The Guardian has taken it upon itself to explore “the myths and realities surrounding EVs”. The heading to the article asks “Do electric cars pose a greater fire risk than petrol or diesel vehicles?” and I think we know the answer the Guardian will come up with. They start by telling us that the Luton Airport car park fire resulted in lots of speculation that the fire might have started in an electric vehicle. (Indeed, we at Cliscep speculated about it too, though we did – and continue to – keep open minds on the question). However, we are told that this “theory was quickly doused by the Bedfordshire fire service, which said the blaze appeared to have started in a diesel car.” And so we see how this is going to pan out. The claim has been doused, but has it? The support for that claim is the fire service told us that the fire appeared to have started in a diesel car. So far as I am aware, nobody has yet definitively established that this is the case, even though the blaze occurred almost six weeks ago. The most recent discussion on the internet seems to be an article in the Daily Sceptic, which makes the following observations:
Was the Luton airport fire caused by an electric vehicle? The official line is that it was a diesel-powered vehicle. However, a video of the fire in its early stages has been noted by many on social media to appear to show a Range Rover Evoque ablaze on the passenger side at the front.
The Range Rover Evoque has mild hybrid EV (MHEV) models which have been recalled in at least one country because of a fault that caused the lithium ion battery located under the passenger seat to short and catch fire.
The Telegraph‘s Allison Pearson notes there “was none of the thick black smoke you would expect with a diesel fire”.
It seems odd that no further details – such as confirmation of the make and model of the car – have yet been put into the public domain. Is that because they would confirm it was a hybrid and detract from the official ‘diesel vehicle’ line?
It may be that it will ultimately be shown to have started in a diesel (or hybrid) car, but as of the time of writing, that isn’t the case. There are no hard facts yest in the public domain. We simply don’t yet know for sure one way or the other. So at this early stage, the lie is given to the Guardian’s claim that it “has spoken to experts and looked for hard data where possible to address some of the most common criticisms of electric vehicles…”. It might have looked for hard data, but it relies on a statement that something appears to be the case to rubbish a negative story about EVs.
Still, the issues to be considered are fairly set out:
The claims about electric car fires fall into two broad categories. The first is that fires are more common in electric cars, while the second is that when fires break out, they are more damaging.
If electric cars do pose more of a fire risk than petrol or diesel, that would have a host of consequences. One could be a requirement for larger car park spaces to stop fires spreading, while the Conservative MP Greg Smith, who serves on the transport committee, said in July that EV owners should pay higher insurance premiums to cover the extra costs to firefighters.
And so it’s obviously crucial to establish that EVs are less prone to spontaneous combustion than the internal combustion engine (ICE) alternative. In order to achieve this, we are treated to a claim by Colin Walker, the head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank, to the effect that EVs are much, much less likely to set on fire than their petrol equivalent. He tells us (without evidence – or at least none that is cited in the article) that many, many fires in petrol and diesel cars “just aren’t reported”. If they aren’t reported, how does he know about them? How does he know how many such fires there are? By definition, if his claim is correct, we lack hard data. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, by the way, isn’t simply a “think tank”, as the Guardian would have it. Rather, it’s a climate alarmist campaigning organisation, as its “Who we are” web page makes clear, with funding being provided by, inter alia, the European Climate Foundation, the Quadrature Climate Foundation, and (previously) the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Climate Change Collaboration, the Oak Foundation and the Tellus Mater Foundation. Mr Walker is no doubt sincere, his claim may be correct, but the claims made on his behalf by the Guardian provide absolutely no hard data to back up the assertion that ICE vehicles are far more likely to burst into flames than are EVs.
The next paragraph rather seems to make the case against Evs, rather than to offer a defence:
Fires can start in several ways. Car batteries store energy by moving lithium ions inside a battery cell but if cells are penetrated or if impurities from manufacturing errors cause short-circuits, then unwanted chemical reactions can start “thermal runaway”, where cells heat up rapidly, releasing toxic and flammable gas. In petrol cars, fires can start via electrical faults causing sparks or if the engine overheats because of a fault in the cooling systems, potentially igniting flammable fuel.
So a battery fire in an EV can start “thermal runaway” “releasing toxic and flammable gas” (sounds pretty alarming) while an electrical fault in a petrol car might “potentially” ignite flammable fuel.
We turn to Norway for the next round in the defence of EVs. As is well known, Norway is a country where new EV sales represent a very high proportion of all new car sales. And so the Guardian assertion that “[i]n Norway, which has the world’s highest proportion of electric car sales, there are between four and five times more fires in petrol and diesel cars, according to the directorate for social security and emergency preparedness” seems pretty compelling. At least it does at first sight. It’s difficult to find detailed information from the internet (so intent are search engines on pushing pre-EV information at searchers) as to what proportion of cars in use are EVs and what proportion are ICEs. Statista offers some useful information , however. They suggest that in Norway in 2022 there were 1,135,538 diesel cars on the road; 822,133 petrol cars; 599,169 EVs; 348,969 “other” and just over 200 running on gas or paraffin. At face value, then, the Guardian is on to something (assuming their statistics are correct – they provide no link to assist curious readers in checking it out), since the number of ICE fires are said to exceed EV fires by four or five to one, while the number of ICE vehicles on the road exceeds EVs by just three or four to one. However, even then, the comparison isn’t direct, since most EVs are likely to be new or relatively new, while most ICE vehicles are likely to be relatively or very old. Old cars are more likely to develop faults (including faults leading to fires) than new ones are, so unless and until we have data covering older EVs, these statistics are interesting, but far from conclusive. At this stage, we are simply not comparing like with like. Incidentally, I have searched the website of the Norwegian Directorate for social security and emergency preparedness without success for the report to which the Guardian refers. It occurs to me that if the report dates from 2021 or earlier, then ICE cars would then have outnumbered EVs on Norway’s roads by four or five to one (2021), by between six and seven to one (2020), by around nine to one (2019) or by as much as twelve to one (2018), in which case, far from supporting the Guardian’s claims, the report would actually undermine them. But the Guardian doesn’t provide a link to the report, doesn’t tell us its date (crucial information), and I can’t find it. So much for hard data.
Next we are treated to a statistic from Sweden, which even the Guardian more or less acknowledges doesn’t count for much:
The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency this year found that there were 3.8 fires per 100,000 electric or hybrid cars in 2022, compared with 68 fires per 100,000 cars when taking all fuel types into account. However, the latter figures include arson, making comparisons tricky.
I would go further. If the former number excludes arson and the latter number includes it (as appears to be the case), then citing the numbers is simply pointless. They establish nothing.
Next up are some numbers from Australia (the Guardian has apparently searched the world in its quest to prove that EVs are safe):
Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars.
I followed the link since one was provided in this case. While the findings are broadly in line with the claims made by the Guardian, they are considerably more tentative than the Guardian’s phraseology suggests. Here is what EV FireSafe’s website actually says:
Our intial [sic] research findings, based on global EV battery fires from 2010-2020, indicate a 0.0012% of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire.
While it’s difficult to find a similar stat for internal combustion engine (ICE) passenger vehicles globally, a range of country-based reports we found suggest there is a 0.1% chance of an ICE vehicle catching fire.
That’s potentially useful indicative information, but it hardly represents compelling hard data, and doesn’t, so far as I can see, begin to justify the weight put on it by the Guardian. Furthermore, the website in question also stresses the problems with thermal runaway when EV batteries ignite; that an EV lithium traction battery burns hotter than an ICE vehicle; that EV fire behaviour is different and presents new challenges; that it’s not smoke, it’s a vapour cloud of highly flammable gases; that EV traction battery fires may require more resources; that The location of an EV battery makes fire harder to extinguish; that best practice is to allow a traction battery to burn out; and that EV traction battery fires can reignite, hours or days later.
