Electric cars more likely to hit pedestrians than petrol vehicles

[Biospace]

Getting back to electric cars – or rather to motor vehicles in general – I heard a claim recently that road vehicle tyres are the largest single source of airborne plastic pollution. EVs, of course, don't address this at all.

There was quite a barrage of discontent on the BEV thread when it was suggested emissions from tyres may be increased by the use of ever heavier, more powerful vehicles. Even now, many talk as if toxic exhaust emissions are still of 1980s levels and tyre 'emissions' are negligible.

thing you seem to not realise is that BEVs don't eat tyres significantly faster than ICE vehicles... The rubber lost from each are very similar, else I'd be at kwikfit (the motability partner) more often than every 35-40k miles. Heck, even at that distance it was only that one of the tyres had been knocked off the rim that caused any replacements at all.

"Significantly faster" could mean a very wide range of numbers - from what I hear, there tends to be 15% to 25% more wear on the driven axle.

Those who've taken my advice and bought themselves a BEV generally notice tyres on the driven axle wear faster. In part because of more torque and power, greater mass to accelerate and possibly more use of braking with 'one pedal' control, in the belief that regen means you somehow gain energy, rather than simply losing less than in a car without. If you drive on the brakes, that is.

However, I would expect a BMW i3 with its diminutive weight and smaller (electric) motor output to make tyres last longer than a petrol powered larger SUV. It's just that most of the time, in addition to the crazy trend to ever larger and more power, battery powered cars are heavier and more powerful than what they've replaced.

[Bmblbzzz]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

[Carlton green]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

I don’t for one moment disagree with that sentiment but for each issue there is almost always a bigger one. By way of example what we do in this country is but a minor and inconsequential blip compared to what happens in China. I haven’t got the figures to hand but the volume of cars that they build every year is staggeringly large, a large percentage are exported but their home market is truly massive. That’s an awful lot of vehicles impacting on the world.

The best that we in this country can attempt to do is to look after our own local environment, but the wider picture from beyond these shores will impact us in some way(s) and it should concern us just as much as what we try to control in this country.

[[XAP]Bob]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BEVs are substantially less bad than ICE vehicles - and will continue to improve.

[Bmblbzzz]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BEVs are substantially less bad than ICE vehicles - and will continue to improve.

My comment was just about pollution (and other effects) from tyres. In terms of overall air pollution, BEVs are a clear win. In overall societal impact, I'm not so sure; because what they do most of all is reinforce the stranglehold of motoring on our lives. But then we're not, in practice, doing anything to free ourselves from that anyway.

[Carlton green]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BEVs are substantially less bad than ICE vehicles - and will continue to improve.

My comment was just about pollution (and other effects) from tyres. In terms of overall air pollution, BEVs are a clear win. In overall societal impact, I'm not so sure; because what they do most of all is reinforce the stranglehold of motoring on our lives. But then we're not, in practice, doing anything to free ourselves from that anyway.

Several true points there. Motoring does have a stranglehold on how we do things and it should not be the case. Whilst I drive, and long have done so, I believe that public transport should be so good that driving ones own vehicle becomes the second rather than the first choice. Well, that and that active transport returns as a viable way of getting around; within the last hour I was talking to an old guy who’s Uncle used to ride over ten miles each way to work along a road which today I wouldn’t dare venture onto on a bike.

Amongst the best ways to reduce vehicle emissions is for their mileage to be reduced. Similarly a good way to reduce casualties on the road is for the roads to be less busy.

Seeking perfection in vehicles might ignore good improvements, but arguably significantly less vehicles would be the best improvement of all - unfortunately it’s also an option that we ignore. That reduction in vehicles wouldn’t do much good for jobs in SMMT represented companies, but imho that’s a price worth paying for better public health, less accidents, and a better environment.

A reason why electric cars might be more likely to hit pedestrians than ICE cars is that electric ones are typically big (bigger): they take up more shared space and leave less room for collision avoidance.

[Bmblbzzz]

Amongst the best ways to reduce vehicle emissions is for their mileage to be reduced. Similarly a good way to reduce casualties on the road is for the roads to be less busy.

