Are Electric Cars the biggest con on the planet?

[tamore]

bigothunter said:

C.A.R. said:

Started with a fixed agenda.
Tried to justify their position with questionable logic.
Unwilling to listen to reason.
Pastes news articles not relevant to their own argument.
Inexperienced in the very subject they've brought up.
Distraction technique when it all started to go wrong.

Classic PH. OP is perhaps just the first letter of each of the above sentences, it would explain a lot.

OP has inspired 14 pages of debate so he can't be completely stupid...

it's not debate though, that's way back. this is just reiteration.

[TheDeuce]

whirlybird said:

The GuardianThe Guardian
Tesla’s self-driving technology fails to detect children in the road, tests find
Edward Helmore
Tue, 9 August 2022, 6:08 pm
<span>Photograph: Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images</span>
Photograph: Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images
A safe-technology advocacy group issued claimed on Tuesday that Tesla’s full self-driving software represents a potentially lethal threat to child pedestrians, the latest in a series of claims and investigations into the technology to hit the world’s leading electric carmaker.

According to a safety test conducted by the Dawn Project, the latest version of Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta software repeatedly hit a stationary, child-sized mannequin in its path. The claims that the technology apparently has trouble recognizing children form part of an ad campaign urging the public to pressure Congress to ban Tesla’s auto-driving technology.

In several tests, a professional test driver found that the software – released in June – failed to detect the child-sized figure at an average speed of 25mph and the car then hit the mannequin. The Dawn Project’s founder, Dan O’Dowd, called the results “deeply disturbing.”

Company chief “Elon Musk says Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software is ‘amazing,’” O’Dowd added. “It’s not. It’s a lethal threat to all Americans.

“Over 100,000 Tesla drivers are already using the car’s Full Self-Driving mode on public roads, putting children at great risk in communities across the country.”

O’Dowd argued that the test results show the need to prohibit self-driving cars until Tesla proves the vehicles “will not mow down children in crosswalks”.

Tesla has repeatedly hit back at claims that its self-driving technology is too underdeveloped to guarantee the safety of either the car’s occupants or other road users.

O’Dowd has drawn accusations that he is little more than a competitor to Tesla because his company bills itself as an expert in making particular software used in automated driving systems. O’Dowd insists his Green Hills software doesn’t compete with Tesla, saying it doesn’t make self-driving cars. But he has acknowledged some car companies use his company’s software for certain components.

After a fiery crash in Texas in 2021 that killed two, Musk tweeted that the autopilot feature, a less sophisticated version of FSD, was not switched on at the moment of collision.

At the company’s shareholder meeting earlier this month Musk said that Full Self-Driving has greatly improved, and he expected to make the software available by the end of the year to all owners that request it. But questions about its safety continue to mount.

In June, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), said it was expanding an investigation into 830,000 Tesla cars across all four current model lines. The expansion came after analysis of a number of accidents revealed patterns in the car’s performance and driver behavior.

The NHTSA said the widened investigation would aim to examine the degree to which Tesla’s autopilot technology and associated systems “may exacerbate human factors or behavioral safety risks by undermining the effectiveness of the driver’s supervision”.

A second NHTSA investigation is also under way to determine if the removal of the forward-looking radar sensor on some newer Teslas is causing the vehicles to apply their brakes for no reason, which is called “phantom braking” and can lead to wrecks.

Since 2016, the agency has investigated 30 crashes involving Teslas equipped with automated driving systems, 19 of them fatal. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation is also looking at the company’s autopilot technology in at least 11 crashes where Teslas hit emergency vehicles.

Many such wrecks aren’t investigated by the NHTSA. And in nearly 400 crashes involving cars with driver-assist systems reported by automakers between July 2021 and this past May, more Teslas were involved than all other manufacturers combined.

Again I ask, what has this got to do with the thread!? Your own thread!

[SWoll]

TheDeuce said:

Again I ask, what has this got to do with the thread!? Your own thread!

Leave him to it, at least it's keeping all of the trolling in one place. The forum would be a hell of a mess if he started a thread every time he had a new epiphany he felt was worth sharing.

He'll hopefully get bored eventually..

[whirlybird]

SWoll said:

Leave him to it, at least it's keeping all of the trolling in one place. The forum would be a hell of a mess if he started a thread every time he had a new epiphany he felt was worth sharing.

He'll hopefully get bored eventually..

