getting more people on electric scooters would do a lot of good too, if there was safe infrastructure to ride without getting hit by an oversized pickup. The city of Paris is doing the right thing here:
The problem with these solutions is they always ignore one major detail: families. It's pretty hard to pack your kids and groceries into a tiny car or on a scooter.
Encouraging tiny cars for the masses may also encourage a Japan-style demographic time-bomb.
The solutions don't need to address every use case or family size -- smaller vehicles could work very well for commuters, that's enough to make a dent in emissions.
build better infrastructure. cars hitting bikes/scooters/pedestrians happens because you don't have good separation. Better bike lanes and road design do a lot to reduce accidents (see the Netherlands for examples on how to do this).
read A Pattern Language. families can get by when we stop doing development around anti-patterns that have the inconvenient external cost of burning up the planet.
I've known people from whom the "have a 3rd kid, or stop at 2?" question probably was tipped over to "stop at 2" by the cost and hassle of having to buy a bigger car to comfortably & safely fit 3 car seats, on top of all the other painfully-high expenses of having a kid. And I've repeatedly heard needing to get a minivan or largish SUV mentioned in conversations about whether to have more than 3 kids, as a downside to going higher.
I'd absolutely believe that car-dependence has played some measurable role in suppressing birthrates, by causing step increases in transportation costs at certain counts of kids. 1 or 2 is no problem with almost any car, but 3 means at least a large sedan, and 4-5 means a van or SUV. More than 5 and you're looking at a fullsize van or a minivan with dual bench seats or something.
One thing I loved living in Japan was availability of minivans that were actually small. The Toyota Sienta (note: not sienna) had 7 seats while being built on the Vitz (Yaris) platform. 3 feet shorter than a north american minivan, a foot narrower, and an engine roughly half the displacement (but still could go highway speeds without issue). I would happily upgrade from a small hatchback to one of those.
Yeah, such cars are hard to find in the US and I'd hesitate to buy one, personally, given the ever-increasing size and weight of the average car on the road, mostly from trucks and SUVs. I don't want to pack my family into a car with little crumple-room and low weight, on American highways.
Cracking this chicken-egg will require forcing huge-ass vehicle ownership down first, and good luck with that in the US. :-(
What's the leg room and seat width in those things? I am wondering whether a three-row Yaris could comfortably fit a modern American man - tall and with borderline-obese BMI - in any of its 7 seats.
3rd seats on JDM subcompact minivans are small even for Japanese, so like for children or emergency. It's fine for the purpose. https://youtu.be/8KHrR0FKs9Q?t=1223
2nd seat leg and head room is great, but possibly the seat size is a bit small for US fat people.
Yep, that video shows it well! Third row is a little tight, but I'm 6'1" and sat there for a 5 hour drive with my duffel on my lap, haha. I think I had it better than the three larger folks sharing the middle row. So it would fit 4 adults and two kids quite comfortably (and for the discussion at hand, it would fit a family of 6 or 7 just fine, just have to keep luggage down as the back seats take up much of the trunk)
I use public transit, a bike, and I haul my family in a GMC Sierra.
Most of the time, bikes are better. Sometimes, I use the truck. We shouldn't require use of the truck, which we do in 95% of the urban areas of this country. I'd rather just put my kid on a bike like they do in NL.
I'm a huge fan of the 15 minute city. It's a bit hard to retrofit that into existing sprawling cities. One avenue I'm excited about in places like Austin is building dense mixed use development areas like https://brodieoaksredevelopment.com/ which turns a massive strip mall into a much denser area as a destination.
This then makes it feasible to build public transit between these areas and start building things up along those transit lines.
These regulations should result in a lot of smaller cars. The easiest way for a manufacturer to get the fleet average down is to build and incentivize the sale of small EV's, because they will bring the fleet average down a lot more than a Hummer EV which has a horrible MPGe. Assuming of course they are successful in closing the truck loophole. They claim to be trying to close it, but time will tell.
Small cars already exist. The Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model 3 are small EVs for USA standards. VW Golf, Mini Cooper, Mazda 3, Kia Rio are more examples of smaller cars.
They're just not as popular as SUVs and trucks in the USA. People want big cars, so companies manufacture big cars too.
Electric scooters would work for 5 months of the year where I live (and we have and use them when we can).
I am an automotive EE that was on before 2008… there is no much irony in your post that hurt feelings by Californians be damned I’m going to explain it to you.
Thank Obama for large cars.
When he came in and you saw the “all cars will have xx MPG by 2025” or whatever year seemed like a lifetime away, the car mfgs said ”ok, but unless you reinvent the stoichiometric ratios of gasoline, this can’t be done”.
And they were right. There are some truths to ICE vehicles that until we have drastically different tires, and roads, and aluminum or composites are way cheaper (the latter not recyclable at all btw), some of these climate change proposals and dreams are just PR bullshit for the people that want to see it.
Now… what happened next was the car manufacturers explained, they came to a compromise. Between CARB and CAFE and NITSA and etc, the administration agreed that they would judge on footprint of vehicle.
Actual quote from one of these closed doors discussions: ”If you are going to grade us on footprint, we’re going to give you footprint”.
A single car going down the road today in CAFE eyes, is not one car. It might be 1.3 cars, because its footprint is 1.3x a 2008 comparable vehicle.
It’s not just footprint though! It’s drivetrain, weight, exemptions, regulation workarounds, class.
Chrysler, erm Fiat, erm Stellanis sell Jeep Wranglers 2dr electrics, so they can sell more diesel trucks. Among 20 other examples.
I don’t know the future with what is about to happen here. But I FUCKING PROMISE YOU this isn’t what it seems and the Biden Admin knows it already. If I had to guess, I would expect the mfgs to push a lot of basically disposable EVs that will last 50k miles and have batteries destined for landfills to make up for the vehicles they want to sell.
Recycling lithium is not currently cheaper than mining new, and I do not expect that to change soon. If you ask me, I would rather a steel car that lasts 300k be made over vehicles that won’t make it to 100k and are just trashed. But… I don’t get a say.
EDIT: As a nearly non-sequitur anecdote, I did cause a guy recently to have an ideological breakdown. He is a city planner complaining that a 9’x20’ parking space is killing him, and cars are only getting larger. I explained in detail the history and he had a lot of trouble coming to terms with it. He thought “his side” could do bo wrong.