Seeking perfection in vehicles might ignore good improvements, but arguably significantly less vehicles would be the best improvement of all - unfortunately it’s also an option that we ignore. That reduction in vehicles wouldn’t do much good for jobs in SMMT represented companies, but imho that’s a price worth paying for better public health, less accidents, and a better environment.

Very good points there, (and in the rest of your post), which are far too little considered.

[gbnz]

The issue for our lungs........is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

+ 1. Gained a stunning, town centre, FOC, architect designed, stone built flat, 150' from a 13 century stone gatehouse (Nb. Key entry into town), 2.5 yrs' back. Seemed surreal, good fortune. Have lived Central London, Leeds, Newcastle, various other cities, even a few hundred feet away in this town, off the main road, a courtyard. Never lived next to a main road. Noise not an issue

But never had a problem with dust, couldn't believe 1/8th" dust settling every where, within a week. Carpets all stripped out asap, despite cash being tight, presumed they must be filthy. Still 1/8th" dust settling on every surface, within a week. Presumed I must have caught covid or something, for months, phlegm/mucus blocked nose/mouth, 24Hr's a day, seemed bizarre

Took me a while to realise, it's the motorists. Steep ascent and decline next to the flat, motorists create pollution. Dust isn't from wood smoke, coal dust, or dirt, it's these people who drive, their quadruple chins*, quivering with rage (* had a fat one, quivering with rage today, Aldi car park. They're so funny. Looked like his eyes were going to pop )

[Pete Owens]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BEVs are substantially less bad than ICE vehicles - and will continue to improve.

And that even misses the main reason we need to adopt EVs is the critical need to stop burning stuff if we want prevent climate breakdown - The single most important challenge facing humanity.

But the critics of EVS never want to discus greenhouse gas emissions, so they move on to other pollutants. But the worst of these NOx & particulates come out of the tailpipe too (mainly from diesels) Where ULEZs have been introduced this is largely resolved from vehicle so the biggest source of particulates in some places is now the fashion for wood burning stoves (We urgently need need to move away from burning stuff to heat our houses too).

So the critics of EVs move on to a minor source of particulate pollution - tyres - and don't they go on-and-on-and-on about it.

Now I guess the source of all these sceptical reports will probably turn out to be the oil industry. They spent the last half century producing "research" attempting to cast doubt on every aspect of climate science. Now that has become obviously incredible, they have moved on to undermining every practical technological solution (whether that is renewable power generation, EVs, heat pumps etc.). They are also promoting non-solutions (hydrogen, carbon capture etc.)

[cycle tramp]

The issue for our lungs (and all the other environmental and social impacts of tyres, from production of nylon and steel to labour conditions on rubber plantations) is not that BEVs only increase tyre wear a little, but that they do not reduce it enough.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BEVs are substantially less bad than ICE vehicles - and will continue to improve.

And that even misses the main reason we need to adopt EVs is the critical need to stop burning stuff if we want prevent climate breakdown - The single most important challenge facing humanity.

But the critics of EVS never want to discus greenhouse gas emissions, so they move on to other pollutants.

At which point the only clear way through this, is to adopt bicycle use for shorter trips when it is appropriate to do so, and for future planning to have shops and services closer to residential areas. No only do we cease the bickering over particulates, we strengthen the countries mental and physical health, reduce the cost of living and may even assist in the start up of new small business.

All it requires is a mindset to cycle in normal cycles on bicycles which are built for practicality and not performance.
There is a current on this forum for those to proclaim the miles they have cycled in a month or the height that they have climbed or whatever.... may I suggest another - the value of the goods (or weight) that we have transported from the shops to their home..

..if we want to change how cycling is viewed I would suggest that instead of cycling out jnto the countryside, we cycle into town.... only stopping for cake and tea when we have finished the grocery shop.

..we also need to protect the right to work from home - where it is appropriate for those workers to do so. The question is electric vs fossil fuel, but rather to question the need for travel in the first instance.

[Carlton green]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
BEVs are substantially less bad than ICE vehicles - and will continue to improve.

And that even misses the main reason we need to adopt EVs is the critical need to stop burning stuff if we want prevent climate breakdown - The single most important challenge facing humanity.

But the critics of EVS never want to discus greenhouse gas emissions, so they move on to other pollutants.

