Avoidable Contact #139: Electric cars ... so hot right now

[Hagerty]

The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak. He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions-"The Party says the earth is flat" ...
https://www.hagerty.com/media/opinion/avoidable-contact/avoidable-contact-139-electric-cars-so-hot-r...

[relton]

Jack's take on electric cars may be a little morbid, but he has his points.
Daniel Yergen, a respected expert in energy affairs for many years, expresses his pessimism about electric cars in his latest book.
There may be money to be made shorting Ford and GM stock down the road.

[CitationMan]

Behold the Tesla Emergency Response Guide. In the public realm just like Enron’s financials.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_Emergency_Response_Guide_en.pdf

See page 23 “In Case of Fire”.
“Battery fires can take up to 24 hours to fully cool”.
“It can take between approximately 3000-8000 gallons of water, applied directly to the battery, to fully extinguish and cool down a battery fire; always establish or request additional water supply early”.
“Always advise second responders that there is a risk of battery re-ignition”.
“…a burning battery releases super-heated gases and toxic vapors. This release may include volatile organic compounds, soot, particulates containing oxides of nickel, aluminum, lithium, copper, cobalt and hydrogen fluoride. Responders should always protect themselves with full PPE, including SCBA, and take appropriate measures to protect civilians downwind from the incident”.

[toy83h2ssj53]

Looks like a lot (over 1000) car buyers are going to be very disappointed at the fate of their cars having a slight problem on the Atlantic on the way over to this side of the pond. The carmakers will be compensated by insurance, but there is going to be a massive exchange of compensation as a whole in this matter. It will be interesting for people to "follow the money" trail as this cautionary tale develops. The Orwellian references cited above are relevant to the way our society seems to think, but the problem is that the thinking is not completely throrough, and lacks the caveats that present themselves. Caveats are raised, but either ignored or repudiated, and we continue on our blissful way knowing that the "experts" have all the answers and it's under control.

[Cheford]

Only politicians and their feathered friends, all educated in our halls of ivy with grandeur dreams of their own design ignoring both human and everyday common knowledge. combined with their zeal of mutual admiration, and the ability to pass ridiculous and unworkable "solutions", will ultimately destroy a fantastic society with their ignorance; powered by their ability to print money at will to fund these catastrophic dreams

[compaqdeskpro]

There's a reason why the current iPhone has 3 times the battery life of the 3GS. It has 3 times the battery. Progress. It seems to me that higher voltage from lithium ions batteries requires them to be more liquid, as that's how you can move the electrons through it faster, at the cost of service life. This is noticable in an old iPod which you can leave in the glovebox over night and it still turns on, but a modern iPhone literally can not, it will either be frozen solid with a scrap of battery life or showing a hot battery warning. The idea of "solid state" sounds like bunk and would be impossible to cool, I think we need to think more about liquid. Perhaps the battery fluid can be changed out like an oil change once it's usage degrades, as opposed to an obscene $10K+ battery replacement, and it can vent out the inevitable shorts like the evap line from a gas tank. Anyone who's worked on computers for a while has seen how many Apple devices, especially Macbook Pros but also mobile devices, that are prying themsleves open with a bulging battery; that isn't acceptable in a ca

[hyperv6]

Actually one of the main reasons phones Apple phones and lap tops have more battery life is the new Apple chips. While batteries did grow most progress is in better and more efficient chips. 

This is very true in lap tops as they do have limits with the FAA. 

Note that the new Mac Book airs are also not using fans as the new chips make them run cooler. The new Pro are Also cooler and the fans seldom run much. 

it has never been recommended to freeze a phone. 

Might add that in most cars they have temps systems that cool batteries or maintain their environment. 

[Jack_Hagerty]

The 3GS had a 1400 mAh battery.

The 13 Pro Max has a 4352 mAh battery. That's three times and then some.

The efficiency of a chip is largely tied to its die process. TSMC only claims a 30% efficiency improvement on the "5nm" process.

The OP is correct here.

[hyperv6]

One needs to also factor in the added speed and abilities with added features too. 

A SUV with more power, utility and AWD needs a larger engine to do all that it does with added abilities and content. 

How do I know how much an Apple 3 and 13 sitting right here. Yes I still use a 3 as an I pod and it is slow and limited in capacity. The added power for the most is to run added features. 

My God the 3 screen alone vs my Pro Max is a noticeable change so it is Apples to oranges in this comparison?

Pun intended. 

Either way most car batteries are insulated from cold and cooled with cooling systems to maintain temps. 

[hyperv6]

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/09/01/10-jacksonville-firefighters-sue-after-cargo-ship-fir...

https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2019/24681/car-carrier-major-fire-pacific/

Note I can supply more cargo car ship fires involving ICE if you like. They are much more common than you realize.

Folks car cargo ship fires are not rare and are not always electric car triggered. Even the one burning now may not electric involved. 

