EVs are killing machine road missiles.

[Zoidz]

"Brooks said he knows of little research done on the safety risks of increasing vehicle weights. In 2011, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper that said being hit by a vehicle with an added 1,000 pounds increases by 47% the probability of being killed in a crash."

Then they should also be including the increased danger of an ICE fully loaded 1/2 ton pickup or SUV with 5 adults. Both add 1,000+ pounds. Tens of thousands on the road every day. But that does not play into the intended narrative, does it....?

Sponsored

 

[joelster]

"liberal fake truck hemp wagons". What is this referring to?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[John G.]

"liberal fake truck hemp wagons". What is this referring to?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This maybe. Who knows?
https://www.energytech.com/energy-storage/article/21177341/will-hemp-make-ev-batteries-better

 

[atebit]

(I actually wonder how long before the federal government steps in and caps acceleration / top speed - or at least until some person in congress introduces legislation to do this).

Hopefully AFTER they cap (and actually enforce) motorcycle engine & exhaust noise to max 60 dB.

 

[fastwheels]

#4 is our grossly outdated national grid can’t handle all the new EVs

Perhaps not...
Will Electric Vehicles Crash The Grid? (insideevs.com)

 

[SlaterGS]

The title of the thread is none of those things. It’s a joke. It’s in jest and not meant to mislead or offend anyone. I would hope anyone with a sense of humor could see that. Stop.

The title of the thread is ALL of those things in the context of the way you introduced and linked the article.
I appreciate a good joke, but the only thing the article has in common with your title is "evs" and "road". "Killing", "Machine", and "Missiles" are nowhere to be seen and @shrink description of this post title is very apt.
You gave everyone the lens which they are to read the article through before even opening up the article.

There are some things I do not agree with in the article but as a whole I agree with what some others have said: "Not a bad thing at all to call attention to potential safety issues. We as drivers and owners should be aware and responsible."

 

[2020]

This article brings up two valid points: These are heavy vehicles that can accelerate/move at a rapid pace and the handling is quite good. This can give you a false sense of security. There maybe situations that the driver may feel overly confident in its abilities can quite easily lose control of the vehicle. I know, I've been in a few situations where I got carried away and all it would have taken is a sharp curve or an obstacle on the road and simple physics would have resulted in less than optimal outcomes.
The other issue I fear is when the cost of electric vehicles decrease and all of a sudden you have the mustang/charger crowd gaining access to these vehicles. It will be interesting to see if accidents rates increase with these drivers since they already do not know how to drive or simply drive aggressively.

 

[mikehmb]

However, I do think the following in the article is ridiculous and misguided:

“Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said he, too, is concerned about the weight of EVs because buyers seem to be demanding a range of 300 or more miles per charge, requiring heavy batteries.

Setting up a charging network to accommodate that may be a mistake from a safety perspective, Brooks said.”

Wow - it’s rare to find something so dumb from someone who claims to have expertise.

So, by the person in the article’s logic:
1) Vehicles with larger batters and greater range require fewer charges and therefore less charging stations
2) We should not optimize for vehicles with larger batteries
3) Presumably, we should have more charging stations, which <checks notes> enables all EVs to charge more frequently
4) NOT having more charging stations <checks different notes> requires ALL vehicles to have greater range and therefore more batteries

<sighs>

Signed,
The owner of a dangerous 7000lb cruise missile, a lightweight test vehicle that happens to work great and have outstanding efficiency and is therefore a woke liberal granola-producing car (eGolf), and an i3 which is weird.

 

[DaveA]

More slander form NTSB....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-official-warns-risks-posed-200630606.html

 

[Nsblifer]

The title of the thread is ALL of those things in the context of the way you introduced and linked the article.
I appreciate a good joke, but the only thing the article has in common with your title is "evs" and "road". "Killing", "Machine", and "Missiles" are nowhere to be seen

That’s cool. You don’t see that in the article because it’s not meant to be taken literally. Why do I have to explain this? Lighten up bud. It’s an Internet forum. I apologize for not creating a more extensive disclaimer for you regarding obvious inferred findings related to the article that should go without words.

 

[Count Orlok]

yawn. imagine that someone uses basic physics and concerns about safety/risk to paint themselves as a victim.

 

[kylealden]

I’m not trying to hype anything political and this post is not meant to be conservative. If it were, it’d be an oxymoron. The point is purely the idiocy of the article.

Look, I love my R1T, but stirring the pot with a hyperbolic post title and then calling a pretty matter-of-fact post reporting on a legitimate NTSB concern "idiocy" is pretty much the definition of "hyping something political."

It's a fact that heavier vehicles are more dangerous to others. It's a fact that EVs are necessarily heavier (for the time being), especially big ones like the R1T and F-150 Lightning. That's something we're going to have to grapple with as a society. Maybe that's through improved safety measures, maybe it's through counter-incentives (e.g. taxation), but it's not just going to fix itself. (Related: heavy vehicles cause more road wear - something EVs are currently getting away with murder on, especially with the double whammy of dodging gas taxes.)

End of the day, I think it's reasonable to look at the end to end impact of these vehicles - e.g., is the incidentally increased risk of collision fatalities offset by the incidentally decreased accountability for negative externalities in the emissions chain (e.g., coal and oil emissions kill millions annually through adverse health consequences)? Maybe, maybe not. It's grim math, but the kind of thing we need to think through if we're serious about systemic effects and building a better world, which is kind of the whole point of... you know... civilization.

I'll go back again to the part where I love my R1T. It does the things I want, does them super well, and is the only truck I'd ever seriously considered due to a cleaner powertrain and significantly better features/packaging/efficiency than the competition. But it does bother me that all these EVs are heavier and heavier and in an arms race to go faster and faster and faster. At some point every minivan at the stoplight is going to have a 10 second trap speed and I think it's reasonable to notice that's probably not a particularly good outcome for our crosswalks, carseats, etc.

 

[SlaterGS]

That’s cool. You don’t see that in the article because it’s not meant to be taken literally. Why do I have to explain this? Lighten up bud. It’s an Internet forum. I apologize for not creating a more extensive disclaimer for you regarding obvious inferred findings related to the article that should go without words.

I assume you enjoy clickbait articles too, got it.

 

[Nsblifer]

I assume you enjoy clickbait articles too, got it.

Like I said. I’ll be sure to be more sensitive for you next time.

 

[Tahoe Man]

EV's are selling in quantity more. For the majority of people, they remain a mystery. When something is a mystery, news sells....therefore you get articles like this. But if I was a editor or columnist, I'd be writing the same thing.

Sponsored