8 ms·

This sentiment is just contrarianism, I think. I've lived in Los Angeles my whole life and the difference that clean air standards make is obvious. The black

• jjav 3y ago
  > This sentiment is just contrarianism, I think. Maybe some of it, but it's very valid point. Switching everything about the country's infrastructure from gas to EVs is a huge undertaking. If we're going to do such a massive change, just to end up with something that still carries all the same problems except one, that's a missed opportunity. If there was a will to spend that quantity of effort in making public transit practical for the long haul and heavily promoting cycling and e-bikes for the short haul we'd be much better off.
• oatmeal1 3y ago
  Generally agreed, but the noise from cars is mostly friction and turbulence (and honking/sirens). Switching to electric won't solve that.
  • bmitc 3y ago
    > the noise from cars is mostly friction and turbulence Agreed. I can't even hear the engine in my car on the highway over tire and wind noise.
    • kwhitefoot 3y ago
      People on the outside can hear it though.
      • bmitc 3y ago
        I don't think they can unless the car is not moving. The point is: the dominating sound pollution from a car is from sources that are not removed in EVs.
        • jayd16 3y ago
          > not moving You mean like at a stop light or even a stop sign? A very common thing to be near in a city?
          • bmitc 3y ago
            You mean when other cars are still moving? And what is your point, in general? Engines make noise. That's not under dispute.
            • jayd16 3y ago
              Unless you're on the far corner, you're only living by one side of the road. Hearing ICE engines rev up to accelerate from a light is a non-trivial amount of noise.
            • brewdad 3y ago
              EV “engines” don’t. Way to miss the point.
              • bmitc 3y ago
                And the overall point has been that is literally in the noise.
    • adrianN 3y ago
      EVs are significantly less noisy on residential streets though. You know, where people live.
      • somerandomqaguy 3y ago
        Only below 18mph or 30kph. > As required by the PSEA, (1) this rule proposes to establish FMVSS No.141, Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, which would require [quiet vehicles] to produce sounds meeting the requirements of this standard. This proposed standard applies to EVs and to those HVs that are capable of propulsion in any forward or reverse gear without the vehicle's ICE operating. The PSEA requires NHTSA to establish performance requirements for an alert sound that is recognizable as motor vehicle in operation that allows blind and other pedestrians to reasonably detect a nearby EV or HV operating below the crossover speed. The crossover speed is the speed at which tire noise, wind noise, and other factors eliminate the need for a separate alert sound. >[...] > This standard will ensure that blind, visually-impaired, and other pedestrians are able to detect and recognize nearby hybrid and electric vehicles by requiring that hybrid and electric vehicles emit sound that pedestrians will be able to hear in a range of ambient environments and contain acoustic signal content that pedestrians will recognize as being emitted from a vehicle. The proposed standard establishes minimum sound requirements for hybrid and electric vehicles when operating under 30 kilometers per hour (km/h) (18 mph), when the vehicle's starting system is activated but the vehicle is stationary, and when the vehicle is operating in reverse. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2011-0148-0075 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2011-0148-0075
        • jayd16 3y ago
          So the 405 will finally be whisper quiet.
        • adrianN 3y ago
          In residential areas 30 is the usual speed limit where I live.
  • wizofaus 3y ago
    I would think having a vehicle be entirely electric must allow more options in terms of car body shape and even tyre shape/material that could possible reduce noise (and particulate) pollution even further. And certainly if we could reduce the vehicle weight (I gather the current generation of EVs typically weigh 25%+ more than their ICE equivalents - and cars have generally been getting heavier over the last couple of decades anyway, which is a trend that we desperately need to reverse, and won't happen without legislation). Having said that, as a cyclist the idea of not being able to hear cars around me is somewhat disconcerting.
    • ehnto 3y ago
      I have no trouble hearing EVs approaching, they sound identical to modern ICE, which is to say 90% road noise. Some ICE cars are noisier by choice of course but modern commuter cars are very quiet at the exhaust typically, the road noise is the dominant noise. I have cars driving past me at about 50kph right now, I am barely hearing the engine for about 3 seconds or less as it passes, and the road noise continues to be audible for about 20-30 seconds. Pretty much all I am hearing is road noise. Same was true when I lived near a highway. Just a whooshing blob of road noise.
      • teo_zero 3y ago
        Driving both a gasoline car and an EV, I can surely tell you that pedestrians get out of the way when I approach with the former much more often than with the latter. So they are no identical. Of course where I live there's no law-mandated minimum noise level for EVs.
        • ehnto 3y ago
          We might end up in the weeds here, but I imagine you are meaning when moving relatively slowly? I hope pedestrians aren't in need of moving out of the way of your driving over 25kmph! Indeed at slow speeds EVs are quieter. That probably does make a difference for inner city traffic, which is also where you really want less tailpipe emissions, EVs help there too.
  • Kirby64 3y ago
    The car noise problem is partially solved (or improved) by EVs, actually. The tires used on EVs tend to be efficient (low rolling resistance), which translates to less noisy tires. Additionally, their body shape tends to aim towards very aerodynamic so they have less turbulence noise. If they didn't do this, their efficiency would be much worse so it essentially becomes a necessity. It's pretty evident when you drive next to a large vehicle with knobby tires meant for off-roading (Jeeps seem to commonly have these). The tire noise is easily MUCH louder, even ignoring any engine noise. The other thing, broadly, is road construction can lead to a huge difference in noise from highways. I'm sure you've experienced huge differences depending on the road surface.