Finally, the case for the defence of EVs concludes by telling us that Tesla “says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars,, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.”
Again, a link was provided, so I followed it. And while the claim made in the Guardian is broadly correct, it does misrepresent the facts in one possibly important respect – it wrongly claims to be comparing Tesla car fires with ICE car fires per mile travelled. In fact, Tesla compares Tesla car fires with “data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in the United States there is a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled.” That’s vehicles, not cars, so presumably includes buses, lorries and all other vehicles using the roads. It also, by definition, presumably includes EV fires, if it’s a database of all vehicle fires, so that will skew the figures somewhat, and will reduce the ratio from 1:11 to a smaller number, though admittedly perhaps not much smaller. The inclusion of vehciles other than cars in the federal data may or may not be relevant – I simply don’t know. Also of potential relevance is how the fires occurred. Tesla make the point that:
In order to provide an apt comparison to NFPA data, Tesla’s data set includes instances of vehicle fires caused by structure fires, arson, and other things unrelated to the vehicle, which account for some of the Tesla vehicle fires over this time period.
I concede that that is a pretty compelling statement. But we don’t know how many of the ICE vehicle fires were the result of, say, multi-vehicle crashes, which might have led to fires. We also don’t know how serious the ICE vehicle fires were compared to the Tesla fires. When a Tesla burns, it burns in a big way.
Then there is the fact that not every EV on the road is a Tesla, and increasingly it seems we can expect to see more and more Chinese EVs on the roads. Are their safety standards as high as Tesla’s? I don’t know. The Guardian doesn’t follow up by considering these questions.
At the end of the Guardian’s case for the defence, the reality is that we have been presented with very little meaningful hard data despite their claim to have looked for it. Perhaps there isn’t much.
In fairness to the Guardian, they do also offer some of the case for the prosecution with a section of the article headed “Any caveats?”. Here they acknowledge that EV fires “can be furious infernos” and acknowledge “the ominous risks of “vapour cloud explosions and rocket flames” when the gases burst out of cells.” And there is a belated recognition of some of the negative findings of EV FireSafe, namely “battery fires require more water to put out, can burn almost three times hotter, and are more likely to reignite.”
The article concludes with a verdict, which was rather more balanced than I expected, albeit it’s much kinder to EVs than my own verdict:
Despite the increased danger once a battery fire is burning, the probability of being caught in an EV fire appears overall to be much lower than for petrol or diesel cars, based on currently available data – although this could change as more people get electric cars.
Walker said it was possible that the prevalence of fires in EVs could increase as the average age of batteries on the roads increases. However, at this point, it appears that they would have to multiply by many times to be worse than internal combustion engines.
I am pleased to see the acknowledgement that as EVs age, the data could well become much more negative with regard to EV fires. However, the claim that ICE fire numbers are worse (by many times) than ICE fire numbers simply isn’t borne out by the data provided in the article.
Climate Scepticism 
Here’s a thing.
I’m retired now but after a 46 year career in the motor industry including my own garage/ mot station for 25 of them I could count the number of ICE car fires I have encountered on one hand.
On the other hand I have heard about more EV fires in the last two years than I have fingers to count with. just sayin’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lordelate,
Personal experience is valid, especially when it’s of direct relevance, so thank you for that comment. The Guardian would say that a single person’s experience isn’t definitive, and the Guardian might be right (but I suspect in this case it isn’t).
Nowhere does the Guardian “analysis” look at the question of “spontaneous combustion” numbers in ICE and EV cars. In that respect, I have little doubt that ICEs are far safer. Anyway, watch this space, as we are told that the Guardian article is simply “the first in a series exploring the myths and realities surrounding EVs”.
I suspect they will peddle quite a few myths of their own, and if subsequent articles are anything like the first one, we will be presented with very few hard facts.
I wonder what the next series will be on? Exploring the myths and realities surrounding whale strandings and deaths?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some evidence from NYFD:
The New York Fire Department recently reported that so far this year there have been 108 lithium-ion battery fires in New York City, which have injured 66 people and killed 13. According to FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, “There is not a small amount of fire, it (the vehicle) literally explodes.” The resulting fire is “very difficult to extinguish and so it is particularly dangerous.”
Last year there were more than 200 fires from batteries from e-bikes, EVs and other devices.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/08/15/stephen-moore-is-it-time-to-ban-electric-vehicles-1386863/
LikeLiked by 3 people
A good dissection, Mark.
“In fact, Tesla compares Tesla car fires with ‘data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in the United States there is a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled.’ ”
However, I suspect a greater % of stationary EVs than stationary ICEs are likely to self-immolate, so the per-million-miles-travelled is only part of the story.
“GM Asking Chevy Bolt EV Owners To Park 50 Feet Away From Other Vehicles
….The automaker had already suggested owners park their vehicles outdoors and not leave them charging unattended due to fire risks …”
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/09/gm-asking-chevy-bolt-ev-owners-to-park-50-feet-away-from-other-vehicles/
“Vauxhall recalls 235,000 cars after fire risk
It is the third recall for Zafiras
The Zafira B cars were previously recalled in two stages in 2015 and 2016 after campaigners claimed more than 300 had caught fire, often leaving their occupants with just a few seconds to escape before their vehicles were destroyed.
Where the first two recalls have robustly fixed problems of fires, we’ve discovered one incident of a fire caused by overheating of a pin in a plug on a wire.”
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/vauxhall-recalls-235000-cars-after-16185072
GM seems not to have a very good track record of building vehicles utilising that electrickery stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron,
Thanks for the NY info. The Guardian managed to find the US in order to quote from a Tesla advertising statistic, but apparently didn’t make it to NY.
Joe, the Tesla info did seem odd to me. Why quote fires per miles travelled? I suspected there was some trickery in there.
In short, the Guardian article proves only that the Guardian does what it accuses others of doing, namely cherry -picking quotes that suit its narrative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, Geoff Buys Cars discusses the article and makes similar points to you:
Ron, those battery fires are mostly bikes or scooters. The bikes may be converted using cheap kits, often making them unstable. I don’t think you can use the NY stats as a stick to beat EVs generally.
LikeLike
Jit,
Thanks for the link. In fairness, one of the few reasonable points made by the Guardian article was that the plethora of fires in electric bikes and scooters seem to be caused by the factors you refer to, and to be different from (and more frequent than) those in electric cars.
LikeLike
“Stellantis Recalls 32,000+ Hybrid Jeep Wrangler SUVs After Several Catch Fire While Parked”
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/11/23/stellantis-recalls-32000-hybrid-jeep-wrangler-suvs-after-several-catch-fire-while-parked/
LikeLike
John Cadogan on the EV cement truck fire:
LikeLike
Next up from the Guardian “myth-busters” regarding EVs:
“How problematic is mineral mining for electric cars?
In part two of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs, we weigh up the issues of resource extraction”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/01/do-electric-cars-have-problem-mining-for-minerals
Needless to say they conclude:
For such a complex subject, it’s a remarkably short and simplistic piece that is obviously aimed at exonerating EVs rather than at seeking to make a detailed and objective assessment of the issues. The concluding paragraph is a mixture of the lame and the smug:
LikeLike
Mark; the recycling issue comes up often on EV forums. Another point which appears quite often is the advancement of battery technology which is happening – iirc Teslas made in China do not have any Cobalt in their batteries. Toyota claim to be close to market with solid-state batteries (no idea what that means!)
