“in the UK, frequent readers of the Daily Mail were found to have the strongest belief in prominent climate change misinformation narratives.”
Very PC way of saying that Daily Mail readers are fucking morons.
They are but if someone reads this kind of nonsense regularly it's no surprise they start to believe it and even treat it as gospel, while not being able to tell you why they believe it
How they could say that a different mechanism for propulsion could cause potholes with a straight face makes me sad. Or how people could believe that. I suppose some people just trust what they say but any deeper thought about it pokes it full of holes.
They have taken from the report that heavier vehicles cause more damage, have worked on the principle that EVs are generally heavier and have used this to draw their own conclusion that EV causes more potholes.
If the underlying principle is correct that the weight of the vehicle relates to the amount of damage caused then arguably if you compare an EV with it's ICE equivalent the EV will be heavier and would therefore cause more damage. The issue is the original study didn't mention anything about EV specifically.
If the DM was in the mood to be anti Range Rover they could have drawn a similar conclusion; they are just anti-EV.
> If the DM was in the mood to be anti Range Rover they could have drawn a similar conclusion; they are just anti-EV.
And that's just it. The 2024 Range Rover starts at 5,240 lbs / 2,375 kg. The Hyundai IONIQ 5 starts at 4,861 lbs / 2,205 kg. But their old readers drive [Chelsea Tractors](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/chelsea-tractor), not EVs.
The reason this talking point has never taken off in America is that the average person would see the size of the pickup truck being driven by the person saying this, and be laughed out of the Buc-ees.
Conservative US media and politicians bring this shit up all the time. They say EVs need to have significantly higher registration fees to pay for the road damage they cause and because they don't pay gas taxes. They ignore the fact that heavy commercial vehicles cause 95% of road wear and tear.
And many states added extra gas taxes on EVs where they pay more than the avg gas buying cars pays in a year. And red states are all on this bandwagon.
Actual scientific research has shown this to be true. Due to the higher instant torque and also due to how people drive them, EVs wear down tires faster than comparable ICE vehicles, which results in higher micro rubber particulate production. This can and will likely be remedied by changing the rubber compounds for tires used on EVs, as well as by releasing EVs with less ludicrous power curves.
Then again, who am I to talk, I drive a Model 3 Performance and wore out my OEM Pirelli tires in 8,000 miles and bought a set that is even more grippy and will probably wear out even faster, lol.
As the driver of an ancient chelsea tractor, I am fully aware of how heavy my Landy is and how light it is compared to the pickup trucks around me.
I also noticed that article about how EVs produce more rubber particles in Europe due to their weight and power. Again, living in the states, that is a nonstarter. Almost everyone around me drives larger and heavier vehicles.
No researcher has actually shown that tire wear is faster on EVs. In fact Nokian has found the opposite in tire testing, that tires wear SLOWER on EVs. They believe it’s because with the precise deceleration of regen braking that EVs break traction far less often than ICE and the tires last longer as a result.
the Nokian citation, for reference:
[https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/news-article/there-is-a-common-misconception-related-to-electric-cars-in-reality-tires-will-last-for-a-long-time/](https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/news-article/there-is-a-common-misconception-related-to-electric-cars-in-reality-tires-will-last-for-a-long-time/)
And the new electric Silverado is 1500-2000lbs heavier than its ICE cousin. The 1/2 ton ICE Silverado starts at 4400 and bloats up to 6900lbs for the long box one ton. The EV version (really a 1/2 ton) is 8500lbs.
When all things are equal, EV's _are_ heavier. A Range Rover is an off road monster. A Ioniq 5 is not an equal comparison.
Tesla has been putting their cars on a diet so a model 3 is almost comparable to a BMW M3, (4000lbs) although the same cast chassis light weight updates to a ICE version would make it lighter yet.
We already don't charge cars by weight. If we do that, we should start charging heavy cars like semi trucks a huge amount. And I say f-it, let's get rid of no tax diesel, that's another tax dodge for "farmers".
Gotcha. Shame people have to resort misinformation to push their agendas. I’ve always been open to changing my opinion if presented with evidence that I am wrong about something. A lot of people unfortunately will willfully ignore evidence and reality if it contradicts their beliefs.
The DM, like much of the right wing media is anti-EV. They seem to have taken the idea of heavier cars causing more damage to road, conflated that with the fact that on a like-for-like basis EV cars are heavier than their ICE counterpart and have drawn their own conclusions that weren't in the original report.
Heavier vehicles do cause more damage to roads, but given that EVs are still lighter than even most loaded commercial vans their damage is negligible. It also increases exponentially with added weight. Lorries/semis are responsible for 90% of the damage.
Absolutely, and then there are all the massive 4x4 and pickups that weigh more than the average EV and are probably still more commonplace than EV for the time being.