Having now reached 15 pages, yes I am bored, but I am entitled to my opinion.
As Swoll & TheDeuce ,between yourselves have close to 30.000 posts, you both need to get out more.
be it in an ICE or EV car, I really don't give a t*ss.

Right, off to murder some cows, there's far too much methane, over and out

[SWoll]

whirlybird said:

Having now reached 15 pages, yes I am bored, but I am entitled to my opinion.
As Swoll & TheDeuce ,between yourselves have close to 30.000 posts, you both need to get out more.
be it in an ICE or EV car, I really don't give a t*ss.

Right, off to murder some cows, there's far too much methane, over and out

Do some research and come back with something intersting to discuss I'd suggest, you never know you might actually learn something. 100% you are allowed an opinion, in the same way everyone is allowed to point out how ridiculous and ill informed those opinions are.

20 years of membership/14k posts = < 2 posts per day BTW. I can spare the time for that.

[FWIW]

whirlybird said:

over and out

Yay! Bye!

[sociopath]

I can't be bothered to read 15 pages, do I'll just say

We have a mach-e, it's absolutely brilliant.

We have a v8 cobra replica, it's absolutely brilliant.

Neither do the same things in the same way.

Don't regret either purchase

[DMZ]

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

[What The Deuces]

TheDeuce said:

Nuclear is advancing too, and would become more efficient with more of nuclear infrastructure - but as you say, both are so incredibly efficient at this point there's not much point debating. I would say that nuclear is neater than solar and wind farms, and also we don't actually know what the knock on effect of absorbing significant quantities of heat and wind energy might be in the long term - although that's probably a debate for our grandchildren to think about!!

Yes, EV efficiency coupled with greener forms of power generation makes ICE and burning of fossil fuels look like a joke by comparison. I'd never complain at a guy that hangs onto ICE for for fun or out of a feeling of need, but it's important to be realistic and I simply don't understand the people that even attempt to assemble an argument for their old shed somehow being greener than EV

Nuclear gives similar issues to Wind and other renewables in so much that its hard to control oversupply.... still there's always hydrogen that will need making ....

[TheDeuce]

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

Another way of looking at it is that targets and bans were required to make it possible for the industry to confidently commit to EV development and production - so without the bans and the certainty they bring, you likely wouldn't have the option of EV.

Actually we're in a way living through the period of most options right now. Previously your options for a car were ICE or ICE, now, and for the next couple of decades at least, you have the choice of ICE or EV.

[otolith]

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

We will still have a choice, for another 13 years we will be able to buy new petrol or diesel cars, and for however long those remain available second hand afterwards.

[AstonZagato]

TheDeuce said:

I wonder if we're past or post peak 'anti EV rage' at this point?

Obviously in the earlier days there was all sorts of BS about them on these forums, but that seemed to get a little better over the last year or so - most people at least seem to understand that the range issues isn't really an issue for the vast majority. But I fear it's now going to ramp up again as the bans are creeping closer and people are starting to think 'bds are actually to take my engine away'...

So perhaps we have yet to see the full extent of baseless complaining and fruitless ranting? The problem is that most of those that will complain are likely too stupid to realise/accept just yet that things really are going to change - but they're bound to at some point. That's going to be a lot of disgruntled serial shed buyers.

I find it mildly amusing that people get so agitated about EVs. I love some of the convoluted illogical reasons that people create to write off an entire class of vehicles. One of my favorites is the "stuck in a snowstorm" one ("what happens if you are snowed in on a road?") when the BEV is the best option for such a scenario!

I am fortunate enough to have a BEV, a PHEV and a V12. They all have their use cases. If I'm going to commute into London, then I'm not going to take the V12. Likewise, if I have a back-lane blast planned, the EV is not going to be the car of choice. But, in the South-East of this crowded little island, the EV car is the one that makes the most sense, most of the time. I didn't buy it to save polar bears, I bought it because it was the car that was most suited to the purpose. It is also rather relaxing and nice to drive: the quiet, the acceleration (quicker than my Aston), the space.

I rather consider ICE and BEV as different things - like the difference between motorbikes and cars, fridges and freezers, rifles and shotguns.

[DMZ]

TheDeuce said:

Another way of looking at it is that targets and bans were required to make it possible for the industry to confidently commit to EV development and production - so without the bans and the certainty they bring, you likely wouldn't have the option of EV.

