Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

02Alien t1_je1trns wrote

I'm so excited for this, it'll be great for Tesla which really needs the boost imo

−16

Pikkornator t1_je2mt5y wrote

To be honest it feels like the EU leaders a class bullies and dont even listen to the people..... and the scary thing is that nobody even voted for these people to be put in these places rather then their criminal friends.

−12

Due-Resident-4588 t1_je2p57m wrote

The same “activists” screaming about climate change and wanting fossil fuels banned are the same people who fly their Private jets all over the world . How ironic

−11

DuFFman_ t1_je2pib7 wrote

Tesla's have been rated the lowest build quality of all manufacturers for the last 5+ years. Their fit and finish is terrible. And I would know, my job is automotive assembly.

5

pulse14 t1_je2vbi3 wrote

Check again. Last year, Consumer Reports ranked Tesla above Volkswagen, Mercedes, Jeep, and GM. New models are always unreliable and improve over time. Most of the non-Tesla EVs are now at the bottom of the list, because they are new models.

0

02Alien t1_je2xzmn wrote

FACTS yes Tesla had some build quality issues, with EARLY models. They've ironed most of it out and have great build quality now

Source: have driven a new model 3 many times

0

DuFFman_ t1_je2z2mk wrote

>Models from Tesla Motors, which leads the market in EV sales, continue to have issues with body hardware, steering and suspension, paint and trim and climate system. The Model 3 has average reliability, while other Telsa models – including the S, Y and X – are below average.

As I said. Fit and finish sucks on a Tesla. Right from CR.

1

pulse14 t1_je33ud3 wrote

You said they had the lowest build quality. Their best selling model is now average compared to all vehicles and the best for an EV. That's pretty impressive considering its massive ramp up in production.

0

HaveACigarOnMe t1_je3f6sm wrote

Boy the Reddit politburo are ready to deal out negative internet points lol

1

Concernedmicrowave t1_je3zf6w wrote

"Internal combustion cars can continue to be registered after 2035 if they only use fuel sources which are CO2 neutral"

Yikes. Sounds like they are saying "buy a new car or get fucked lol". Hope to god the US doesn't follow suit.

Unless they can get 100% CO2 neutral gasoline, this sounds like poorer Europeans are going to be fucked.

5

SunnyGrassBeachRelax t1_je3zrjp wrote

It's kinda shitty for average joes but we're at a point where the environment needs to be fixed and fixed fast. The Brussels effect is a thing that will definitely come into play here especially with a lot of leading car manufacturers being headquartered in the EU.

3

Concernedmicrowave t1_je40xif wrote

This ain't going to fix anything. Transportation is only 13% of the EU's total carbon emissions. And all cars and trucks being electric won't even get rid of all of that 13% unless the power grid is 100% renewable. That power has to come from somewhere. Furthermore, a new electric car that is replacing an existing gas car has to make back its manufacturing costs before it becomes greener, further increasing the futility of this measure.

And there's the rest of the world who are less green to begin with.

At this point, barring a technological miracle or nuclear holocaust, nothing we do is going to prevent run away climate change. We will simply have to be prepared to deal with the consequences. Electric cars will and should replace gas cars, but there isn't any point in trying to force it when the technology is still too expensive and flawed.

The best approach would be to take a step back and let electrification happen at the pace the tech is developing and focus green efforts on power grids, manufacturing, construction, and reducing consumerism.

2

Tobias---Funke t1_je44g0b wrote

The 7 largest container ships give out more pollution than EVERY car on the planet combined.

2

GekkosGhost t1_je47xeg wrote

>I would push for fossil fuel bans until the day I die.

You'll have too. Cars last 20 years and even when new sales cease the existing fleet will require fuelling. Classic cars, many of which are over 40 years old now, will continue requiring fuel for another 40+ years.

I don't mind electric cars. They can be fun. But we're decades, plural, away from having enough infrastructure to support mass adoption here in the UK. It's very imminent they don't push back the switchover closer to the time.

1

Upbeat-Elk926 t1_je486ja wrote

This c02 neutral requirement just means people are going to get rich selling carbon credits, and ultimately all cars will still be available.

0

PurelyLurking20 t1_je4babs wrote

I really don't want us to even switch to relying on electric cars so much, we need to focus on mass transit and walkable neighborhoods both for the environment and just for the general life satisfaction that comes from it.

1

dantheman999 t1_je4bf5n wrote

I live in Europe and practically everyone I know owns at least a car. I'd love not to, but the public infrastructure here just unfortunately isn't set up for everyone to use it, especially away from major cities or suburbs.

2

PurelyLurking20 t1_je4jk9u wrote

Infrastructure that supports everyone driving cars can be removed from dense cities. We don't have to leave it up to individuals to decide. Just remove enough streets/parking or create bus route only lanes in downtowns with wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes. It naturally cuts down on traffic by making it more inconvenient to drive in than just using a different mode of transport.

There's a need for cars in remote locations but no need in an urban center.

1

GekkosGhost t1_je4jwcb wrote

>Infrastructure that supports everyone driving cars can be removed from dense cities

It's, I understand that's what you want, but it isn't what most people want. They don't mind standing in the train waiting for a bus that doesn't come.

>Just remove enough streets/parking or create bus route only lanes in downtowns with wide sidewalks and protected bike lanes

Again, I get that this is your utopia but it's others hell.

>It naturally cuts down on traffic by making it more inconvenient to drive

Yes, that is the whole entire problem in a nutshell.

>There's a need for cars in remote locations but no need in an urban center.

That's lovely if you live, work, and don't try to leave that urban center. It's utterly unworkable once you realise most people working and shopping in the center of town don't.

