EV's aren't mandated by anyone today and yet they are started every month. And most include wild ridiculous claims that are easily proven false, like ICE vehicles being more prone to fires.

Teslag said:

---

EV's aren't mandated by anyone today and yet they are started every month. And most include wild ridiculous claims that are easily proven false, like ICE vehicles being more prone to fires.

---

It's weird that you post like you have some credibility.

Teslag said:

---

EV's aren't mandated by anyone today and yet they are started every month. And most include wild ridiculous claims that are easily proven false, like ICE vehicles being more prone to fires.

---

When you start with blatantly false information that there are no mandates.

https://www.c2es.org/document/us-state-clean-vehicle-policies-and-incentives/

Quote:

---

As of August 2022, fourteen states have adopted both California's ZEV program as well as the LEV standards: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia are following California's LEV standards but have not adopted the ZEV program. Together, all 17 of these states and the District of Columbia are referred to as "Section 177 states."

---

Then end with zero acknowledgment that EV vehicles have a serious fire problem, maybe not as much in # of 'occurrences' but any sane person knows a battery fire is technically much more difficult to extinguish and can cause much more destruction than a tire rubbing against a wheel well resulting in a fire a 3yo could piss on and extinguish.

True or false, you purchase an ICE vehicle in all 50 states today?

In 2019 there were 220,000 vehicle fires that resulted in $2.2 billion in damages, 2000 injuries and 655 deaths. I wouldn't call that a fire that a toddler could piss out. That's a death for every 300 fires, an injury in 1 out of 100 and $10,000 in damages per incident.

Teslag said:

---

True or false, you purchase an ICE vehicle in all 50 states today?

---

True.

So let;'s play this out. Have any EV mandates been passed in the US with implementation / compliance dates within the next 5 years / 10 years?

You are trying to be cute in saying there are no mandates, just subsidies, in place now. Sort of like how when the vaccine first came out, it was an "option" to get one which quickly turned into a requirement to "salute the vaccine".

So I feel perfectly fine with the information presented as being accurate and factual. Just because a mandate is not active and is simply in the process of being implemented does not mean there is not a mandate.

Quote:

---

True

---

Thanks

hph6203 said:

---

In 2019 there were 220,000 vehicle fires that resulted in $2.2 billion in damages, 2000 injuries and 655 deaths. I wouldn't call that a fire that a toddler could piss out. That's a death for every 300 fires, an injury in 1 out of 100 and $10,000 in damages per incident.

---

How many of those were the result of a serious vehicle accident?

Also, if you are going to throw around specific figures like that, it is common practice to include a source so others can look at how the data was gathered, diced and sliced.

Are you also claiming that EV fires are simpler, easier to extinguish than ICE vehicle fires?

hph6203 said:

---

In 2019 there were 220,000 vehicle fires that resulted in $2.2 billion in damages, 2000 injuries and 655 deaths. I wouldn't call that a fire that a toddler could piss out. That's a death for every 300 fires, an injury in 1 out of 100 and $10,000 in damages per incident.

---

And with ice vehicles being so much more prone to fires based on NTSB data, one could correctly assume that had those deceased occupants been in an EV many would be alive today.

I think a case could be made for only using cylindrical cells or lfp cells and no NMC pouch cells in an EV until manufacturing is sorted out.

Source

The estimate is about 5% of vehicle fires are a result of an accident.

I edited my last post, but decided to add it to a new one:

Someone posted in another thread that data out of Sweden suggested that gas vehicles were 29 times more likely to catch on fire than electric. If that's accurate it would require one hell of a fire to cause $300,000 in damages on average, and would have to kill a person in 1 out of every 10 fires, which would be relatively difficult when the claimed narrative is that the vehicles can spontaneously combust (they can, it's just way less common than gas vehicles). Thats consistent with another report that found roughly the same rate difference.

That's ignoring the fact that battery technology is getting safer over time, not more dangerous.

