This is what we call vehicle weight inflation. As cars get heavier and heavier, the roads get increasingly more dangerous for smaller cars, which causes everyone to get bigger cars. And the loop continues.
See: https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjun-2009/exploring-....
It's massive!
((vehicle weight^4)/number of axles)
Bikes get out of harms way faster and in a much mire agile fashion compared to cars and the money you save by buying a bike instead of a car can be used to safely practice at a track that is optimized for safety and to make you learn the feedback system of your bike
That may be true but there are situations where you physically can't get out of harm's way even with good reflexes.
Teslas are heavier because they have to use batteries and batteries are incredibly inefficient compared to petrol. This is the consequence of you asking them to get rid of combustion.
What are you getting on about? By what metric?
So petrol is more efficient in that way.
US trucks would be succesful internationally if that was the case.
How many European farmers are pulling a trailer 150 miles each way to pick up a load of hay? That's a relatively regular occurrence for my family. That sort of thing isn't at all uncommon in the US.
Streets are narrower in many parts of Europe as well, which means a larger truck isn't practical as a sole vehicle.
Tesla model s has same weight as Porsche Panamera S.
What I asked for was trains and protected bike lanes actually.
Efficiency in cars is usually meant to be energy efficiency, energy out over energy in. And electric cars are usually more efficient by most metrics, even if you count the amount of gas an internal combustion engine uses vs the amount it takes an oil fired plant to charge an electric car that drives the same distance (well-to-wheels efficiency).
Secondly, battery + motor is actually more efficient than ICE. You might be thinking of power density, which is significantly lower on an EV.
Thirdly, I don't love the pro-car company attitude: people don't have to compromise on low emissions vs. safety vs. practicality. Car companies have forced the choice upon us from a century and billions of dollars of marketing and lobbying.
Had people wanted cars that are practical, they'd get minivans (and vans, if you do haul a lot).
People in the US get bigger pickup trucks, because of market distortions causing manufacturers to stop making the small ones, not because there's no demand for small trucks. This is why importing K trucks is a thing.
Teslas are heavier because they have to use batteries and batteries are incredibly inefficient compared to petrol.
Teslas and EVs in general are way more efficient in terms of energy used per mile. By well over a factor of 2 in most cases. According to Google: "The various versions of the Model 3 are rated between 113 MPGe and 141 MPGe by the EPA."
That's not anywhere near correct.
With an ICE about 80% of the energy from the gasoline is lost, mostly due to heat.
With an EV about 30-35% of the energy from the battery is lost if there is no regenerative braking. With regenerative braking EVs only lose about 11% of the energy from the battery.
Here's an article with some nice diagrams of the losses in both [1].
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-inte...
You survive 100% of the crashes you avoid having, and it's much easier to avoid huge cars in a smaller car.
Though, having a higher line-of-sight is advantageous and typically not a feature of small cars.
Crumple zones exist in cars because it’s better that the car absorbs (and deforms in the process) the kinetic energy of a crash than you the passenger inside.