It's nonsense that batteries die after 100k and also totally wrong that they end up in landfills.
Car batteries have high reuse value for letting lots of us cases.
Recycling is irrelevant because the amount of batteries going offline is a tiny pitence compared to what is produced knew. There are actually not enough batteries for all the companies wanting to do recycling.
Eventually recycling will make sense but it will be quite a while from now.
You assertion that all EV fail after 50k is disproved by ever analysis on repair cost.
But you are right lobbying and bad choices led to larger cars. However the solution was to force those under the same law and only allow very targeted exception with special licences.
> You assertion that all EV fail after 50k is disproved by ever analysis on repair cost.
Never said either of those things. There is more to an EV than the battery.
But OK, I respect your opinion that these don't go to landfills vs my watching 10k Fiat EV batteries go to a landfill, which wasn't some spectacular event, but basically a Thursday.
You want to bet what happened to these 100-150k batteries with bad chemistry? They went to the landfill homie.
>But you are right lobbying and bad choices led to larger cars. However the solution was to force those under the same law and only allow very targeted exception with special licenses.
I can not agree that the problem with regulation/legislation/lobbying is just double more harder.
(It's really hard as someone who has seen automotive mfging scale explain it to people who haven't)
Also, whatever happened in that case, there are industry statistics about battery materials and they clearly show that most batteries do not end up in landfils.
> I can not agree that the problem with regulation/legislation/lobbying is just double more harder.
Setting regulation as such it gets you the outcome you need, is not doing it harder, its doing it correctly.
20+ years in this industry. That you don't believe it is just so far away from reality that I can't help you.
Do you want a CNN article that a PR paid for to say "Yea! We're throwing hundreds of thousands of batteries away!!" because we/they don't typically pay for you to see things like that.
yeah, im pretty sure the US can cut a lot of emissions by making any car with an average fuel economy of under 25mpg considered a truck for license purposes (which includes training). Boom.
So far I bought a small suv because there were pretty much no other options on the market. Even Ford Mustangs are now SUVs.
I am working on research towards the goal of introducing strict federal weight penalties for consumer vehicles.
Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
If you are involved in automotive, environmental, political spaces - or know someone who is - please reach out, email in bio.
Naively that's going to end up disproportionately penalizing EVs[1], which sounds exactly backwards to me. "Weight" is not the correct factor to optimize, basically.
[1] Which are heavy, because they can't source 2/3 of their reaction mass from the atmosphere and have to keep all the reactants in the battery at all time.
Alright? It's not clear by implication what you actually do want to optimize for but the weight/particulate problem is a fairly well-known problem. For instance, from the California Air Resources Board: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-tire-wear-e...
Fuel consumption? Net total particulate emissions? Net involved fatalities (regardless of fault)? It's not like this is hard. Those are the things people care about reducing.
At best, vehicle mass is a proxy measurement for those things. But the thing is, you use a proxy measurement when the things you're trying to measure are hard to measure. That stuff is easy!
Fundamentally my point is libertarian: If we want to regulate safety, we should regulate safety and not play dumb games with weight rules that then need to be tuned for EVs or whatnot. Fine-tuned rulemaking doesn't work.
Weight should certainly be part of the calculation. Road wear, momentum at speed, and particulate emissions (including from tires) all increase with weight.
Building upon this, the light truck loophole [1] means that there is currently a sort of arms race ongoing if you are concerned about car safety.
Car manufacturers are happy to build the majority of their consumer-facing vehicles as "light trucks" so they can ignore environmental standards, and those of us that want smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicle need to compromise on safety.
SUVs need to be heavily penalized, and need to have far stricter licensing requirements. This will bring down emissions much more than some blanket move to EVs, and be beneficial for safety as well.
On the surface, weight penalties seem to be an effective way to accomplish this; I am curious if there are any examples or case studies about this that you can cite, 'bryanmgreen.
The current generations of Hilux and Tacoma are extremely comparable. Its not like the Hilux is really that much smaller. A couple inches here, a couple inches there, and roughly the same weight.
I’d really love a hybrid maverick, but they are impossible to get. People are still waiting on their 2021 Maverick orders.
I do think the popularity of the truck has sparked something in the auto industry. I believe Toyota is working on a competitor, but we likely won’t see that for another year out two.
And specific to weight, it's topic that is not ignored by federal or state regulating bodies. Heck, even 10 years ago the EPA stated if reduce the weight of your vehicle by 100lbs you can achieve 1-2% fuel improvements. And weight removal is the opposite of diminishing returns, so every pound reduction yields better results.
> Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.
Yes. I don't care how many pedestrians need to die. Just don't take away my freedom to drive to the grocery store in a vehicle larger than a WWII tank.
Part of the reason why the United States had both a Senate and a House is to make sure that more rural states had adequate representation of their interests, which differ substantially from urban areas. Rural areas don't have pedestrians because the distances are too big.
Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. The distance I travel to get groceries would be a net waste (financial, environmental, etc) if I had to make multiple trips rather than packing two weeks of food in one trip.
More broadly, I really wish activists / reformers (of any stripe) would recognize the limits of their own knowledge and experience and realize that the world has more diversity than dreamed of in their philosophy.
Fill is an interesting verb. I suppose you could try to tetris it up each trip to the store, but unpacking would just as inconvenient as packing. That said, if you buy a weeksworth of food for 3 kids, sedan may easily overflow.
In their example they're buying groceries on a roughly two-week schedule. A family of four or so can go through a lot of food in two weeks. In college I'd get groceries about weekly and my roommate and I would fill the trunk of an Accord with groceries.
It's difficult to square urban vs rural interests without creating a tyranny of a majority/minority on either side. Dense urban areas already subsidize rural and even suburban infrastructure and use less resources. Proposing that urban areas tax themselves even more to limit pollution isn't very equitable either.
The fact of the matter is that current CO2 emissions are unsustainable, and we have no choice but to address the issue. That might mean that some may need to go to the grocery store more than bimonthly.
Want to avoid tyranny and environmental disasters? Limit the scope of laws and regulations. If a surgeon is removing cancer, does the patient want their chest cavity ripped open or a laparoscopy? In the absence of compelling additional evidence, I would go with the laparoscopy, which risks far fewer unforeseen complications. At the level of policy, I don't think history looks very kindly upon the 18th amendment to the US constitution (prohibition of alcohol) despite the very real societal problems it was intended to address.