First battery is the NMC style batteries similar to what Tesla uses in their Model S/X and and Long Range models (and most other manufacturers currently use in most of their models). The second battery is similar to what they use in their standard range models. It doesn't mean that the battery can't catch on fire, but it is a significantly less volatile battery.

hph6203 said:

---

Source

The estimate is about 5% of vehicle fires are a result of an accident.

[[False. From you own data... "Causes of highway vehicle fires - As shown in Figure 3, unintentional actions accounted for 38 percent of highway vehicle fires. These fires may be the result of either careless behavior or accidental actions.]]

---

Add in 23 percent where cause is still under investigation or undetermined and your 5% is really north of 50%.

fka ftc said:

---

How many of those were the result of a serious vehicle accident?

---

Just to jog your short term memory for what question you asked.

More from your data...

Quote:

---

This category includes materials such as tires, insulation around electric wire and cables, trash, and fabric.

Specifically, insulation around the electrical wiring or other cables was the most common item to initially ignite, not only within this category but in all highway vehicle fires (29 percent). While it is often assumed that vehicle fires commonly originate with the tires of the vehicle, tires were the item first ignited in only 6 percent of all highway vehicle fires

---

Do EVs not use electrical wiring? Maybe they don't and its simply an ICE problem.

hph6203 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

How many of those were the result of a serious vehicle accident?

---

Just to jog your short term memory for what question you asked.

---

You are right. I had assumed it would take a more serious accident to cause a fire. Evidently minor ones do too.

I am switching to an EV so I don't burn to death if I run over a curb or get into a fender bender.

So what you're saying is gas vehicles are more flammable than you thought?

hph6203 said:

---

So what you're saying is gas vehicles are more flammable than you thought?

---

no, its really saying VEHICLES are more flammable than I thought. The data made no differentiation regarding ICE v EV but it did mention electrical wiring as a prevalent ignition source, which based on my limited brain electrical systems and wiring are typically MORE prevalent in an EV v ICE.

Its funny how both you and Teslag don't want to answer the question regarding which type of fire is more easily extinguished. But avoiding those types of discussions is typical when people are emotional in their discussions v fact-based.

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Salute the EVs!!!!

---

I often wonder what will be the next " latest thing" he'll move onto next

How many fires where vehicle is operating normally, or is parked and turned off? Not in an accident, not unknown, not modified, not service related, etc.

Still haven't gotten that number and I suspect we never will.

Jock 07 said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Salute the EVs!!!!

---

I often wonder what will be the next " latest thing" he'll move onto next

---

Adverse Event has crypto covered and Grapesoda covers THC. Options are a bit limited.

Gas vehicle fires are significantly easier to extinguish. That is not the only factor in determining safety. Not starting a fire in the first place is step one for safety.

hph6203 said:

---

Source

The estimate is about 5% of vehicle fires are a result of an accident.

---

Jeez it's worse than I thought.

At some point people will need to decide what's more important, the safety of their family or their devotion to oil and outdated technology.

I've asked before, but why at color are the trees in your world?

Teslag said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Source

The estimate is about 5% of vehicle fires are a result of an accident.

---

Jeez it's worse than I thought.

At some point people will need to decide what's more important, the safety of their family or their devotion to oil and outdated technology.

---

Wow.

C@LAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Jeez it's worse than I thought.

At some point people will need to decide what's more important, the safety of their family or their devotion to oil and outdated technology.

---

reminds me of:

at some point servicemen will have to decide what's more important: taking an unproven "vaccine" or get kicked out of the army with a dishonorable discharge while some army idiot runs to a football forum to brag about it.

---

Also, about how the army needs more transgender folks who live in their mom's basement and less mercenaries / soldiers capable of firing weapons in the battlefield.

Welcome to Colonel Vindman's armed forces...

Small price to pay when you can avoid using gas completely and are able to cross the entire U.S. in only 27 days !!!

Wow. I said these fires will become more frequents as the number of EV's are produced and they would be almost impossible to put out.

