702
Automakers must build cheaper, smaller EVs to spur adoption, report says
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
702 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
4860 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alternatively we could get rid of car dependency
That's fine for people who live in cities (which I acknowledge is a lot of people), but for people who live in smaller more remote and more rural places, it will never be possible to fullly be free of personal vehicles.
Electric bike solves a lot of those issues, but you are correct.
I want to ride a bike really bad, but cars have killed more cyclists in my city year over year my entire life.
It's just simply terrifying out there when a douche in an Escalade is in a hurry.
Even without that, weather is a huge issue.
You could just get a small EV like a Citroën Ami but having more than two wheels on a vehicle does make you an eco-terrorist according to Lemmy.
We hardly have any small EVs in the US. I'm keen on the mini that's coming out next year, but 40k is a big ask for a short commute.
I guess it's busloads of tweakers for me for a while.
I stopped riding my motorcycle because of idiots in cars. No way in hell am I taking an electric bicycle to get groceries
If electric bikes were the only thing allowed on back roads, it would work great.
Edit: yeah, it would involve extreme changes to bike design so that they could carry more things, and there is always a need for a tractor, a semi hauling things, and moving vans.
I suppose for rural cycling to work safely, it would need a network of separate paths, plus some bike lanes attached to the roads in strategic places.
If electric bikes were the only thing allowed on back roads, you'd never be able to make enough grocery/dump/Tractor Supply runs to have time for anything else in your life.
I don't think you understand what rural means. There were people who had to travel 1 hr+ by car to get to the local grocery store where I came from. An ebike isn't appropriate for places where you may need to travel 60+ miles, and/or in snow or bad conditions that might persist for weeks, and/or in ungodly hot / humid conditions that also persist for weeks. All three of those are true for decent swaths of the year in my area.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Electric bikes are a great solution for those that don't need to haul much or go far. Weather permitting of course. I sold my ICE sedan about a year ago and don't miss it.
Personally I have the grace of Jar Jar Binks. My last few forays on a bike, when I was younger and less frail, were disastrous. Proponents of E-bikes must be very young and fit, I guess? Because all of us older, disabled, or just plain clutzy people need four wheels and walls of metal between us and the world.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind having a glorified golf cart to run around town. Seal me in from the weather and give me AC and Bluetooth, that's all I ask.
Maybe, but I feel like that ship has sailed in the US. Both for practical/economical reasons and because will resist. If half the people fought against wearing masks to protect vulnerable people from covid, good luck getting them to give up their "single family home with a yard + 2 cars” lifestyle. For those fortunate enough to have a single family home, that is.
I’m not saying it SHOULD be this way, and I’m not arguing against reducing cars with public transit and walkable/bikeable towns. However, from my perspective inside suburbia that borders rural areas, electrification of vehicles and supplying the grid with renewables is 1000x more likely as the path to fix this stuff environmentally.
And to get rid of cars for non-environmental reasons, I think that will be even more difficult. I mean, I visited Sweden earlier this year and for all the progressive stuff they’re way ahead of us on, there are still cars everywhere. They are smaller, more sensible cars with a much larger proportion being electric, but cars just the same.
We are screwed in the US because one side is actively and honestly against transit. The other side plays transit lip service but their actions prove they only want transit as a way to funnel money to some supporter (and so projects cost far too much and what we have runs bad schedules)
Yeah… essentially, one side is bad faith crazy trying to burn it all down, and the other side is full of politicians.
They are not tHe SaMe, but neither is pushing hard for it. But at least some slow progress may be possible if the typical politicians stay in power.
Start small, support deregulating zoning so people can build more dense housing, and small corner shops in residential areas, that way it's not so far to go places. Support bike lanes so people can ride safely if they want to ride. Support work from home to prevent people from having to go anywhere in the first place.
You make a good point bringing up WFH. The speed of the internet these days should allow us to reduce demand for transit rather then looking for the best way to meet that demand.
Think of the shareholders!
