He had me until <i>“It’s not clear Americans can handle this kind of power”</i>. David Roberts would like to you to use a dull knife because you can’t handle a sharp knife.<p>Here’s his intro bio:
<i>“I should note that I’m not a car guy. I don’t know much about them, don’t much like them, and don’t much like driving them. I never learned to drive a stick shift or change the oil. I don’t drool over muscle cars or know what “hemi” means. Truth be told, I kind of hate car culture.”</i><p>Further on he has an opinion on what American drivers can handle. There’s literally thousands of Teslas on the road and he has fears of them “leaping” across intersections.<p>How about some facts from IIHS:
<a href="https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles-comes-more-proof-of-safety" rel="nofollow">https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles...</a>
This essay is consistent with my feelings. In particular, the ending paragraphs: "Ultimately, my fondest wish is that I lived somewhere where I didn't want or need a car at all. I hate cars. I hate driving. I really hate other people's driving, and other people's cars." I wish the same, but those wishes seem not to be sufficiently widely shared for them to appear in local and state elections, and so we see the world in which we sadly live. In the U.S., L.A. appears to be the only city somewhat on the way to having a real, large-scale, and functional rail transit system, and even that is occurring with aching slowness.
It's worse than he says. Not only do EV have stunning acceleration which grandpa will most likely not be able to control, they're extremely heavy, especially at the bottom end.<p>From what I've read a VW Golf weighs between 1300 - 1600kg. A VW ID.3, practically the same car but electric, weighs between 1800 - 1900kg. That's a small car weighing as much as a bigger, older ICE SUV. An almost 40% weight increase over the equivalent ICE. Battery weight will really need to go down.<p>Plus we're going to have to really upgrade road infrastructure to make it safer.
It's very funny to read the highs and lows from "not a car guy." The big secret about modern cars is that a new Camry is roughly on the quality level of luxury cars from 10-15 years ago. As you spend more, you get more, but cars are really better than they've ever been in more ways than just power.<p>However, I don't think that cars being more fun than ever before is contrary to goals of reducing how much the average person drives. Better cars, fun, torquey EVs, and the like are not what is stopping construction of protected bike lanes and light rail. Having cars that have sucked for decades has not slowed the expansion of car-centric suburban sprawl around cities like Denver and Seattle.<p>A personal anecdote: last year I moved to another state, and I looked for housing with a lot of my core needs within walking distance. Having secured this, I proceeded to buy the most fun, least practical car my budget would allow. It's OK to want infrastructure that doesn't cater to cars, but still enjoy driving for driving's own sake.
Relatedly, a friend of mine has said he's seen a huge uptick in injured senior/adults riding ebikes on the (paved) bike trail near his home. Ebikes allow riders who are not practiced to ride at ~20 MPH for extended periods of time. These people may not have the reaction time needed to ride safely at this speed. Previously, only people in very good shape could ride this fast for more than a short burst, and this acted as a filter (because getting in good shape typically involved riding a lot).<p>It's not the same issue as with cars, since fast acceleration isn't new, and every driver has driven at high speed (even if not quickly accelerating). But it is an interesting trend resulting from high-powered electric motors.
I might, <i>might</i> go along with the pearl-clutching if I didn’t live in Redmond, WA, where you can’t swing a dead feline without hitting a Tesla. And my wife goes out of her way to point out a Tesla that is accelerating at anything but “old person going to Sunday church service” mode, just because it is so seldom witnessed. In other words, for all of Tesla’s hype about Scottish tartan mode, most of the ones we see can’t get out of their own way. Which is fine, no need to go tearing down the road just because you can, and you’ll save on tires.<p>But this isn’t the first time rip-roarin’ vehicles have been sold to the public. Motorcycles, even slow ones, will stomp most cars from a light or 1/4 mile. And, yeah, folks plow into things with them on occasion. But it’s generally failure to negotiate a turn that causes moto accidents, not outrageous acceleration.<p>So we already have the prior art of Teslas and motorcycles, and the world hasn’t ended. In fact, this is the first such worry I’ve heard about EVs. As I’ve said about fast motorcycles: the throttle is not binary.
