4 ms·

This is a very weird article. Isn't the main point of electric cars is to reduce carbon emissions? I don't remember Elon Musk saying that his cars would solve t

This is a very weird article. Isn't the main point of electric cars is to reduce carbon emissions? I don't remember Elon Musk saying that his cars would solve the problem of Urban Sprawl, traffic jams, or parking space? The headline feels like pure clickbait.

taneq 7y ago
In other news, solar power will not solve world hunger and satellite TV will do nothing for domestic violence.
visarga 7y ago
Also, the problem is ill posed. I don't think road congestion can be solved by making a different car. It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Buses and trains with good schedules are different cars ;) - while this is definitely a social problem, we can address at least part of it with better public transport.
- maccard 7y ago
  > . It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses. In many places, it's not.cits a lifestyle problem where people value their own perceived convenience without considering any externalities. I live in a small (500k people) city, where the school you go to depends on what part of town you live in. Each school has probably less than a half mile's radius. Yet despite this, a large number of people still drive their kids to school. People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day", despite not considering the cost of fuel, parking in a city centre for a day, and maintenance of their car. They don't use buses because they're "inconvenient" despite tge fact a months bus pass in my city is cheaper than 2 days parking in the city, and all the major artery routes are served at 5-10 minute intervals during peak hours. People living in these kinds of situations won't change unless they're forced to
  - majewsky 7y ago
    > People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day" That's an unfortunate side-effect of trains having timetables. When a train is 5 minutes late, it's really frustrating because a) you don't have any agency, b) you usually cannot see anything related to the reason for the delay, and c) the idle waiting makes the time feel longer. When a car is stuck in traffic for 30 minutes, it doesn't feel like you're losing 30 minutes. It just feels like a force of nature happening to you, and also it feels shorter than waiting for a train for 30 minutes because you're still engaged in the act of driving. You still have some agency because you have the choice of trying to change to that other lane that always feels like it's moving faster.
dooferlad 7y ago
Indeed. The writer doesn't even challenge some of the more obvious problems with the comments they have collected e.g. self driving cars causing traffic jams as they look for parking - why would they look? Wouldn't they ask for a space, reserve one based on location, price, charging needs, then drive to it on a route that is less used than ones carrying time sensitive loads (food, people)?
pmontra 7y ago
Yes, BBC kind of hijacked the report to state the obvious: an electric car is still a car so if we don't want to litter cities with them we should use different means of transportation. The report also addresses autonomous driving: > The other great technological change under way on the roads is driverless cars. > The report warns this dream could also turn sour as car owners may choose to live many miles from their workplace, using their car as a mobile office while sitting in traffic jams they have helped to create.
simonCGN 7y ago
I agree
stillworks 7y ago
I have to agree. The article seems like a popularity peice for the politicians involved therein. Also the graph comparing motoring costs to public transport costs is questionable. Personally, we downsized from two car houshold to a single car. Car doing the school, grocery and weekend duty, Tfl for commuting. The car costs about £30 (fuel) per week hauling up to five people at a time. Tfl costs £51 per week per person. If you mix Tfl + Train then it costs £77 per week per person. (Using the Train also has a noticable effect on my mental health, currently fortunate enough to have access to Tfl without relying on Train, hope that continues) It's the amount of people that need to move from A to B which is the problem and not how they move from A to B. If all the people switched to electric cars, it's still ALL the VERY SAME NUMBER of people. Local emissions may go down, but then the energy to charge all those electric vehicles will affect "something somewhere else". If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. In London, being on a bicycle is life threatening. Not saying that motorists and bus drivers are out there to "get 'em", rather there is very little space on the roads. Several times the typical scene is that of a biker being followed by up to ten cars until the cars get an opportunity to overtake. Which happens after several minutes due to lack of space.
- glennpratt 7y ago
  > If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. As someone who bike commutes 10 miles in the US, this couldn't possibly be the case for me. There is almost never a car impeded by my presence. I spend part of my ride in a bike lane and most of the rest on a bike route through neighborhoods that aren't heavily used for car commuting. Even when there are cars, they quickly have a chance to pass (and inversely in heavy traffic I filter right through them).
  - archi42 7y ago
    It's nice that that's possible for you, but I'm afraid it is not universally possible for everyone and everycity. E.g. bike access to our university (plus institutes etc.) when coming from the city is via narrow but heavy traffic road (to university, a bunch of suburbs, two autobahns), or an adjacent pedestrian path (with a lot of studends and badly trimmed overgrowth), or through the hills with forests and no direct path. The solution here would add & maintain bike lanes (or a stand-alone bike road), but for the above example that would mean deforesting and cutting into 2 or 3 km of hillside. And for the duration of that effort, suspending the primary road between the city and {university, one suburb, one autobahn access} which also happens to be the secondary connection to {two additional suburbs, another autobahn access}.
icebraining 7y ago
This is not a response to Elon Musk, but to the UK's government, and in particular its report "The Road to Zero" (meaning zero CO2 emissions), which this report claims relies too much on the conversion of individual cars to EV to achieve its goals.
ginko 7y ago
I still think the article has merit. If we just make more CO2 efficient cars without also curbing their use we might end up with more CO2 being produced due to Jevons paradox[1]. I especially worry about autonomous cars since, that would make taking long trips by car more convenient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
eemil 7y ago
Though I'm a big proponent of pure electric vehicles, we should be acknowledging that they're still a large source of carbon emissions from manufacturing and in some cases electricity used. The most desirable option would be to move away from individually owned automobiles altogether. E-bikes are the way to go. They fill the gap between bike-able distances and those requiring alternate propulsion for many people. And depending on your diet, they're in some cases more environmentally friendly than normal bicycles per distance traveled. That doesn't even matter, since both are an order of magnitude better than the automobile. It's crazy that we're spending thousands to subsidize electric vehicles and mostly ignoring e-bikes.
- nwah1 7y ago
  I loathe car culture, but bicycles are very dangerous compared to cars, and e-bikes moreso. Motorcycles are approximately 30 times more dangerous than cars, and bicycles about 15 times more dangerous. Goes to figure that e-bikes would be somewhere between those two. Plus, they are not usable in many weather conditions.
  - ginko 7y ago
    Dangerous in what way? It's my understanding that it's mainly cars that are a danger to bicyclists.
    - nwah1 7y ago
      I've injured myself multiple times on bicycles, never as a result of a car, despite traveling a tiny sliver of the distance that I have in a car. I've, thankfully, never been injured in a car accident. I realize this is anecdotal, but there's strong reasons to believe bicycles are dangerous all by themselves. Traveling at high velocities with little protection on only two wheels is a recipe for accidents. I assume velomobiles or recumbent tricycles would be much safer, if one doesn't mind the looks from passerby.
  - harg 7y ago
    That's simply not true. Cycling in many European countries is no more dangerous than being an occupant in a motor vehicle and a significant proportion of cyclist injuries and deaths are caused by motor vehicles. Proper cycling and walking infrastructure combined with a reduction of car usage in cities makes cycling an extremely safe activity. In addition the extra health benefits from physical exercise more than offsets any increase in risk from a collision at a societal level. As for cyling not being usable in many weather conditions - perhaps in extreme winters, but in London there're very few days in the year, if any, that I can't happily ride the 22km round trip to work and back.
de_watcher 7y ago
Being in a traffic jam will be more pleasant because of the air quality.

