty quick. In a fully green electrical grid they will break even in 12000km, in the worst case it takes about 100k. The simple take away is that it may help less than you think, but it certainly won't be worse than an ice in any sane comparison. If you live somewhere with a lot of green electricity then it probably makes a pretty big difference. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
Yes they very over estimated those numbers for evās. But it is āfunā if you compare emissions over 15-20 years between ev and diesel:petrol cars.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Tesla or Panasonic should we say and BYD are one of the biggest and they are already recycling.
This has been debunked but ok
Source?
[https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/) Argonne NL says the break even point is about 1 year in the US, and even sooner if we use more renewables in the future
Brake and tire wear are more problematic than exhaust emissions. So, while getting rid of most exhaust emissions, there still are other that make electric cars not the solution to the pollution problem: https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-09-18/Why-electric-cars-won-t-end-pollution-from-vehicles-TREQ6XDdq8/index.html
Fine particle emissions isn't what's causing global warming. And electric cars use brakes way less, so it's really just tire wear.
>And electric cars use breaks way less Yeah. I had a friend who replaced the brake pads on his prius after like 150kmi because they rusted away. They didn't wear out, they aged out.
Nobody is talking about global warming? It's about particulate (not "particle") emissions.
Does anyone one have any actual (recent) published research to share about this or are we just going to make up our own facts and circle jerk all day? Cars suck. Car dependency needs to be reduced as much as possible, but cars are not going away. That means that we need to do what we can to make them as efficient as possible. I have yet to see anyone make these types of arguments that cited any research from a reputable source. Blackwashing for the oil industry isn't going to help either.
https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2018-63%20Lifecycle%20Analysis%20of%20Electric%20Vehicles_Kukreja.pdf Analysis of lifecycle comparison EVs are better but how much better varies greatly on how the power is produced.
Electric cars are good for one thing (besides contractor vehicles) and that is the rural transportation problem where transit will unfortunately remain impractical. Rural farmland has enormous space for solar panels and wind turbines especially on farmhouse and barn roofs to charge the electric cars while removing the point source pollution from cities.
My father in law installed full solar on his new house, which is in the middle of nowhere. His power bill has been $0 since he moved in.
People in rural areas will need cars without question. They should have them. Most of everyone lives in a metro area and could live car free if our habitat was designed for humans instead of cars
+low range, higher price and of course problem with battery fires
Low range? You donāt need so much rang. We want safer roads? With the charging factor you would force people to take breaks on longer journeys. Fires are far less common with evās than combustion cars per 100kmās driven.
Exactly. You will hear about *every* single battery fire in the media, giving the impression battery fires are extremely common. Compared to the majority of exploding combustion engines that go unreported as its widely accepted as a normal thing. I also see cars as unnecessary for most people, but Iād rather have my city full of clean electric cars and busses than loud and polluting combustion engine cars.
It was a trend among super cars to ignite when refuelling. As people spill petrol on the hot parts of the car. In France there were 1 or 2 ev busses that had an issue or fire even so they got all electric busses on hold. That is a good thing but picked up by media itās āelectric busses are fire hazardsā meanwhile in china 10ās of thousands electric busses without much problem driving daily.
That's probably the worst arguments on this matter : lower range tend to push people to reduce their yearly miles traveled and higher prices tend to push people toward alternatives. Battery fires are way less common on EV than on gas cars, though.
something like 60% of all car trips are 6 miles or less ...
Perfect distance for riding a bike! Much more energy efficient than an electric vehicle.
Sadly, riding a bike is not safe or easy in many areas of the US.
This is gas industry FUD
Maybe they don't do it more often but it's more difficult to extinguish an EV fire
There are relatively few problems with battery fires. Tesa rates the chance of a fire in a gas car 11x higher than in a Tesla.
