And your tires?

Your quote:

> EVs do nothing to reduce particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks.

"Substantially reduce particulate matter pollution from brakes" sounds like doing "something", not "nothing", to me.

Which is why I used a logical conjunction.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/1/3/3/index....

If one thought EVs did something help with one of the two, they'd have omitted it from the list of things "EVs do nothing" to help with.

Something that helps with X cannot be said to do nothing to help with "the problem of X and Y". If they reduce it for tires, then they do reduce the problem of "particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks" - proportionally to how much the latter contributes to said problem.

Um, no.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-241-logic-i-fall-2009/

Good luck.

And the link to a logic course somehow proves you right for saying "EVs do nothing to reduce particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks"?

Dude, you just pulled the weird-ass argument about "that's why I used a conjuction" in a hail Mary attempt to pretend you already knew about them reducing break pollution.

As if any person who actually knew EVs reduce particulate matter pollution from breaks would ever say: "EVs do nothing to reduce particulate matter pollution from tires and breaks" - implying they meant "they don't reduce BOTH" all along.

Seriously, sign up for the course. You would benefit.

EVs don't do that, regen braking does that. Regen braking can be fitted to hybrid or ICE cars.

Well, you were the one who grouped them. The reality is that EVs wear tires equivalently fast to other similar weight vehicles and wear brakes very very slowly. And reduce carbon emissions. And noise.

I grouped them together,because overall EVs appear to have marginally less non-exhaust particulate matter pollution than gas vehicles:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/1/3/3/index....

In other words, the road to a mostly pollution free transit future will be laid with tracks rather than asphalt.

It will be laid by first understanding reality, which includes the enormous road network we have today and the social motivations to expand it. Just bleating about how great it would be if everyone used transit isn’t going to change a damn thing.

EVs are a solid and realistic step towards reducing our worst pollution problems. Widely available car sharing and autonomous vehicles would be a great solution to the last mile and even reducing the problem of so much space being used for parking, while improving the walkability of our cities. Look towards possibilities that can work, instead of clinging to models that can’t address the problems of today.

Don’t be silly. EVs, ride shares, autonomous cars, etc.. are a poor transit solution within dense cities, where a significant if not overwhelming majority of car use occurs. These urban environments are ripe for cost effective, efficient mass transit solutions, such as the BRT system Mexico City recently implemented. They absolutely address the problems of today.

Dense cities are only one type of population center. There are suburbs all over the world, there are diverse forms of low population areas, and there are frontiers. The majority of car use is not in city cores, it is in the medium to low areas all over the world, which is by far the dominant land use pattern by area.

Never in America. We live too spread out, and many cities lack coherent work centers.

Depends on if you are doing a lot of acceleration pulls with that sports package you paid extra for in your tesla.

Maybe if you drive like a grandma and not like I see a lot of people with these 4 second 0-60 cars drive are you avoiding the brakes.