The disconnect is obvious but unrecognised. If/when battery tech evolves to dispense with today’s key materials, there will be no incentive to recycle millions of obsolete batteries. So, in the likely lifetime of the present crop of EVs, their batteries will not be worth recycling. Some may be repurposed as static storage but most will probably go to landfill.
LikeLike
Here’s Part 3 from the Guardian:
“Is it right to be worried about getting stranded in an electric car?
In part three of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs, we look at range anxiety and concerns about the charging network”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/09/stranded-electric-car-ev-range-anxiety-charging-network
It’s the inevitable spin, seeking to justify the answer they are determined to give, despite evidence to the contrary (precious little of which is cited in the article, naturally).
I love it that Octopus Energy is cited as evidence! Of course they are EV experts….aren’t they? An average of 211 miles in any event means that a lot of EVs have a range that is less than that – much less at this time of year, when headlights, windscreen wipers, heating etc are sucking charge out of the battery. Yet the conclusion was inevitable:
Many of my journeys are longer than that. I walk short distances. I have a diesel, and will continue to do so for as long as possible.
They have a section under the heading “Any caveats” I should have thought that the caveats outweigh the optimism expressed in the conclusion:
Ironically, perhaps, I think this mini-series from the Guardian might be doing more harm than good to their cause of promoting EVs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you plan your number of chargers for the most busy 1% of the time, they will stand idle for most of their lives, and end up making an enormous loss for the owners. There will never be enough at the busiest periods. Just like there are not enough roads at rush hour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beginning with hunter/gatherer societies, so many anxieties in the human condition.
To which another has been recently added – ‘ range anxiety, ‘yikes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beth, if EVs had existed 2000 years ago, the Three Wise men might never have arrived bearing precious gifts because of ‘range anxiety’ associated with the lack of chargers across the Sinai. As it was, they made the journey probably using trusty camels or asses. 2000 years later, we celebrate their arrival and the birth of Jesus Christ by visiting far flung relatives, but ‘range anxiety’ – and the reluctance to turn the heating on in the vehicle because it eats up battery power – might soon curtail the enthusiasm for spending Christmas with the in-laws!
LikeLike
Jaime, incarceration in 15 minute cities will put an end to both, visiting
dear ones at Christmas and long range computations…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s Part four:
“Are electric cars too expensive to tempt motorists away from petrol and diesel vehicles?
In part four of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs, we weigh up the issue of costs”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/16/are-electric-cars-too-expensive-to-tempt-motorists-away-from-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles
It starts predictably, given that this is the Guardian:
There then follows a fatuous attempt to claim that over the life of an EV they will work out cheaper than ICE vehicles. The Climate Change Committee (described as “authoritative”, even though its members almost certainly have no more clue than I do) is invoked in support of this claim, the we are told this:
No mention of the limited life-span of the batteries and the astronomical cost of replacing them. Any caveats? Yes, pretty large ones, actually:
The verdict starts upbeat, but even the Guardian can’t quite manage to pretend that cost isn’t an issue:
LikeLike
Here’s part five of the EV “myth-busters” from the Guardian:
“Do electric cars really produce fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles?
In part five of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs, we assess the greenwashing claims”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
There’s no surprise that the Guardian finds that all is well, even if you drive an EV made in China (where probably all the energy associated with its manufacture will have been generated by fossil fuels). Actually, they talk about <b<batteries (rather than cars) being made in China, which looks like a bit of legerdemain. They also say:
But there is absolutely no discussion of the life-span of EV batteries, of how often you might need to replace them, and of the implications that factor has regarding total CO2 emissions over the life-span of both EVs and ICE vehicles.
Conclusion? It’s the usual from the Guardian – an attempt to make it appear like a balanced, objective summary, but one that really isn’t.
LikeLike
“Coroner issues warning about dangers of e-bike ‘conversion kits’ after pensioner, 74, was killed in house fire sparked by ‘overcharging’ mountain bike”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12946233/Coroner-warning-e-bike-conversion-kits-pensioner-killed-house-fire.html
Not a car, but just another sign that the technology is running ahead of the regulations. Also not seemingly considered worthy of note on the BBC’s website.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Wimbledon: Electric double-decker bus catches fire during rush hour”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67944657
Not easy to hide this one. Members of the public exposed to toxic smoke? No problem. Net Zero Over Everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“London bus operator withdraws electric fleet after Wimbledon bus fire
TfL says GoAhead temporarily replacing route 200 fleet while investigating doubledecker fire on Wimbledon Hill Road”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/13/london-bus-operator-withdraws-electric-fleet-after-wimbledon-bus-fire
“Part of a doubledecker electric bus is alight. There are currently no reports of any injuries.
“The brigade was called at 0721. Three fire engines and [about] 15 firefighters from Wimbledon, New Malden and Wandsworth fire stations are at the scene.”
Max Pashley, who lives near the scene of the blaze, told City AM newspaper: “We heard a huge bang. We were terrified.”
Another witness posted on social media: “Not what we expect to see on the school run … Bus on fire – and the fumes are awful …””
LikeLike
Good luck with this in view of recent developments in London:
“Oxford becomes UK’s electric bus capital as 159 vehicles join fleet”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/14/oxford-becomes-uk-electric-bus-capital-159-vehicles-join-fleet
LikeLike
Oops!
“Why are Teslas’ batteries dying in the cold?
Freezing temperatures across central US have cut electric vehicles’ range and left drivers facing long waits at charging stations”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/19/tesla-battery-dying-cold-weather-charging-winter
Nevertheless, this being the Guardian (and credit to them for reporting on the story), seek and ye shall find the EV good news:
LikeLike
Via Jo Nova:
LikeLike
“The Guardian view on SUVs: the trend towards vast cars needs to be reversed”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/22/the-guardian-view-on-suvs-the-trend-towards-vast-cars-needs-to-be-reversed
As it happens, I share the Guardian’s distaste for ever bigger cars. However, given its championing of EVs, I thought this was more than a little ironic:
“Because they are bigger, heavier and higher off the ground, SUVs pose greater risks than other cars to anyone unlucky enough to collide with them. One study found that children are eight times more likely to die after being struck by one.
They are also associated with increased air pollution, in part due to additional wear and tear of tyres and road surfaces.”
LikeLike
Mark,
As always, there are two sides to a story. Does the huge difference in driver safety between mini cars and larger SUVs/4x4s more than compensate for any increase in the risk to pedestrians posed by larger cars? The Guardian claims that children are 8 times more likely to die after being struck by an SUV. That may be the case. However, on average, you are nearly twice as likely to die in an accident in a smaller car than if you are driving an SUV and if you look at the figures for individual vehicles, the difference is even more stark: 141 deaths per million drivers for the Ford Fiesta, 3 deaths per million for the Subaru Outback, zero deaths for Range Rover Evoque. How that translates into actual number of deaths needs to be investigated, but if you look at the UK road casualty report for 2022, it states:
“In 2022, 44% of fatalities were car occupants, 22% were pedestrians, 20% were motorcyclists and 5% were pedal cyclists. Of these 4 road user types, compared to 2019:
the biggest percentage change was for pedestrian fatalities, which showed a decline of 18%
pedal cyclist fatalities showed a decline of 9%
car occupant fatalities showed an increase of 7%
motorcyclist fatalities showed an increase of 4%”
So car occupants are twice as likely to die in RTAs than pedestrians, plus the roads became MUCH safer for pedestrians, whereas car occupant fatalities increased.