Part of my point was that, for me, going to the store more frequently, even in a smaller vehicle, would be a net environmental negative. Is there evidence (e.g., detailed simulations) that a blunt policy would have a better outcome (using your own definition!) than a narrowly craft one?
I am pretty confident that narrow policies also have the long-term positive effect of reducing tribalism, because the average person ends up dealing with far fewer negative externalities of poorly crafted policy by "the other side".
> Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas.
Why? The majority of the US population (~80%) lives in urban areas [1].
Turning your suggestion on its head, rural areas and states could fix their supposedly over-penalized residents by providing them with money or other incentives to compensate. Maybe rural local governments could subsidize door-to-door vans that deliver groceries on a route, so the rural people can drive less.
Feel? And how do you think your post reads, as fact or sentiment?
If
a) vehicles cause pollution.
b) pollution is bad.
c) bigger vehicles cause more pollution than smaller vehicles.
than naturally it would follow that
d) if a vehicle is oversized for the owners use cases that is bad.
How can we avoid d? Taxes seem to work as deterrent, just look how angry everyone gets when you add a new one.
Literally this very form of tax is one of the main reasons why in countries where the avg. person is wealthier than the avg. american (norway is a good example) drive significantly smaller (and less polluting) cars.
As someone who could potentially get killed by people driving cars, I would rather not let every random moron decide whether or not their vehicle is safe enough to drive on public roads.
My chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron in an SUV are astronomically higher than my chances of being seriously injured by being hit by a moron on a bike.
Statistically unlikely given that SUV carries more people, which translates into higher moron encounter chance since more morons are now forced onto other mode of transport. You just increased your odds.
As for seriously, have you ever seen a bike accident?
it depends on what you mean. I seen the hospital data (can't share it) and per capita bikes send more pedestrians to the hospital with series injury than cars - however cars have a higher kill rate.
One such woman walking down Locust Walk (University of PA) suffered severe brain damage and no longer can move all of her limbs. I can't tell you how many times I was nearly clipped by bikes speeding past me (at car speeds) and missed me by a few inches. Luckily the campus police started to prevent bicyclists from using Locust Walk.
but its a stupid argument anyways. we aren't comparing cars to bikes in this conversation. Many people can't use bikes. I'm sure in your bigoted mind (everyone should do as I see fit) that you didn't consider disabled persons, elderly, or even people with say - broken legs, but needless to say bikes are not for everyone. Thats not even taking into account bikes cant satisfy the vast majority of traveling needs of Americans. We aren't Europe. Our cities are bigger and things are further apart. Nor is bikes the one size fits all solution in the EU.
I’d rather be seriously injured than killed, yes. I think most people would pick the same.
If you observe the rush hour traffic for an hour, how many of those people have broken legs, severe disabilities or a debilitating case of elderly? The majority of people are not disabled, and the fact some people might need cars is no excuse for everyone driving a massive SUV
is it suvs commuting to work or all types, because you mught be cherry picking your stats if you present avg occupancy for all cars in us as an argument here
Assuming we exclude mass transport, what do you think the values would be or do you have any contrary data? I know that most people I'm aware of all drive their car by themselves to their work, there was very little carpooling.
The issue is no reliable data can easily be found ( closest for me was this -https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicle... ) suggesting that neither of us actually knows. Sounds to me like a bad reason to base an argument( or policy on ).
- I know that most people I'm aware of all drive their car by themselves to their work, there was very little carpooling.
how many of those are suvs?
and then we go bk to use case. there is a reason soccer moms exist. u focus on work commute and likely on metro areas only but fail to account for other activity types
Here some data - it's 1.5 people per vehicle in one study[1], 1.45 in another[2], department of energy says 1.67[3]. So a little higher than my assertion, but not much at all.
I'd take even quintupling my odds of getting hit by a bike if it meant I eliminated the chance of getting hit by an SUV. I'd take getting hit by several people on bicycles in my life than getting hit by an SUV going 50mph once.
And yes, I've seen accidents with bikes hitting pedestrians. Most of the time the people ended up fine with minor bruises and sometimes small cuts.
I've seen pedestrians hit by SUVs. Its been rare to see people walk away from that.
I've had many friends and I get into some pretty gnarly bicycle accidents as single bike accident, a bicycle to bicycle accident, or a bicycle to pedestrian accident. Normally just bruised, scraped, and maybe minor cuts. One or two broke bones. The only people I know that have died while riding a bicycle died because they were struck by a car.
I've lost several friends and family members to car accidents.
Once again, if I'm going to be in an accident I'd probably take an accident between two bicycles at 12mph than two SUVs at 40mph.
> 12mph than two SUVs at 40mph.
12 mph is the speed of a beginner bicycler. most bikers go faster then that.
most pedestrians are hit by cars going under 40mph and SUV's only make up about 8% of the total market.
These facts don't disprove the idea that one would 'rather' get hit by a bike vs a vehicle, but the fact that you keep saying that nonsense doesn't help your argument.
> I've lost several friends and family members to car accidents.
I'm not surprised, 76% of Americans require a car to get to work. that's a lot of car trips.
If you don't like cars, don't drive one. I don't. But stop pushing your views onto others.
I'm not going to get hit a car that I'm driving. I'm going to get by a car someone else is driving. I don't only breathe the air that is polluted by cars I drive. I don't only get flooded with the sound produced by cars that I drive. You are imposing your views on me by driving a car.
I didn't realize stating that I'd rather be hit by a bicyclist over a car is pushing my views on people. I guess there must be people here who disagree and would prefer being hit by a car.
I drive cars a lot. The way things are around me, I pretty much need to. I don't personally really dislike cars, I actually really like cars and enjoy driving them and riding my motorcycles. I just can't understand people arguing like bicycle accidents are practically as bad as car accidents or that having people trade their cars for bikes will make people overall less safe.
Your number of SUVs only being 8% of the market is way wrong. Try 80% in the US. It's been around 50% or so for years. The vast majority of cars around me are trucks and SUVs. The one that killed a cyclist near my kid's daycare recently was going over 50mph on a 40mph road. I'd like to see some actual statistics about "most pedestrians are hit by cars going under 40mph" statistic. It would surprise me either way.
EDIT: Some data about speeds here, and yeah under 40mph to pedestrians is definitely the majority.
