hph6203 said:

---

That's not your point. Your point is that EVs represent a significant increase in fire risk which is a function of frequency and intensity,

---

You're fist fighting a strawman. When I tell you what I'm saying, listen.

You tried to pretend we have to wait for EV's to get old before we can draw conclusions from the data, & that is foolish.

hph6203 said:

---

That's not your point. Your point is that EVs represent a significant increase in fire risk which is a function of frequency and intensity, and despite what you claim was contained in your link, it did not show a disappearance in the gap between EVs and ICE vehicles. What it showed is that as ICE vehicles age they become greater and greater fire risks. The assumption you are making, again, is that EVs will follow the same increase in fire incidences by virtue of them being a vehicle when there is massive differentiation between the two vehicle types.

Vehicles over 13 years of age had a fire incidence rate unrelated to a collision of 1000 per 100,000 vehicles.

Vehicles less than 13 years had a fire incidence rate of 300 per 100,000 vehicles.

That is compared to 25 per 100,000 for all causes for EVs.

That's a 12x and 40x difference between the total population of EVs and the presumed cause of the increase over the years is a failure by the owners to properly maintain and repair vehicles as components fail. That is not a significant issue with EVs as they are built to be maintenance free outside of tires for 100's of thousands of miles.


The problem, which is common among many of you, is that you didn't read the article you posted to see if it actually supported your claim. You just searched "vehicle fires by age" got an article that had "vehicle fires are a function of age?" And then posted it without reading any of the body of the article. They quite often either don't support it or outright refute it. In this case it's a lack of support of your claim and has the suggestion of an outright refutation though it's not definitive in its refutation.

---

If my Rivian spontaneously bursts into flames one day, I'll buy something different next time.

hph6203 said:

---

That's not your point. Your point is that EVs represent a significant increase in fire risk which is a function of frequency and intensity, and despite what you claim was contained in your link, it did not show a disappearance in the gap between EVs and ICE vehicles. What it showed is that as ICE vehicles age they become greater and greater fire risks. The assumption you are making, again, is that EVs will follow the same increase in fire incidences by virtue of them being a vehicle when there is massive differentiation between the two vehicle types.

Vehicles over 13 years of age had a fire incidence rate unrelated to a collision of 1000 per 100,000 vehicles.

Vehicles less than 13 years had a fire incidence rate of 300 per 100,000 vehicles.

That is compared to 25 per 100,000 for all causes for EVs.

That's a 12x and 40x difference between the total population of EVs and the presumed cause of the increase over the years is a failure by the owners to properly maintain and repair vehicles as components fail. That is not a significant issue with EVs as they are built to be maintenance free outside of tires for 100's of thousands of miles.


The problem, which is common among many of you, is that you didn't read the article you posted to see if it actually supported your claim. You just searched "vehicle fires by age" got an article that had "vehicle fires are a function of age?" And then posted it without reading any of the body of the article. They quite often either don't support it or outright refute it. In this case it's a lack of support of your claim and has the suggestion of an outright refutation though it's not definitive in its refutation.

---

Devastating

No matter your opinions on EV, pretty damn cool IMO

This is a first.

Maroon cybertruck in Bryan pic.twitter.com/ldHYJCtVyb

— Max Crawford 👍 (@KBTXMax) July 30, 2024

Those things are horrendously ugly no matter the color.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

That's not your point. Your point is that EVs represent a significant increase in fire risk which is a function of frequency and intensity,

---

You're fist fighting a strawman. When I tell you what I'm saying, listen.

You tried to pretend we have to wait for EV's to get old before we can draw conclusions from the data, & that is foolish.

---

It is a strawman to claim that EVs and Hybrids should not be parked in the garage, because of fire risk and then narrowly defining that risk by assuming the fire actually exists and focusing on the severity of the fire, when the best possible fire scenario is no fire at all.

What you did was piggyback on Nortex's initial fallacy, and then are pretending like I'm the one weakly framing the argument. Then you compounded that foolishness by presenting data incorrectly as supporting your own claim that EV fire rates will converge with ICE vehicles, by using ICE vehicle data as justification.