If we started now, we'd be ready in a couple decades in all but the most compact metro areas. And that's after we build the requisite political will. The US fucked itself hard leaning into cars as transport.
But that's reality for most of us living in the burbs where the schools are better and the neighborhoods are better for kid stuff.
Maybe it's just me growing up in the city, but I would not want to raise my kid in an American-style suburb. Imagine being a tween but never being able to go anywhere without your parents, because everything is too far away to walk or bike and public transport is not available. Yikes.
My kid is younger but we moved from the suburbs to a dense urban area shortly after he was born. I have to agree even though he’s not yet that independent. Some of my friends back in the burbs were like “what are you going to do with a kid in the city?” But we ride bikes to parks and gardens, go to different museums and the zoo, visit festivals for different cultures. It’s pretty awesome and almost every weekend is an eventful thing for us.
A thing often misunderstood by suburb and rural denizens is that when beautiful and interesting things are more easily available to you you can actually make meaningful use of them. Sure, they'll brave the city once every six months and maybe go to the zoo or a cultural event once or twice a year, but nothing beats being able to do these things on a random weekend (or sometimes even weeknight) without much hassle, additional cost, or preparation.
Yea, Cities are great and all, but I'd argue nothing beats having 103 acres of forest and field and a house or two to play around in. I don't need to go to a park, I step outside. I can have different hobbies with space for a wood shop, a sawmill, a backhoe etc... I can ride 4wheelers and offroad my crossover on a private road / path we built. I don't have to hear sirens daily/nightly, or worry about lights shining in my bedroom window. I can go for a walk or hike on my property and not see any strangers. I can go swimming or fishing in my pond, I can play badminton and boccie ball and croquet in my lawn.
I'm not saying that cities are bad, but to claim rural people don't have beautiful and interesting things easily available to them is just misunderstanding what some people find beautiful and interesting. I'm just back from London, and while Christmas at Kew was amazing, and better than anything I've ever seen in the US, it's not like I don't have access to theaters, stores, and events like Christmas Markets, though we do them as summer festivals and the like. They're also ~ 30 minutes away, similar to how long I'd spend on getting to the tube, on it, and getting to the event location from my hotel. It's just far more convenient to walk a much shorter distance to the car, drive to the local small city, and walk a shorter distance from parking to the festival or show, or whatever. We have local museums, but I think you overestimate how much people who aren't tourists go to the museums. I haven't been to any of my local ones in quite a while, and I remember my NYC family never went to the museums - it's always the "huh, yea, I never had a reason to go outside of a tourist family member showing up".
They may have accessible nature, though not all of them even enjoy that in my experience, but they often do not have easily accessible cultural experiences at all. Not everyone appreciates the things they live by, and that's just humanity. We can be miserable anywhere.
But it's been my experience living in the states that it's extremely commonplace for people to shit on the very idea of cities, and especially raising children in them, and overwhelmingly encourage people to set up shop miles away from their jobs in the suburbs and rural areas despite the downsides.
The main thing I see is our cities still often require you to have a car, yet rent is 3x or more what it is out in the burbs. It's hard to make that work. I don't think anyone likes commuting a long way. Though I think we need both more housing in cities to try and drive the prices down and more WFH so less commuting in general.
Yeah it's a pretty sad situation exacerbated by the pandemic too. A lot of people left cities, but in many cases (e.g. my city) prices still went up anyway. I bought in early 2020 before the insane price hikes, and now I'm very glad I did as basically nobody can afford these prices unless they're already in the market.
But I agree with everything you said, and I vote against the "preserve our single family neighborhood" politicians whenever I see them on the ballot.
The problem is just, people picked where they live partly based on the environment. People don't want their neighborhoods changed. That said I don't like zoning that makes it impossible to try and buy people out so you can build a apartment building.
You can only really count on your property not changing when you buy a property.
