Utter tosh.
The Telegraph (who funded this study) have a huge list of anti-EV articles, nearly all of which are technically incorrect and often self-contradictory. They clearly have an agenda and it's likely funded by the oil industry.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
2 points (52.9% liked)
United Kingdom
4123 readers
298 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not entirely untrue. Electric vehicles tend to be heavier than petrol or diesel vehicles, and heavier vehicles cause more wear to road surfaces than lighter ones.
That isn't to say electric vehicles are bad idea because of that though.
But still fractionally as heavy as lorries, which /do/ cause most of the potholes. But the article is designed to trigger our base feelings of anger about paying for a road surface that's often in poor condition.
The car park argument is pretty silly too. Older multi-stories have greater problems from cars being wider, longer and taller than what they were designed for. But again, with the news of the multistorey car park collapsing in New York not that long ago, it's triggering fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the reader.
Objectively, it's a really good example of how to write a manipulative 'news' story that preys on human emotion. That doesn't make it /true/ though.
Damage to road surfaces increases by 2^4^ with weight. Link
A 2 tonne vehicle will do 16x as much damage as a 1 tonne.
EVs tend to be heavier, but for example, a Nissan Leaf weighs 1580KG, a Ford Puma weighs 1280KG and a a chelsea tractor weighs 2770KG.
So a Leaf vs the best selling car in the UK (Puma) is close to 2x the damage.
But a Range Rover vs the Puma is getting on for 20x the damage.
This article does seem to be anti-EV. And I hope that the new regulations that come in are based on weight, not just being a BEV.
Can't recall the figures off the top of my head, but even the BMW 3-Series (G20) is about as heavy as equivalent Tesla's. Of course you'll find lighter Japanese vehicles with smaller engines, but the article does seem to ignore how heavy ICE vehicles can get and how light BEV's can be...
Electric cars, which are roughly twice as heavy as standard models, could also cause serious damage to car park floors with especially older, unloved structures most at risk of buckling, experts have said.
If you're curious, this is why
Which electric car is "roughly twice as heavy" as a comparable internal combustion car?
the hummer ev weighs 2500lbs more than a hummer h2 and over 4000lbs heavier than a new tahoe.
but, afaik, the two new vehicles arent sold there. as far as more normal vehicles, yeah there might be some weight penalty but they arent 2z heavy.
The Hummer EV is the single most extreme example of an EV, an abnormal big monster car with an abnormal big monster battery. But still those 2500 lbs mean that it's just about 50% heavier than the Hummer H2 (starting at 6400 lbs vs EV's 9000 lbs), which, though also being an abnormal big monster car, still was much smaller than the EV, which is 13 inch longer and 5 inch wider than the H2's long version.
Oh no! They'll actually have to build roads to a proper standard now!
The research was done by the Asphalt Industry Alliance (https://www.asphaltuk.org) who complain that there is a 1.30bn shortfall in the carriageway budget.
They have a point - potholes are worse than they’ve ever been - but one has to wonder if they would bump up the numbers to try and get more funding 🤔
EVs don't fix congestion, don't fix particulates from tyres, don't fix tyre noise (which dominates above 30mph), don't fix crash deaths, don't fix road damage, don't fix energy usage and don't fix cars contributing to sedentary lifestyles.
Perhaps we should also be looking at some other solutions while we transition to from ICE vehicles EVs.
There's a lot of obvious big-oil funded propaganda against electric cars being posted on Lemmy....
This is not a problem even if it's true.
@Benjamin_Kenobi
The petrol equivalent of my EV is a Range Rover - similar weight.
That's mostly what determines wear on the roads - "damage" appears to be wear which is not repaired, a speciality of our current government.
And yes, it is funded by people who wish to be the richest regardless of megadeaths and their own children.
You see a lot of these kind of 'EVs don't solve all the problems of ICE cars and therefore a waste of time/money' articles. It seems to be echoed when talking to people as well (probably why you see the articles). It's an odd view in my opinion - EVs have many advantages, but obviously still, you know, cars...