Yes, you have to wait for EV fire data to be using relevant data. That's isolating variables 101. It's hard to tell if you're just unconcerned that you're making bad arguments or if you're incapable of realizing you are.

hph6203 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

That's not your point. Your point is that EVs represent a significant increase in fire risk which is a function of frequency and intensity,

---

You're fist fighting a strawman. When I tell you what I'm saying, listen.

You tried to pretend we have to wait for EV's to get old before we can draw conclusions from the data, & that is foolish.

---

It is a strawman to claim that EVs and Hybrids should not be parked in the garage, because of fire risk and then narrowly defining that risk by assuming the fire actually exists and focusing on the severity of the fire, when the best possible fire scenario is no fire at all.

What you did was piggyback on Nortex's initial fallacy, and then are pretending like I'm the one weakly framing the argument. Then you compounded that foolishness by presenting data incorrectly as supporting your own claim that EV fire rates will converge with ICE vehicles, by using ICE vehicle data as justification.

Yes, you have to wait for EV fire data to be using relevant data. That's isolating variables 101. It's hard to tell if you're just unconcerned that you're making bad arguments or if you're incapable of realizing you are.

---

EV fire's create their own oxygen and then burn it. That was my point and I repeated it several times. Your refusal to understand my point has left you floundering about something I never said.

A talking point you injected into the middle of a discussion about the safety or lack thereof of parking an EV in a garage. I have never disputed that point, but there was a broader discussion you involved yourself in and you're attempting to narrow the discussion. It is a failure on your part to understand the discussion you were involving yourself in, not mine.

hph6203 said:

---

A talking point you injected into the middle of a discussion about the safety or lack thereof of parking an EV in a garage. I have never disputed that point, but there was a broader discussion you involved yourself in and you're attempting to narrow the discussion. It is a failure on your part to understand the discussion you were involving yourself in, not mine.

---

Risk = chance of loss * cost of loss

The cost of a self sustaining fire has an equal place at the table to the frequency of occurrence when discussing risk. That is a statement backed up by very simple arithmetic. I appreciate you acknowledging you were trying to focus on only 1 of the 2 variables in the equation. But it was not I who narrowed the discussion.

At no point have I denied or ignored that reality, but probability of fire far outweighs intensity of fire especially when the norm vehicle fire isn't something your past marshmallows over. The total cost of direct damage from vehicle fires exceeds $2 billion annually for roughly 200,000, if the ratio in EV and ICE fire of 60 to 1 persisted you need every EV fire to burn down a house, the vehicle and half of another house to maintain the same bill for damages. It's why you want to present faulty data to mitigate that gap, because any thinking person recognizes that drastically fewer fires is catastrophic to the idea that EVs present a significant increase to fire risk.

hph6203 said:

---

At no point have I denied or ignored that reality, but probability of fire far outweighs intensity of fire especially when the norm vehicle fire isn't something your past marshmallows over. The total cost of direct damage from vehicle fires exceeds $2 billion annually for roughly 200,000, if the ratio in EV and ICE fire of 60 to 1 persisted you need every EV fire to burn down a house, the vehicle and half of another house to maintain the same bill for damages. It's why you want to present faulty data to mitigate that gap, because any thinking person recognizes that drastically fewer fires is catastrophic to the idea that EVs present a significant increase to fire risk.

---

What is the equation you are using to calculate risk? Be specific.

No different than yours. You are ignoring the probability to make your argument and focusing on individual impact. It is both. "I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the fact that EV fires create their own oxygen." Is ignoring probability. I acknowledged both, you didn't.


I am not even saying that the probability of an EV fire will definitively persist at a significantly lower rate, but assuming that it will normalize to ICE fire rates is an assumption and determining no difference at new or barely used levels is not definitive that a difference won't materialize as both vehicles age. My main argument is that it is a non-significant point of difference.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

At no point have I denied or ignored that reality, but probability of fire far outweighs intensity of fire especially when the norm vehicle fire isn't something your past marshmallows over. The total cost of direct damage from vehicle fires exceeds $2 billion annually for roughly 200,000, if the ratio in EV and ICE fire of 60 to 1 persisted you need every EV fire to burn down a house, the vehicle and half of another house to maintain the same bill for damages. It's why you want to present faulty data to mitigate that gap, because any thinking person recognizes that drastically fewer fires is catastrophic to the idea that EVs present a significant increase to fire risk.