Actually we're in a way living through the period of most options right now. Previously your options for a car were ICE or ICE, now, and for the next couple of decades at least, you have the choice of ICE or EV.

It's an exciting time for sure. Even if I have an on/off relationship with EVs and their awesomeness, it's realistically the place where evolution is occurring these days. Partially as you say due to the targets and bans. Product developers like targets, it makes life a lot easier than trying to hedge bets. There are obviously also enormous monetisation opportunities in the switch to clean energy and clean transport which is interesting in itself.

Restomods is also an interesting space at the moment, in terms of ICE. That's how you can circumvent all the restrictions. Or you keep what you have Cuba style.

[delta0]

AstonZagato said:

I find it mildly amusing that people get so agitated about EVs. I love some of the convoluted illogical reasons that people create to write off an entire class of vehicles. One of my favorites is the "stuck in a snowstorm" one ("what happens if you are snowed in on a road?") when the BEV is the best option for such a scenario!

I am fortunate enough to have a BEV, a PHEV and a V12. They all have their use cases. If I'm going to commute into London, then I'm not going to take the V12. Likewise, if I have a back-lane blast planned, the EV is not going to be the car of choice. But, in the South-East of this crowded little island, the EV car is the one that makes the most sense, most of the time. I didn't buy it to save polar bears, I bought it because it was the car that was most suited to the purpose. It is also rather relaxing and nice to drive: the quiet, the acceleration (quicker than my Aston), the space.

I rather consider ICE and BEV as different things - like the difference between motorbikes and cars, fridges and freezers, rifles and shotguns.

Good luck with the back lane blasts. Surrey is the first council to announce they are changing 60mph country roads to 20-30mph. It’s a trial that will be rolled out wider if successful.

[SWoll]

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

The problem is that many posters seem to be under the illusion that all ICE cars are going to be banned from the roads in 2030. It's the purchase of new ICE cars in 2030 and hybrids in 2035 that's beng stopped. You'll be able to run a new 2029 ICE car until 2050 should you want to. Likely to be pricey to do so, but then what isn't?

[delta0]

SWoll said:

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

The problem is that many posters seem to be under the illusion that all ICE cars are going to be banned from the roads in 2030. It's the purchase of new ICE cars in 2030 and hybrids in 2035 that's beng stopped. You'll be able to run a new 2029 ICE car until 2050 should you want to. Likely to be pricey to do so, but then what isn't?

I don’t think anyone is claiming non new cars are going to be banned. As you say it will become prohibitively expensive. The average age of a car is 8 years which suggests we will have a few years of lots of ICEs on the road still. Although with increased tax burden and costs this is going to be accelerated a bit.

[CheesecakeRunner]

whirlybird said:

Having now reached 15 pages, yes I am bored, but I am entitled to my opinion.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

Just as we’re entitled to say it’s bks.

[DMZ]

delta0 said:

I don’t think anyone is claiming non new cars are going to be banned. As you say it will become prohibitively expensive. The average age of a car is 8 years which suggests we will have a few years of lots of ICEs on the road still. Although with increased tax burden and costs this is going to be accelerated a bit.

I remain naively optimistic that the cost of running ICE will not go up. It might even go down. With the caveat that I'm referring to existing cars. I don't think new ICE will be all that interesting from now on as it will be strangled by every imaginable regulation and they will need to have big batteries in them anyhow and then why not just go EV. With the exception of low volume manufacturers, they might be able to get around this specifically in the UK or generally.

For existing cars, I don't think they will be nailed by the powers that be. Retrospective taxation is generally not a vote winner. Once ICE is in a minority, they will also lose interest in it as a revenue generator and will just let it fade. Old polluting cars are not treated badly now from what I know and I don't think that will change. I also think oil will get cheaper once EVs take hold, maybe a lot cheaper.

But anyhow, we'll see. Not much to worry about at the moment anyhow.

[bigothunter]

DMZ said:

I remain naively optimistic that the cost of running ICE will not go up. It might even go down. With the caveat that I'm referring to existing cars.

Do you have any basis for that optimism? Or is it just wishful thinking?

[GT9]

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

Problem is that I think many people will make their choice based on mis-information.

Is this thread not an obvious example of that?

Unfortunately it's far easier to force behaviour than try to educate, especially with 'media manipulation'.

I think you will get a whole load of people saying that because a new EV doesn't break-even or only breaks even during their ownership that it's not worth it.

Hopefully it should be quite apparent now why that though process is flawed.