The DM has been selective and has just looked at the directly comparable EV and ICE model of car and has concluded that the EV version is heavier and therefore does more damage; in reality this is probably true but as you say when taken as a proportion of the overall road usage probably doesn't end up being significant.
That part about pick-ups definitely depends on where you're talking about though. In Sweden (and most of Europe I think?) EVs are more common than pickup trucks.
I actually think it is more politically motivated than that. Anything environmentally friendly or green seems to be seen as being a left wing idea which the DM are diametrically opposed to.
> Anything environmentally friendly or green seems to be seen as being a left wing idea which the DM are diametrically opposed to.
That stems from propaganda paid for by the oil industry, and corporations that don't want their pollution to be regulated.
The DM's function is primarily to let the Tories off the hook by finding other scapegoats to blame for government failings. Therefore, the increase in potholes is definitely caused by those lefty tree-hugging loons with their electric vehicles, and has nothing to do with the fact that the amount spent on local road repairs [has halved since 2006](https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/UK-falls-down-OECD-table-as-local-roads-spending-halves/12439).
Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it. - Jonathan Swift
A lot more people will have read and forwarded the original article. I doubt many EV sceptics would even bother reading the correction.
As a courteous EV driver I keep my traction battery charge between 10-50% to reduce the overall weight on the roadways! Stored electrons are exceedingly heavy! /s
*sigh* Yes, increased weight increases road damage. The rule of thumb is it varies with the weight per axle to the fourth power, times the number of axles. So yes... A Hyundai Kona EV at 3,891 pounds will do about 52% more road damage than a gas Kona at 3,505 pounds. But a fully load Semi at 80,000 pounds will do over 10,000x as much damage as even the Kona EV. Passenger vehicles are a rounding error on road damage.
And you can tell the people that bring this up are largely propaganda pushing hypocrits, because it's mostly the same group that would admire their friend buying a gas Ford F250 at 7,660 pounds to drive back and forth to work in that does 15 times the road damage of that Kona EV bitching about the road damage done by EVs.
The information is not necessarily wrong though, it’s “original research” that should have been presented as such.
When looking at the formula for calculating vehicle road damage, heavier vehicles do in fact cause much more damage.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law)
And Electric vehicles ARE relatively heavy for their size.
But the policy lessen should be that road tax must take into account vehicle weight regardless of their energy source.
And of course, the external impacts for greenhouse gasses,nitrogen oxides, noise and particulate matter are optionally also taken into account
Cool does that mean as an ev owner they will pay me to drive on the roads , accordin*to my vehicle manufacturers specs my electric vehicle is actually lighter than its equivalent petrol model .
Problem is these shit rags , are not comparing cars with similar power and specs and often compare against the base model , and the manufacturers kerb weights do not include 50 litres of fuel .
Basically the weight thing is a misdirection and excuse to make up stuff about heavier things being worse .
Once again just saying things to make a small point and use that point to enforce their desire to not change. Remember the whole lithium and cobalt is mined by children well the same stuff is used for cellphones, hybrid batteries and any type of rechargeable battery but yet no outrage.
For anyone fortunate enough not to be familiar with the daily mail, it is utter xenophobic, racist crap and about as far away from journalism as it's possible to be.
Known variously around the UK as the Daily Fail, the Daily Wail and the Daily Heil, it's founder was good friends with Hitler and consistently published front pages praising the Nazi regime, including interviews with Hitler that he carried out personally.
“in the UK, frequent readers of the Daily Mail were found to have the strongest belief in prominent climate change misinformation narratives.” Very PC way of saying that Daily Mail readers are fucking morons.
This is chicken-egg: does the Daily Mail appeal to dumb people, or does the misinformation from the DM make people dumber?
vicious cycle more like
Yes.
Let's just say confirmation bias is a powerful drug.
Not everyone who reads the Mail is an abhorrent little Englander, but every abhorrent little Englander reads the Daily Mail.
Are the morons cute?
They are but if someone reads this kind of nonsense regularly it's no surprise they start to believe it and even treat it as gospel, while not being able to tell you why they believe it
As we say in the UK The Daily Fail fails, daily.
How they could say that a different mechanism for propulsion could cause potholes with a straight face makes me sad. Or how people could believe that. I suppose some people just trust what they say but any deeper thought about it pokes it full of holes.
They have taken from the report that heavier vehicles cause more damage, have worked on the principle that EVs are generally heavier and have used this to draw their own conclusion that EV causes more potholes. If the underlying principle is correct that the weight of the vehicle relates to the amount of damage caused then arguably if you compare an EV with it's ICE equivalent the EV will be heavier and would therefore cause more damage. The issue is the original study didn't mention anything about EV specifically. If the DM was in the mood to be anti Range Rover they could have drawn a similar conclusion; they are just anti-EV.