taneq 7y ago

In other news, solar power will not solve world hunger and satellite TV will do nothing for domestic violence.

visarga 7y ago

Also, the problem is ill posed. I don't think road congestion can be solved by making a different car. It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses.

viraptor 7y ago
Buses and trains with good schedules are different cars ;) - while this is definitely a social problem, we can address at least part of it with better public transport.
maccard 7y ago
> . It's a social problem related to jobs, schools and houses. In many places, it's not.cits a lifestyle problem where people value their own perceived convenience without considering any externalities. I live in a small (500k people) city, where the school you go to depends on what part of town you live in. Each school has probably less than a half mile's radius. Yet despite this, a large number of people still drive their kids to school. People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day", despite not considering the cost of fuel, parking in a city centre for a day, and maintenance of their car. They don't use buses because they're "inconvenient" despite tge fact a months bus pass in my city is cheaper than 2 days parking in the city, and all the major artery routes are served at 5-10 minute intervals during peak hours. People living in these kinds of situations won't change unless they're forced to
- majewsky 7y ago
  > People don't use trains because "they're expensive, and I might need to leave 8 minutes early or later some day" That's an unfortunate side-effect of trains having timetables. When a train is 5 minutes late, it's really frustrating because a) you don't have any agency, b) you usually cannot see anything related to the reason for the delay, and c) the idle waiting makes the time feel longer. When a car is stuck in traffic for 30 minutes, it doesn't feel like you're losing 30 minutes. It just feels like a force of nature happening to you, and also it feels shorter than waiting for a train for 30 minutes because you're still engaged in the act of driving. You still have some agency because you have the choice of trying to change to that other lane that always feels like it's moving faster.

dooferlad 7y ago

Indeed. The writer doesn't even challenge some of the more obvious problems with the comments they have collected e.g. self driving cars causing traffic jams as they look for parking - why would they look? Wouldn't they ask for a space, reserve one based on location, price, charging needs, then drive to it on a route that is less used than ones carrying time sensitive loads (food, people)?

pmontra 7y ago

Yes, BBC kind of hijacked the report to state the obvious: an electric car is still a car so if we don't want to litter cities with them we should use different means of transportation. The report also addresses autonomous driving: > The other great technological change under way on the roads is driverless cars. > The report warns this dream could also turn sour as car owners may choose to live many miles from their workplace, using their car as a mobile office while sitting in traffic jams they have helped to create.

