EVs are killing machine road missiles.

[Nsblifer]

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 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.

I’m done repeating myself to you people. The weight of BEVs has been discussed here numerous times. There’s nothing to debate. I agreed with what the article was written about, just not the article itself-which was written poorly. That’s it. If you find that “the definition of hyping something political” and you want beat yourself up about contributing to a future EV problem in 25-50 years (one of many), an already present day issue with giant ICE vehicles, so be it.

Sponsored

 

[Brewbud]

My Cummins weighs 1K lbs. more than my R1T. The Ram has more torque (not instant) and a higher top end speed than my R1T. The R1T stops better and handles better on the road. P=MV.... so technically, in the wrong hands, my Ram is a more deadly missile.

So FTG!

 

[C.R. Rivian]

I get the physics. It’s a big duh. But with all of the hate and debate I’ve had over the years; I find it hilarious that we’ve suddenly gone from driving wussy liberal fake truck hemp wagons to driving bonafide high performance street cruise missiles.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1148483758/ntsb-heavy-electric-vehicles-safety-risks

WTF…

“He points out that electric vehicles have very high horsepower ratings, allowing them to accelerate quickly even in crowded urban areas”

*This is not a political post. Using “liberal” as a broad term to simply describe negative connotation when driving an EV, whereas not necessarily negative politically.

It's a thing...well, they have to have something to write/talk about. See https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...c-vehicles-suv-battery-climate-safety/672576/ for another example. They don't mention, of course, the safety features/sensors in vehicles like the R1 series, that would undermine the narrative.

 

[Nsblifer]

It's a thing...well, they have to have something to write/talk about. See https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...c-vehicles-suv-battery-climate-safety/672576/ for another example. They don't mention, of course, the safety features/sensors in vehicles like the R1 series, that would undermine the narrative.

Exactly. It’s a flawed and biased article. Borderline ridiculous like I’m pointing out. They left almost everything out counter to their point and use anecdotal evidence while admitting there is no research. But you have even those who own EVs here validating the stupidity. Of all things plaguing our roadways and the future of clean energy, some choose to focus on this.

 

[Nsblifer]

My Cummins weighs 1K lbs. more than my R1T. The Ram has more torque (not instant) and a higher top end speed than my R1T. The R1T stops better and handles better on the road. P=MV.... so technically, in the wrong hands, my Ram is a more deadly missile.

So FTG!

Especially in crowded areas! You sir, are a danger to the public!

 

[Zoidz]

My Cummins weighs 1K lbs. more than my R1T. The Ram has more torque (not instant) and a higher top end speed than my R1T. The R1T stops better and handles better on the road. P=MV.... so technically, in the wrong hands, my Ram is a more deadly missile.

So FTG!

Exactly. That was the point of my previous comment. There are millions of “missiles” on the road today. That’s not going to change. My Avalanche with my boat is a 10,000 pound ”missile”. Hundreds of thousands of new boats, campers, etc. were bought during COVID as newcomers sought to vacation and relax in the outdoors. Some states allow double trailer trucks with higher weight limits. The NTSB never sought attention about all these “missiles” being a serious public health hazard. So why is an EV being singled out now?

 

[downranger12]

I get the physics. It’s a big duh. But with all of the hate and debate I’ve had over the years; I find it hilarious that we’ve suddenly gone from driving wussy liberal fake truck hemp wagons to driving bonafide high performance street cruise missiles.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1148483758/ntsb-heavy-electric-vehicles-safety-risks

WTF…

“He points out that electric vehicles have very high horsepower ratings, allowing them to accelerate quickly even in crowded urban areas”

*This is not a political post. Using “liberal” as a broad term to simply describe negative connotation when driving an EV, whereas not necessarily negative politically.

I like that the author states that todays drivers "are not trained" to handle that kind of acceleration. Just stay home if you are concerned about that. Most things that I learned thoroughly I have learned the hard way, however, learning how your car handles in snow can be done at an empty school parking lot before the plows come. All good drivers will stay away from other vehicles if practical, watch their mirrors and be aware of any potential problems at all times.
Acceleration comes in handy if you need to insert your vehicle into traffic smoothly and safely.

 

[kylealden]

I’m done repeating myself to you people. The weight of BEVs has been discussed here numerous times. There’s nothing to debate. I agreed with what the article was written about, just not the article itself-which was written poorly. That’s it. If you find that “the definition of hyping something political” and you want beat yourself up about contributing to a future EV problem in 25-50 years (one of many), an already present day issue with giant ICE vehicles, so be it.

Do you care to explain what it is about the article that makes it so poorly written? It's literally reporting on statements from high level regulatory officials and then consulting some other outside authorities on the topic. There's hardly an ounce of editorializing in the entire post, nor does it propose a definitive conclusion or judgment.

As far as I can tell you're just dogmatically rejecting it and then reacting angrily to anyone ("you people!" lmao) who offers a measure of concern about the trend, as I did. That's political.

I'm not judging you for your truck, or trying to take it away from you. And I agree that electrification is a net good and (as I stated in my post that made you so mad) I think it's at least reasonable to say that the increased risk due to weight is offset by other factors (fewer particulate emissions in particular). But it turns out that it's OK to have a multivariate assessment of risk and to try to improve the world on more than one axis at a time. Doing so in this domain is the literal job of organizations like the NTSB. It's wild to me that you find that so threatening.