At which point the only clear way through this, is to adopt bicycle use for shorter trips when it is appropriate to do so, and for future planning to have shops and services closer to residential areas. No only do we cease the bickering over particulates, we strengthen the countries mental and physical health, reduce the cost of living and may even assist in the start up of new small business.

All it requires is a mindset to cycle in normal cycles on bicycles which are built for practicality and not performance.
There is a current on this forum for those to proclaim the miles they have cycled in a month or the height that they have climbed or whatever.... may I suggest another - the value of the goods (or weight) that we have transported from the shops to their home..

..if we want to change how cycling is viewed I would suggest that instead of cycling out jnto the countryside, we cycle into town.... only stopping for cake and tea when we have finished the grocery shop.

..we also need to protect the right to work from home - where it is appropriate for those workers to do so. The question is electric vs fossil fuel, but rather to question the need for travel in the first instance.

^^ ‘Spot on’ !! So many good points and such a better focus for how we interact with transport.

[gbnz]

but rather to question the need for travel in the first instance.

Fair enough, breathing heavily on the steep climb to the supermarket, will pollute more (Nb. Though not as bad as when had to come over the moor, 1250' & a 900' climb), perhaps I should always walk it. But travel in itself, whether the 45 mile round journey to the gym (Nb. Used to use the bus for work, suit & tie too much on the bike, office was just up the road) But perhaps the question some cyclists have to ask, is

AM I A USER

Am aware that there are some cyclists, who fair enough, may have no real choice but to use a motor vehicle for work, given the requirements of any number of positions. But there are even some cyclists, who use a motor vehicle, as if it were normal.

I found it bizarre on New Years Day, that there were conveys of "outdoor" people, driving to a local, decent bit of the coast, literally all, in "outdoor" 4/4's. A road I'd normally see perhaps 1-2 small vans on, there were literally four dozen 4/4's or more, did presume they were all green people, who love the countryside. Had to turn around and walk the 4 miles home, the coast road was quite literally, a parked up convey of a 4/4 traffic jam

[rareposter]

I found it bizarre on New Years Day, that there were conveys of "outdoor" people, driving to a local, decent bit of the coast, literally all, in "outdoor" 4/4's. A road I'd normally see perhaps 1-2 small vans on, there were literally four dozen 4/4's or more, did presume they were all green people, who love the countryside. Had to turn around and walk the 4 miles home, the coast road was quite literally, a parked up convey of a 4/4 traffic jam

New Year's Day is always an anomaly though. There's no (or very limited) public transport running, a lot of "normal" activities are closed that day, half the country is on holiday / visiting friends, family / away somewhere a bit different to normal so the only easy option for many is the "traditional" NYD walk.

So they'll go out, as a family, to the nearest bit of open space, be that the beach, a National Trust place, some tourist honeypot village etc and go for a walk.

Which explains why you see those massive queues of cars on NYD and maybe on the first sunny weekend of spring etc but not at any other time.
It's not really much different to a big shopping centre on Boxing Day for example.

[Bmblbzzz]

AM I A USER

I'm a user
You're a loser
You and me, sir
Moto-sapiens too

(Thank you, Pete Shelley)

[Biospace]

And that even misses the main reason we need to adopt EVs is the critical need to stop burning stuff if we want prevent climate breakdown - The single most important challenge facing humanity.

Rather it's that we need to move to much more reliable renewable energy and storage. Even with so much wind feeding the British Grid, when comparing the lifecycle carbon footprint of two similar car models, one petrol hybrid and the other a BEV, the difference is remarkably small.

But the critics of EVS never want to discus greenhouse gas emissions, so they move on ... to a minor source of particulate pollution - tyres - and don't they go on-and-on-and-on about it.

Is that really the case? In the BEV thread I've looked at the figures for GG for BEVs and it's either pooh-poohed or ignored by those who wish to hear nothing bad said about them; there's a fuss made by the same people who've questioned whether or not tyre particulates are even really a problem when the facts have been aired.

It's as if PM is only bad when emanating from the modern sin of fire lighting, yet exhaust pollution - both particulates and gases - is today so low that if the car appeared as it now is, they wouldn't be continually tested and legislated for, unlike the pollution from tyres.