this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
263 points (84.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

12775 readers
1473 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
263
Electric Cars (lemmy.world)
submitted 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) by DwZ@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FundMECFS@quokk.au 1 points 10 minutes ago

report from the Pew Charitable Trust found that 78 percent of ocean microplastics are from synthetic tire rubber. These toxic particles often end up ingested by marine animals, where they can cause neurological effects, behavioral changes, and abnormal growth. 

Meanwhile, British firm Emissions Analytics spent three years studying tires. The group found that a single car’s four tires collectively release 1 trillion “ultrafine” particles for every single kilometer (0.6 miles) driven. These particles, under 100 nanometers in size, are so tiny that they can pass directly through the lungs and into the blood. They can even cross the body’s blood-brain barrier. The Imperial College London has also studied the issue, noting that “There is emerging evidence that tire wear particles and other particulate matter may contribute to a range of negative health impacts including heart, lung, developmental, reproductive, and cancer outcomes.”

Source

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 33 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Electric vehicles

  • eliminate tailpipe emissions
  • cut brake dust emissions in half
  • pollute less as we transition to renewable energy
  • let us work toward elimination the huge polluting industries for gasoline refining and distribution
  • let us shrink the huge polluting industries of oil extraction and refining
  • are a huge step toward slowing the growth of climate change.

While I completely agree transit, and walkable cities are much better, EVs are not nothing. More importantly, given the amount of time to build transit and walkable cities, EVs get us many of the advantages NOW

[–] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 3 hours ago

They also increase tyre wear particles due to their greater weight and torque

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, this comic is putting perfect in the way of good.

Not to mention, there are people who do need vehicles, the trades being one example.

[–] stepan@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Most of the fuckwads in this comment section missed the point of the post

[–] FundMECFS@quokk.au 1 points 13 minutes ago

Yeah. They are actually furthering the point by imagining there is no solution apart from EVs and ICE cars. Also, have they seen the name of the conmunity lol!

[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 4 points 6 hours ago

The point is to get in your daily bitching quota lol

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Good luck AmeriKa, you are way behind the 1st World and the fucking MAGAts will make it worse.

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 4 points 8 hours ago

Electric cars are the best solution available for people who live in car centric areas and can't afford to build their own train line.

We should also be trying to get walkable neighborhoods and adequate public transport, but I will very rarely tell someone not to replace their car with electric. It really is much better than the available alternatives.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 18 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't solve all the problems, so instead, let's solve none of the problems!

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

How dare you not install your own commuter train out to your rural property.

[–] mienshao@lemmy.world 117 points 18 hours ago (20 children)

I hate this car-centric society, but let’s be real cars aren’t going anywhere. Moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing. Not sure why we’re criticizing progress here.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 61 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

It's because on the modern internet, everyone is all-or-nothing when it comes to their chosen issue. Nuance has become unacceptable.

This community in particular can get a little out of touch at times. In North America in particular, even if every level of government agreed to begin working towards a car free society immediately, we'd still be facing a decades long construction campaign as entire towns and cities would have to be restructured. In the meantime, a shift to electric vehicles is something that can drastically help the global warming issue, and can be implemented in less than a decade.

In reality, we should be shifting to electric cars in the sort term, while we work towards eliminating the need for them in the long term.

Also, I'm convinced that the brake dust/tire wear particulates talking point is the result of oil industry astroturfing. The brake dust thing especially is actually better on electric cars, since regenerative braking reduces the amount of brake wear.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

Higher weight and higher torque means tires wear faster on EVs. That’s physics, and the theory is backed up by real world evidence.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Things can be both true and irrelevant. Astroturfing highlights irrelevant things to the point of relevance so they get in the way.

Like Trump's"feud" with Rosie O'Donnell. It exists, but means literally nothing and is just there to distract from actual conversation.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

I feel it’s fairly relevant with the interest in microplastics lately.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5664766/

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

If you were really concerned about higher vehicle weight, trucks are much worse so let’s start there

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Trucks are typically carrying tons of goods (except those awful LTL cases where the 50' trailer is carrying one pallet)

Cars (mostly SUVs these days) are usually just carrying 80kg of spongy meat.

Those are not even the same levels of utility

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

EVs are about 20% heavier than the equivalent gas powered car and offer the same utility.

Full sized pickup trucks are 50-100% heavier than cars, are the most common vehicle in most of the US, and is “ usually just carrying 80kg of spongy meat.”. They are usually exactly the same levels of utility, plus don’t have any environmental benefits

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, it also applies there. It’s just a fact - heavier vehicles have more tire wear.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 13 points 16 hours ago

The flatter torque curve (peak torque on electric cars is usually very comparable to ICE) is irrelevant, unless you are a shitty driver who treats the gas pedal like a two position switch.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

Yup, which is why the policies to ban the sale of new gas powered vehicle is a good thing.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 19 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Its because EVs are being marketed as a green solution, not a stepping stone. If a car must exist it might as well be electric but we should be asking how do we reduce the cars that exist and their frequency of use. Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.

This choice you've presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The government building transit would effect the number of people who need to rely on a car.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There's no reason why it has to be "transit+ICE" instead of "transit+EV".

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Even here in a walkable town with good transit, I still need a car so an EV is what I can do.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 15 hours ago

And the most impactful change I can make is purchasing an EV.

Since I already vote for officials who support all of those issues there is no impactful change because the alignment is already there.

There are locally impactful actions that I can participate in but none that will have the same impact as my personal choices.

The most impactful choices I could make are all illegal. The majority of them being some form of demestic terrorism.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Because it's progress that needed to happen 30 years ago. While we've been transitioning to electric cars, progress also needed to happen on every other issue but it doesn't happen because we're all in on electric cars instead of doing something about car dependency as a whole. It's not moving forward, it's moving sideways.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Speaking from the US, we’re clearly not yet all in on EVs and we just killed funding for transit and intercity rail. And they’re trying to remove fuel efficiency standards altogether. We are 30 years ago and regressing fast.

Transit and intercity rail are receding into some future utopian fever dream but some of us can still choose EVs

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 38 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

This, to me, just seems like it's trying to give permissions to ICE car owners not to change anything.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 12 points 17 hours ago

It definitely is not that. However, it is a reminder that, even with electric vehicles, there is a serious, environmental and social impact.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] VisionScout@lemmy.wtf 3 points 11 hours ago

cars will never be green. While cars have their use, we should limit the usage of 1 person per car.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 30 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, well if an improvement isn't perfect, we should definitely reject it and continue using the worst possible version until a perfect one is created

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maestro@fedia.io 25 points 18 hours ago (10 children)

Electric cars also reduce particulate dust. Because of regenerative braking they need to brake less often and less agressive. There was a study published just kadt week.

[–] rainwall@piefed.social 16 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Also noise pollution. Under 35 mph, most car noise is engine noise.

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 6 points 14 hours ago

So much this. Car noise is a huge problem.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 15 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Had the right idea but lost me at the end. Better is better. We can both electrify and work to move away from automobiles at the same time. We should not divide a group of people with common interest in a better tomorrow. To do so is how we lose.

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 10 points 18 hours ago

On one hand, I like that EVs are leaps and bounds above gas guzzlers. On the other, it does still reinforce our current car culture.

load more comments
view more: next ›