Note EV cars is an emotional topic on the web with enthusiast and many writers tend to jump on things like this and like to stir you up just to get hits in their stories. They hate to let the real facts get in the way. 

I am not an EV fan more for I own one or plan to own one. But I am not one to be a party of bad info either way on electric cars. 

Electric cars will have sone issues to deal with but we generally have many of the same or different issues with ICE cars too. The click bate authors like to use the differences to play on fears that are often unfounded or rare. 

Like anything there is much to learn and with advancements new will reduce and eliminate some issues or we will be better educated as to the way to prevent or deal with them. 

The transition to electric will e electric will be over 20 years so most issues today will be non issues as we move forward. 

If one looks at todays cars they are just loaded with ways to catch fire. Oil leaks, fuel leaks, converters parked on leaves. Even electrical fires in an ICE car can happen. My buddy’s TBird burned in the dash in his garage. Another had a carb bleed over and he lost a Firebird. 

I often have customers lose not only cars but garages due to ice car fires. 

Do cell phones catch fires? Yes but with the millions out there they are very rare. Same with cars. 

We will like anything else learn some new things and adapt as this stuffs coming and letting lies and miss information on EV or ICE is not doing anyone any good. 

It is best to get educated on both and learn the truths to deal with either. You may not like EV but at least not like it for the right reasons. 

I am not a EV fan but I will not be dishonest about them or that they are coming. 

[CitationMan]

There is zero misinformation in this article.

[QWERTY]

So it takes nearly as much water to put out a burning battery as it does to mine the raw ingredients that go into it in the first place? Oh, and talking of mining, if you thought oil fields were bad, how about digging up Everest to feed the demand for Lithium…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vast-lithium-deposit-near-everest-could-put-china-in-driving-seat...

[FatBabyDriver]

The Chernobyl reference is timely.

[SJacobT]

Good thing there's always a linear relationship between confidence and competence.

[Tango42]

I feel so alone - until I read Jack on this subject. Another great article. Also interesting....all these "no more ICE cars after 20XX" mandates rely on a ramp up of battery production where the raw material availability is a pipe dream. The Rivian R1 battery weighs 1800 lbs with charge time still in hours?! The only real step-change coming in battery energy density seems to be solid state lithium - and some say it still needs a decade more development/cost reduction before its feasible for auto use. Its going to be interesting to see where this all lands.

[CitationMan]

Curb weight on the Rivian pickup is 7173 lbs. It’s only 5 inches longer than a Chevy Colorado which weighs 4050 lbs.

[fueledbymetal]

I work in the fire protection industry and your analysis is spot on.
🍺

[Jack_Hagerty]

Thank you - for obvious reasons I'm not a primary source on this stuff, I have to rely on what I'm told by people whom I trust. It's good to have a little backup!

[Ark-med]

"Fueledbymetal": just like electric car fires!

[WAKman]

This rant, though amusing and a good read, like l your stuff, seems to be driven more by your personal distaste for EVs, which you've written about for awhile now, than on any insurmountable risks or defects inherent in EVs. We get it, Jack: You don't like them. And, doggone it, you don't like politics intruding on your favorite personal freedoms either. Nobody does. It sucks to be a member of a democratic society sometimes, where every damn-fool idiot has a say.

Mocking climate change concerns (with your clever over-strikes) does not negate what anyone who cares to look can see all around us, with catastrophic weather abounding in recent years. I've lived in the same coastal place for over 30 years and can track the changes first-hand. They exist. Science, like democracy, also sucks sometimes. But unlike democracy, it doesn't care about your feelings or your politics. It just is.

The infrastructure argument also doesn't wash. We humans have shown a irrepressible capacity to develop infrastructure when necessity or market forces demand it. We electrified the US in the 30s, built the interstate highways system in the 50s, and have built a nuclear infrastructure around the world that defied similar dire warnings and, with a few rather notable exceptions-all technologies cary risk--provides lots of relatively clean power around the world. The idea that building EV charging stations is beyond our grasp ignores technological history.

Like it or not, EVs are here to stay. The car makers have gone all in, not because of government regulation, but because they understand that our current level of fossil-fuel emissions are unsustainable, and that tailpipe emissions are a huge chunk of them (yes, I know electricity currently comes from fossil, among other sources, but that is also changing. That technology thing again.)

If EVs were the dire threat you claim, insurers would rebel, and these vehicles, as well as the facilities that store them, would be uninsurable. That hasn't happened. If you want to know about risks, ask the experts: the guys who get paid to quantify and insure against them. Like our hosts.

I personally hate EVs. They are soulless golf-carty things, and usually really ugly to boot, as if they have to advertise their virtue through weird styling. But, like colonoscopies, we're gonna have to accept them.

[Jack_Hagerty]

"Like it or not, EVs are here to stay. The car makers have gone all in, not because of government regulation, but because they understand that our current level of fossil-fuel emissions are unsustainable, and that tailpipe emissions are a huge chunk of them (yes, I know electricity currently comes from fossil, among other sources, but that is also changing. That technology thing again.)"