I used to drive a large 4×4 and felt much safer at the wheel. Also, road visibility is much better than in a small car, so you can actually see the pedestrians about to leap out in front of you! But you can’t expect Guardian journalists to do research and present a balanced view can you. They have an agenda to push.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/study-shows-how-death-rates-for-drivers-vary-by-car-size/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2022/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2022
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
I think this is a question of Global At Least Equivalence (GALE). If SUVs were to be banned, would the overall casualty figures go up or down? I’m sure the Guardian doesn’t know. Or are child mortalities their only concern? And whilst we are at it, what are a child’s prospects of survival after being hit by a heavier EV travelling at the same speed? And how much more likely is it to happen given their stealthy nature? As you say, there are different ways of looking at things but some suit agendas better than others.
LikeLike
Jaime, my dislike of large cars is a personal thing, but you are right, of course, to analyse the statistics.
And I have to admit that last year I bought a car that is higher off the ground (though not a massive SUV) for precisely the reason you identify, namely better visibility. With all the big vehicles on the road, visibility at junctions where there were large parked cars, was increasingly problematic. It was a case of if you can’t beat them join them. 😕
LikeLike
LikeLike
Misinformation about misinformation!
“Electric cars: Lords urge action on ‘misinformation’ in press”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68130432
At best a gross exaggeration, at worst misinformation in its own right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonder if he was expected to say anything else-
“Richard has been Director of Transport Decarbonisation at the UK’s Department for Transport, jointly with Caroline Low, since December 2021. They lead on policy to move the nation’s transport onto a more sustainable footing, delivering the UK’s 2021 Transport Decarbonisation Plan and maximising the economic opportunities from the zero emission transition.”
I would reply to “Baroness Parminter, chair of the committee, told the BBC that both government officials and other witnesses to the enquiry had reported reading disinformation on the subject in national newspapers”
prove them wrong with evidence then & back up your disinformation claim.
ps – “There is an anti-EV story in the papers almost every day. Sometimes there are many stories, almost all of which are based on misconceptions and mistruths, unfortunately.”
well on TV every day in the UK, we are bombarded with EV ads, usually with small print at the bottom for about 3secs saying something like “model shown not available in the UK”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark; I have to say that there is a wisp of truth in these claims. It’s amazing to see how any article on EVs seems to attract a pile-on of naysayers. Various threads on NALOPKT are good examples.
I don’t have an EV and do not expect to get one anytime soon. However I do follow the evolution of the technology and the market with interest against the time when I may end up with one.
Afaics the many detractors do not have much basis for their views, nor do they appear to have actual experience of owning an EV. It’s rather reminiscent of the many climate memes that are trotted out endlessly by the BBC et al: extreme weather; floods; drought; heatwaves; etc.. A little time spent on an EV forum or two would give folk a much better understanding.
Taking just one of the oft-quoted issues, weight, there’s an odd disconnect. True, some EVs are heavier than their ICE equivalents (Teslas are notably closer to ICEs). However, if vehicle weight is such a concern, where was all the outcry when the market moved towards SUVs? The latest Range Rover is well over 2.5 tonnes!
This leads on to particulates from tyres and brakes. The concern over tyres applies equally to hefty ICEs. Wrt brake dust, EVs are much better than ICEs because they use regeneration with the friction brakes only needed for hefty retardation. Indeed some EVs suffer from brake disc corrosion from lack of use.
The various other issues are often more nuanced and complex than the media portrayals.
All that said, EVs are not suitable for many folk so the govt’s policy of trying to force the move to EVs via a command economy measure is totally misguided and doomed to fail, imho.
LikeLike
Mikehig & Others – can you push start a EV?
Just bought a Honda Jazz Hybrid, seems the way to go for an old jit at 66.
LikeLike
Mike: There is certainly a wisp of truth in the claims of negativity about EVs and and a whiff of Luddites around. It seems I am the only person who posts on this site who owns an EV so I can claim some actual experience.
We owned a Tesla Model 3 for four years. We liked it so much we have traded it in for a Tesla Model Y with a longer range. If you can charge at home, and only if you can charge at home, a Tesla is an excellent vehicle choice. Nevertheless, for a long trip, the Tesla charging network, at least in North America, is very effective and reliable.
That said, there should not be government policies mandating EV purchases. EVs can stand on their own merits and consumers should make the decision.
LikeLike
Mike, potentilla,
I can’t argue with you. My gripe is not against EVs per se, it’s against government policy that pushes them at motorists who don’t want them, for perfectly logical reasons (cost, range anxiety/inadequate UK charging network, etc). I accept that for some people they make sense.
I have been driven around in a friend’s Tesla. He loves it. I can’t say I was vastly impressed, given the hype around them. Yes, it had awesome acceleration (but is that a good thing in a vehicle that is almost silent, or is it a potential danger?), but it wasn’t any roomier than my own car (a modest saloon). It was a tight squeeze with three adults in the back. There were quite a few small design faults that I could see. I (as did another friend) kept banging our heads on the boot lid, when getting things out of the boot. The owner lost his phone and we wasted ages looking for it – it had slipped down a gap into the darkest recesses of his boot (trunk to those on the other side of the Pond). Ironically, on one group walking trip to Scotland, the Tesla owner got the plane to Inverness airport, and we ICE car drivers picked him up there and returned him there on the way home. The reason? It had taken him an inordinate amount of time to get there on the previous Scottish trip, due to all the charging stops and associated problems en route, and on this occasion we were going even further north, so he gave up on the car as a bad job. Not exactly the greenest outcome.
In short, there are lots of issues with EVs, and they are not the environmentally friendly option that is claimed. If we all have to adopt them, they will cause enormous problems for the electricity grid, especially as it is forced to “decarbonise” at the same time.
Having said all that, whether or not people like – and want to buy – EVs is (or should be) a matter of personal choice. A Committee of unelected people in the House of Lords shouldn’t be getting a load of free media publicity urging the Government to increase both the carrot (which we all pay for) and the stick, in an attempt to force us to buy something we don’t want. That’s my objection to the report.
If I find time, I have a mind to say more on this subject. Watch this space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it is true to say, on average, EVs of the same or similar power to ICE vehicles, are significantly heavier. So, if you want a monster EV 4×4 (is there such a thing?) it’s going to weigh a lot more than a monster 4×4 ICE truck.
I think it will also become obvious that EVs ARE more prone to vehicle fires than ICE cars/vans/buses, especially during the charging cycle. This is one of the reasons why insurance rates are significantly higher. Depreciation values of new EVs are pretty extreme compared to their counterparts – there is no real market for second hand EVs. This is no surprise. Is there a market for second hand lead/acid or lithium batteries? Of course not. But the battery is THE vital component of any EV.
All in all, buying an EV should be a personal choice and it is a FACT that owning one is an expensive luxury which comes complete with many real limitations and which many cannot afford (myself included). Also, for an EV to be a practical transport solution, you really need a charging point at home. Not an option for many people. I COULD fit a charging point in my place but I would NOT, even if EVs were economically competitive. Why? Because I would have to submit to having an eco-fascist smart meter fitted at the same time, thus allowing the government to control when I can and cannot charge my vehicle, thus when I can and cannot avail myself of the ‘privilege’ of personal transport, thus allowing the government to USE my car battery to supplement supply to the grid when the wind is not blowing! This is not ‘misinformation’, this is what they are really doing and planning.
LikeLike
dfhunter: “can you push start a EV?”
Clearly not. However the same applies to automatics which are the majority transmission for most cars these days.
That leads me on to whether you can jump-start an EV – that would only work if it’s the 12V battery which has failed. Again that probably applies to most hybrids and PHEVs too since, aiui, they typically use a lithium-ion battery (48V?) to drive and be charged by an integrated starter-generator: they don’t have a conventional starter motor.