    • jjav 3y ago
      > The tires used on EVs tend to be efficient (low rolling resistance), which translates to less noisy tires. EVs are just cars, any tire that you can put on an EV you can also put on an ICE car, so that is not a differentiator. EVs tend to be heavier though, and weight is a primary factor in how fast a tire wears.
    • shard 3y ago
      I was in Shenzhen recently, walking around the shopping districts, and I was constantly feeling a sense of unusualness. Eventually I figured out that it was because that despite all these cars and scooters on the road, I felt like I was waking in a forest, as most of the sounds I hear are from people, and the cars and scooters are pretty much silent, since so many of them are electric.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • ehnto 3y ago
      I think it is marginally reduced, definitely not solved. It also depends on the tires a consumer puts on their EV once it leaves the factory, and anything about 50kmph is still very noisy. I think that is good in one aspect though, road noise is the only warning you get that an EV is approaching, which in a PED/Cylcing friendly city is important.
  • jayd16 3y ago
    You can hear the difference with your own ears. Even if a freeway sounds the same, it's obviously different when an EV rolls through the alley or shared driveway vs an ICE car. Not to mention the jerks intentionally making noise with loud engine mods but I guess there's no getting rid of them.
• bmitc 3y ago
  > This sentiment is just contrarianism, I think. I really don't think it is. We're thrusting ourselves into just new problems. Yes, we move away from old problems that gas-powered cars have, but we move into new problems. For one, EVs perpetuate the idea of the car, which is perhaps the most dangerous part. Then, there's all sorts of new things like building out the infrastructure required for EVs and mining the new materials. For example, have you looked into the areas where lithium mining occurs? It is not a clean process and brings its own new problems, especially for the local people. You have foreign owned and operated companies move in and suck out manufactured value from the land, all the while polluting the local ecosystem. It's oil all over again. It isn't contrarianism to point out that a solution is not the solution everyone thinks it is. Yes, we should probably switch to EVs, but we should be switching away from cars as a whole. But we're not. Cars are selling more than ever. It's not contrarianism to simply look at facts rather than hype.
  • sokoloff 3y ago
    Cars are selling, despite their high economic price, because they're incredibly useful. Make competing modes of transit at least one of more useful at no more cost or no less utility but at a lower cost and people will switch incredibly quickly. That's a tall order, because the modern automobile is a wonder of transport speed, comfort, and convenience.
    • cutemonster 3y ago
      > Cars ... incredibly useful Not where I live, in north western Europe. Here the subways are fast, and not many use cars inside the city. Many buses and bike lanes too. Here, cars are slow: traffic queues, finding a parking lot. But the subway never runs into any traffic queues. And the subway is many times cheaper than a car's monthly cost. And I can read HN on the subway
    • wizofaus 3y ago
      I'd only add "...because they're incredibly useful, AND government policy has consistently favoured such a mode of transport over all other alternatives". The amount spent by governments on maintaining road infrastructure dwarfs all other transport spending, the amount of land dedicated to parking and driving space is mindboggling, and of course the amount spent on ensuring the global oil industry has been able to reliably and safely deliver fuel to vehicles is beyond comprehension* (and almost certainly one of the reasons the transition to EVs will be slower than technology might otherwise allow - vested interests with billions to lose will do anything to keep their share of the spoils). Not to mention the fact that we've yet to actually start truly paying for the long term environmental and health costs of allowing our cities to be so dominated by a single mode of transport. *) it's estimated up to 20% of the US's defence budget is spent protecting oil supplies for a start, which effectively acts as a subsidy of around 70c a gallon.
• dublin 3y ago
  Due to their vastly greater mass and torque, EVs produce far more tire pollution than ICE vehicles do. In addition to that, tire dust is a far larger part of the overall pollution from operating a car than even the emissions from an ICE car. "Research done by UK-based independent testing company Emissions Analytics showed that used tyres produce 36 milligrams of particles each kilometre, which is nearly 2,000 times higher than the 0.02 mg/km average from exhausts." Article here: https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/ https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/ Research here: https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/tyre-emissions https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/tyre-emissions
  • throwaway5959 3y ago
    Well, there are no emissions from an EV, so obviously the tire pollution will be larger than the nonexistent tailpipe emissions. I’m surprised this has to be stated.
• matsemann 3y ago
  The problem is that you get what you give incentives for. Right now, there's a big push to move to EVs. However, in the long run you might end up with more cars total. As the old cars aren't going away for a while. So you're kinda pushing a even heavier car dependence on society. All for a small net gain of reducing a few ICE vehicles. If the same subsidies were also applied to (electric) bikes, public transit etc it would instead actually shift behavior. EVs aren't saving society. They're saving the car industry.
  • jwells89 3y ago
    For bike subsidies to work a ton of money would need to be put into installation of bike lanes too, though. Where I live a bike would be great, but bike lanes are rare and riding on the road along with gargantuan SUVs and trucks is not an attractive proposition.
    • matsemann 3y ago
      It's only expensive because one insists on having all the roads remain for cars and need to build bicycle infra in addition, often by purchasing land next to the road, rebuilding intersections etc. Can do it cheaper like how they did in Paris: just give some of the roads and lanes to cyclists. Almost free, might need a bollard in the beginning, but the road is there already.