• digdilem@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Utter tosh.

    The Telegraph (who funded this study) have a huge list of anti-EV articles, nearly all of which are technically incorrect and often self-contradictory. They clearly have an agenda and it’s likely funded by the oil industry.

    • thehatfox@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not entirely untrue. Electric vehicles tend to be heavier than petrol or diesel vehicles, and heavier vehicles cause more wear to road surfaces than lighter ones.

      That isn’t to say electric vehicles are bad idea because of that though.

      • digdilem@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        But still fractionally as heavy as lorries, which /do/ cause most of the potholes. But the article is designed to trigger our base feelings of anger about paying for a road surface that’s often in poor condition.

        The car park argument is pretty silly too. Older multi-stories have greater problems from cars being wider, longer and taller than what they were designed for. But again, with the news of the multistorey car park collapsing in New York not that long ago, it’s triggering fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the reader.

        Objectively, it’s a really good example of how to write a manipulative ‘news’ story that preys on human emotion. That doesn’t make it /true/ though.