Even in Norway the owner decides. If you decide you need a massive gasoline vehicle in Norway, you can buy one. It'll just cost you a lot more than a small EV.
The tax would be an incentive to give it a good think about what you actually need to be driving.
Need and want are not the same thing. We for example need to breathe clean air. You seem to want to drive a big vehicle. If you need to drive a big vehicle then ok, just pay to offset for the added pollution.
By this same token you could argue for no licensing being necessary for operating vehicles either. Why not leave that decision to the owner as well? They know best whether they can operate the vehicle or not!
As commenters have pointed out, the big problem here is that your car can kill other people. If you want to make decisions without being bound by regulation, choose a different avenue that doesn't harm other people.
I'm so relieved someone is working on this. I mean, the cars of the 60s and 70s, many of them were so much lighter. Now all the sudden, cars have become fat and heavy and bloated.
Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.
It's not just the US either. My house in London was built in 1970 and has a garage that will not fit a modern hatchback/compact in it. It might just about fit, but you wouldn't be able to open the doors.
Guarantee you can’t find an American car built in 1970 that would fit either. Case in point, the 1970 Pontiac Bonneville Coup. A diminutive 2 door car that was a 18’ long by 6.5’ wide.
Unfortunately you did not spell out what you were thinking. But I had a similar reaction.
I believe that cars in general had less weight 40 years ago. But it came at a cost of much worse crash safety in form of deformation zones and general sturdyness.
But I am sure the GP is also aware of these issues and can comment.
Many of the least efficient vehicles like the EV Hummer the steel frame is still heavier than the battery.
The efficiency game as EVs scale up will always try to get the highest range out of the fewest batteries/battery cells, so cars don't necessarily "only get heavier" because weight impacts efficiency (as does drag coefficients and overall surface area). Lower weight cars get more battery range from the same size battery.
Also, while battery cells sometimes get heavier as the charge capacity gets denser, it is not a straightforward relationship. (Look at phone batteries over the last couple of decades: they store more charge than ever but are also effectively "lighter" in weight than ever.)
Relatedly, because it is fun to speculate about other ways that battery weight may shrink in the next few decades though we don't have enough data yet: right now we're in a "range race" where manufacturers in the US, especially, are all focused on getting the highest possible range numbers (and thus more battery cells to cover it) that they can and meeting/exceeding the 300 miles per full charge "goal post" to fight Americans' current EV range anxieties.
That "goal post" itself may shift, or at least open up to be more of a spectrum of consumer choice. As more Americans get more home charging infrastructure they may grow much more comfortable with smaller range batteries. The early Nissan Leafs have already shown that some home owners can successfully live on 100 miles per full charge or less batteries (even some road trips with current charging infrastructure). It may make sense for car manufacturers to compete on EV form factors that intentionally include smaller batteries and overall are much lighter-weight cars, if for no other reason than it is a way to drive costs down towards extremely cheap low end models.
That's not entirely imaginary speculation either, because Asian markets with faster EV adoption curves than the US average already have some really interesting competition on light-weight, low-range, extremely cheap "urban" EVs. There's probably plenty of market potential in the US for sub-$10k low weight, low range EVs as at least secondary cars in households, and in some cases (some cities) would even already meet many primary car needs. It's just probably going to take a lot more infrastructure, marketing, and consumer convincing in the US market past current "range anxiety" over-concern before we see such cars common in the US, though.
Strict weight limits would be hugely beneficial for addressing environmental, safety, and infrastructure cost concerns.
A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).
But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.
Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.
There is an interesting study that has shown SUV drivers tend to be overconfident, likely due to the vehicle size and their driving position, and are less able to judge the speed and capabilities of their vehicles accurately.
> But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This seems more dangerous, not less. Change a lane and all of a sudden you need to slam on your brakes because you didn't realize how much slower the other vehicle was going. Hopefully the person behind you can react quick enough. I see near accidents from this sort of thing fairly often with less of a speed difference.
“In a hot fucking minute” Which is why his attempt will be thrown out in court. Making changes to regs likes these requires bureaucratic paperwork or they get thrown out like many of 45s rushed regulation reversals did.
I mean this sincerely because I don't get it -- even if you're a republican DeSantis is batshit insane and is arguably closer to neo-fascism than Republican. What's the draw?
Like even if I liked the policy changes he's proposing I would be wary of him being the one to make them since he seems to give zero fucks about the democratic process or procedure if it gets in his way. Once you break the glass and people don't accept democratic results or don't believe it matters I don't see us repairing it.
We got an eBike a year ago, and have put nearly 1500 miles on it. We took our kids to school with it for a while (we moved away from the area their schools were in), and I regularly do grocery shopping for our family of 4.
I am pretty comfortable getting around on a regular bike, but the eBike is really a game-changer. If it's hot out, I can use more assist and not show up sweaty. If it's cold and/or wet, I can layer with pretty thick gear and not worry about being hot/sweaty, for the same reason.
We'd be better off moving away from areas where it is so hot that it requires a lot of energy to stay cool, also areas where it is so cold that it requires a lot of energy to stay warm.
So, US proposes to basically do nothing and hope that technology will improve its emissions to something that's not remotely tolerable. That Biden sure is a epic leader.
My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV. Add to that the issue of people who live in apartment buildings and condos and I don't see how we can scale up consumer demand quickly enough.
Do you know what the story is with that prerequisite? Speaking for literally everyone, I'd rather have charging infrastructure I can't utilize quite yet than a car I can't charge to use quite yet.
Not directly related to cars, but PG&E is unable to handle the incoming requests for electrical system upgrades[1]. Many older houses don't have the electrical panel capacity and they need engineering signoff from the utility.
Subject and writer are idiots. Any electrician worth their master license would not have installed a 125A panel in 2019 unless this woman lives in a converted cottage. Also unless this woman is running a grow house or has a 4000 square foot home they intend to heat with resistive heating she will never use 300A service.
How does PG&E have the authority to regulate the instalation of EV charging? Do you mean they won't install a higher amp service panel like 200A instead of 150A?
If that's the case, it's not that crazy or unusual. While you used to be able to pay to upgrade your service panel, if everyone on the same block or segment of the grid all wants the higher service panel then it will require upgrades to the existing electrical lines and sub stations.
It makes a lot of sense to limit installing larger service panels to customers who will actual use it rather than haphazardly over provision the grid. But you can still easily charge an EV at 50A on a standard 150A or even 100A panel.
