56 mpg average fleet CAFE standards within a few years. You know which ICE vehicle gets 56mpg? The prius and that's about it. EVs are effectively mandated to skew the average fleet MPG if manufacturers want to meet that standard. They'll keep getting stricter until all you can buy is a solar powered toaster. IOW liberals suckchap said:YouBet said:
My only issue are governments mandating them and doing what they can to force ICE out of the market based on mythological climate science.
Let the free market decide.
What governments are mandating them?
I will never buy an electric powered vehicle.
457,238 Views |
7207 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by DannyDuberstein
Kansas Kid said:
Yeah but it used to be you were told you have to worry about them burning your house down. Now, it has been upgraded to your house having a bomb go off.
We ignore the fact that gasoline, once it is vaporized, is designed to explode because gasoline fires never burn down a house or other structures.
Have you figured out how to quickly extinguish an EV fire yet? A simple "no" will suffice.
I'm not sure if people genuinely believe someone is going to say, "Wow, if some people say I'm a moron for not believing this, it clearly must be true."
It's not much a persuasive argument. It really just sounds like a bunch of miniature dachshunds barking because the first one one barked when it thought it heard something.
It's not much a persuasive argument. It really just sounds like a bunch of miniature dachshunds barking because the first one one barked when it thought it heard something.
You claimed you were using a formula to evaluate risk. You have refused to show your work. Are you still sticking to "fire too hot"?
This is your framing of priority, no one has to grant you that framing. As pointed out a couple of posts before this you're basically a mask mandater worried about whether other people are wearing masks, because the actual risk profile of EVs (not EV fires specifically) is extremely low, because in order for an EV fire to be dangerous the fire has to exist.
Have you figured out how to cut the rate of fires in ICE vehicles down by 6000%? No? Same energy.
Have you figured out how to cut the rate of fires in ICE vehicles down by 6000%? No? Same energy.
I sure hope as a guy with the name planecrashguy you never get in a plane because if they crash, the consequences are way worse than a car crash. Ignore the probability of said crash because all that matters are the consequence according to you. I assume you want to ban all planes as well.PlaneCrashGuy said:Kansas Kid said:
Yeah but it used to be you were told you have to worry about them burning your house down. Now, it has been upgraded to your house having a bomb go off.
We ignore the fact that gasoline, once it is vaporized, is designed to explode because gasoline fires never burn down a house or other structures.
Have you figured out how to quickly extinguish an EV fire yet? A simple "no" will suffice.
Also, go show me an explosion of an EV. This is the EVidians trying to exaggerate the narrative. I can show you gasoline explosions and have seen one first hand in a refinery.
Democrat senate candidate in Michigan launches ad blitz against EVs:
Quote:
- Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin has launched an ad blitz against EV mandates.
- In the commercial, the Democrat says "What you drive is your call, no one else's."
- This stands in stark contrast to the Democratic party, which openly embraces EVs and has given billions away to support them.
Electric vehicles
have been a cornerstone of the Democratic platform and the party's playbook mentions them multiple times. One such passage claims, "With tax credits, Democrats helped quadruple sales of electric vehicles, with the goal that 50 percent of all new passenger cars sold in the U.S. by 2030 be electric."
Given this, it's interesting to see Michigan senate candidate Elissa Slotkin campaign against EV mandates. In a recent ad blitz, the Democrat says she lives on a dirt road nowhere near a charging stationso she doesn't own an EV.
Representative Slotkin goes on to say, "No one should tell us what to buy and no one's going to mandate anything." She ends the 30 second commercial by stating, "What you drive is your call, no one else's."
While its unusual to see a candidate publicly buck their party, EVs have become a divisive issue as some people contend they're being forced on consumers who don't want them.
Good to hear that even though it's an aberration for democrats, and probably just a campaign season lie.Quote:
Slotkin has also been hit for her support of EVs as a commercial supporting her Republican rival, Mike Rogers, claimed she voted to "allow states to ban gas vehicles." Digging into the matter, we can see Slotkin voted Nay on the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act. It sought to revoke California's ability to set standards that "directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion engines."
nortex97 said:
Democrat senate candidate in Michigan launches ad blitz against EVs:Quote:
- Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin has launched an ad blitz against EV mandates.
- In the commercial, the Democrat says "What you drive is your call, no one else's."
- This stands in stark contrast to the Democratic party, which openly embraces EVs and has given billions away to support them.
Electric vehicles
have been a cornerstone of the Democratic platform and the party's playbook mentions them multiple times. One such passage claims, "With tax credits, Democrats helped quadruple sales of electric vehicles, with the goal that 50 percent of all new passenger cars sold in the U.S. by 2030 be electric."