That is rural life though, not exactly suburban. Suburbs have the worst attributes of the city and countryside, while having little benefits of both)
As the gp poster I didn’t mean to sound like I’m dumping on rural life. I grew up in a rural area, riding four-wheelers and roaming the woods till the sun went down. One of my best friends started a family around the same time I did and opted to buy some acreage a decent commute away from town. They ride dirt bikes with their kids on literal mountains in the backyard, have a chicken coop and machine shop, deer wander up and eat their vegetable garden. It’s super rad and I wouldn’t mind having gone that route either.
I really didn’t dig the suburbs and having to drive literally everywhere though. On the balance I liked the diversity in the city and having easy access to metropolitan amenities. I’d never shit on the rural route and it may well be where I end up, I just thought it was wild how much blowback I got from wanting to raise a kid in the city.
Honestly the only problems I see with cities is the cost if they're not able to set you up car free. If you're paying 3x in rent, if you can't offset that by not paying the car costs you have to be making a lot more money. And most US cities don't make it easy to go carless.
I wish I could upvote you more than once.
My local huge park, pool, and sports complex is .7 miles. I have multiple stores and restaurants .5 miles away. Our library is also about .7 miles away. My burb is relatively walkable and perfectly bike-able.
Our grid has its own problems and is completely unsafe for cyclists a lot of the time. I know; I work there. My city has removed lanes from streets to create space for bikes and people still get killed by idiots in cars. Still inadequate public transit. Only more walkable than my own burb in certain, hyper expensive neighborhoods. Cheaper areas have homeless problems (warmer climate) resulting in tons of property crimes (mostly stolen bikes and break-ins). Many encounters with bonk-shit crazy guys yelling at stop signs (and people). Some of them have large, aggressive dogs. Oh, and then there's the fires they start by attempting to cook or warm themselves and then getting high or drunk.
Frankly I would be stoked to live in a townhouse or condo or something on the grid. All my favorite restaurants are down there, lots to do, etc. But it's shit for kids and the schools are rough as fuck.
Yes. One alternative is communal traffic. People are just to lazy so they can't wait for it. If every car was indeed banned, gues how good the communal traffic would then be. Since the need increase, a lot. They would be going a lot often and suddenly there are no more cars blocking the roads. Also note that you would not have to be driving so you could do other stuff than looking at the road. And you dont have to save up money for the cars. No need to fix the car when it breaks. No need to find a gas station in time. Just less things to think about. Just look at how the flying business work today, no average people own their own plane. But still people make use of communal planes.
My city (Houston) had a bus system that goes everywhere, but the sheer size and the lack of logical routing makes it hard to use. My friend could drive 20 minutes to work (but cannot drive because of a mental disability) or take multiple buses for 3 hours each way. She now rides an e-bike, but it still takes nearly an hour and she is literally risking her life because there are no bike lanes. Plus the cost of the bike was $3000 and it regularly needs maintenance.
Nothing beats covinience. If it's easy, people will pay up. That means you are right, that if the communal traffic improves as you say, it would get alot more people using it.
But unfortunately, cars are just so, so convinient, it's almost impossible to beat, if you don't straight up outlaw them.
We can't, though. It would cost trillions of dollars and massive population relocation for it to happen.
Cars are here to stay. The only reduction I can see happening is if fully autonomous cars are a thing. I'm betting they won't be sold to the public and will be used like Uber.
Not really. It would cost trillions of dollars - but it would be cheaper than car infrastructure. The key is to start building and running using transit now where it makes the most sense and expand that.
You're delusional if you think there's even a remote possibility of that ever happening in the US without inventing a time machine to stop the auto industry from killing the rail industry in the early 1900s.
The cat has been out of the bag way too long to put it back in now.
The dirty little secret is we've basically done that already - building train lines or subways in the US is so astronomically expensive that no one is doing it "for profit" anymore, and it looks likely that it'll never become financially viable unless something changes massively. I mean, from what I can tell NYC can't profitably retrofit the subways, forget about building a new line. Amtrack is constantly in bankruptcy or being bailed out. No one is going to build a modern train line from Rochester NY to NYC again - there just isn't going to be the passengers.