1

PurelyLurking20 t1_je4kncj wrote

That's an entirely American problem. Suburbs only really exist like that in America and a select few places that were ruined by people trying to plan cities like we did.

If you properly plan a city there is no reason to drive around downtown, those areas are reserved for people.

Buses in America are currently unreliable because they are not funded and infrastructure is not made with them in mind. That can also be fixed.

The reason americans don't live downtown (often) is because instead of making our cities dense we have created few homes in those areas and allowed single family home zoning which needs to be entirely done away with. If you just replaced parking lots with more housing there would be no issue. If you want to visit dense areas like that you would just bus in or use other transit. It's not really about what people want right now because Americans have not been exposed to living like that.

It's an objectively happier lifestyle just by the numbers. I barely even use my car because I moved to a dense enough city that I can just walk everywhere.

1

GekkosGhost t1_je4ot1i wrote

>That's an entirely American problem

No it isn't. We have the exact same issue with all major cities here in the UK.

>If you properly plan a city

Most European cities and so capitals are older than the car, older than the bus, and often older than the pushbike.

Hard to plan for what you can't envisage.

>It's an objectively happier lifestyle just by the numbers

Yeah, your numbers. It's objectively miserable waiting in the rain for a bus that may never come.

>I barely even use my car because I moved to a dense enough city that I can just walk everywhere

That's nice for you but wholly unrealistic for most people.

If we're replanning cities then we need to focus on personal airborne transport, because that'll be the future with some leccy cars knocking about.

Nobody is going back to pushbikes and buses. That's the 1800s and 1900s. It's over and done.

1

PurelyLurking20 t1_je4py1i wrote

I guess I didn't make it clear enough but the UK tore down a lot of the prior existing cities or never rebuilt them after WW2 so that they could make way for the same type of development that America did. You are suffering the same problem but your neighbors in places like Amsterdam aren't.

You know what is miserable? Sitting in traffic and wasting my life away every day. Not being able to walk like we were naturally born to do in order to pick up something to eat or buy groceries. The noise of highways, and the likelihood that you'll die there. Pedestrians getting mowed over by cars. The insane amount of pollution and waste they've created. I would take getting rained on a little bit if it was substantially less full of oil byproducts.

The reason cities were built how they are now in America, and by extension the UK, was because of aggressive lobbying by the oil and vehicle industries to remove pedestrian centric spaces and create ridiculously expensive suburbs. We changed our plans once and we can again, some cities have already made moves in the right direction.

Bikes and buses are the most reasonable transport. You know what is even worse than some idiot on a loud ass bike at 6 am? Some idiot revving up his jet powered hovercraft in your weird dysfunctional future. Have you been anywhere near a flight line? Or even a fairly large drone? That will never be allowed near residential areas.

If you want your personal vehicle, move to the countryside and don't ruin public spaces for everyone else. The only unrealistic thing about living in a walkable city is how insanely expensive they are for housing right now. And that's because too many people are trying to live in them and instead of building more vertically we are building useless parking lots for suburbanites that can't afford to live here currently.

0

GekkosGhost t1_je4s5bl wrote

>the UK tore down a lot of the prior existing cities or never rebuilt them after WW2 so that they could make way for the same type of development that America did

Lol. No we didn't. We revbuilt Coventry because it got flattened but every city we had at the start we had by the end.

MK we tried around your planning, with mixed results. But that was a new city.

>You know what is miserable? Sitting in traffic and wasting my life away every day

Self driving motorhomes will fix that.

>Not being able to walk like we were naturally born to do in order to pick up something to eat or buy groceries. The

I've just got back from a walk into town (the one I live in rather than work in). Traffic didn't stop you walking you just stay on the pavement.

>Pedestrians getting mowed over by cars

Most pedestrians cause the accident they're involved in. Very few get stuck on the footpath.

Same with cyclists which is why so few motorists are persecuted despite almost every cyclist having video evidence of their accident.

>The insane amount of pollution and waste they've created.

No case to answer Vs electric cars.

>I would take getting rained on a little bit if it was substantially less full of oil byproducts

That's nice for you but it's not the choice most people would make. They could make it now and they don't.

>Bikes and buses are the most reasonable transport

If by reasonable you mean terrible then yes. They're slow, inefficient, unpredictable, and pony useful for short journeys. It's legacy thinking.

>That will never be allowed near residential areas

And yet they will be. It's the future. So trying to make everyone live in the past. We didn't mind it so we changed it. Progress.

>If you want your personal vehicle, move to the countryside and don't ruin public spaces for everyone else

If you don't want to be near people personal vehicles then move to the countryside and stop loving in a city morning about everyone else. You can do this now.

0

Badfickle t1_je4taku wrote

peak reddit.

Yes. You know better than the people who actually own the cars. If the people who own the cars have an opinion different than yours they must be in a cult. I hate to break it to you but most car buyers don't give a crap one way or the other about Musk.

1

PurelyLurking20 t1_je4u3xn wrote

Im not gonna argue anymore based on your views on future tech development without considering the consequence I don't think we're getting anywhere. You fell for the same car centric propaganda you've been fed. Also you walked to the store which is already better than what Americans can do in their suburbs. That's legitimately not an option for most people here.

0

disembodied_voice t1_je5pnjk wrote

I really wish this misinformation would die. That claim only applies in terms of sulfur oxides, which cars don't emit in any appreciable amount. It's like saying trucks don't pollute because a single cat produces more cat poop than every truck in the world combined, as long as you define pollution solely in terms of cat poop. In reality, road transport accounts for seven times as much CO2 emissions as shipping.

4