---

What is the equation you are using to calculate risk? Be specific.

---

What's yours?

GAC06 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

At no point have I denied or ignored that reality, but probability of fire far outweighs intensity of fire especially when the norm vehicle fire isn't something your past marshmallows over. The total cost of direct damage from vehicle fires exceeds $2 billion annually for roughly 200,000, if the ratio in EV and ICE fire of 60 to 1 persisted you need every EV fire to burn down a house, the vehicle and half of another house to maintain the same bill for damages. It's why you want to present faulty data to mitigate that gap, because any thinking person recognizes that drastically fewer fires is catastrophic to the idea that EVs present a significant increase to fire risk.

---

What is the equation you are using to calculate risk? Be specific.

---

What's yours?

---

Sorry you missed it, 2 posts up.

Risk = chance of loss * cost of loss

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3281480/replies/68199935

hph6203 said:

---

No different than yours. You are ignoring the probability to make your argument and focusing on individual impact. It is both. "I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the fact that EV fires create their own oxygen." Is ignoring probability. I acknowledged both, you didn't.


I am not even saying that the probability of an EV fire will definitively persist at a significantly lower rate, but assuming that it will normalize to ICE fire rates is an assumption and determining no difference at new or barely used levels is not definitive that a difference won't materialize as both vehicles age. My main argument is that it is a non-significant point of difference.

---

I addressed the probability here. https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3281480/replies/68190192

In hindsight, I guess I should have known you missed it because your response to me was "thats not your point"

There was quite a bit that was said that refuted your claim in that post after "That's not your point." (It wasn't your point), I can understand why it might've been confusing for you since you didn't understand the initial data you provided in the first place. It can basically be summed up as you cannot use data for ICE to determine trends in fire incidence rate increases for EVs, and the data you provided did not compare new vs old vehicles it compared a population of 13 year old and younger vehicles to older than 13 year old vehicles.

You do, in fact, have to wait for actual data on EVs to definitively say they follow the same rate increase as ICE vehicles. "Trust me bro" doesn't work in reality.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3281480/replies/68194076

hph6203 said:

---

There was quite a bit that was said that refuted your claim in that post after "That's not your point." (It wasn't your point), I can understand why it might've been confusing for you since you didn't understand the initial data you provided in the first place. It can basically be summed up as you cannot use data for ICE to determine trends in fire incidence rate increases for EVs, and the data you provided did not compare new vs old vehicles it compared a population of 13 year old and younger vehicles to older than 13 year old vehicles.

You do, in fact, have to wait for actual data on EVs to definitively say they follow the same rate increase as ICE vehicles. "Trust me bro" doesn't work in reality.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3281480/replies/68194076

---

You're doing a smart guy shtick and you still don't get basic arithmetic. I will say it clearly:

EV's don't have to follow the same rate of increase to be riskier than ICE because they create their own oxygen and burn it.

This means water does not put the EV fire out. There is next to no way to actually fight it.

What you are arguing right now is that an inextinguishable fire is less risky than a traditional car fire because the inextinguishable fire is more rare.

Probability of ICE fire: 1.5%
Average cost of ICE fire: $11,700 (2022 data, $2.6 billion direct damage, 222,000 incidents)

R = P x C

.15 x 11,700 = 175.50

Probability of EV fire (based upon your post): .025%

175.50 = .00025 x C

Solve for C.

It's $702,000. That's the arithmetic. That's where the statement "you're basically arguing based upon known data that each fire would destroy the car, a house, and a neighboring house." Came from. Even if you 30x the probability and 2x the cost per incident it is a break even risk profile.

Not every EV fire involves the battery pack, not every EV fire occurs in a structure, a significant proportion of the fires are the result of a collision (half or more), and the risk profile of EV batteries are improving as the risks become better understood.

My argument is that after it all shakes out the average EV fire cost will be higher than ICE fires, but at a rate low enough that it is a negligible difference in total risk profile if not favoring EVs. My opinion currently aligns with known data, yours does not. You are, again, relying upon assumptions despite your protests that you're not.

It is not a smart guy schtick, it is merely expecting you to validate your claims other than "trust me bro." Your fantasy of reality is not reality.