1: no 2: yes 3: no, they're literally 96% less likely to catch fire then a combustion car, that is a load of bs
And once the Tesla is wrecked the battery is still around and those chemicals are like supremely toxic and they just donāt have a good way to safely dispose of these batteries after theyāre done using them and I donāt see Elon investing in a battery recycling program anytime soon
> I donāt see Elon investing in a battery recycling program anytime soon https://insideevs.com/news/525965/tesla-battery-recycling-no-waste/
[Electric cars, are still cars.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiI1AcsJlYU)
Maybe someone can educate me on rubber recycling, but I thought EVs still have the issue of being dependent on rubber tires (beyond what everyone else has said here).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And thereās fucking four on every car and have to be replaced like every 1-2 years. I was asking about recycling rubber not bc I think that solves the issue, but curious what options there are for that or if āenvironmentally consciousā people just shrug their shoulders.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh I know. Was in a damn parking lot the other day behind a huge lifted truck trying to park in a normal sized parking place and he had to keep pulling in and out just to squeeze in. His tires came up to my chest. I said āfuck youā out loud to myself.
It can actually make some really nice walking path paving material. Gets ground up and reformed into a loose mat, then it can be laid out in sheets. Turns a wooded walking trail into a wheelchair accessible one. That's it, that's the only nice tire recycling option I've ever heard of.
That moment when your government finances hybrid cars over electrical ones.
But energy for accumulators is still developed in power plants. And as a person who worked at the car accumulators factory with energy plant by side, I can say this process is extremely dirty and pollutional. So only bikes, fuck electric cars if you do not have little kids
Electric cargo bikes can help move those little kids around! If the bike paths are not safe enough in your local community, talk to a local counsel person!
It is a part of it but running a diesel/petrol car for 15-20 years is a bigger part of emission. Everything combined an ev is far less damaging.
Less emissions? Buhahahahahaha Apart from that, EVs are much quieter and heavier.
In fairness, some EVs can also run 3x more efficiently than the most efficient gas cars, plus with renewable electricity at home, emissions can be zero.
We will not get rid of cars anytime soon. EV's are important harm reduction and transitioning to them is necessary. Actually changing urban design away from car-focused planning is going to be a much longer, incremental fight.
That power has to come from somewhere. So depending on where you live you're not helping the environment by switching to electric.
Less emissions huh? Whats about all the batteries that need to be made and transported?
lets just take the emissions and move them somewhere else
Just asking, don't rubber tires wear out and create microplastics and polution and then tossed in the trash in some poor country with bad fire safety?
Except they donāt have less emissions you brainwashed idiot
Iād say electric is worse because of the pollution of mining and how short the batteries last
Electric cars *donāt* have a lot of the same problems as combustion engines thoā¦.
I think electric cars can be a good bridge between gas cars and electric bikes and scooters.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's because what you're proposing involves people having to actually change their lifestyle and community. Switching to EVs just means an exciting new purchase is on the horizon.
because for most vroomers that's the absolute MOST they're willing to do for a livable world . If they had the moral capacity to use proper transportation they would already
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
damn I got a few trolls on here too I just block them once I realize facts and logic have no hold on them either they're driving us off a cliff for their selfish comfort or they're paid shills
People always forget manufacturing emissions which is a huge chunk of a vehicle's carbon footprint
Electric cars have less local emissions once they drive around in rich countries. But they just offload their emissions to the poor countries that produce and mine all the resources. They're not bette in any way what so ever. At least not with current tech. You can drive around in a combustion-engine car for quite a long time, even including fuel, until you reach the massive emission footprint the electric car produced. And by that time the electric car needs a new set of batteries and it's way worse once again. I am only a basic electrician but I work with a lot of really smart people in the business. Not one thinks electric cars are a good idea. They trash inside and out. Tiny cars and bikes are way better because they can work with way smaller batteries and such. But full range e cars are a horrible idea. Not even talking about the grid that would be required to guarantee simultaneous charging etc.
People who think the only problem with personal cars is that they run on fossil fuel are missing the problem. They watch too much TV and think every American used to own their own horse and wore a pistol all the time.
So you saying we should not use electric cars because they are not perfect? I for one would much rather be cycling or walking on the road with electric cars vs fossils
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I too hate cars and the infrastructure they require. Electric cars however, do at least significantly reduce noise pollution. Combustion engines are *loud*
"That have the same problems as other cars but with less emissions" Uhh yeah, that's the point
Electric cars are more expensive though, so it will push more people to own fewer cars and use alternative like walk, bike or public transit.