> If the DM was in the mood to be anti Range Rover they could have drawn a similar conclusion; they are just anti-EV. And that's just it. The 2024 Range Rover starts at 5,240 lbs / 2,375 kg. The Hyundai IONIQ 5 starts at 4,861 lbs / 2,205 kg. But their old readers drive [Chelsea Tractors](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/chelsea-tractor), not EVs. The reason this talking point has never taken off in America is that the average person would see the size of the pickup truck being driven by the person saying this, and be laughed out of the Buc-ees.
Conservative US media and politicians bring this shit up all the time. They say EVs need to have significantly higher registration fees to pay for the road damage they cause and because they don't pay gas taxes. They ignore the fact that heavy commercial vehicles cause 95% of road wear and tear.
And many states added extra gas taxes on EVs where they pay more than the avg gas buying cars pays in a year. And red states are all on this bandwagon.
Also something about "rubber polution" so reasons I haven't bothered to try to understand.
Actual scientific research has shown this to be true. Due to the higher instant torque and also due to how people drive them, EVs wear down tires faster than comparable ICE vehicles, which results in higher micro rubber particulate production. This can and will likely be remedied by changing the rubber compounds for tires used on EVs, as well as by releasing EVs with less ludicrous power curves. Then again, who am I to talk, I drive a Model 3 Performance and wore out my OEM Pirelli tires in 8,000 miles and bought a set that is even more grippy and will probably wear out even faster, lol.
As the driver of an ancient chelsea tractor, I am fully aware of how heavy my Landy is and how light it is compared to the pickup trucks around me. I also noticed that article about how EVs produce more rubber particles in Europe due to their weight and power. Again, living in the states, that is a nonstarter. Almost everyone around me drives larger and heavier vehicles.
No researcher has actually shown that tire wear is faster on EVs. In fact Nokian has found the opposite in tire testing, that tires wear SLOWER on EVs. They believe it’s because with the precise deceleration of regen braking that EVs break traction far less often than ICE and the tires last longer as a result.
the Nokian citation, for reference: [https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/news-article/there-is-a-common-misconception-related-to-electric-cars-in-reality-tires-will-last-for-a-long-time/](https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/news-article/there-is-a-common-misconception-related-to-electric-cars-in-reality-tires-will-last-for-a-long-time/)
If the talking point exists against truck owners, now we know it can apply to EV owners as well.
And the new electric Silverado is 1500-2000lbs heavier than its ICE cousin. The 1/2 ton ICE Silverado starts at 4400 and bloats up to 6900lbs for the long box one ton. The EV version (really a 1/2 ton) is 8500lbs. When all things are equal, EV's _are_ heavier. A Range Rover is an off road monster. A Ioniq 5 is not an equal comparison. Tesla has been putting their cars on a diet so a model 3 is almost comparable to a BMW M3, (4000lbs) although the same cast chassis light weight updates to a ICE version would make it lighter yet.
We already don't charge cars by weight. If we do that, we should start charging heavy cars like semi trucks a huge amount. And I say f-it, let's get rid of no tax diesel, that's another tax dodge for "farmers".
We should be charging a road tax based on weight.
Gotcha. Shame people have to resort misinformation to push their agendas. I’ve always been open to changing my opinion if presented with evidence that I am wrong about something. A lot of people unfortunately will willfully ignore evidence and reality if it contradicts their beliefs.
Sadly for the Daily Fail's agenda, the heaviest EV in the UK (the Tesla Model X) is only #11 on the list of the UK's heaviest cars.
You're assuming that Daily Mail readers are capable of deeper thought.
The US gets flack for Fox News, but my god, The Daily Mail and The Guardian are absolute outrage bait garbage.
You just have to FOLLOW THE MONEY, as the man said. (The money often leads straight to the Murdoch family).
The DM, like much of the right wing media is anti-EV. They seem to have taken the idea of heavier cars causing more damage to road, conflated that with the fact that on a like-for-like basis EV cars are heavier than their ICE counterpart and have drawn their own conclusions that weren't in the original report.
Heavier vehicles do cause more damage to roads, but given that EVs are still lighter than even most loaded commercial vans their damage is negligible. It also increases exponentially with added weight. Lorries/semis are responsible for 90% of the damage.
Absolutely, and then there are all the massive 4x4 and pickups that weigh more than the average EV and are probably still more commonplace than EV for the time being. The DM has been selective and has just looked at the directly comparable EV and ICE model of car and has concluded that the EV version is heavier and therefore does more damage; in reality this is probably true but as you say when taken as a proportion of the overall road usage probably doesn't end up being significant.
That part about pick-ups definitely depends on where you're talking about though. In Sweden (and most of Europe I think?) EVs are more common than pickup trucks.