LikeLike
Potentilla: your experience mirrors the myriad of posts I have read on EV forums. Tesla have certainly cracked the technology – they are top of the league for efficiency. Their batteries seem to last well too going by the lack of stories about replacements despite the Model S being 12+ years old now. Here in the UK the “Supercharger” network is well ahead of the other providers and is typically cheaper also.
Personally I would be put off by the philosophy of all the controls being on the touchscreen plus all the stuff that can be done from a phone. I far prefer buttons and dials but most manufacturers are going the same way so I will probably never buy another new car.
LikeLike
Here’s another issue with EVs. (I’ve just posted this elsewhere but in view of this exchange I think it might usefully go here also).
Green Crime: An Electric Car, Wind and Solar Crime Wave
Green energy feeds a cycle of copper theft and environmentalist crime.
Hmm … THIS could be a bit of a nuisance (to put it very mildly).
This special guide from the US Department of Energy contains a wealth of fatuous comment e.g.: ‘This issue not only affects the convenience of EV owners but also poses a threat to the growth of EV adoption’ and ‘… the impact of theft on EV owners goes beyond the financial cost. It can also be a significant inconvenience, as EV owners may not be able to charge their vehicles and may need to find alternative charging options’. What insight!
LikeLike
LikeLike
Mark; yes, we are all agreed that govt intervention in the market is abhorrent. It’s hard to believe that a “Conservative” government is resorting to command economy tactics, telling manufacturers what they must sell. What’s next?….production targets for tractors? awards and medals for hitting quotas?
Wrt to your friend’s Tesla, minor design defects can afflict any car. I am reluctantly impressed by how Tesla have come from nowhere to be such a market force in so few years. His journey experience suggests that even the Tesla network leaves something to be desired when it comes to remote areas.
For sure EVs have their issues and many of their claims are overblown. The reduction in emissions in towns and cities does have merit but the air quality has already improved dramatically in recent decades. The load on the grid is a non-issue for now, as I see it, because the majority of EVs charge during off-peak times when there is ample spare capacity. Only heavy users need a full recharge every night; most just need a top-up and/or only charge a couple of times per week. They are a minor issue compared to the impact of the widespread adoption of heat pumps, if that ever happens.
The whole debate has become overheated (present company excepted) and is often light on evidence and experience. Sadly it’s often the way of the world these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime J: the ICE vs EV weight issue is a mixed bag. It’s my impression that those EVs which are designed as pure-electric vehicles are weight-competitive with ICE. However many EVs share their chassis layout, etc with ICE variants of the same car and those are usually heftier.
To take an example, the top-end Tesla Model 3 is as powerful and considerably faster than a BMW M3 but the weights are very close.
A “monster 4 x 4 EV” has just hit the market – the KIA EV9. It’s a full 7-seater and is almost as big as a full-fat Range Rover or the LR Defender but it’s lighter than both.
You may well be right on the fire question: hard data are in short supply. There are stats which show that ICE fires are more frequent than EV ones but, afaik, they are not controlled for vehicle age and it is likely that the far greater numbers of old ICEs would be more prone to fires. Whatever the likelihood of an EV catching fire – whether self-igniting or from external sources – such a fire is a far greater problem because it cannot be extinguished by conventional means and is far fiercer.
Insurance seems to be all over the place at the moment. Some EV owners have seen dramatic increases while others have seen little change. Apart from the fire risk, the duration of repairs due to spares availabity seem to be a factor as delays increase costs for replacement vehicles: Teslas are particularly affected by this.
Depreciation has hit the EV market rather suddenly after a period when used vehicles held their value extraordinarily well due under-supply of new ones. The reverse is now happening with an increasing flood of cars coming off business and personal leases, depressing values. The finance companies are taking a bath. There are some remarkable bargains to be had with prices similar to or even lower than ICE equivalents. The second-hand market is in its infancy: it will take a while for values to stabilise.
There are plans for used batteries to be re-purposed for domestic storage since they would provide a lot of capacity even if performance is well below original levels. This hasn’t started yet, apparently because battery life is proving to be better than expected.
Buying a new EV is certainly expensive, although very few purchase outright: leases, PCPs, etc are by far the majority. However, thanks to the depreciation already mentioned, used EVs are now something of a bargain. IF an EV fits a customer’s use case and IF it can be charged at home, it can be a good option.
Smart meters are not obligatory for EV charging although it is not easy to access the better tariffs without one. The charger themselves have to be “smart” nowadays anyway but they have no linkage to domestic consumption.
Using EVs as storage for the grid is much talked-about but it’s pie in the sky at the moment. There are a number of significant barriers. The car’s onboard charger would have to be “reversible”, as would the domestic unit: none are at present. The domestic charger would have to be fitted with some clever – and expensive – electrotrickery to isolate the car from the grid in the event of a power failure, as fitted to PV systems. None are so equipped as yet so a major programme of retro-fitting would be needed. The controls to make use of millions of EV batteries do not exist.
Apologies for this War & Peace of a reply!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If anyone wants to see the view from “the other side of the hill”, this EV forum covers all of the issues: range; charging; insurance; finances; etc.. There are also many dust-ups between the pro- and anti-EV lobbies!
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&f=247
LikeLike
The sixth part in the Guardian series about “myths” relating to Evs:
“Will hydrogen overtake batteries in the race for zero-emission cars?”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/13/will-hydrogen-overtake-batteries-in-the-race-for-zero-emission-cars
The Guardian has decided that hydrogen isn’t the answer (and I agree with them, FWIW), but goes on the attack by saying that its proponents are those with a vested interest. The same is true, by and large, of course, with regard to “green” energy generally, but funnily enough that observation is never made by the Guardian in that context.
For once, though, I do agree with the thrust of a Guardian article. I think it’s difficult to argue with this:
LikeLike
” meaning it would require many times more tankers unless on-site electrolysers are used….”
Do they think there will be tankers of liquid hydrogen rolling around our roads as petrol tankers do today? The energy economics of hydrogen are poor, as noted in the article, adding liquefaction would make them utterly ridiculous.
3/10: should have done more research
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought this Guardian mini-series must have finished by now, but I was wrong:
“Do electric cars have an air pollution problem?
In part seven of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs, we look at claims friction on brakes and tyres will affect air quality”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/26/electric-cars-air-pollution-problem-brakes-tyres
Despite supplying lots of evidence that EVs are worse in this regard, the Guardian still manages to give them the thumbs up in its conclusion:
Given the content of the article, the claim that “tyre pollution appears roughly comparable between petrol, diesel and electric cars” could, arguably, be labelled as misinformation.
LikeLike
LikeLike
This is in the consumer section of the Guardian, but perhaps they should an extra article to their pro-EV “myth-buster” [sic] series instead:
“Renault wants to charge £7,500 to fix my Zoe electric car
The charger was the only fault, but it would cost more than the car was worth to replace”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/12/renault-charge-fix-zoe-electric-car
“We have a 2017 Renault Zoe electric car which we bought secondhand from a friend in 2020. We were initially very pleased with it. However, in July 2023, it stopped charging. It still drove fine, and there was nothing else wrong with it.
We live in north-west Scotland, and as none of the local garages will deal with EVs it had to go on a low-loader to the Renault dealership in Inverness.
There, the technician established that the connector from the charging socket to the charging unit had burnt out. They said the whole charging unit had to be replaced, and quoted us £7,500 for the work.
As the car is only worth £5,600, this effectively writes it off.
We bought an EV for environmental reasons, and are very upset that it has been written off so easily, with such a huge waste of resources.
We found a qualified independent garage that was prepared to work on our car. However, it has been unable to source the required parts.