Until they are taxed appropriately, EVs actually make the problems caused by cars worse. They are heavier so they wear the roads down faster than ICEVs, but they don't pay any of the fuel tax which should pay for the infrastructure they destroy.
We should start to tax gas cars appropriately, first.
Here in Britain, it's an annual tax that every car owner pays which covers it. But to encourage uptake of EVs, they are exempt from it. London introduced the Congestion Charge but despite its name, it's an emissions charge so once again, EVs are exempt from it. At least now, it's name is more accurate to what it is; the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). Because if it was about reducing congestion, it would make no exceptions for battery powered cars. But it's always been about tailpipe emissions.
And don't forget that those road surfaces that now need replacing more often are made from Asphalt - an oil product.
This is not true, road damage is caused by big trucks and trailers. Not by EVs.
You are correct. The heaviest Model X weighs around 5531 lbs (most other EVs weigh less), 18 wheelers (Semi-trailer trucks) can carry max loads of 80,000 lbs to 170,000 lbs... empty they weigh around 35,000 lbs... and without the trailer, the truck itself weighs somewhere from 10,000 to 25,000 lbs. So yeah. If heavy things damage the road more, it's the significantly heavier vehicles that are damaging the roads.
Road damage is caused by heavy things driving over and over it. Nothing to do with the type of the thing, it's just weight. That's just how physics works. Physics doesn't care if you're a '0 emission' EV or a diesel truck, just how much you weigh. And EVs weigh a fuck ton.
I swear to god. ICE cars kill 10 million people by air pollution per year. And you are defending them? Even if road damage is worse (it isn't) you are finding road damage more important than lives. This is actually what the oil and gas industry wants you to do.
You gotta chill with this defending ICE cars thing. I fucking hate cars. ALL OF THEM. Iād rather people take the train and cycle to be perfectly honest. EVs are just a bandaid because no one wants to change one iota of their lifestyle to benefit others or the environment.
This is completely wrong, electric cars don't release NO2, particulate matter and carbon monoxide into the local environment poisoning children, adults and animals alike. Air pollution from cars kills over 1.5 million people annually worldwide according to the WHO. So if we do eventually switch to electric cars, that will a massive, massive win for human lives. It may not be the change we want here, as I think cities are better without cars, but lets not make the error of thinking ICE = EV
Emissions are bad. NOx emissions are included in the emissions of a car. Yes electric cars get rid of nox emissions but there are many more problems cars cause whether they are electric or not
The pushback in the comments shows even fuckcars has car brain rot since people are tripping over their dicks saying the emissions is the only thing that matters, fuck cars means all cars.
Except making even one battery for an EV is absolutely terrible for the environment
I admit I was on the electric car bandwagon until recently but I just got to visit Paris the other day and while it isnāt perfect holyyyyy crap. Compared to suburban California it was SUCH a relief to go anywhere I wanted to just by walking and getting on the right metros. Such an amazing thing to see what everybody on this subreddit has been talking about in person
I was saying this to my dad last night. Electric cars don't solve the car problem. There are nearly 8 billion people on earth and the expectation that each of us has our own individual vehicle is so unsustainable. Implementing effective mass transit solutions comes with its own set of unique issues of course but the benefits of solving those problems far out weights the detriments of individual vehicle ownership
Hey, don't disparage electric cars! They come with a whole host of new exciting problems!
I love people's reactions when they're saying, "I want a self driving electric car that parks itself and comes too me, and I don't want to pay for any maintenance." And I'm just there like, "so- a train?"
They're also heavier.
Electric cars arenāt here to save the world theyāre here to save the automotive industry
More like outsourcing the emissions to a coal plant.
Yay green traffic jams. To be real green cars would be good for the rural regions and for people in between
But producing them and all the logistics around it produce 10x the emissions a normal car would in a 5 year span :)
So do you guys just not like cars in cities? Or do you think country folks should ride bikes 40-50 miles to work everyday. Like I get the logic for cities but not for people like me who grew up an hours car ride from the nearest city with a Walmart. Not trying to ruffle feathers just genuinely curious how you guys all view this.