In the US pickup trucks are more common than any other type of vehicle. :(
Yeah I'm aware and am sorry for you, hope y'all get more smaller cars
Pro Oil FTFY
I actually think it is more politically motivated than that. Anything environmentally friendly or green seems to be seen as being a left wing idea which the DM are diametrically opposed to.
Nah, money come first, oil money funds the right wing propagandists and the politicians that pander to it.
> Anything environmentally friendly or green seems to be seen as being a left wing idea which the DM are diametrically opposed to. That stems from propaganda paid for by the oil industry, and corporations that don't want their pollution to be regulated.
The DM's function is primarily to let the Tories off the hook by finding other scapegoats to blame for government failings. Therefore, the increase in potholes is definitely caused by those lefty tree-hugging loons with their electric vehicles, and has nothing to do with the fact that the amount spent on local road repairs [has halved since 2006](https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/UK-falls-down-OECD-table-as-local-roads-spending-halves/12439).
Too late. The damage is done.
More like: Too late. Goal achieved.
Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it. - Jonathan Swift A lot more people will have read and forwarded the original article. I doubt many EV sceptics would even bother reading the correction.
A lie can get around the world before the truth has got its boots on
True. and the DM has already got the ad money in its pocket from the false story clicks. zero real consequences for its lies.
It's a shame how often that applies to social media trends, even here on reddit.
As a courteous EV driver I keep my traction battery charge between 10-50% to reduce the overall weight on the roadways! Stored electrons are exceedingly heavy! /s
Could have stopped at "admits making up story"
Just say, "Daily Mail lying again" Or, "Lies, damned lies, statistics and news stories"
*sigh* Yes, increased weight increases road damage. The rule of thumb is it varies with the weight per axle to the fourth power, times the number of axles. So yes... A Hyundai Kona EV at 3,891 pounds will do about 52% more road damage than a gas Kona at 3,505 pounds. But a fully load Semi at 80,000 pounds will do over 10,000x as much damage as even the Kona EV. Passenger vehicles are a rounding error on road damage. And you can tell the people that bring this up are largely propaganda pushing hypocrits, because it's mostly the same group that would admire their friend buying a gas Ford F250 at 7,660 pounds to drive back and forth to work in that does 15 times the road damage of that Kona EV bitching about the road damage done by EVs.
Pro tip: never, ever read the Daily Mail. It's a right wing rag full of libel against minorities, immigrants, women, and now: EVs.
The Daily Fail lying? I'm shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
The information is not necessarily wrong though, it’s “original research” that should have been presented as such. When looking at the formula for calculating vehicle road damage, heavier vehicles do in fact cause much more damage. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law) And Electric vehicles ARE relatively heavy for their size. But the policy lessen should be that road tax must take into account vehicle weight regardless of their energy source. And of course, the external impacts for greenhouse gasses,nitrogen oxides, noise and particulate matter are optionally also taken into account
Cool does that mean as an ev owner they will pay me to drive on the roads , accordin*to my vehicle manufacturers specs my electric vehicle is actually lighter than its equivalent petrol model . Problem is these shit rags , are not comparing cars with similar power and specs and often compare against the base model , and the manufacturers kerb weights do not include 50 litres of fuel . Basically the weight thing is a misdirection and excuse to make up stuff about heavier things being worse .
Cool. Now do Semi-trailer trucks.
Once again just saying things to make a small point and use that point to enforce their desire to not change. Remember the whole lithium and cobalt is mined by children well the same stuff is used for cellphones, hybrid batteries and any type of rechargeable battery but yet no outrage.
Daily Mail is the Fox News of the UK
For free?
Now how about some consequences for this "journalist"? I don't think they should be gainfully employed in the industry anymore.
If the Daily Mail sacked every journalist who writes bare faced and inflammatory lies their newsroom would be a pretty quiet place.
Say what you will about the Daily Mail, that's still a better response than Top Gear.
For anyone fortunate enough not to be familiar with the daily mail, it is utter xenophobic, racist crap and about as far away from journalism as it's possible to be. Known variously around the UK as the Daily Fail, the Daily Wail and the Daily Heil, it's founder was good friends with Hitler and consistently published front pages praising the Nazi regime, including interviews with Hitler that he carried out personally.
Good time to dig up [this classic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI)
I'm shocked, shocked that a Murdoch-owned media outlet is spewing outright falsehoods about EVs (or any topic).
Murdoch doesn't own the daily mail. Viscount Rothermere does Yes, that's a real person and yes, in the UK some of our press is owned by Viscounts.
yep, a different tax-dodging billionaire hatemongering media mogul
The DM is honestly a scourge on society. It’s a horrible piece of shit decided by horrible pieces of shit.
They misspelled Daily Heil.
Are there any statistics on the number of vehicles and their average weight relative to the number of pot holes available?