As the infamous Fritz Entittiess Rambonilous once said
"I trust chemistry more than statistics".

Ford EV losses worse than even reported: $50K/car? Holy crap that is terrible. However, a lot of that was in R&D/investments for stuff to come;

Quote:

---

Ford split its ICE and EV divisions in early 2022, leading to the formation of Ford Blue and Ford Model e. In May, it was revealed that Ford's slower-than-expected sales for its EVs had prompted the manufacturer to reduce the number of batteries it has on order from suppliers like SK On Co., LG Energy Solutions Ltd., and CATL. While it's unclear how much Ford will reduce orders, it will retain contracts with all three suppliers.

While Ford technically lost almost $50,000 for each EV sold in Q2, that figure doesn't tell the full story. The company is investing huge sums of money into the development of new and innovative EV powertrains, and these investments will not be repeated year after year. Additionally, such investments will benefit future EVs, so it's not entirely fair to look at its losses and divide them by units sold.

---

Mercedes adds fast EV chargers to Starbucks stores…in what is a perfect synergy of consumers I will have no problem avoiding. Clogging up grocery store parking lots even further might be an annoyance though.

hph6203 said:

---

Probability of ICE fire: 1.5%
Average cost of ICE fire: $11,700 (2022 data, $2.6 billion direct damage, 222,000 incidents)

R = P x C

.15 x 11,700 = 175.50

Probability of EV fire (based upon your post): .025%

175.50 = .00025 x C

Solve for C.

It's $702,000. That's the arithmetic. That's where the statement "you're basically arguing based upon known data that each fire would destroy the car, a house, and a neighboring house." Came from. Even if you 30x the probability and 2x the cost per incident it is a break even risk profile.

Not every EV fire involves the battery pack, not every EV fire occurs in a structure, a significant proportion of the fires are the result of a collision (half or more), and the risk profile of EV batteries are improving as the risks become better understood.

My argument is that after it all shakes out the average EV fire cost will be higher than ICE fires, but at a rate low enough that it is a negligible difference in total risk profile if not favoring EVs. My opinion currently aligns with known data, yours does not. You are, again, relying upon assumptions despite your protests that you're not.

It is not a smart guy schtick, it is merely expecting you to validate your claims other than "trust me bro." Your fantasy of reality is not reality.

---

But it creates its own oxygen

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

There was quite a bit that was said that refuted your claim in that post after "That's not your point." (It wasn't your point), I can understand why it might've been confusing for you since you didn't understand the initial data you provided in the first place. It can basically be summed up as you cannot use data for ICE to determine trends in fire incidence rate increases for EVs, and the data you provided did not compare new vs old vehicles it compared a population of 13 year old and younger vehicles to older than 13 year old vehicles.

You do, in fact, have to wait for actual data on EVs to definitively say they follow the same rate increase as ICE vehicles. "Trust me bro" doesn't work in reality.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3281480/replies/68194076

---

You're doing a smart guy shtick and you still don't get basic arithmetic. I will say it clearly:

EV's don't have to follow the same rate of increase to be riskier than ICE because they create their own oxygen and burn it.

This means water does not put the EV fire out. There is next to no way to actually fight it.

What you are arguing right now is that an inextinguishable fire is less risky than a traditional car fire because the inextinguishable fire is more rare.

---

You keep going to it is simple analysis because EVs generate their own oxygen so therefore they are way worse than ICE vehicles for overall risk.

So let's go with your user name. A plane crash generates a lot more energy in a crash and has a lot higher mortality rate than a car crash (I hope you don't need me to prove that to you). Plane crashes are less common than car crashes. With your simple analysis, we should stop flying in planes because they are way more dangerous even though every single analysis shows they are much safer per mile traveled.

If you want the real simple analysis on this issue of parking in a garage, let's go to the real stat experts, actuaries for insurance companies. Now go show me any insurance company that won't insure or charges more to insure a house that has an EV charged in the garage. The odds of a car fire of any kind starting a major house fire is insignificant as shown by the lack of care from the insurance industry in their underwriting.

hph6203 said:

---

Probability of ICE fire: 1.5%
Average cost of ICE fire: $11,700 (2022 data, $2.6 billion direct damage, 222,000 incidents)

R = P x C

.15 x 11,700 = 175.50

Probability of EV fire (based upon your post): .025%

175.50 = .00025 x C

Solve for C.