Given this, it's interesting to see Michigan senate candidate Elissa Slotkin campaign against EV mandates. In a recent ad blitz, the Democrat says she lives on a dirt road nowhere near a charging stationso she doesn't own an EV.
Representative Slotkin goes on to say, "No one should tell us what to buy and no one's going to mandate anything." She ends the 30 second commercial by stating, "What you drive is your call, no one else's."
While its unusual to see a candidate publicly buck their party, EVs have become a divisive issue as some people contend they're being forced on consumers who don't want them.Good to hear that even though it's an aberration for democrats, and probably just a campaign season lie.Quote:
Slotkin has also been hit for her support of EVs as a commercial supporting her Republican rival, Mike Rogers, claimed she voted to "allow states to ban gas vehicles." Digging into the matter, we can see Slotkin voted Nay on the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act. It sought to revoke California's ability to set standards that "directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion engines."
Somebody's got to warn people.
Trump will fix it.
Kansas Kid said:I sure hope as a guy with the name planecrashguy you never get in a plane because if they crash, the consequences are way worse than a car crash. Ignore the probability of said crash because all that matters are the consequence according to you. I assume you want to ban all planes as well.PlaneCrashGuy said:Kansas Kid said:
Yeah but it used to be you were told you have to worry about them burning your house down. Now, it has been upgraded to your house having a bomb go off.
We ignore the fact that gasoline, once it is vaporized, is designed to explode because gasoline fires never burn down a house or other structures.
Have you figured out how to quickly extinguish an EV fire yet? A simple "no" will suffice.
Also, go show me an explosion of an EV. This is the EVidians trying to exaggerate the narrative. I can show you gasoline explosions and have seen one first hand in a refinery.
Trump will fix it.
You call that an explosion. That is child's play compared to this gasoline station explosion that killed people. We should ban all gasoline stations because the consequences are so severe or so says the Evidians like planecrash that says only potential consequences matter.
Well yeah an entire gas station. Good thing it wasn't a charging station.Kansas Kid said:
You call that an explosion. That is child's play compared to this gasoline station explosion that killed people. We should ban all gasoline stations because the consequences are so severe or so says the Evidians like planecrash that says only potential consequences matter.
Trump will fix it.
If it was a charging station it wouldn't have exploded and killed people, so no it's not a good thing it wasn't a charging station
Wowzers. It's not just exploding EVs we have to worry about. Researchers at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute discovered they're so heavy they just barrel through guard rails.
https://www.kbtx.com/2024/10/09/texas-am-tti-researches-electric-vehicle-safety-via-crash-test-jaws-hit-ground/
https://www.kbtx.com/2024/10/09/texas-am-tti-researches-electric-vehicle-safety-via-crash-test-jaws-hit-ground/
Quote:
The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) is sounding the alarm on a roadway safety concern that policymakers need to pay attention to.
Electric vehicles (EVs) have been gaining popularity with some high-tech capabilities, but when it comes to a crash, researchers have suggested that current infrastructure may not make the cut to save lives.
…
It's not only the weight of the vehicle, TTI said. The battery used to power EVs creates a lower center of gravity and the front is a storage space instead of an engine compartment. These factors can all be seen in a crash test conducted at the RELLIS Campus, released this summer, showing a Tesla Model 3 smashing through a guardrail with the same force used in successful crash tests in the past.
"There were a lot of jaws that hit the ground as a result of that crash test," said Winfree.
Trump will fix it.
Fully self driving in all vehicles would reduce deaths by 50%+, the guardrails issue is legit but also negated in the long run.
Kansas Kid said:
You call that an explosion. That is child's play compared to this gasoline station explosion that killed people. We should ban all gasoline stations because the consequences are so severe or so says the Evidians like planecrash that says only potential consequences matter.
EVidian does not mean what you think it means.
I'm not sure if people genuinely believe someone is going to say, "Wow, if some people say I'm a moron for not believing this, it clearly must be true."
It's not much a persuasive argument. It really just sounds like a bunch of miniature dachshunds barking because the first one one barked when it thought it heard something.
It's not much a persuasive argument. It really just sounds like a bunch of miniature dachshunds barking because the first one one barked when it thought it heard something.
You have any data to backup that claim? I don't think the tech is there yet.Premium said:
Fully self driving in all vehicles would reduce deaths by 50%+, the guardrails issue is legit but also negated in the long run.
Nearly 50% of all traffics fatalities are involve some form of negligence, 33% are alcohol involved fatalities, 9% are due to distracted driving, and 4% are from reckless driving. Throw in general incompetence and my bet is that 50% is a very low estimate for how many deaths and injuries would be avoided if a competent autonomous system was developed that was no better than a quality human driver.