Either way, charging an EV on a 150A panel can still be pretty easy depending on what else is there. People think you need a 60A circuit to charge an EV, but even charging at 12A at 240V will give you well over 100 miles of charge overnight. My charger uses 32A and finishes charging my normal days in a little over an hour.
It's cheaper and easier to install a smart panel than to upgrade your service. You probably only need >100A service if you run your oven, dryer, aircon & car charging simultaneously. A smart panel will ensure that never happens. A cheaper alternative to a smart panel is the "Dryer Buddy" and competitors.
The problem is using too many of these high energy devices at the same time you are charging the vehicle. We need smart meters which can turn off vehicle charging or hot water heating while the dryer or kitchen stove/oven are in use.
> My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV.
How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?
My biggest shock: they included trucks. For the past many years, the restrictions on cars have been tightening, but everyone drives a truck that’s exempt from the requirements
Eh. And who will suffer? Poor people. Why? 'Drive a bus', that is why is the gist of reasoning here. Naturally, upper income and wealthy individuals will still drive crazy toys, but that is ok.
These requirements apply to new vehicles. Most poor don't buy new, and if they do, there are vehicles like the Bolt that are cheaper than your typical new SUV. Presumably the market will respond with options, similar to how in 2008 the poor couldn't afford smartphones. Additionally, the cost of "fuel" to go 300 miles is roughly $10-15 for EVs versus $40-50 for gas (assuming an efficient 4 cylinder), along with eliminating costs for 2-3 oil changes every year.
And presumably those same people will charge it.. where? where is infrastructure and please dont say presumably
-Most poor don't buy new, and if they do, there are vehicles like the Bolt that are cheaper than your typical new SUV
on avg. poor people buy cheap, because it is what they can afford. iirc, bolt is not as available as it used to be. plus, even after incentives evs are not cheap
- Presumably the market will respond with options, similar to how in 2008 the poor couldn't afford smartphone
great. we will throw away working system for presumably great system. presumably, the poor will get to drive a golf cart ewuivalent that requires iris and palm scan for 'helping improve customer experience'
-along with eliminating costs for 2-3 oil changes every year.
yeah.. because its the oil change that is killing me and not thousands for new battery
> where is infrastructure and please dont say presumably
Just look at the infrastructure 5 years ago and extrapolate where it will be going. Walmart, a staple of the poor, has announced plans to expand its EV charging footprint.
> a golf cart ewuivalent that requires iris and palm scan for 'helping improve customer experience'
My wife and I drive EVs that we get in, press a button, and it starts, similar to our previous ICE vehicles.
> because its the oil change that is killing me and not thousands for new battery
My Kia has a 10 year/100k warranty that includes the battery. Also, Nissan, which has some of the oldest mainstream EVs still on the road, said they are seeing very low failure rates, often outlasting the car itself.
- My wife and I drive EVs that we get in, press a button, and it starts, similar to our previous ICE vehicles.
Sure but 1. how much was you upfront cost for either 2. how big is ur family 3. daily commute distance 4. use case
- Just look at the infrastructure 5 years ago and extrapolate where it will be going. Walmart, a staple of the poor, has announced plans to expand its EV charging footprint.
so it is a little like wishful thinking. you may end up being right. you might not, but u r willing to gamble a little
all those things matter when u argue 'everyone should be like me'
> Sure but 1. how much was you upfront cost for either 2. how big is ur family 3. daily commute distance 4. use case
I was responding to your dystopian future of iris and palm scans, but as long as you're moving the goal posts: I have a 20 mile commute one way, we regularly drive longer distances (100+ miles a day is common). We are only 2 people, but each of our cars hold 5 people comfortably (both are SUV class). We even drove from Houston to San Diego and back in one of our cars. As for cost, they were on the higher end, but still within the range of a standard SUV.
> so it is a little like wishful thinking. you may end up being right. you might not, but u r willing to gamble a little
The same could be have been said about high speed Internet circa the year 1999. Cell phone towers. Cell phone battery life. 5G access. Etc. Is it possible the current trends in EV infrastructure and models being produced will grind to a halt? Sure. In five years gas prices could be $12/gallon too, but neither scenario seems likely.
> all those things matter when u argue 'everyone should be like me'
Never argued that. Was responding to your claims re poor and requirements for NEW vehicles.
I really want an EV, but they don't work for me. I live in an urban area and park on a city street. EV ownership would add a lot of complications to my life due to the current state of charging infrastructure.
I think EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets or there is a large increase in rapid charging availability and speed.
> chicken and egg problem, there won't be a need for increased charging infrastructure until there are more EVs on the road.
Which we don't have the electricity infrastructure for.
The solution is to get rid of cars, period. Ownership should require a permit like gun ownership requires in some cities (i.e you should only be able to buy one of the DMV agrees you have good reason to need a car).
Can you please stop posting ideological flamebait to HN? You've unfortunately been doing it a lot lately. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
How sure are we there will not be some accounting shenanigans allowing you to offset your rolling coal fleet with some paper certificates scheme that assures you might have cut down some rainforest but didn't.
> If they really wanted to cut, emissions bycicles and trains are the way to do it.
Exactly, what we really need to do is have a restrictive permitting system for cars like some cities have for guns. If you can't show good cause for needing a car, you shouldn't be able to get permit to buy one. Just use public transit or bike.
154 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 252 ms ] threadgetting more people on electric scooters would do a lot of good too, if there was safe infrastructure to ride without getting hit by an oversized pickup. The city of Paris is doing the right thing here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/10/20/paris-ma...
Encouraging tiny cars for the masses may also encourage a Japan-style demographic time-bomb.
This needs some explaining.
I'd absolutely believe that car-dependence has played some measurable role in suppressing birthrates, by causing step increases in transportation costs at certain counts of kids. 1 or 2 is no problem with almost any car, but 3 means at least a large sedan, and 4-5 means a van or SUV. More than 5 and you're looking at a fullsize van or a minivan with dual bench seats or something.
Cracking this chicken-egg will require forcing huge-ass vehicle ownership down first, and good luck with that in the US. :-(
2nd seat leg and head room is great, but possibly the seat size is a bit small for US fat people.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/c4daDbQD398BmW5k5/on-car-sea...
That seems pretty far fetched. I bet you could see an effect from the size of laundry machines too.