It's $702,000. That's the arithmetic. That's where the statement "you're basically arguing based upon known data that each fire would destroy the car, a house, and a neighboring house." Came from. Even if you 30x the probability and 2x the cost per incident it is a break even risk profile.

Not every EV fire involves the battery pack, not every EV fire occurs in a structure, a significant proportion of the fires are the result of a collision (half or more), and the risk profile of EV batteries are improving as the risks become better understood.

My argument is that after it all shakes out the average EV fire cost will be higher than ICE fires, but at a rate low enough that it is a negligible difference in total risk profile if not favoring EVs. My opinion currently aligns with known data, yours does not. You are, again, relying upon assumptions despite your protests that you're not.

It is not a smart guy schtick, it is merely expecting you to validate your claims other than "trust me bro." Your fantasy of reality is not reality.

---

2x cost seems low for a fire that is inextinguishable. You're making my argument for me now. Until we can reliably and quickly extinguish EV fires, the cost increase isn't going to be offset by the infrequency. Especially because frequency will increase as EV popularity grows.

Some real world experience injected into the conversation:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ev-goes-up-in-flames-damages-home-in-los-angeles/amp/

Quote:

---

Flames from an electric vehicle that caught fire overnight damaged some power lines and scorched a home in the Granada Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.
…
Firefighters found flames engulfing a Mercedez-Benz, which proved to be difficult to put out.

The electrical nature of the fire made it so intense that firefighters requested additional resources, Stringer News Service KNN reported.

Flames from the burning vehicle spread to a nearby home and burned some power lines in the area. It was unclear if power was affected at any of the residences.

---

Again, it's the nature of home charging a giant battery that is so scary. It doesn't matter what kind of statistics y'all throw out there, when people see houses burning down by an EV plugged in overnight, they are rightfully concerned. No amount of smug superiority or internet browbeating with statistics is going to change this.

techno-ag said:

---

Some real world experience injected into the conversation:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ev-goes-up-in-flames-damages-home-in-los-angeles/amp/

Quote:

---

Flames from an electric vehicle that caught fire overnight damaged some power lines and scorched a home in the Granada Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.
…
Firefighters found flames engulfing a Mercedez-Benz, which proved to be difficult to put out.

The electrical nature of the fire made it so intense that firefighters requested additional resources, Stringer News Service KNN reported.

Flames from the burning vehicle spread to a nearby home and burned some power lines in the area. It was unclear if power was affected at any of the residences.

---

Again, it's the nature of home charging a giant battery that is so scary. It doesn't matter what kind of statistics y'all throw out there, when people see houses burning down by an EV plugged in overnight, they are rightfully concerned. No amount of smug superiority or internet browbeating with statistics is going to change this.

---

Has home insurance rates caught up with electric vehicle charging yet?

It's going to eventually be a question.

techno-ag said:

---

Some real world experience injected into the conversation:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ev-goes-up-in-flames-damages-home-in-los-angeles/amp/

Quote:

---

Flames from an electric vehicle that caught fire overnight damaged some power lines and scorched a home in the Granada Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.
…
Firefighters found flames engulfing a Mercedez-Benz, which proved to be difficult to put out.

The electrical nature of the fire made it so intense that firefighters requested additional resources, Stringer News Service KNN reported.

Flames from the burning vehicle spread to a nearby home and burned some power lines in the area. It was unclear if power was affected at any of the residences.

---

Again, it's the nature of home charging a giant battery that is so scary. It doesn't matter what kind of statistics y'all throw out there, when people see houses burning down by an EV plugged in overnight, they are rightfully concerned. No amount of smug superiority or internet browbeating with statistics is going to change this.

---

So are you concerned when an ICE burns a house down? If no, why not?

EVs catching fire are click bate that people will read because they are new technology and rare. An ICE fire is no longer news because they are common.

Again, I will go to the crash analogy. A plane crash that kills someone makes the local and state news and will frequently make national news. A car crash that kills someone is at most local news and that isn't even the case in bigger cities. People on this forum like to comment on how MSM manipulates the news to drive perceptions. Here is another case.