Fully self driving doesn't actually mean EV.
Except that the tech isn't there. There is no such thing as a self driving car that works everywhere in all weather conditions.hph6203 said:
Nearly 50% of all traffics fatalities are involve some form of negligence, 33% are alcohol involved fatalities, 9% are due to distracted driving, and 4% are from reckless driving. Throw in general incompetence and my bet is that 50% is a very low estimate for how many deaths and injuries would be avoided if a competent autonomous system was developed that was no better than a quality human driver.
So you can dream all you want but that tech does not exist.
"EV" does not appear in that post.nortex97 said:
Fully self driving doesn't actually mean EV.
Its existence was not claimed in that post.ntxVol said:Except that the tech isn't there. There is no such thing as a self driving car that works everywhere in all weather conditions.hph6203 said:
Nearly 50% of all traffics fatalities are involve some form of negligence, 33% are alcohol involved fatalities, 9% are due to distracted driving, and 4% are from reckless driving. Throw in general incompetence and my bet is that 50% is a very low estimate for how many deaths and injuries would be avoided if a competent autonomous system was developed that was no better than a quality human driver.
So you can dream all you want but that tech does not exist.
True, it's all pontification about some pipe dream that will never happen in the world we currently live.hph6203 said:Its existence was not claimed in that post.ntxVol said:Except that the tech isn't there. There is no such thing as a self driving car that works everywhere in all weather conditions.hph6203 said:
Nearly 50% of all traffics fatalities are involve some form of negligence, 33% are alcohol involved fatalities, 9% are due to distracted driving, and 4% are from reckless driving. Throw in general incompetence and my bet is that 50% is a very low estimate for how many deaths and injuries would be avoided if a competent autonomous system was developed that was no better than a quality human driver.
So you can dream all you want but that tech does not exist.
Completely autonomous vehicles are not compatible with our current highway/road system. It will never ever happen.
Wouldn't put money on that.
I'm sure at some point enough money and political pressure will allow it to happen but, it will prove to be less safe than human drivers in the end.
Once 'pon a time there were persons that believed man ain't never gon' fly 'mong the birds. Said man ain't built for the skies. The skies were for creatures with wings an' feathers an' the ground were created for creatures with hooves and toes. Man is a creature of toes and ain't never gon' touch the clouds. That's just the way we was made.
Then that popcorn feller built 'im some wings and he made 'imself float on air an' those other fellers turned their eyes to the stars. An' they said well man did fly among the birds, but there ain't no way man will reach that disc in the sky. Man were made for the earth and that's where he'll always be. Ain't no way.
Then some brauny feller figured out he could harness fire and put a man on top and make it to that there disc in the sky and get 'em back again. And everyone celebrated man's conquering o' that gravity.
Then those persons decided ain't no man ever gonna get beat by no machine in chess, because chess is a thinkin' man's game and ain't no machine capable of thinkin'. It's a game of logic and anticipation and strategy and those are human traits. Then some feller made some big ol' box, called it blue even though it s weren't blue, an' ol' blue, well, it beat that grandmaster and e'ryone had to stop and consider their humanity.
Then those fellers turned their eyes to the skies again and said man has conquered the air, he's reached the stars, but there ain't no way they can bring that stick o' fire back from that sky. Then some stinky fellow, called him Musk decided he was gon' try. Everyone laughed and said it curn't be done. But you know what? That odorous man, he conquered gravity again and stuck that stick o' fire on a boat in the ocean.
And then those fellers looked to the roads and they said there ain't no way a machine can conquer those.
Then that popcorn feller built 'im some wings and he made 'imself float on air an' those other fellers turned their eyes to the stars. An' they said well man did fly among the birds, but there ain't no way man will reach that disc in the sky. Man were made for the earth and that's where he'll always be. Ain't no way.
Then some brauny feller figured out he could harness fire and put a man on top and make it to that there disc in the sky and get 'em back again. And everyone celebrated man's conquering o' that gravity.
Then those persons decided ain't no man ever gonna get beat by no machine in chess, because chess is a thinkin' man's game and ain't no machine capable of thinkin'. It's a game of logic and anticipation and strategy and those are human traits. Then some feller made some big ol' box, called it blue even though it s weren't blue, an' ol' blue, well, it beat that grandmaster and e'ryone had to stop and consider their humanity.
