cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62209262
You must log in or register to comment.
- Asetru@feddit.orgEnglish5 months
the breakthrough that makes EVs safer than ICE cars
Did Toyota write this? EVs already are much safer than ICEs, the headline reads like it’s trying to gaslight people into thinking otherwise.
- BlackLaZoR@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Except ones with no handles. You’re supposed to burn alive in these.
- Soup@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Except their weight which leads to insane amounts of energy transfer and also none of the intrastructure, like guardrails, is built to handle that much weight so low down.
The way to safer is to reduce the amount of cars.
- neo2478@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 month
Next best thing to improving public transport to reduce the ammouny of cars would be reducing the size of cars, thus in large part negating the weight issue.
But like you said, nothing beats just having fewer cars on the road.
- Polisheocket@lemmy.zipEnglish1 month
Just make cars insanely expensive, eventually Less cars will be on the riad
- neo2478@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 month
That just punishes poor people. If you male public transport good, people will take it.
- A7thStone@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Yeah, no.
This is a golf compared to an id.3. Two very comparable vehicles. The id.3 weighs 41% more. Don’t get me wrong I’d love to be able to get an id.3 but all we get in the states are these horrible SUVs. That said EVs do still suffer a major weight penalty that comes with its own issues.
- Soup@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Not even a little bit, and I’d say “but good effort” but really no, not even that.
5 monthsEVs already are much safer than ICEs
For the occupant or those who are involved in a collision with one?
EVs are heavy
- Asetru@feddit.orgEnglish5 months
They don’t catch fire that often though.
Which is what that headline is about.
While true, you should also mention that there’s way more ICEs and (more importantly) the way they burn is much, much safer.
You can’t really extinguish lithium fire, it burns way hotter, and it’s more toxic.
Comparatively an ICE car burning is not a big deal; they almost never make other stuff around them burn, and also when they catch on fire it’s pretty much exclusively only when people are still near/in them so there’s A chance to notice it and do something about it.
- 5 months
You do realize that article neither negates or supports the above statement.
- SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish5 months
Safer cars get into less crashes. You seriously want to argue semantics?
This from the people that gave us fireworks… traditions disappear so fast…
the same people that invented fireworks (thing that is set on fire and goes boom) now actively research/made the safe batteries (things that DON’T set on fire AND don’t go boom)
- SolarMonkey@slrpnk.netEnglish5 months
I thought sodium batteries had considerably less energy density than conventional? Is that not a problem anymore? If that hasn’t been solved, I don’t see how this helps make EVs safer.
The “they catch fire” argument is fucking bonkers anyway.
If there’s one thing petrol cars are famous for, it’s being filled with flammable liquids that can and do leak everywhere and combust upon collision.
You can ignore them. Same with all the disingenuous cunts who complain about wind turbines “spoiling the view” who ignore the coal and gas power stations that have littered the skyline for over a century.
- 5 months
Lithium fires are hard to contain unlike petrol fire:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/firefighters-forced-submerge-electric-car-082852772.html
- bountygiver [any]@lemmy.mlEnglish5 months
So does an airplane crash would be more horrifying than a car crash, but that doesn’t change the fact that airplanes are safer.
Even so, any improvement is still good though
- 4 months
I never said they aren’t safer I only replied to the comment that petrol cars also burn, my point is that even though they are safer overall their fires are more dangerous.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish5 months
You can put a petrol fire out in less than a few days though. Petrol doesn’t magically catch fire upon seeing oxygen either.
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Ah, Lemmy. You never disappoint with sharing hilariously inaccurate information in comments!
- yes_this_time@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
ICE vehicles have far more fires. EVs are more intense, but significantly less frequent
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Cool source. Ok, I’ll bite. The number of fire deaths in Teslas alone drawfs the number of fatalities in the infamous Pinto. The number is being tracked by volunteers because there’s no data from the NFPA or others that segments by EV vs ICE, but the number of highway vehicle fire deaths has been trending sharply upwards since 2016.
- Skysurfer@slrpnk.netEnglish5 months
Tesla has sold nearly 8 million cars in total, with 3.5 million cars in 2023-2024 alone. There were 3.1 million Pintos ever produced in its 10 year run.
There are 27 fatalities linked to Pinto related fires and 83 related to Tesla fires according to your volunteer run source. The Pinto had a fatality for every 1 in 116,000 vehicles while Tesla, according to your source, has 1 in every 96,000. So the number of Tesla fire related fatalities does not “dwarf” the number of Pinto related fatalities. On top of that, a key difference is most of the Pinto fatalities were due to rear end collisions with no fault of the driver while Tesla’s are much higher performance vehicles getting involved in high energy collisions due to driver (autonomous and human) errors.
Here is a list giving a different view of fatal accidents by car model. To quote the article:
“Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue,” said Brauer. “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.”