We have also been in regular contact with Renault. We’ve written to its UK managing director a couple of times, but just get a call back from customer services saying there is nothing they can do.
Renault seems to think that a six-year-old car is good for the scrap heap.
SC, the Highlands“
It’s interesting how little a 6 [sic] year old EV is apparently worth. The Guardian response is also interesting – perhaps the consumer section should their findings with their colleagues who are pushing the benefits of EVs:
“…Having done a bit of online digging, it seems that failing chargers is a known problem with Renault Zoes at about this age. You have to wonder how many otherwise working cars have been scrapped for the same reason.
As I have written before, one of the big problems with electric cars is that dealers just don’t have the ability to fix them when even minor things go wrong….”
While they’re on, perhaps they could also have a word with the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee about misinformation:
https://cliscep.com/2024/02/11/more-misinformation/
LikeLike
The crews bracing themselves for a rise in electric car fires
Unusually even-handed for the BBC.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also this, a fire safety lecture from last year by Paul Christensen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An electric rickshaw has exploded outside Buckingham Palace. “The fire is not believed to be suspicious or deliberate.” Short video here:
https://euroweeklynews.com/2024/03/30/electric-rickshaw-blaze-outside-buckingham-palace/
There’ll be new rules for such vehicles soon:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-put-the-brakes-on-nuisance-pedicabs
But will the new rules stop them catching fire?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A bizarre story:
“Electric car driver turned away from hospital car park”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c90zjne2v0jo
Which seems a bit odd given the NHS’ net zero drive…
A father who was taking his child to Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool says he was turned away from the car park because he was driving an electric vehicle (EV).
Paul Freeman-Powell said he was told to park next to nearby grass because his car “could explode.“
The hospital says it has temporarily banned access to the car park while it improves its sprinkler system…
The BBC then sets about rebutting the claim, using a lot of “evidence” that I looked at and questioned in “Seek and Ye Shall Find” above this line of comments. One statement is made that I simply don’t know about – true or false? The last I heard we were still waiting for the long delayed fire brigade investigation into the question:
…He also pointed out that a recent car fire which closed Luton Airport was started by a vehicle running on diesel fuel, not electric as some initial reports claimed.…
LikeLike
Quelle surprise!
“Electric cars more likely to hit pedestrians than petrol vehicles, study finds
Electric and hybrid vehicles are quieter than cars with combustion engines, making them harder to hear, especially in urban areas”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/electric-cars-more-likely-to-hit-pedestrians-than-petrol-vehicles-study-finds
And how exactly does the Government do that? I have a better idea – stop forcing EVs on people who don’t want them.
LikeLike
One final point from that article – a highly relevant one too:
But a difficulty in hearing electric cars is not the only problem. Electric cars tend to have swift acceleration and are usually much heavier, with some weighing twice their petrol equivalent, making stopping distances longer. “If the government is planning to promote a transition to electric cars, then that will bring some risk to pedestrians unless we take care of this,” said Edwards.
LikeLike
I often walk along narrow country lanes with the dogs and rely almost entirely upon hearing to warn me of the approach of vehicles. The silent approach of a fast moving heavy EV is quite worrying.
LikeLike
Mark; as usual, that article is short on facts and mostly speculative. I’m a bit of a petrol-head and so follow the EV story with interest to try and understand both sides of the debate. Taking a few of the points:
Noise: all EVs – not sure about hybrids – have noise generators which work at low speed (below 20 mph, iirc). Typically they emit a sort of StarTrek style hum. At higher speeds, tyre roar dominates. I walk into my village frequently, alongside a nominal 40 mph road. Eyes closed, it would be hard to separate EV from ICE unless the latter is accelerating hard or is unusually noisy/sporty.
Weight: some EVs are indeed heavier that their ICE equivalents but I’m not aware of any which are close to “twice” as heavy. Most are around 20 – 25% heavier. However some are virtually the same weight – one of the most common EVs, the Tesla Model 3, weighs much the same as a BMW 3 Series, for example. Furthermore the weight difference is usually close to that between an ICE with just a driver and one which is fully-laden.
Braking distances: from reading road tests, EVs do not seem to come out as worse than ICE. I’m sure that, if they did, the motoring press would pick it up. They are quite hot on issues affecting braking and handling, flagging up the dangers of cheap “ditch-finder” tyres and the marked deterioration seen with worn (but still well within limits) tyres.
Driver demographics: contrary to the assertion in the article, aiui EV drivers tend to be older. That’s as you would expect for vehicles which are relatively expensive, bought by the stereotypical “powerfully-built company director” types and those with high disposable incomes.
If I had to speculate, based on perhaps a better understanding than the author, I would guess that drivers and pedestrians could be caught out by the near-instantaneous acceleration of EVs. Even the more mundane models step off very briskly and without effort. Over the initial 0 – 30 mph not many ICE cars can live with even a mid-range EV.
Jaime: hopefully you will still hear EVs coming because of the tyre noise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike H,
I was surprised by the claim that EV drivers tend to be younger. Given that they are more expensive both to buy and to insure, that struck me as unlikely. I wondered if it represents an instinctive bias against older sceptical people, who in Guardian land couldn’t possibly be so climate concerned as to choose an EV. The reality is probably that affluent older people are the only ones who can afford to do so.
LikeLike
You do have a point Mike. A large part of the noise generated by any vehicle (especially on our atrocious roads) is tyre noise, and if EVs are generally heavier, they will generate even more tyre noise. Having said that however, I have noticed how relatively silent EVs are in town.
LikeLike
“The Real Carbon Footprint of Electric Cars: Part 1
Surface And Seafloor Mining”
https://climatechangedispatch.com/the-real-carbon-footprint-of-electric-cars-part-1/
LikeLike
I should have read that article about collisions between pedestrians and cars more carefully. When I did two points jumped out:
“Edwards and his colleagues studied UK travel and road accident data from 2013 to 2017.”
There were very few EVs on the roads back then and most were short-range city cars, bar the early Teslas.
“But for the same distance travelled, battery-powered cars were more dangerous. The average annual pedestrian casualty rate per 100m miles travelled was 5.16 for electric and hybrid cars compared with 2.4 for petrol and diesel cars.”
Using incidents per distance is a false metric since most of those old EVs would be confined to towns and cities so would not rack up high mileages.
More proof, not that it was needed, of the article’s irrelevance and incompetence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Car bursts into flames at Gatwick Airport”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgx523yx0xo
A car burst into flames at Gatwick Airport earlier, temporarily suspending access to the North Terminal.…
We are, so far, being supplied with no information about what type of car it was. It’s impossible for us to know, and all we can do is speculate. However, from the footage I have seen it looked like a VW EV. I think I spotted a VW badge, and the grill at the front looks like the grills on EVs and nothing like the grills on my 2 VW diesels.
Time will tell (or maybe it won’t if they don’t want us to know).
LikeLike
“Westminster MPs lose EV charging points”
https://highways-news.com/westminster-mps-lose-ev-charging-points/
Users of the parliamentary estate have been informed that from tomorrow they won’t be able to charge their electric vehicles in New Palace Yard’s underground car park.
The charging points are due to be removed on health and safety grounds following a review by the Safety and Fire teams, and in consultation with the Chair of the Administration Committee.…
…To provide reassurance authorities say “longer term, the intention is to increase the capacity for charging electric cars on the estate. However, the number of charging points will be dictated by the emerging electrical vehicle and fire safety guidance, and availability of adequate infrastructure/power.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/05/09/electric-car-bursts-into-flames-on-driveway-and-engulfs-550000-family-home/
The moment an electric car suddenly burst into flames on a driveway has been captured on CCTV, as the vehicle sparked a raging blaze which engulfed a van and a £550,000 family home. The Mail has more.
