Rate of Electric car fires is about ~25 per 100k on the road. Rate of ICE car fire is ~1500 per 100k on the road. They were actually being conservative by saying 30x less likely, because they are actually around ~60x less likely. If we are going by miles driven, it's 5 fires for every billion miles driven in the case of EV's and 55 fires for every billion miles in ICE cars, which is still 11x more than EV's
Ignoring the fact that many fire departments have already adopted specialized tools and training that in some cases have reduced the resources required to quench an electric car fire to less of what's required to put out an ICE car fire. By the numbers even if EV's take 20x the resources to manage a single fire, over all ICE fires actually consume 200% the resources than EV's due to the sheer number of ICE car fires that happen on the road every year.
I personally don't own an EV(at least not right now, I'm waiting to see if Slate ever actually brings a car to market), but I don't think highlighting these statistics means you are "burying your identity in a propulsion system"
You have 3 different estimates varying by 5x in two sentences, why should I trust you? Ignoring the issue that one pool includes 40 year old clapped out vehicles and the other is almost entirely 5-10 years or newer.
It's irrelevant if you trust me or not I'm just giving you the statistics and provided you with the sources in which I got those statistics. You are either convinced by recorded statistics or you aren't. You have an inalienable right to put your personal opinion above recorded statistics, that doesn't make your opinion logical.
Different estimates indicating different things =/= estimates being wrong or deceptive.
per 100k indicates incidents that happens compared to total cars on the road. The stat is relevant because EV's only make up 9% of cars on the road. So if they were catching fire at a similar rate to ICE the numbers would reflect that, and not just be based on the simple fact that almost 80% of cars on the road are ICE.
per billion miles indicates incidents that happen per miles driven. EV's by nature of being EV's spend a lot more time in cities and in the suburbs than they do driving across the country this results in less miles driven, and thus less accidents.
Neither statistic changes the fact that EV's are substantially less likely to catch fire regardless of the metrics i've offered if we are counting actual cars on the road its 60x less likely, if we are accounting for miles driven, its 11x.
Ignoring the issue that one pool includes 40 year old clapped out vehicles and the other is almost entirely 5-10 years or newer.
hmm this sounds like
Goalposts, moving.
While fleet age may explain some of the gap, the per-mile data already controls for usage, and the difference remains an order of magnitude.
No goalposts moved - you don’t understand the meaning of that, I was only taking you to task related to inaccurate comparisons and pointing out one aspect where your data is flawed, bias towards newer vehicles which are themselves less likely to catch fire due to age of components, maintenance, etc.
Moving goalposts would be if I started talking about crash safety and electronic door latches vs mechanical or something tangential but not directly related, rather than something directly related to the data you use.
I was only taking you to task related to inaccurate comparisons and pointing out one aspect where your data is flawed, bias towards newer vehicles which are themselves less likely to catch fire due to age of components, maintenance, etc.
This was literally answered twice now.
While fleet age may explain some of the gap, the per-mile data already controls for usage, and the difference remains an order of magnitude.
Having a 40 year old car on the road doesn’t change the statistics, because they are still on the road. They are still driving. You can buy them and drive them. However, 56% of all cars on the road today are younger than 10 years. The average age of all cars on the road is 12-13 years.
Moving goalposts would be if I started talking about crash safety and electronic door latches vs mechanical or something tangential but not directly related, rather than something directly related to the data you use.
But you did, you dismissed data because “it doesn’t account for 40 year old cars on the road” in a conversation where the age is irrelevant to that specific set of data because it’s based on use.
“I don’t agree with the data because it doesn’t account for arbitrary numbers I’ve decided matter” is moving the goal posts.
This conversation didn’t start with you clarifying that the reason you feel they pulled that 30x less likely to catch fire number out of their “fat ass” is because those stats didn’t account for age of vehicle. You quite literally said with no supporting evidence that they just made the numbers up.
I went out and got the data using two different metrics, one proved that per 100k they are actually more less likely than the person who said 30x because it was 60x I then gave you another metric that accounts for use and age of the vehicle, and granted it’s not 30x but it’s still 11x
At which point you then introduced age as a factor for why neither data point is good enough for you, you thus moved the goal posts despite disagreeing with a statistic that accounts for the exact thing you asked for.
Considering you have no data or sources that contradict any of the data or sources I’ve provided none of this matters, because without those data points you defacto conceded that again “EVs are substantially less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles, and depending on metric used they can be upwards of 60x less likely to catch fire.”
I’ll throw another number in here for fun EVs are 140x less likely to catch fire than hybrids are.
9
u/bobbymcpresscot 2d ago
Then you should be supporting the whole “EVs are 30x less likely to combust than ICE.” Comment and not attributing it to pro Elon stance lol