 

[Nsblifer]

Do you care to explain what it is about the article that makes it so poorly written? It's literally reporting on statements from high level regulatory officials and then consulting some other outside authorities on the topic. There's hardly an ounce of editorializing in the entire post, nor does it propose a definitive conclusion or judgment.

As far as I can tell you're just dogmatically rejecting it and then reacting angrily to anyone ("you people!" lmao) who offers a measure of concern about the trend, as I did. That's political.

I'm not judging you for your truck, or trying to take it away from you. And I agree that electrification is a net good and (as I stated in my post that made you so mad) I think it's at least reasonable to say that the increased risk due to weight is offset by other factors (fewer particulate emissions in particular). But it turns out that it's OK to have a multivariate assessment of risk and to try to improve the world on more than one axis at a time. Doing so in this domain is the literal job of organizations like the NTSB. It's wild to me that you find that so threatening.

I posted the article so I wouldn’t have to explain. If you need my explanation of why I think it’s alarmist, biased, and exaggerated; no, I don’t really care to bother. Honestly, it sounds like you need to start your own thread for a ground up discussion for those willing to go back and forth with you. I don’t find it threatening. Now you’re the one making things up for hype. Let’s just sum it up, you have no sense of humor and you’re hunting for a debate that isn’t here.

 

[kylealden]

I posted the article so I wouldn’t have to explain. If you need my explanation of why I think it’s alarmist, biased, and exaggerated; no, I don’t really care to bother. Honestly, it sounds like you need to start your own thread for a ground up discussion for those willing to go back and forth with you. Let’s just sum it up, you have no sense of humor and you’re hunting for a debate that isn’t here.

Lobbing a hyperbolic topic grenade, insulting anyone who engages with it, and then lacking the seriousness, integrity, or faculties to actually engage on the merits of your convictions does not make you superior. It makes you an intellectually lazy tool.

I'm not optimistic that you'll read it, but you should: On Sarcasm - boz.com (substack.com).

I'll excerpt a good bit for you the feels more or less on point. (Emphases mine.)

Sarcasm “works” because it alludes to a critique without ever actually making it. It shifts the burden of substantiating the criticism as an exercise for the audience and further suggests that if they don’t already understand it then they are deficient. Making a critique implicit is an unassailable rhetorical position. The most socially acceptable response for the group is to go along with it, as you have given them nothing specific to challenge. And if someone does challenge it you can simply demur and say it was “just a joke.”

Sarcasm does nothing to advance our understanding of the world around us or help us improve it.

On any topic of substance there are bound to be valid critiques of any given position. Real questions are almost never settled in terms of right or wrong but rather how best to balance the competing equities of various solutions. Sarcasm is too lazy to engage in such important discussion. Sarcasm attacks without providing solutions. Sarcasm implies alignment where there is none. Sarcasm can rally a mob without providing any recourse to disarming it. Sarcasm is magnitude without direction.

Sarcasm is a scourge.

[...]

So if you want to make a critique then do it explicitly and earnestly. Take a position of your own and defend it. It takes a lot more work but in exchange it holds the promise to create a great deal more value for society.

Cheers.

 

[Milermore]

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/i-ac...ckup-truck-from-alibaba-heres-what-showed-up/ ???

 

[Nsblifer]

Lobbing a hyperbolic topic grenade, insulting anyone who engages with it, and then lacking the seriousness, integrity, or faculties to actually engage on the merits of your convictions does not make you superior. It makes you an intellectually lazy tool.

I'm not optimistic that you'll read it, but you should: On Sarcasm - boz.com (substack.com).

I'll excerpt a good bit for you the feels more or less on point. (Emphases mine.)



Cheers.

Let’s at least get one thing straight. The only person insulting anyone here is you. Also, I am very busy intellectually to take time out of my day to converse with a keyboard warrior. I have zero interest in exploring your lack of humor. As I’ve already said in my OP, I am not debating the actual concept OR concern.

 

[kylealden]

You know, you're at least right that there's a life lesson for me here in who I choose to spend my time engaging with. I'll go ahead and hit ignore on your profile.

For what it's worth, I do apologize for "tool," though I'll happily stand by the rest. I do hope you take the time to read and process the blog I linked, but ultimately that's none of my business.

I'll see myself out.

Also, I am very busy intellectually

 

[Nsblifer]

You know, you're at least right that there's a life lesson for me here in who I choose to spend my time engaging with. I'll go ahead and hit ignore on your profile.

For what it's worth, I do apologize for "tool," though I'll happily stand by the rest. I do hope you take the time to read and process the blog I linked, but ultimately that's none of my business.

I'll see myself out.

You’re looking for someone to argue with. It’s not me. I don’t know how many times people have had to repeat themselves to you in life but it seems like many. Clearly I agree these are heavy vehicles and that doesn’t go without consequence. I was honestly expecting that as given on an EV forum. But you still want to debate even though we agree? Are you bored or just a Jerk off? Seems the latter with the memes. If you can’t pick out the parts of this article that are poorly written, that’s our only disagreement and there’s still nothing left to argue.

 

[Nsblifer]

Hysterical. I totally agree with you. Hopefully this post doesn't get the same hate I got when I made a slightly conservative post on this forum...

Okay. Now I understand.

Sponsored