LikeLike
I wasn’t expecting this:
“Do electric vehicles make people more carsick?”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2025/jun/21/electric-vehicles-carsick
Apparently the answer is “yes”:
…a growing body of studies and an increasing number of people have found that they feel more motion sick riding in EVs than in traditional petrol or diesel cars. Anecdotes of feeling sick in the passenger or back seat of electric cars litter social media, as do questions from wary prospective buyers.…
…In addition to general unfamiliarity, research has found links between specific features common to electric vehicles and motion sickness. One 2024 study concluded that there were strong correlations between motion sickness severity and the seat vibrations of electric vehicles, while a 2020 study found that the lack of engine sound in an EV might be a major contributing factor to increased feelings of carsickness.…
…A 2024 study suggested the feature acted as one of the main triggers of motion sickness in electric vehicles. The study’s authors wrote: “Our results confirmed that higher levels of RB [regenerative braking] can induce MS [motion sickness].”…
LikeLike
It’s quite amusing that since Musk chummied up with Trump, the Guardian’s love-in with EVs no longer extends to Teslas:
“‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it’: the terrifying truth about why Tesla’s cars keep crashing”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/05/the-vehicle-suddenly-accelerated-with-our-baby-in-it-the-terrifying-truth-about-why-teslas-cars-keep-crashing
Elon Musk is obsessive about the design of his supercars, right down to the disappearing door handles. But a series of shocking incidents – from drivers trapped in burning vehicles to dramatic stops on the highway – have led to questions about the safety of the brand. Why won’t Tesla give any answers?….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw this on the front pages and sought it ought on Pressreader. Seems the thing the authors (who have a book to sell you) are majoring on is the problem of Tesla’s retractable door handles and that sometimes people are trapped inside after a crash.
My advice to all clisceppers is to invest just under a tenner in a “car escape tool” for smashing side windows. You’ll probably never need it, but you won’t miss the cash.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The book Tesla Files seems a bit over the top. Most of the issues seem to be related to inappropriate use of autopilot. We never use that feature. Too dangerous on ordinary roads .
The door handles on a Tesla are electronic but have a manual override in an emergency. Just pull the handle from the inside! From the outside an emergency worker might have to smash the window to get in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know I’m not going to feel any safer if I start seeing self-driving vehicles on the roads!
LikeLike
An interesting de-bunk of the Guardian de-bunkers:
“The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/07/29/the-false-promises-of-electric-vehicles-are-being-exposed/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I’m sorry to say that is a rather poor article – not up to the author’s usual standard. It seems to be largely based on outdated info, misunderstood issues and click-bait stuff from somewhere like the Daily Mail. I don’t have an EV, nor do I expect to get one anytime soon. However I do follow EV matters in the motoring press and on forums to keep myself abreast of things against the day when I might move across.
Picking just a few points:
> Range etc: comparing charging to refuelling times is largely irrelevant. Most EVs have enough range to allow 3 – 4 hours driving which is more than many/most folk like to do without stopping, esp on family trips. Then the trick is to add sufficient charge to get to the destination or next stop. With modern charging speeds that only needs around 20 mins which fits well with comfort breaks, stretching legs, grabbing a coffee, etc. There’s no mention of the benefit of starting each day with a full charge and rarely, if ever, having to frequent forecourts, braving whatever weather while dodging diesel puddles (assuming home charging, of course).
> Talk of “Planning a long distance journey in an EV often feels like a logistical puzzle, requiring meticulous mapping of charging stations and contingency plans for delays or outages” is rubbish. Typically the car does it all. You put in your destination and, if desired, how much charge you want to have on arrival and the car plans it all out: when to stop; how much to charge; etc. It also stays updated on the availability of chargers, monitors consumption and so forth, adjusting as necessary. Alternatively there are route apps for mobiles which do the same.
> Battery tech: scepticism is justified – there’s a lot of marketing hype flying around. That said, things are advancing. For example, a lot of batteries no longer contain cobalt, such as Teslas built in China and (maybe) Germany. Charging speeds have improved markedly, as have efficiencies.
> Depreciation is a non-issue, at least in the UK. Very few EVs are purchased outright. The vast majority, probably over 90%, are leases of one form or another for company cars or personal PCP deals. The user/owner is untouched by depreciation. Further, the dramatic falls in value are from the official retail price. It’s been the case for decades that the finance companies get huge discounts for buying in bulk; it’s the same story with EVs. Conversely, depreciation has made secondhand EVs markedy cheaper than the ICE equivalent.
> Vehicle weights: these claims are about as valid as the “no more snow” climate meme. True, some EVs are heavier than their ICE counterpart, others are not. However it should be recognised that cars have become much, much heavier anyway. Where was all this concern about weights before EVs appeared? Big SUVs are very popular these days; they typically weigh well over two tonnes – around three times the weight of a Mk1 Golf!
ENOUGH!
There most certainly are major issues around the imposition of EVs but this article misses most of them: the cost of tax breaks; the loss of fuel duty; the practicality for people who cannot charge at home; the need to upgrade local power distribution; to name a few.
Finally, the key point missing from the article….no-one is being forced to buy an EV if they don’t want to (although company car drivers may not have a choice). Folk will still be able to buy/lease new ICEs for another 5 years – possibly longer for hybrids (I’m not sure where that stands). Beyond that there is the secondhand market which accounts for 4 out of 5 car sales. Those who do not want to go EV can just wait and watch until the time is right for them, if that moment ever comes.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this evolves. On one hand discriminatory taxation, restrictions on use and other measures may be used to compel people to switch. On the other, public resistance and the sheer cost to the exchequer may swing things the other way. Of course the collapse of the drive to NZ would kill the whole issue. We can but hope…
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH,
As usual, you talk a great deal of sense, but I am not entirely with you on this:
With modern charging speeds that only needs around 20 mins which fits well with comfort breaks, stretching legs, grabbing a coffee, etc. There’s no mention of the benefit of starting each day with a full charge and rarely, if ever, having to frequent forecourts, braving whatever weather while dodging diesel puddles (assuming home charging, of course).
I could easily be wrong (I don’t have an EV, so I don’t know) but from my experience, such as it is, based on what EV-owning friends tell me, 20 minutes charge won’t get you very far. We have a friend who lives in Shropshire and joins us in the north of Scotland on hill-walking expeditions. His journeys have turned into nightmares. We live further north, so the comparison isn’t entirely fair, but our journeys (subject to traffic issues) are straightforward, and we never have to stop for more than five minutes en route.
Most EV owners/lessees won’t start the day with the benefit of a full charge, since most people in the UK don’t – and never will have – access to overnight charging (I appreciate that you added the caveat that you were assuming home charging, but that’s a massive caveat). I don’t recognise your description of “having to frequent forecourts, braving whatever weather while dodging diesel puddles“. All petrol stations have roofs, apart from being a bit cold in winter for the couple of minutes it takes me to top up my diesel, I have never had to brave the weather, and in my experience, diesel puzzles are a thing of the past – I haven’t dodged any for years. Unless rapid charging really does become rapid, for most people (who don’t have access to overnight charging, along with the cheaper tariffs that go with it), charging will remain an issue, IMO. It’s going to take a lot to extricate me from my comfortable diesel car, with a 700+ mile range, and five minutes or less fuelling stops.
Having said that, thank you as always for your thoughtful and insightful comments – there’s a lot in what you write.
LikeLike
New cars – whether EV or not – already suffer from being overteched, to invent a word. The Telegraph tells us today that UK cars are going to be ever more teched up:
“Brexit row as Labour aligns with EU on breathalysers for British cars”
Link.