simonCGN 7y ago

I agree

stillworks 7y ago

I have to agree. The article seems like a popularity peice for the politicians involved therein. Also the graph comparing motoring costs to public transport costs is questionable. Personally, we downsized from two car houshold to a single car. Car doing the school, grocery and weekend duty, Tfl for commuting. The car costs about £30 (fuel) per week hauling up to five people at a time. Tfl costs £51 per week per person. If you mix Tfl + Train then it costs £77 per week per person. (Using the Train also has a noticable effect on my mental health, currently fortunate enough to have access to Tfl without relying on Train, hope that continues) It's the amount of people that need to move from A to B which is the problem and not how they move from A to B. If all the people switched to electric cars, it's still ALL the VERY SAME NUMBER of people. Local emissions may go down, but then the energy to charge all those electric vehicles will affect "something somewhere else". If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. In London, being on a bicycle is life threatening. Not saying that motorists and bus drivers are out there to "get 'em", rather there is very little space on the roads. Several times the typical scene is that of a biker being followed by up to ten cars until the cars get an opportunity to overtake. Which happens after several minutes due to lack of space.

glennpratt 7y ago
> If all the people stopped using cars, switched to bicycles, then it's still ALL THE VERY SAME NUMBER of people getting from A to B maybe at the same rate as they were before the switch. This will help with noise and emissions, but... the traffic will be the same. As someone who bike commutes 10 miles in the US, this couldn't possibly be the case for me. There is almost never a car impeded by my presence. I spend part of my ride in a bike lane and most of the rest on a bike route through neighborhoods that aren't heavily used for car commuting. Even when there are cars, they quickly have a chance to pass (and inversely in heavy traffic I filter right through them).
- archi42 7y ago
  It's nice that that's possible for you, but I'm afraid it is not universally possible for everyone and everycity. E.g. bike access to our university (plus institutes etc.) when coming from the city is via narrow but heavy traffic road (to university, a bunch of suburbs, two autobahns), or an adjacent pedestrian path (with a lot of studends and badly trimmed overgrowth), or through the hills with forests and no direct path. The solution here would add & maintain bike lanes (or a stand-alone bike road), but for the above example that would mean deforesting and cutting into 2 or 3 km of hillside. And for the duration of that effort, suspending the primary road between the city and {university, one suburb, one autobahn access} which also happens to be the secondary connection to {two additional suburbs, another autobahn access}.

icebraining 7y ago

This is not a response to Elon Musk, but to the UK's government, and in particular its report "The Road to Zero" (meaning zero CO2 emissions), which this report claims relies too much on the conversion of individual cars to EV to achieve its goals.

ginko 7y ago

I still think the article has merit. If we just make more CO2 efficient cars without also curbing their use we might end up with more CO2 being produced due to Jevons paradox[1]. I especially worry about autonomous cars since, that would make taking long trips by car more convenient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

eemil 7y ago

Though I'm a big proponent of pure electric vehicles, we should be acknowledging that they're still a large source of carbon emissions from manufacturing and in some cases electricity used. The most desirable option would be to move away from individually owned automobiles altogether. E-bikes are the way to go. They fill the gap between bike-able distances and those requiring alternate propulsion for many people. And depending on your diet, they're in some cases more environmentally friendly than normal bicycles per distance traveled. That doesn't even matter, since both are an order of magnitude better than the automobile. It's crazy that we're spending thousands to subsidize electric vehicles and mostly ignoring e-bikes.

nwah1 7y ago
I loathe car culture, but bicycles are very dangerous compared to cars, and e-bikes moreso. Motorcycles are approximately 30 times more dangerous than cars, and bicycles about 15 times more dangerous. Goes to figure that e-bikes would be somewhere between those two. Plus, they are not usable in many weather conditions.
- ginko 7y ago
  Dangerous in what way? It's my understanding that it's mainly cars that are a danger to bicyclists.
  - nwah1 7y ago
    I've injured myself multiple times on bicycles, never as a result of a car, despite traveling a tiny sliver of the distance that I have in a car. I've, thankfully, never been injured in a car accident. I realize this is anecdotal, but there's strong reasons to believe bicycles are dangerous all by themselves. Traveling at high velocities with little protection on only two wheels is a recipe for accidents. I assume velomobiles or recumbent tricycles would be much safer, if one doesn't mind the looks from passerby.
- harg 7y ago
  That's simply not true. Cycling in many European countries is no more dangerous than being an occupant in a motor vehicle and a significant proportion of cyclist injuries and deaths are caused by motor vehicles. Proper cycling and walking infrastructure combined with a reduction of car usage in cities makes cycling an extremely safe activity. In addition the extra health benefits from physical exercise more than offsets any increase in risk from a collision at a societal level. As for cyling not being usable in many weather conditions - perhaps in extreme winters, but in London there're very few days in the year, if any, that I can't happily ride the 22km round trip to work and back.

de_watcher 7y ago

Being in a traffic jam will be more pleasant because of the air quality.