I am on my second electric vehicle (a Tesla Model Y) which I have owned just over a year and driven about 9,000 miles in (55,000 in my Nissan Leaf) in a variety of conditions. To borrow from Freud, my id did not like hearing what David Roberts had to say. But nonetheless I also believe electric vehicles, particularly those with high acceleration, present new dangers and temptations for drivers.<p>I "leaped" across an intersection just yesterday in Portland -- an intersection which has a light rail train stop in the center divider -- exploiting the torque of my Model Y. While I only peaked at about 5 miles above the speed limit there was not a corresponding audio cue that would be present with a traditional car accelerating comparably. A commuter began an attempt to cross from the light rail stop with his bicycle after I had left the intersection. I felt he had far fewer cues to notice my car. He noticed me and abruptly stopped before completely entering the street. Even though my speed was reasonably safe, I felt the acceleration in the conditions definitely was not. I made a note to my self to take more care there in particular, not expecting I would talk about it on HN the next day.<p>This is just one specific example -- but the acceleration and sonic characteristics of electric cars present real hazards and drivers should adjust. While driving the Leaf and the Tesla for many years, I have noticed that pedestrians tend to notice me later than they would had I been driving a conventional car.
Not all EVs are going to be Teslas or Mustangs or Porsches. Those are very expensive vehicles and attract the brunt of the media coverage because they are exciting, but I don't think they are going to be the majority of the cars just like we don't see hellcats everywhere.
"more torque and power in everyone's hands is going to lead to more collisions."<p>How about some evidence? There is usually enhanced traction control and other safety features in EVs. It's also possible being able to pull out or maneuver quickly to avoid someone/something else could also reduce it. It seems the claim can't be made either way without looking at the net effects and their contributors.<p>"I do feel safer knowing that my car will keep me in my lane in normal driving conditions. But there's only so much software can do in the face of bad infrastructure."<p>Same rule for guns - never rely solely on physical safety devices as they can fail. If you feel safer with this feature, then it's an indication that you need to change your behavior (pay attention).<p>Then you simply blame infrastructure? There could be some enhancements, but I don't see mention of the proposed changes here beyond land use restrictions.<p>"Ultimately, my fondest wish is that I lived somewhere where I didn't want or need a car at all. I hate cars. I hate driving. I really hate other people's driving, and other people's cars."<p>Places like that do exist. If you wish this so badly, you could move.<p>"...should be reducing the need for, and number of, cars.
...
The top priority should be making land use and planning choices that encourage walkable communities, with amenities mixed in, so people can get out of cars and get onto their feet or bicycles."<p>I sort of agree, but would depend on the process and implementation details. Some places like rural areas probably wouldn't be great candidates for this. Cities and many high density neighborhoods basically already have this to varying degrees.
You can nerf your Tesla by changing it from standard to chill mode; the car drives smoother and has a less aggressive acceleration rate across the entire throttle range. It’s pretty nice when I’m in the mood for it.<p>Also - you don’t have to use autopilot! I don’t, I love driving but each there own.
The author makes some valid points but I would like to live in a world where we can all get what we want without imposing our choices on others. With synthetic fuels and efficient combustion engines on the horizons, I applaud and am excited about the choices we will have and I am happy to do my part to counter the negatives (by using mass transit when I can, using electric cars for commutes and school runs, planting trees). In return, I would like to own and use my exciting ICE cars on race tracks, for fun trips and even grocery runs occasionally. Let's find the balance, without imposing our ideas on everyone.
Whilst I empathize with the authors wishes to change cities and people to necessitate less cars, I don't want to walk with my neighbors. Much the same way I can't relate to the meatputers operating tonnes of metal powered by paleolithic compost (either by local or remote combustion), I despise those same meatputers when I encounter them on the sidewalk.<p>But, to be less cynical about fellow human beings, a lot of my peers choose to not have a car way into their 30s. Lots of people choose to be part of car clubs, where you can share a car effectively across multiple households. I did that for a while too, but the limitations of car sharing make them too cumbersome, more on this later. I expect that there will be less privately owned cars in 10-15 years in the urban areas of the UK. However, I don't believe any of the smaller (less than 100'000 people) communities will ever be able to get out of the perils of private car ownership, as the geographical sparsity will force people to use cars. To not have a disproportionate negative impact on the lives of the people who choose not to live in big cities, instead of legislating cars out of existence, cars should be downsized, electrified and made to be more efficient - there is very little reason why most regular families should transport their own 300kg of human matter by also transporting 1500kg of metal in the process. Point being, in cities where the population density allows for all the infrastructure to lead a good quality of life, lets decrease car ownership, but let's not leave the people who live in smaller communities and rely on cars in the dust.<p>As for car clubs, it seems the pricing model is hostile towards road-trips, yet I wouldn't ever want to rent the car for a shopping trip. I have a car mainly for the luxury to explore the country around me on my own terms. And since the car is shared, I'm disallowed from taking my dog with me.