……you can guess the reaction I got. Only a roll off box of water can contain these new and next generation batteries. Litiium ion batteries do not need oxygen so stop with the suppression argument. Once a cell catches fire it will not stop till all cells are exhausted.

Going to follow up with a few folks who might know where to find EV car fire Dara base.

fka ftc said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

So what you're saying is gas vehicles are more flammable than you thought?

---

no, its really saying VEHICLES are more flammable than I thought. The data made no differentiation regarding ICE v EV but it did mention electrical wiring as a prevalent ignition source, which based on my limited brain electrical systems and wiring are typically MORE prevalent in an EV v ICE.

Its funny how both you and Teslag don't want to answer the question regarding which type of fire is more easily extinguished. But avoiding those types of discussions is typical when people are emotional in their discussions v fact-based.

---

At least with Lithium Ion Batteries…..the cells will only extinguish once the cell is consumed.

Feel free to fact check me. A skate board type design will have on Ave. 7800 cells. Lithium Ion by its chemical nature has enough oxygen to burn and needs no extra oxygen. That is why ICE vehicles can be extinguished.

ICE vehicles do not burst into flames 2 to 3 hours after being parked.

When the EV cars on the road goes from 1 to 4% to 25% these incidences will be more frequent and when families get wiped out…..followed by lawsuits……there will be a different attitude towards safety.

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Teslag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Lone Stranger said:

---

An engineering expert witness I know in the battery arena said based on data from the last two years EV's are 3.2 times more likely to catch on fires than an ICE vehicle. So for every 1 ICE vehicle fire there are 3.2 EV vehicle fires. Sounds about right.

---

Well, kind of. The difference is the sheer numbers of ICEs compared to EVs.

---

That's why the NTSB publishes the numbers in per 100,000 rates. And it overwhelmingly shows ICE bombs to be more fire prone.

---

This does not separate out fires on the open road versus parked in a garage. Shirley, you are intelligent enough to understand this very important distinction in this debate.

---

That lack of data didnt stop everyone on this thread from jumping to a conclusion now did it?

---

It is a legitimate debate right now, because the few data points we have seem to indicate that there's more fires inside of structures caused by electric vehicles than internal combustion engines. The data is very limited because the industry is so new on the electric vehicle side.

---

People on this thread aren't debating. They are speaking as if it's fact with no data to back it up other than random articles and YouTube videos of propane vehicle explosions.

---

You were using recall data as if that represented ICE fires which is extremely misleading. I provided data on the Ford/Lincoln recalls showing the actual numbers of fires was vanishingly small. You ignored the irony that Ford/Lincoln recalled these SUVs for ONLY POTENTIALLY 19 fires while parked CAUSED BY THE BATTERIES.

Compare that to the number of fires caused by the batteries in EVs while parked and have the manufacturers had a recall or recommended you park these hazards outside so you don't burn your house down?

And you most certainly can separate the cause of the fires due to BATTERIES with ICEs than caused by the ICE spontaneously catching fire.

You conflate the numbers intentionally, ignore the cause of the ICE fires while parked then expect posters here to believe you.

Teslag said:

---

Every article I posted on this thread involved ice vehicles burning in the driveway or garage

---

No you most certainly did not. You cited recall data that was based in POTENTIALLY 19 cars involving 3 models of Ford/Lincoln, caused by a failure of the design team to install an in-line fuse to prevent a short. The recall data is meaningless in light of the fact that for ALL CARS MANUFACTURED these 19 fires represent an insignificant number of fires in all parked cars w/ ICEs, which would literally be hundreds of millions of vehicles.

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Because you are attempting to assert that ICE vehicles have more fires (per unit) than EVs.

It was pointed out that the ICE numbers (per 100K) aren't limited to single vehicle, garaged fires, which invalidates your implied contention.

---

And what data set has your side presented?

---

You're just not gonna answer any anything, are you?

Do you believe an ICE vehicle is more likely to catch fire sitting by itself in a garage than an EV?

---

Yes, I do and I've yet to see any data to indicate otherwise. Have you?

---

For Ford/Lincoln I gave you the data.