Electric vehicle weight poses threat to current road infrastructure, safety experts warn

A report in the Washington Times explains that electric vehicles (EVs) can weigh up to 50 percent more than internal combustion motor vehicles. That extra weight could more easily damage roads, bridges, and parking garages.

If all of the existing headaches for those pushing expensive electric vehicles on resisting American consumers could vanish, there’s still a big one that may have no ready solution.

Already, it appears the U.S. could end up dependent on unfriendly nations for materials for all those batteries. Then there’s the fact that the nation’s grid simply can’t support all that recharging – California already has been sending out advisories for owners not to charge. And then there’s the limited range, extended recharging times, both worsened by bad weather.

But now a report in the Washington Times explains that those batteries are heavy, and EVs can weigh up to 50 percent more than internal combustion motor vehicles.

And that weight damages roads, bridges and parking garages, with those vehicles easily plowing through safety guardrails while posing a higher danger to other drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling the same routes.

“The problems associated with EVs are poised to grow as more consumers purchase the cars under the Biden administration’s plan to eliminate gas-powered vehicles and the tailpipe emissions that come with them,” the report explained.

It explained engineers writing recently for Structure Magazine suggested construction companies, and building codes, need to make accommodation for the higher weight.

Parking garages, they said, should be redesigned to hold more weight.

“Significantly increasing passenger vehicle weights combined with recently reduced structural design requirements will result in reduced factors of safety and increased maintenance and repair costs for parking structures,” the engineers wrote. “There are many cases of parking structure failures, and the growing demand for EVs will only increase the probability of failure.”

Then there are those guardrails, installed to minimize damage when traffic goes awry.

They are installed between lanes for traffic moving opposite directions, between lanes and edge drop-offs and more.

That concern comes out of a procedure at a test facility in Nebraska, where examiners took a 3.6-ton Rivian R1 and sent it into a metal guardrail at 62 mph, first head-on, then at an angle.

Both times it “ripped through” the guardrail and continued into what would have been lanes for oncoming traffic, the report revealed.

The conclusion was simple: making vehicles much heavier means “a lot more force” is required to redirect the vehicle.

University of Nebraska professor Cody Stolle, told the Times, “We found these guardrail systems don’t have great compatibility with these [electric] vehicles yet.”

The heavier vehicles also could cause more damage to other vehicles in collisions.

The report said an insurance institute expert confirmed the weight provides more protection to those inside the EV, but at the expense of anyone in another vehicle involved in an accident.

Joe Biden has insisted over and over that consumers should be buying the much more expensive and often less reliable electric cars the government programs subsidize.

The weight differences are significant. The report said the Tesla Model Y is more than 4,400 pounds while the similar size gas-powered Honda Accord is 3,300. Kia makes multiple SUVs, with the gas model weighting 3,900 pounds and the EV unit nearly 6,500.

Residential roads already are not engineered to handle the heavy weight on highways, and the lifespan of bridges could be reduced with much heavier traffic, the report said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said, “EVs are typically much heavier compared to similarly sized, gas-powered vehicles, which will put additional strain on America’s transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that an increase in EVs could substantially reduce the lifespan of roads and bridges, necessitating further investment in infrastructure.”

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center.

Related Topics:#BobUnruh #ElectricVehicleWeight #EVWeight #LifeSiteNews #RoadInfrastructure

Up Next

One (Megawatt) is the loneliest number, but hundreds of batteries are absurd

Don't Miss

“Indian Industry” cronyism

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Michigan could be a winner as companies pull back from EVs

Business / 17 mins ago

Deportations causing delays in US construction industry

Crime / 42 mins ago

Canadian teacher showed Charlie Kirk assassination video to young students, said he deserved to die

Automotive

Michigan could be a winner as companies pull back from EVs

Published on September 16, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Elyse S. Apel

Federal deregulation and tax credit cuts are reshaping the auto industry, as Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. scale back electric vehicle production and redirect billions into hybrids and traditional gas-powered cars.

Yet, the Michigan automotive industry could see increased investments from those same companies as they reallocate that funding.

While both Ford and GM previously announced ambitious targets to expand electric vehicle fleets over the next decade, they are now cutting back on electric vehicle production.

That comes in response to federal deregulation of gas-powered vehicles, tax credit cuts, and the prospect of slowing consumer demand.

In August, Ford stated it was canceling plans to build a new electric three-row SUV. Instead, it is turning its focus to hybrid vehicles, including a massive $5 billon investment into a new “affordable” hybrid truck.

GM announced similar plans earlier this month. It will be cutting back electric vehicle production at Kansas and Tennessee plants, anticipating a decline in demand once federal tax credits end Sept. 30.

This all could have a real impact on the electric vehicle industry across the nation and experts are already anticipating that.

A new forecast by Ernst & Young Global Limited now predicts a five-year delay in electric vehicles making up 50% of the new car marketshare. While previous forecasts predicted America would reach that mark by 2034, the new forecast pushed that back to 2039.

“The U.S. faces policy uncertainty, high costs, and infrastructure gaps,” said Constantin M. Gall, the company’s global aerospace defense and mobility leader.

Clean energy advocacy groups are decrying this move away from electric vehicle initiatives, largely blaming the Trump administration.

“The transition to electric vehicles now faces significant roadblocks,” said Ecology Center in an April report. “The Trump administration has rolled back key policies supporting clean transportation.”