The problem with the plane crash analogy is there are plenty of people who simply refuse to fly. I know some small business owners who wont fly with their business partners but get in the same truck to go to lunch.

One of my suppliers HAD a Rivian. Went on family vacation and using mapped recharging points - got to one and charging stations were inoperative. Had to try to make it to next closest and ran out of charge before he got there. Had to shut down vehicle before it went to 0% charge to keep from having to send it to Rivian to reboot or whatever. So...towed to nearest charging station. Tow truck driver tells him he tows EV's several times a week to charging stations and that it's good business for him. Rivian sold after trip.

Will be a very long time before EV's and charging station support are good for anything more than bopping around town. I'll take my gas vehicles and hopefully a diesel truck in the next few years.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

The problem with the plane crash analogy is there are plenty of people who simply refuse to fly. I know some small business owners who wont fly with their business partners but get in the same truck to go to lunch.

---

Sounds just like people that think EVs shouldn't be in garages so they simply refuse to consider it. Thanks for proving the analogy.

JB93 said:

---

One of my suppliers HAD a Rivian. Went on family vacation and using mapped recharging points - got to one and charging stations were inoperative. Had to try to make it to next closest and ran out of charge before he got there. Had to shut down vehicle before it went to 0% charge to keep from having to send it to Rivian to reboot or whatever. So...towed to nearest charging station. Tow truck driver tells him he tows EV's several times a week to charging stations and that it's good business for him. Rivian sold after trip.

Will be a very long time before EV's and charging station support are good for anything more than bopping around town. I'll take my gas vehicles and hopefully a diesel truck in the next few years.

---

Without a doubt if you can't access the Tesla charging network, EVs are not ready for long distance travel and I would never consider buying one. The non Tesla chargers are frequently broken and when they work, they are slow. Contrary to what people thought, only V3 Tesla chargers can be used by non Tesla vehicles and most existing chargers are V2.

bmks270 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Some real world experience injected into the conversation:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ev-goes-up-in-flames-damages-home-in-los-angeles/amp/

Quote:

---

Flames from an electric vehicle that caught fire overnight damaged some power lines and scorched a home in the Granada Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.
…
Firefighters found flames engulfing a Mercedez-Benz, which proved to be difficult to put out.

The electrical nature of the fire made it so intense that firefighters requested additional resources, Stringer News Service KNN reported.

Flames from the burning vehicle spread to a nearby home and burned some power lines in the area. It was unclear if power was affected at any of the residences.

---

Again, it's the nature of home charging a giant battery that is so scary. It doesn't matter what kind of statistics y'all throw out there, when people see houses burning down by an EV plugged in overnight, they are rightfully concerned. No amount of smug superiority or internet browbeating with statistics is going to change this.

---

Has home insurance rates caught up with electric vehicle charging yet?

It's going to eventually be a question.

---

Insurance actuaries are quick to catch up to changes. There is enough data out there after a decade plus of EVs to do the analysis.

JB93 said:

---

One of my suppliers HAD a Rivian. Went on family vacation and using mapped recharging points - got to one and charging stations were inoperative. Had to try to make it to next closest and ran out of charge before he got there. Had to shut down vehicle before it went to 0% charge to keep from having to send it to Rivian to reboot or whatever. So...towed to nearest charging station. Tow truck driver tells him he tows EV's several times a week to charging stations and that it's good business for him. Rivian sold after trip.

Will be a very long time before EV's and charging station support are good for anything more than bopping around town. I'll take my gas vehicles and hopefully a diesel truck in the next few years.

---

Thanks for the real world report. They are practically useless for many things we take for granted. And the idea of having to stop for at least an hour for recharging on a long trip, assuming you can find a working charger station on time, is also ludicrous.

Hood latch recall.

IB4 "But it's OTA!"

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/tesla-recalls-1-85-million-vehicles-over-unlatched-hood-detection-problem.amp

Quote:

---

Electric vehicle maker Tesla on Tuesday announced the recall of 1.85 million vehicles in the U.S. because of an issue with software failing to detect an unlatched hood, potentially causing it to fully open and obstruct a driver's view on the road.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said that an unlatched hood opening fully could cause the driver to crash because of their view being impeded.

---

I can't believe I'm going to have to take time out of my busy schedule to comply with this recall