Most of the time, bikes are better. Sometimes, I use the truck. We shouldn't require use of the truck, which we do in 95% of the urban areas of this country. I'd rather just put my kid on a bike like they do in NL.
This then makes it feasible to build public transit between these areas and start building things up along those transit lines.
Note that your source is very outdated. Paris just opted to ban electric rental scooters effective September.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/parisians-vote-ban-e-sc...
When someone personally owns an object, it's far less likely to be found laying across a public footpath or at the bottom of a canal.
They're just not as popular as SUVs and trucks in the USA. People want big cars, so companies manufacture big cars too.
Electric scooters would work for 5 months of the year where I live (and we have and use them when we can).
I am an automotive EE that was on before 2008… there is no much irony in your post that hurt feelings by Californians be damned I’m going to explain it to you.
Thank Obama for large cars.
When he came in and you saw the “all cars will have xx MPG by 2025” or whatever year seemed like a lifetime away, the car mfgs said ”ok, but unless you reinvent the stoichiometric ratios of gasoline, this can’t be done”.
And they were right. There are some truths to ICE vehicles that until we have drastically different tires, and roads, and aluminum or composites are way cheaper (the latter not recyclable at all btw), some of these climate change proposals and dreams are just PR bullshit for the people that want to see it.
Now… what happened next was the car manufacturers explained, they came to a compromise. Between CARB and CAFE and NITSA and etc, the administration agreed that they would judge on footprint of vehicle.
Actual quote from one of these closed doors discussions: ”If you are going to grade us on footprint, we’re going to give you footprint”.
A single car going down the road today in CAFE eyes, is not one car. It might be 1.3 cars, because its footprint is 1.3x a 2008 comparable vehicle.
It’s not just footprint though! It’s drivetrain, weight, exemptions, regulation workarounds, class.
Chrysler, erm Fiat, erm Stellanis sell Jeep Wranglers 2dr electrics, so they can sell more diesel trucks. Among 20 other examples.
I don’t know the future with what is about to happen here. But I FUCKING PROMISE YOU this isn’t what it seems and the Biden Admin knows it already. If I had to guess, I would expect the mfgs to push a lot of basically disposable EVs that will last 50k miles and have batteries destined for landfills to make up for the vehicles they want to sell.
Recycling lithium is not currently cheaper than mining new, and I do not expect that to change soon. If you ask me, I would rather a steel car that lasts 300k be made over vehicles that won’t make it to 100k and are just trashed. But… I don’t get a say.
EDIT: As a nearly non-sequitur anecdote, I did cause a guy recently to have an ideological breakdown. He is a city planner complaining that a 9’x20’ parking space is killing him, and cars are only getting larger. I explained in detail the history and he had a lot of trouble coming to terms with it. He thought “his side” could do bo wrong.
Car batteries have high reuse value for letting lots of us cases.
Recycling is irrelevant because the amount of batteries going offline is a tiny pitence compared to what is produced knew. There are actually not enough batteries for all the companies wanting to do recycling.
Eventually recycling will make sense but it will be quite a while from now.
You assertion that all EV fail after 50k is disproved by ever analysis on repair cost.
But you are right lobbying and bad choices led to larger cars. However the solution was to force those under the same law and only allow very targeted exception with special licences.
> You assertion that all EV fail after 50k is disproved by ever analysis on repair cost.
Never said either of those things. There is more to an EV than the battery.
But OK, I respect your opinion that these don't go to landfills vs my watching 10k Fiat EV batteries go to a landfill, which wasn't some spectacular event, but basically a Thursday.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/gm-recalls-every-chevy-...
You want to bet what happened to these 100-150k batteries with bad chemistry? They went to the landfill homie.
>But you are right lobbying and bad choices led to larger cars. However the solution was to force those under the same law and only allow very targeted exception with special licenses.
I can not agree that the problem with regulation/legislation/lobbying is just double more harder.
(It's really hard as someone who has seen automotive mfging scale explain it to people who haven't)
Do you have evidence?
Also, whatever happened in that case, there are industry statistics about battery materials and they clearly show that most batteries do not end up in landfils.
> I can not agree that the problem with regulation/legislation/lobbying is just double more harder.
Setting regulation as such it gets you the outcome you need, is not doing it harder, its doing it correctly.
20+ years in this industry. That you don't believe it is just so far away from reality that I can't help you.
Do you want a CNN article that a PR paid for to say "Yea! We're throwing hundreds of thousands of batteries away!!" because we/they don't typically pay for you to see things like that.
So far I bought a small suv because there were pretty much no other options on the market. Even Ford Mustangs are now SUVs.
Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
If you are involved in automotive, environmental, political spaces - or know someone who is - please reach out, email in bio.
[1] Which are heavy, because they can't source 2/3 of their reaction mass from the atmosphere and have to keep all the reactants in the battery at all time.
Is it not? Particular matter from tires is a major factor in air pollution and the heavier the vehicle the more that ramps up.
It's something the tire industry has been fretting over for a while: https://www.tiretechnologyinternational.com/news/regulations...
-Nissan leaf - 3500 to 3900 lbs
-Tesla model 3 long range - 4250 lbs (131mpge)
-F150 lightning - 6000 to 6900 lbs
At best, vehicle mass is a proxy measurement for those things. But the thing is, you use a proxy measurement when the things you're trying to measure are hard to measure. That stuff is easy!
Fundamentally my point is libertarian: If we want to regulate safety, we should regulate safety and not play dumb games with weight rules that then need to be tuned for EVs or whatnot. Fine-tuned rulemaking doesn't work.
Hopefully battery tech can improve at a steady pace that there are in the near-ish future notable reductions in weight.
Car manufacturers are happy to build the majority of their consumer-facing vehicles as "light trucks" so they can ignore environmental standards, and those of us that want smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicle need to compromise on safety.
SUVs need to be heavily penalized, and need to have far stricter licensing requirements. This will bring down emissions much more than some blanket move to EVs, and be beneficial for safety as well.
On the surface, weight penalties seem to be an effective way to accomplish this; I am curious if there are any examples or case studies about this that you can cite, 'bryanmgreen.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://jalopnik.com/every-car-looks-like-this-thanks-to-a-g...
I do think the popularity of the truck has sparked something in the auto industry. I believe Toyota is working on a competitor, but we likely won’t see that for another year out two.