It also pointed to a nationwide deregulation of the gas-powered vehicle industry for allowing those to remain “dominant” over electric vehicles.

“These actions prioritize fossil fuels over clean energy, threatening progress toward a sustainable transportation future,” the report stated.

While bad news for electric vehicle supporters, the Michigan automotive industry could be a winner as companies re-shift focus back to gas-powered and hybrid vehicles.

With billions of dollars previously allocated to federal pollution fines and electric vehicle costs now available for investment, GM now plans to increase production at a Detroit-area plant by 2027.

The Michigan-based company also recently announced plans to invest billions into another Michigan plant in Lake Orion Township.

For similar reasons, Ford’s CEO Jim Farley told analysts that the company anticipates monetary savings “has the potential to unlock a multibillion-dollar opportunity over the next two years.”

While Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has long been a proponent for the electric vehicle industry, she did recently emphasize her support for all Michigan-based manufacturing, no matter the type.

“We don’t care what you drive – gas, diesel, hybrid, or electric – as long as it’s made in Michigan,” she said following the GM Orion announcement. “Together, let’s keep bringing manufacturing home, growing the middle class, and making more stuff in Michigan.”

Elyse Apel is a reporter for The Center Square covering Colorado and Michigan. A graduate of Hillsdale College, Elyse’s writing has been published in a wide variety of national publications from the Washington Examiner to The American Spectator and The Daily Wire.

Elyse S. Apel

Automotive

Canadians rejecting Liberal’s EV mandates because consumers are rational

Published on September 5, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Bad policy, not misinformation, is to blame for the decline in EV sales

It was a clever move for federal minister Gregor Robertson to stand in Victoria and blame the oil and auto industries for spreading “misinformation” about electric vehicles.

If people don’t follow a government order, then someone else must have lied to them.

But the truth is simpler, and more uncomfortable for Ottawa and Victoria: Canadians are against aggressive EV mandates because the policies behind them are not based on reality.

Politicians have been pushing electric vehicles (EVs) as a cornerstone of the fight against climate change for years, promising a cleaner future through ambitious mandates and generous rebates.

All of this effort looked good on paper: passing laws, handing out thousands (millions, billions) in subsidies, paving the way for Canada’s transition to an electric future.

But, in real life, it’s just not working out this way.

Why? Because instead of crafting long-term rules based on the realities of infrastructure, cost, and consumer choice, Ottawa rushed ahead with policies that ignored market signals.

They assumed subsidies would keep EV sales flowing indefinitely, only to be shocked when sales plummeted once the rebates dried up.

Canadians are responding rationally to high prices, unreliable charging networks, and impractical mandates.

Not long ago, Ottawa set ambitious, unattainable targets: 20 percent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035.

British Columbia went further, aiming for 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035.

In theory, it looked achievable. In practice, it’s been a wake-up call.

The numbers tell the story. Statistics Canada reported that EVs accounted for 18.29 percent of new vehicle sales in December 2024. Just four months later, when Ottawa’s iZEV program ran out of funds and provincial rebates ended, that figure crashed to 7.53 percent.

In British Columbia, once a leader in EV adoption, the market share dropped from nearly 25 percent in mid-2024 to 15 percent a year later.

Quebec, long the most EV-friendly province, saw a similar decline when its $7,000 subsidy was slashed nearly in half.

Why? Canadians have been very clear.

Cost is the biggest barrier, according to polls like this one from Ipsos in 2025. But this isn’t the only issue.

Ipsos found 56 percent of British Columbians oppose EV mandates, with even higher resistance among older households and those outside Metro Vancouver. People resent being told they must buy expensive cars they can’t easily charge or fully trust in harsh winters.

Subsidies made high sticker prices tolerable for middle-class families, but when the rebates vanished while mandates and fines remained, buyers walked away.

Barry Penner of the Energy Futures Institute put it bluntly: governments “put the cart before the horse,” demanding widespread adoption before ensuring affordability or infrastructure.

The financial penalties for automakers are steep. Missing federal targets by 10 percent could mean hundreds of millions in fines.

In British Columbia, dealers face $20,000 penalties for every gas-powered car sold over the mandated ratio. Those who can’t comply often buy credits—frequently from Tesla, a California-based company that benefits while Canadian businesses foot the bill. These rules aren’t just hitting “Big Oil”; they’re straining local dealers and sending money abroad.

Infrastructure is another glaring issue. Ottawa estimates Canada has 33,700 chargers today but needs 679,000 by 2040—an average of 40,000 new chargers annually for 15 years, a pace experts call unrealistic.

In British Columbia, Penner notes the province has just 5,000 chargers now and needs 40,000 more by 2030. Meeting the 2035 mandate would also require electricity equivalent to two additional Site C dams, even as B.C. relies on 20 to 25 percent of its power from external sources, often fossil fuels.

Canadians aren’t against cleaner technology—they’re against being forced into choices that don’t fit their lives. The frustration stems from policies that feel disconnected from the realities of cost, convenience, and infrastructure. More blame or moralizing won’t fix this.

Penner has urged governments to “take our foot off the gas and realign our policies with reality.”

That could mean reinstating rebates if mandates persist, investing heavily in charging networks, or setting broader emissions targets that give consumers real choices instead of rigid quotas.

The EV dream will keep stalling unless that happens. It’s not because Canadians don’t know what’s going on; it’s because governments made decisions based on wishful thinking.