As well as breathalysers -at least, the interface for same, I presume one does not yet have to blow to go as it were – we have black boxes and something to scan your eyes to see whether you are sleepy.
As someone who has never so much as sniffed alcohol before driving, I consider these technologies intrusive, to put it mildly. A 2005 car is already more appealing to me than a 2025 one. Lord knows what happens in 2030.
I’ve noticed that some old Lexus hybrids around here are going extremely cheaply – the canny purchasers perhaps fearful that they could be landed with an enormous bill to replace a fairly small battery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, thanks for your comments. I’m happy to have some input occasionally as, overall, I get a lot more info and learning from this site than I contribute. Also, before replying, let me make it clear that I am not an advocate for EVs. I would like to see the subsidies, mandate and tax breaks cancelled, leaving them to compete with ICE on their merits.
Charging is a complex topic which is often poorly explained. There are numerous different ratings of public chargers, however, 150 – 200 kW is common at service stations; Tesla units now go up to 250 kW. 20 minutes on a 150 kW charger (if the car can take it) would add 50 kWh – enough for another 150 – 200 miles. The frequency and duration of stops is obviously down to each driver/family. I’m with you: I like to get there. Others prefer a stop every 2 – 3 hours, esp when there are kids and/or pets on board.
A key characteristic of EV charging which is largely missed is the variability of the charging rate. It is influenced, mainly, by the battery’s state of charge (SoC) but also battery health, temperature – ambient and battery – and how the car has been driven prior to stopping to charge. Thus the charging rate can be a long way from the headline figure quoted in the spec. Typically EVs charge fastest around 40 – 60% SoC and at a decent rate 20% either side of that. However charging slows down markedly as the battery fills up. I’ve read that adding the last 10% can take longer than getting to 90%. It’s a very common newbie error which causes much frustration in the EV community: folk blocking chargers for ages trying to “fill the tank”.
You are quite correct that the majority of people don’t have off-street parking and therefore cannot charge at home. The counter to that, alongside better range and charging speeds, is destination charging where cars can be charged – conveniently – away from home. From what I have read, this is already common in other countries with chargers widely available at supermarkets, public car parks and – especially – offices. Average daily mileage is only around 25 or so. There are some high-mileage drivers so the figure is probably even lower for the majority. So an hour on even a slow charger (7 kW) would cover the daily miles.
It’s worth remembering that this is all on a very long timescale (if it ever happens). There are something over 30 million cars on UK roads and annual new car sales are under 2 million. So, even if, magically, all new cars became electric tomorrow, it would take 15 – 20 years to replace the whole fleet. A lot can happen in that time to address today’s constraints on EV practicality.
One last point; there are something like 1.3 million EVs on our roads today. Many are family cars so there are probably well over 1.5 million drivers who use EVs regularly. There has been almost no noise in the press about folk turning back to ICE while there are many comments on forums, etc by former EV sceptics who have changed their views. After all, virtually all of today’s EV drivers are ex-ICE users…..
LikeLike
Jit; I agree 100% that modern cars are overteched (good word). I very much doubt I will ever buy another car under 5 years old, possibly older. One of my criteria will be how many of these unwanted “features” a car has and whether they can be disabled easily. It’s intrusive, annoying and is just more stuff to go wrong. A couple of years ago I drove a new VW as a courtesy for a day. It was a nightmare! Lots of controls were on a touchscreen instead of buttons or dials – unsafe in my view. The steering fought me when I swerved across the white line to avoid a pothole.
There is a dangerous aspect to all of this. It makes people complacent and inattentive. They think the car will take care of things so they sit in the middle lane of the motorway, relying on the adaptive cruise, lane-keeping assistance, etc with their brains in neutral. I’ve long argued that all of this tech can only react to its immediate environs so it can never be anything more than a bad driver, reacting when the cars nearby do something. It cannot “read the road” to spot developing problems ahead, give dodgy vehicles a wide berth, etc..
I think you are right about hybrid batteries although Toyota are the masters of the mild hybrid – the Prius seems to last forever. It’s the plug-in hybrids where I suspect problems may arise. Battery life is dictated mainly by the number of charge/discharge cycles. In a PHEV the battery is typically used to empty on anything more than a hop to the shops so it may well go through a full cycle on a daily basis. In contrast, most EVs have far more range than is needed day-to-day so are not run anywhere near empty. Nor do they need to be charged to full, unless a long journey is imminent. Time will tell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike H,
When it comes to EVs, I am sure that I learn a lot more from you than you do from me. 🙂
Just as you are not an EV advocate, I do not advocate against them if people want them. My objection is to the lack of feasibility of the project; to the government telling us to do what we don’t want to do; and to the government using poor people’s taxes to subsidise rich people who want to buy an EV on the cheap.
LikeLike
Mark,
Quite agree that government interference is the real problem, leading to a distorted market and regressive financial impacts. The inaccuracies and misunderstandings in the article do not help with arguing against the policies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not going to make a big thing out of this, because I don’t know enough about it, not least because I don’t own an EV, and have only travelled short distances as a passenger in them on rare occasions. However, I must say I am pleasantly surprised that the Guardian has published this:
“‘Extreme nausea’: Are EVs causing car sickness – and what can be done?
Phil Bellamy’s daughters refuse to ride in his electric car without travel sickness tablets. Are there other solutions?”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/13/extreme-nausea-are-evs-causing-car-sickness-and-what-can-be-done
It was a year in to driving his daughter to school in his new electric vehicle that Phil Bellamy discovered she dreaded the 10-minute daily ride – it made her feel sick in a way no other car did.
As the driver, Bellamy had no problems with the car but his teenage daughters struggled with sickness every time they entered the vehicle. Research has shown this is an issue – people who did not usually have motion sickness in a conventional car found that they did in EVs….
For Bellamy, 51, his family’s aversion to riding in his car made him wonder at the cause. He tried changing his driving style and even buying a different car but found the issues persisted. His daughters now refuse to travel with him, if possible.…
...The causes of sickness could include the relatively quick acceleration of EVs compared to fuel vehicles, their regenerative braking systems and a lack of sensory triggers such as engine noise and vibrations when travelling in a car.
Research carried out in China, a big producer of electric cars, found that EVs were associated with more severe motion sickness symptoms than fuel vehicles….
LikeLike
“Devon
Major incident declared after car transporter fire”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vz291qx4ko
A major incident has been declared by emergency services after a stretch of the M5 was closed in both directions due to a fire on a lorry carrying electric vehicles.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which caught fire first, the HGV or one of the EVs?
LikeLike
Jit,
The rather shoddy BBC report says:
It said a car transporter carrying nine electric vehicles caught fire on the southbound carriageway.
It doesn’t say who or what “it” is. However, if taken literally, it reads as though the transporter caught fire, rather than an EV bursting into flames. Having said that, once an EV goes up, it isn’t pretty:
…it was a big fireball that went up straight away, exploding across the M5. It was almost like a firework show.”…
LikeLike
No doubt footage of early on in the incident will come to light. Odds are that it was the HGV. But the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether certain outlets would admit otherwise, or whether they would couch their reports in terms that were open to both interpretations.
LikeLike
There is footage on Facebook showing the cab and diesel tanks of the transporter apparently undamaged, while most of the cars are up in flames – which might suggest the fire started in an EV that was being transported. However, with the ability to use AI to manipulate images I don’t trust anything these days!
LikeLike
via the Mail.
LikeLike
Thanks Jit,
If that is a reliable picture, then my take on it is that it suggests a car fire as the cause.
LikeLike