[1] https://are.berkeley.edu/~mlanderson/pdf/anderson_auffhammer...
The International Energy Agency has done some good research specific to the subject of SUV emissions.
[2] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/global-suv-sales-set-anothe...
[3] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-their-sales-continue-to-...
And specific to weight, it's topic that is not ignored by federal or state regulating bodies. Heck, even 10 years ago the EPA stated if reduce the weight of your vehicle by 100lbs you can achieve 1-2% fuel improvements. And weight removal is the opposite of diminishing returns, so every pound reduction yields better results.
[4] https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/10_G00888_saving...
Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.
Cities and heavily urban states could fix their pedestrian safety problems easily by creating massive local registration taxes on large vehicles, without a federal tax penalizing rural areas. The distance I travel to get groceries would be a net waste (financial, environmental, etc) if I had to make multiple trips rather than packing two weeks of food in one trip.
More broadly, I really wish activists / reformers (of any stripe) would recognize the limits of their own knowledge and experience and realize that the world has more diversity than dreamed of in their philosophy.
The fact of the matter is that current CO2 emissions are unsustainable, and we have no choice but to address the issue. That might mean that some may need to go to the grocery store more than bimonthly.
Part of my point was that, for me, going to the store more frequently, even in a smaller vehicle, would be a net environmental negative. Is there evidence (e.g., detailed simulations) that a blunt policy would have a better outcome (using your own definition!) than a narrowly craft one?
I am pretty confident that narrow policies also have the long-term positive effect of reducing tribalism, because the average person ends up dealing with far fewer negative externalities of poorly crafted policy by "the other side".
Or how about letting each side decide what they want to do for themselves, but not to the other?
Cities can pay for themselves. Rural areas can pay for themselves.
See how Switzerland does it.
Why? The majority of the US population (~80%) lives in urban areas [1].
Turning your suggestion on its head, rural areas and states could fix their supposedly over-penalized residents by providing them with money or other incentives to compensate. Maybe rural local governments could subsidize door-to-door vans that deliver groceries on a route, so the rural people can drive less.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-ru...
If
a) vehicles cause pollution.
b) pollution is bad.
c) bigger vehicles cause more pollution than smaller vehicles.
than naturally it would follow that
d) if a vehicle is oversized for the owners use cases that is bad.
How can we avoid d? Taxes seem to work as deterrent, just look how angry everyone gets when you add a new one.
Literally this very form of tax is one of the main reasons why in countries where the avg. person is wealthier than the avg. american (norway is a good example) drive significantly smaller (and less polluting) cars.
There are lots of small cars you can buy. People don't buy them. They want bigger cars.
I would rather make that decision myself, rather than some government bureaucrat deciding he is going to overrule my own preference.
As for seriously, have you ever seen a bike accident?
One such woman walking down Locust Walk (University of PA) suffered severe brain damage and no longer can move all of her limbs. I can't tell you how many times I was nearly clipped by bikes speeding past me (at car speeds) and missed me by a few inches. Luckily the campus police started to prevent bicyclists from using Locust Walk.
but its a stupid argument anyways. we aren't comparing cars to bikes in this conversation. Many people can't use bikes. I'm sure in your bigoted mind (everyone should do as I see fit) that you didn't consider disabled persons, elderly, or even people with say - broken legs, but needless to say bikes are not for everyone. Thats not even taking into account bikes cant satisfy the vast majority of traveling needs of Americans. We aren't Europe. Our cities are bigger and things are further apart. Nor is bikes the one size fits all solution in the EU.
If you observe the rush hour traffic for an hour, how many of those people have broken legs, severe disabilities or a debilitating case of elderly? The majority of people are not disabled, and the fact some people might need cars is no excuse for everyone driving a massive SUV
And yet I'll bet the average number of morning commuters in each vehicle is ~1.
- I know that most people I'm aware of all drive their car by themselves to their work, there was very little carpooling.
how many of those are suvs? and then we go bk to use case. there is a reason soccer moms exist. u focus on work commute and likely on metro areas only but fail to account for other activity types
[1] https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/perso... [2] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/occupancy... [3] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1040-july...
[1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1040-july...
And yes, I've seen accidents with bikes hitting pedestrians. Most of the time the people ended up fine with minor bruises and sometimes small cuts.
I've seen pedestrians hit by SUVs. Its been rare to see people walk away from that.
I've lost several friends and family members to car accidents.
Once again, if I'm going to be in an accident I'd probably take an accident between two bicycles at 12mph than two SUVs at 40mph.
These facts don't disprove the idea that one would 'rather' get hit by a bike vs a vehicle, but the fact that you keep saying that nonsense doesn't help your argument.
> I've lost several friends and family members to car accidents.
I'm not surprised, 76% of Americans require a car to get to work. that's a lot of car trips.
If you don't like cars, don't drive one. I don't. But stop pushing your views onto others.
I drive cars a lot. The way things are around me, I pretty much need to. I don't personally really dislike cars, I actually really like cars and enjoy driving them and riding my motorcycles. I just can't understand people arguing like bicycle accidents are practically as bad as car accidents or that having people trade their cars for bikes will make people overall less safe.
Your number of SUVs only being 8% of the market is way wrong. Try 80% in the US. It's been around 50% or so for years. The vast majority of cars around me are trucks and SUVs. The one that killed a cyclist near my kid's daycare recently was going over 50mph on a 40mph road. I'd like to see some actual statistics about "most pedestrians are hit by cars going under 40mph" statistic. It would surprise me either way.
EDIT: Some data about speeds here, and yeah under 40mph to pedestrians is definitely the majority.
https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.ht...
https://jalopnik.com/trucks-and-suvs-are-now-over-80-percent...
If fewer people drove cars, our roads will be safer and we would have less traffic fatalities. Do you disagree?
Who decides the owner can't drive the vehicle? Why not leave that decision to the driver?
or
Who decides vehicles must have lights? Shouldn't we leave that decision to the owner?
As equally valid?
It is not "government telling you what to do", it is you paying for your sh*t.
Need and want are not the same thing. We for example need to breathe clean air. You seem to want to drive a big vehicle. If you need to drive a big vehicle then ok, just pay to offset for the added pollution.
As commenters have pointed out, the big problem here is that your car can kill other people. If you want to make decisions without being bound by regulation, choose a different avenue that doesn't harm other people.
Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.
