The fact that this article comes out in May 2024, reporting on data that is, at it's most recent, 7 years old, about a nascent technology only makes me more suspicious.
What is the value of this article to the reader? It's not, by definition, "news".
Maybe my judgement is just biased the other way.
But yes, it's interesting that they're taking 7 year old data to present an anti-EV narrative without mentioning that rather important caveat.
To be critical, it's mentioned in the 8th paragraph of a 13 paragraph article. Conversely, the very first paragraph is pure lede. The title and opening paragraph could be seen as discouraging the reading of the rest of the article. It's like the opposite of an online recipe - it's brutally efficient.
Odd for The Guardian which, as far as I understand it, is (somewhat) left leaning and I'd normally slightly correct for bias towards environmentally conscious perspectives.
I believe this pushback is happening because EVs are stripping revenue from significant parts of the automotive world, primarily dealer repair shops and the fuel industry.
If the stats are accurate then that will be useful info.
Seems like a pretty big disclaimer that all the data in this study is 7-11 years old. Both drivers and pedestrians have got a lot more used to EVs in the last decade, so I wonder how much that's changed things. And back in 2013 there were only a couple of thousand EVs on the road in the UK, which is a pretty small sample size to draw conclusions from.
> Drivers of electric cars tend to be younger and less experienced
They're quoting statistics from 2024 here (42% of 16-24 year olds own an EV), but that's a completely different time period to the study, and EVs have come down a lot in price since 2013-17 - and I find it hard to believe that 42% of 16-24 year olds own an EV when ~20% of households don't own a car at all.