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Narrowing down the relevant information from your otherwise interesting comment, we can conclude that, if the sources are accurate, Teslas on average are more unsafe in terms of fire safety than the most unsafe internal combustion engine vehicle ever manufactured.
I think it’s ludicrous to dismiss those concerns as “fucking bonkers” and that we “can ignore them.” New addition to this list is that we can evidently also generalize all those EVs deaths as being “due to driver error,” so I suppose good riddance? Not really sure what to make of that, but boy do these threads sure show the best of humanity.
- yes_this_time@lemmy.worldEnglish4 months
I think Teslas shouldn’t speak for all EVs.
the company has demonstrated a very high tolerance for risk. In execution, but also they don’t seem to care about reputational risk. Other manufacturers with a larger business at stake, I would expect to handle recalls, safety in a different manner (one of the reasons they are lagging in the EV space)
So… EVs have significantly less fires than combustion engines
But EVs fires are more severe
Tesla is a mess.
EV chemistry is getting better and safer over time.
Combustion engines are largely at their limit.
- Skysurfer@slrpnk.netEnglish4 months
You have clearly made up a narrative you want to hear, that doesn’t change the statistics that clearly shows EVs are significantly less prone (~20x) to catching fire compared to internal combustion vehicles.
- poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish4 months
How have I made up a narrative? My premise from the start was the absurdity of dismissing the dangers of vehicle fires, and there’s data showing that a significant number of people die in EV fires. You’ve decided to argue that the deaths somehow matter less—that’s making up a narrative to justify your, frankly, ludicrous position.
I’m sure that if somebody you loved died in such an event and somebody came along telling you that you’re “an idiot” for having legitimate concerns, should be ignored and lumps you into a group of “disingenuous cunts,” you’d have a different perspective.
- adeoxymus@lemmy.worldEnglish5 months
Maybe a bit irrelevant but why is the article calling it “China’s battery“? I feel like if the researchers were from any other countries academy of science, say France, the title would have simply been something like “scientists discover new ways for fireproof battery”. Maybe it’d say French scientists or so, but not simply “France’s battery”?
- Sheppa@aussie.zoneEnglish5 months
Because cool China is so totally innovative unlike the boring west! We gotta hype them up, no one else ever does cool stuff only China brand is cool.
Actually it’s the other way around.
The internet is all about “China Bad” so calling it China Battery is a way to depreciate this obviously positive discovery.
- ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish5 months
Is this “china always bad” internet in the room with us right now? Do you deny the positive sentiment in this very thread you’re posting in right now?
- Sheppa@aussie.zoneEnglish5 months
“Should we just not talk about this awesome new tech?”
“No, let’s put China in front of this totally awesome thing so people will think it’s bad while we hype it up as such a great invention in the article. Oh and don’t mention working conditions, state subsidies, mineral extraction, or any of the usual anti-China talking points, that might make them think it’s not bad”
I’m sorry you live with so much gratuitous hatred in your heart and I pray you can recover some day.
How is pointing out the flaw in your logic “gratuitous hatred”? It doesn’t make any sense that the rationale for calling it “China’s battery” is to make it sound bad, when the article is clearly extolling the virtues of the battery.
Or is it the part where the other commenter brought attention to the working conditions in China? Because that’s not motivated by hatred, but rather class solidarity. How badly do you have to hate Chinese people to believe Chinese workers don’t deserve better conditions? What about ethnic minorities in China who are having their cultural heritage stripped away from them?
Is it because the government officials aren’t white, so you believe they can do no wrong? So you’ll just call any legitimate criticism of them racist? That’s like Israel calling anti-zionism anti-semitic. There’s nothing sinophobic about legitimate criticisms of the PRC.
- village604@adultswim.fanEnglish5 months
People who support China don’t seem to comprehend that shitty countries aren’t a zero sum game.
You can shit on China’s government while also shitting on the US government.
Nice argument you’re having with yourself there, buddy. Seems like you have quite a lot to pour out.
I don’t have any affinity for China, but I also don’t like the gratuitous hate they get all over the internet, nor the reduction of Chinese people’s experience to work drones (what you’re doing).
I had hoped that Lemmy wasn’t gonna be like that, but alas.
Oh, what, you can’t handle three paragraphs? Maybe you should go over to mastodon or loops then.
I question your definition of “gratuitous hate,” as I haven’t seen any examples of actual hatred in this comment chain. You seem like you just can’t handle being disagreed with, so you make strawman arguments against the people disagreeing with you.
nor the reduction of Chinese people’s experience to work drones (what you’re doing).
Calling attention to an abysmal work culture which enforces long working hours and authoritarian hierarchies, and frequently drives people to suicide, isn’t reducing people to work drones. And if that’s how you interpret that critique, then you have no class solidarity.
And before you cry that I’m singling China out, I’m not. The US rivals them for overall shittiness, while paling by comparison in innovation and development.
But this conversation is about China, and if you can’t tolerate a structural critique that isn’t even laden with hatred and bias, then, well, I don’t know what to tell you…