I believe that cars in general had less weight 40 years ago. But it came at a cost of much worse crash safety in form of deformation zones and general sturdyness.
But I am sure the GP is also aware of these issues and can comment.
Would you care to lay some of them out? I can see this being a problem with EVs, but I'm interested as to what you're thinking.
The efficiency game as EVs scale up will always try to get the highest range out of the fewest batteries/battery cells, so cars don't necessarily "only get heavier" because weight impacts efficiency (as does drag coefficients and overall surface area). Lower weight cars get more battery range from the same size battery.
Also, while battery cells sometimes get heavier as the charge capacity gets denser, it is not a straightforward relationship. (Look at phone batteries over the last couple of decades: they store more charge than ever but are also effectively "lighter" in weight than ever.)
That "goal post" itself may shift, or at least open up to be more of a spectrum of consumer choice. As more Americans get more home charging infrastructure they may grow much more comfortable with smaller range batteries. The early Nissan Leafs have already shown that some home owners can successfully live on 100 miles per full charge or less batteries (even some road trips with current charging infrastructure). It may make sense for car manufacturers to compete on EV form factors that intentionally include smaller batteries and overall are much lighter-weight cars, if for no other reason than it is a way to drive costs down towards extremely cheap low end models.
That's not entirely imaginary speculation either, because Asian markets with faster EV adoption curves than the US average already have some really interesting competition on light-weight, low-range, extremely cheap "urban" EVs. There's probably plenty of market potential in the US for sub-$10k low weight, low range EVs as at least secondary cars in households, and in some cases (some cities) would even already meet many primary car needs. It's just probably going to take a lot more infrastructure, marketing, and consumer convincing in the US market past current "range anxiety" over-concern before we see such cars common in the US, though.
A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).
But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.
Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.
[1] https://vehicledynamics.com/suvs-why-you-may-drive-fast/
This seems more dangerous, not less. Change a lane and all of a sudden you need to slam on your brakes because you didn't realize how much slower the other vehicle was going. Hopefully the person behind you can react quick enough. I see near accidents from this sort of thing fairly often with less of a speed difference.
That pedigree out of the way, I’ll give my cynical take: this will get rolled back by President DeSantis in a hot fucking minute.
Like even if I liked the policy changes he's proposing I would be wary of him being the one to make them since he seems to give zero fucks about the democratic process or procedure if it gets in his way. Once you break the glass and people don't accept democratic results or don't believe it matters I don't see us repairing it.
I am pretty comfortable getting around on a regular bike, but the eBike is really a game-changer. If it's hot out, I can use more assist and not show up sweaty. If it's cold and/or wet, I can layer with pretty thick gear and not worry about being hot/sweaty, for the same reason.
If you use a lot of pedal assist you actually get a lot of air rushing by you without too much effort: it's nicer than hopping in a hot car.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/home-pge-electri...
If that's the case, it's not that crazy or unusual. While you used to be able to pay to upgrade your service panel, if everyone on the same block or segment of the grid all wants the higher service panel then it will require upgrades to the existing electrical lines and sub stations.
It makes a lot of sense to limit installing larger service panels to customers who will actual use it rather than haphazardly over provision the grid. But you can still easily charge an EV at 50A on a standard 150A or even 100A panel.
How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?
-Most poor don't buy new, and if they do, there are vehicles like the Bolt that are cheaper than your typical new SUV
on avg. poor people buy cheap, because it is what they can afford. iirc, bolt is not as available as it used to be. plus, even after incentives evs are not cheap
- Presumably the market will respond with options, similar to how in 2008 the poor couldn't afford smartphone
great. we will throw away working system for presumably great system. presumably, the poor will get to drive a golf cart ewuivalent that requires iris and palm scan for 'helping improve customer experience'
-along with eliminating costs for 2-3 oil changes every year.
yeah.. because its the oil change that is killing me and not thousands for new battery
Just look at the infrastructure 5 years ago and extrapolate where it will be going. Walmart, a staple of the poor, has announced plans to expand its EV charging footprint.
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/10/walmart-ev-fast-charging-el...
> a golf cart ewuivalent that requires iris and palm scan for 'helping improve customer experience'
My wife and I drive EVs that we get in, press a button, and it starts, similar to our previous ICE vehicles.
> because its the oil change that is killing me and not thousands for new battery
My Kia has a 10 year/100k warranty that includes the battery. Also, Nissan, which has some of the oldest mainstream EVs still on the road, said they are seeing very low failure rates, often outlasting the car itself.
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/21/surprise-nissan-leaf-ba...
Sure but 1. how much was you upfront cost for either 2. how big is ur family 3. daily commute distance 4. use case
- Just look at the infrastructure 5 years ago and extrapolate where it will be going. Walmart, a staple of the poor, has announced plans to expand its EV charging footprint.
so it is a little like wishful thinking. you may end up being right. you might not, but u r willing to gamble a little
all those things matter when u argue 'everyone should be like me'
I was responding to your dystopian future of iris and palm scans, but as long as you're moving the goal posts: I have a 20 mile commute one way, we regularly drive longer distances (100+ miles a day is common). We are only 2 people, but each of our cars hold 5 people comfortably (both are SUV class). We even drove from Houston to San Diego and back in one of our cars. As for cost, they were on the higher end, but still within the range of a standard SUV.
> so it is a little like wishful thinking. you may end up being right. you might not, but u r willing to gamble a little
The same could be have been said about high speed Internet circa the year 1999. Cell phone towers. Cell phone battery life. 5G access. Etc. Is it possible the current trends in EV infrastructure and models being produced will grind to a halt? Sure. In five years gas prices could be $12/gallon too, but neither scenario seems likely.
> all those things matter when u argue 'everyone should be like me'
Never argued that. Was responding to your claims re poor and requirements for NEW vehicles.
I think EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets or there is a large increase in rapid charging availability and speed.
Which we don't have the electricity infrastructure for.
The solution is to get rid of cars, period. Ownership should require a permit like gun ownership requires in some cities (i.e you should only be able to buy one of the DMV agrees you have good reason to need a car).
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets
In the US there are 140 million homes and 3 million EVs. Not to diminish your needs, but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit there.
Exactly, what we really need to do is have a restrictive permitting system for cars like some cities have for guns. If you can't show good cause for needing a car, you shouldn't be able to get permit to buy one. Just use public transit or bike.