Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

icowden

Über Member
The second equation shows that the kinetic energy of an object depends directly on its mass. And kinetic energy most certainly is extremely relevant, in that it is a measure of how much damage a moving object is capable of doing.

The first equation shows that momentum is also linearly dependent on mass. That is also relevant, but in a more subtle way. A collision between between a massive object and a light object results in a large change in velocity of the light object, and a small change to the massive object. Peak acceleration on the light object are therefore much larger - thus more damage will be wrought. Which is why a pedestrian is very much worse off when in collision with a 4x4 SUV than, say, a cyclist when both are travelling at the same velocity.
Not sure how that relates to wear and tear on the road though...
 

matticus

Über Member
Not sure how that relates to wear and tear on the road though...

I don't think he said it did! You've been reading this thread, right?? You've been given several reasons why EV cars are more problematic than bicycles. The logical chain for each is pretty clear, it's not like there is pages to wade through since your question.

Let's start with a simple one: Would you agree that heavier vehicles create more wear and tear on the road?
 

icowden

Über Member
I don't think he said it did!
Sorry - was joining your statement to @albion's statement about banning 2000kg+ cars with single occupancy.

Yes, I agree that heavier vehicles create more wear and tear on the road. I just don't think that it is EVs causing the majority of that.
 

the snail

Regular
I don't think he said it did! You've been reading this thread, right?? You've been given several reasons why EV cars are more problematic than bicycles. The logical chain for each is pretty clear, it's not like there is pages to wade through since your question.

Let's start with a simple one: Would you agree that heavier vehicles create more wear and tear on the road?
Bicycles cause basically zero damage to roads.
https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-road-damage/

This is why I would happily pay road tax for my bike to cover wear and tear tho the roads, I'll pay my £1 if suv drivers will pay their £160,000.
 

icowden

Über Member
This is why I would happily pay road tax for my bike to cover wear and tear tho the roads, I'll pay my £1 if suv drivers will pay their £160,000.
But as an SUV driver (well sort of) my car does a tiny amount of damage compared to the freight trucks, so they should be paying, not me.
 

Adam4868

Legendary Member
But as an SUV driver (well sort of) my car does a tiny amount of damage compared to the freight trucks, so they should be paying, not me.
The bigger the car..... pedestrian fatalities increase.
 

Wobblers

New Member
Not sure how that relates to wear and tear on the road though...

Road wear varies as the fourth power of the axle loading. Meaning that the 400 kg of battery many electric vehicles (and many have more than this) has a disproportinately large contribution to road wear. Nor does it help matters to then place EV system into a SUV chassis which already weighs 2 tonnes - which in turn will need an even heavier battery pack in order for it to have a comparable range and performance to a smaller and lighter vehicle.

The physics could not be more plain: lighter vehicles are better in terms of risks to others, road wear and energy use. SUVs are an expensive indulgence - one in which most of the actual costs are externalised onto others.
 
Road wear varies as the fourth power of the axle loading. Meaning that the 400 kg of battery many electric vehicles (and many have more than this) has a disproportinately large contribution to road wear. Nor does it help matters to then place EV system into a SUV chassis which already weighs 2 tonnes - which in turn will need an even heavier battery pack in order for it to have a comparable range and performance to a smaller and lighter vehicle.

The physics could not be more plain: lighter vehicles are better in terms of risks to others, road wear and energy use. SUVs are an expensive indulgence - one in which most of the actual costs are externalised onto others.

Save the planet - Citroen C1s for all!
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Oh dear.

But I would counter that <physics pedant hat on> by saying that heavier bikes still cause more wear than lighter (on the same tyres)!

SUVs on 25mm rubber would clearly be terrible!
There is very simple evidence to prove the opposite, dutch roads need far more repaving then dedicated cycle paths, including the cycle highway between Amsterdam and Lelystad which serves thousands of cycles every day is it is an cheaper and mostly faster alternative to the car. i specifically say the dutch roads and cycle paths because i known they are made on the same tarmac, opposed to commonly use gravel here in the uk for cycle paths.
 

albion

Well-Known Member
I wonder how much the energy crisis has helped reduce global warming.

The National Grid also just recently postponed it 'low peak usage' credits for consumers.
I was slightly surprised it was needed and am left wondering if actual electricity usage had had a large fall.
The prolonged cold snap, so far has not kicked off any power cuts.
 
Top Bottom