Hacker News Reader

Comment by mp05 | Hacker News Reader

> They are bigger, heavier, faster and more powerful (thanks to burning fossil fuels)

Or perhaps thanks to a DC motor and a battery? Not sure exactly why you’re singling out ICEs in this point you’re making. Would be curious to know if there is some particular reason? I’d argue EVs are more powerful on average, if not the staggering majority of cases.

View on HN

EVs are much safer - they both accelerate and decelerate faster and most EVs have regen braking by default - this means a) they get up to speed quickly b) drivers aren't worried about slowing because they can get back up to speed much faster c) as soon as the foot comes off the pedal the car start decelerating immediately.

This makes for a more chill ride - I'm much more aware in EVs than I am in my remaining ICE vehicle (a minivan).

That said, poorly laid out bike lanes are systemically dangerous.

EVs most definitely do not decelerate faster. Their increased weight leads to decreased braking capabilities, which, combined with their faster acceleration, makes them potentially harder to control and more deadly in collisions due to the greater force of impact.

The regenerative braking force is generally much stronger than engine braking in ICE vehicles, as long as the battery isn't full.

In a sudden stop event, assuming the driver does the same tasks (lifts foot off accelerator pedal, moves to brake, then presses brake) - an standard ICE vehicle simply stops accelerating (minimal engine braking). An EV starts decelerating as soon as the foot is lifted from the accelerator.

We're not talking EVs that are double the mass (usually 10% increase over ICE), so a 20% reduction in speed (probably more) on an impact is more important than that 10% weight increase (impact force is roughly equal to mass x speed).

Based on a cursory glance at google results, 10% is at the lower bound of weight increase, and in sudden stop scenarios I would assume tyre grip is the main factor in speed reduction potential, not engine/regenerative braking. I'm not aware of any convincing studies showing a clear advantage for EVs in these scenarios.

Petrol engines have a nontrivial amount of engine braking due to the throttle. If you have a manual car you can easily compare it to coasting by disengaging the clutch. Bicycles also naturally coast thanks to the freewheel. If you're used to a bicycle then the engine braking of a car is quite surprising.

The electricity mostly comes from fossil fuels too.

The reason I mention it is because it's unfair from the start. That we ever allowed such unsustainable transport to become the norm is a huge part of the problem.

Probably something about the worldwide climate catastrophe caused by humanity continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate.

I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their moral stance when nobody asked about it. It is, in fact, not at all relevant to the conversation.

The easiest thing is to stay on topic, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a moral stance for the OP to point out that the most common form of transport is partially responsible for dumping lots of CO2 into the environment, when the discussion is about junctions that prioritise active travel (walking/cycling). In motornormative countries such as the UK/USA (many others too), people are conditioned to only get from A to B via polluting methods (recognising that electric cars produce large amounts of tyre pollution which somewhat offsets their possible lack of fossil fuel use). The use of enlightened designs that work well for the Netherlands is part of the toolkit that we need to change people's mindsets if we can get past all the seductive advertising of the motor industries.

I'd put it as more of a pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint that a moral stance.

I understand that and I don't reject this sentiment outright, but one makes enemies when engaged in a good faith argument but feels the need to shoehorn their self-described "pragmatic, forwards-looking viewpoint" when nobody asked about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com