I don't agree. Looks like a Ford promo.<p>The very basic of physics shows a direct dependency between how quickly car can accelerate to how fast it can stop. So faster car also stops better.<p>In the very end, if the vehicle is balanced it's not a big issue. My Tesla Model Y performance that is doing 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds stops immediately in any city environment. It has very small reaction distance. My old toyota wasn't able to do so. Thanks to wide tires and breaks that doesnt degrade as fast due to one pedal driving.<p>One the highway the story is similar, yes the car can speed up faster, but it's up to a driver what is the final speed. My performance model is much more stable has far better and smarter control compares to almost any gasoline car. In the very end it quite often prevents many potential incidents.
In response to the author of this article winging on whether the common plebian should only be permitted acceleration numbers approved by the state, let us compare the 0-60 times of other sporty gas cars in the price bracket of the Mach-E:<p><pre><code> Ford Mustang Mach-E (2020) - $44k - 4.2 seconds
Chevrolet Camaro 2SS (2019) - $45k - 4.0 seconds
Dodge Charger R/T Scat Pack (2020) - $46k - 3.9 seconds
Toyota GR Supra 3.0 (2021) - $51k - 3.8 seconds
Volkswagen Golf R (2022) - $44k - 3.9 seconds</code></pre>
And stretching the price point a bit:<p><pre><code> Corvette Stingray 1LT (2022) - $62k - 2.9 seconds
</code></pre>
I think it's safe to say the unwashed masses can handle an advanced power-to-weight ratio without government regulation.
> I was driving home from a restaurant on Tuesday evening and fiddling with the Spotify menu when I drifted slightly onto the middle line between lanes. With a tiny little push — boomp — the car nudged me back into my lane, as though it were semi-sentient.<p>> For someone like me, who drives fairly carefully and pays attention, it can feel more precise and controlled, and thus safer.<p>Sounds like the author doesn't really pay that much attention. And that's why we should be investing more in teaching people how to really drive a car. And stop putting huge distracting screens in cars.<p>> Driver-assist features might offset this somewhat.<p>Driver-assist features aren't unique to EVs.
Driver assistance to not get into an accident is more likely to save lives instead of taking them. I’m not sure why the author thinks that cars with a linear acceleration will kill more people considering driving is the most dangerous method of transportation. The bigger problem of driver assistance making people careless is when it’s advertised to do more than it should be doing . The biggest problem right now about driver assistance is how certain companies market it as better than it really is.
> it's worth remembering that the top priority — not just for climate hawks but for humanists of all sorts — should be reducing the need for, and number of, cars.<p>Prescriptivism is worrisome.
<i>“I hate cars. I hate driving. I really hate other people's driving, and other people's cars. EVs are such an enormous leap forward in environmental terms that it feels somewhat perverse to question them, but nonetheless, despite all the hype, despite all the fun, it's worth remembering that the top priority — not just for climate hawks but for humanists of all sorts — should be reducing the need for, and number of, cars.”</i><p>I love cars and I love driving. How about you live your life and I’ll live mine, okay?
I can't figure out what his point is? Is it that the Mustang a decent car with a lot of power and a weird UI? seems like a reasonable review, but this is not a review. This is a dude with a blog passing judgement on a lot of other people - a guy who admits he doesn't like cars things other people also shouldn't? Sure, walking is great, and so would better urban design be, but it doesn't have anything to do with electric cars or not.<p>He theorizes that more fun driving means more driving...I don't know...there's a lot of fun gas cars that get driven rarely. Also, almost any car might be more fun that a 2000s honda odyssey. Not a high bar.<p>I think the point this misses is that EVs are, in the long run, a MUCH better option than gas cars, despite any drawbacks.