Then those fellers turned their eyes to the skies again and said man has conquered the air, he's reached the stars, but there ain't no way they can bring that stick o' fire back from that sky. Then some stinky fellow, called him Musk decided he was gon' try. Everyone laughed and said it curn't be done. But you know what? That odorous man, he conquered gravity again and stuck that stick o' fire on a boat in the ocean.
And then those fellers looked to the roads and they said there ain't no way a machine can conquer those.
The chess problem was logical, a problem made for a computer to solve.
Flying only required someone to figure out the issue of lift.
Rocket science still only works under pristine conditions, ever seen NASA launch a rocket in the rain?
Current AI isn't scalable, still a long long way from being what's needed to make autonomous vehicles happen.
Flying only required someone to figure out the issue of lift.
Rocket science still only works under pristine conditions, ever seen NASA launch a rocket in the rain?
Current AI isn't scalable, still a long long way from being what's needed to make autonomous vehicles happen.
These problems seem trivial to you today after they have been solved, because they were solved. The people that preceded their solution spoke exactly like you, for the same reasons you do. A misapplied perception of gods divinity reflected in human form that enables a human to… drive? Rather than the more applicable reflection of divinity that allows humans to problem solve in a way that allows them to create a machine that flies, touches the stars, wins at chess, lands on a barge or drives on roads.
There's a lot of hype around the advances that have been made in regards to self driving cars. The same can be said for advances in AI technology. The two go hand in hand, autonomous vehicles will need AI, it's more than just basic logic.
The AI tech that everyone lauds today has serious problems that make it completely inadequate, not up to the task. These problems are being ignored because, well, there's a lot of money to be made and yes, the recent advances have many applications where that is the case. Autonomous vehicles are not one of those.
I suspect a few more AI winters will happen before truly autonomous vehicle become a reality. That puts the timeline several decades from now.
The AI tech that everyone lauds today has serious problems that make it completely inadequate, not up to the task. These problems are being ignored because, well, there's a lot of money to be made and yes, the recent advances have many applications where that is the case. Autonomous vehicles are not one of those.
I suspect a few more AI winters will happen before truly autonomous vehicle become a reality. That puts the timeline several decades from now.
I wouldn't put money on that.
FWIW, you're giving the regulators too much credit.hph6203 said:
I wouldn't put money on that.
They move slooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
In the UAS/UAM/AAM world that I'm in, it's taking a long time to get things done. Not because of tech, but because of regulations and standards.
Considering there's probably nothing in the CFR dealing with autonomous ground vehicles, that will be the long pole in the tent.
Again...this is NOT because of the technology.
You can turn off signatures, btw
Ag with kids said:hph6203 said:
I wouldn't put money on that.
Again...this is NOT because of the technology.
Yes. It is.
Ok...hph6203 said:Ag with kids said:hph6203 said:
I wouldn't put money on that.
Again...this is NOT because of the technology.
Yes. It is.
So now what are you arguing?
That it won't happen or will happen?
You can turn off signatures, btw
That it will, but it will not take decades.
The person I'm responding to has gone from it will not happen, to it will happen but as a function of government dictate that seemingly adapts the roads to fit an autonomous vehicle rather than an autonomous vehicle that fits to the road, as he has said our roads are not built for autonomous vehicles and if I'm recalling correctly he has said computers are not capable of parsing the necessary information to effectively drive a car on our roads and never will be.
The person I'm responding to has gone from it will not happen, to it will happen but as a function of government dictate that seemingly adapts the roads to fit an autonomous vehicle rather than an autonomous vehicle that fits to the road, as he has said our roads are not built for autonomous vehicles and if I'm recalling correctly he has said computers are not capable of parsing the necessary information to effectively drive a car on our roads and never will be.
hph6203 said:
I wouldn't put money on that.
Utopia is just around the corner.
We'll all be drinking that free bubble up
And eating that rainbow stew…
Trump will fix it.
Who sad anything about utopia? It's just a technological barrier.
I am saying current AI isn't suitable for autonomous vehicles with the current state of our road system.hph6203 said:
That it will, but it will not take decades.
The person I'm responding to has gone from it will not happen, to it will happen but as a function of government dictate that seemingly adapts the roads to fit an autonomous vehicle rather than an autonomous vehicle that fits to the road, as he has said our roads are not built for autonomous vehicles and if I'm recalling correctly he has said computers are not capable of parsing the necessary information to effectively drive a car on our roads and never will be.
Maybe, in a few decades it will get there. Not likely to happen in most texags posters lifetimes.
But, you cannot discount the possibility of government interference. If that happens and autonomous vehicles are allowed on the road too early, the results will be disastrous.
Rather than fully autonomous, it's more likely that self driving vehicles are allowed only in select areas on a limited basis.