Private over-the-road transport accounts for 8-9 percent of CO2 emissions by the most pessimistic reports possible. Not a huge chunk.

I have direct sources in the OEMs who tell me that they would stop electric development TOMORROW if the government wasn't forcing their hand. Plain and simple.

"But, like colonoscopies, we're gonna have to accept them."

My response to this is: says who, exactly? Who says we have to accept them? And how many battalions does this "who" have?

"The idea that building EV charging stations is beyond our grasp ignores technological history."

And yet it's perfectly cognizant of social history. Have you perhaps noticed the level of cost and effort it takes to get something done under 2022 rules, as opposed to when Ike told the Army to eminent-domain some farms and build the autobahn? Here's a hint: fixing Fallingwater cost ten times what building it cost.

🙂

[hyperv6]

But we are from the government and we are here to help. As Ronny said no more terrifying words can be spoken. 

Just look now Gas 5-7 dollars now in some parts yet our leaders refuse to open up pipe lines and more drilling. They refuse to make a move to help us let alone . Those who are in Ukraine are screwed. 

[WAKman]

"I have direct sources in the OEMs who tell me that they would stop electric development TOMORROW if the government wasn't forcing their hand. Plain and simple."

I have no doubt there are folks at those companies that say that. But Tesla, the most valuable car company in the world by several orders of magnitude, showed the OEMs the way without a lick of regulation. What has the government done to force the others' hands? There is no electric car mandate. They can choose to meet emissions requirements however they choose. They've chosen electric. They're in a complete panic to catch Tesla, and it wasn't caused by regulation. It's because people like Teslas.

and OK--you, Jack, you don't have to accept EVs. Or colonoscopies. You can rail all you like, wave your fist at every Prius you see, and roll coal into the open cockpits of Miatas. But . . . your personal preference has been noted and outvoted. Battalions? That's not how we do things here. That dang democracy thing again.

Yup, regulations are expensive and a pain. It took me months to get a permit to build a garage. I hated it. But . . . take regulation away, and bad things happen. Ask Boeing's shareholders and a bunch of grieving families about the relaxation of FAA oversight that led directly to 737 Maxes boring holes in the ground. Or check out what unregulated social media is doing to democracy. Remember the crash of 2008 that came after regulations on banks were eased? Even worse than the exorbitant cost of fixing Fallingwater.

Deregulation is great until it isn't.

Cheers, Jack!

[Jack_Hagerty]

The Tesla business model doesn't work without massive government subsidies... and yet they still rarely turn a profit selling the equivalent of a 530i for $130,000. You can't expand that to serve the entire country. That would be like saying, "Oh, gosh, Huntsman seems to make money over there on 14 Savile Row, they should clothe the United States Army."

(Apropos of nothing, a similarly stupid idea is how Brooks Brothers got the Civil War contracts -- https://www.civilwarmonitor.com/front-line/suits-of-shoddy )

"Battalions? That's not how we do things here. That dang democracy thing again."

We don't have anything like a democracy and you know it. We have a republic where most lawmakers are corporate shills. What do you think the results would be of a Athenian democratic referendum, held right now, about a mandatory switchover to EVs? It would lose 95-5, maybe 99-1. So no, there's no democratic process at work here. There are special interests, and progressive interests, and thieving interests. Do you think you'll be allowed to *vote* on what we do to preserve certain high-ranking interests in Ukraine? Did you get a vote on turning off most of America's oil production thirteen months ago?

[WAKman]

The fact that Tesla relies on government subsidies is irrelevant with my point--that they developed, from scratch, an electric car that works, that people want, and without any sort of government mandate. Ponder the stunning magnitude of that achievement before you claim that EV technological barriers cannot be overcome.

And by the way--virtually every US industry is subsidized by the government. Oil and gas? Yup. Defense? Please. Tech? You betcha. Even Farmer Jones gets a spliff from Uncle Sam. So it's hardly just Tesla.

But you are indeed right, sir, we don't have a pure democracy. You get a cookie. Forgive my outrageous ignorance of civics. And I agree, a mandatory switchover would be soundly defeated. Americans hate mandatory anything. But nothing like that is happening. Companies are building EVs because . . . people want them. That's freedom, baby!

Stay curious, my friend.

[Jack_Hagerty]

As I understand it, and I could easily be incorrect, both the Roadster and original Model S broke no new technological ground. All the parts were already there, courtesy of the portable device industry and various existing needs for electric motors.

There have been functioning electric cars on American roads longer than there have been functioning gas cars. They've just never been any good for most people, a situation that remains the case today despite a staggering amount of cash thrown at the problem.

We in fact need a couple of authentic miracles to make battery cars work as well as gasoline cars, and they all have to do with battery chemistry and structure. If those miracles arrive, then that's good. But they have yet to arrive despite the fact that every OEM in the business puts more money into electric than they do into ICE.

[WAKman]

Imagine the audacity of Musk: "I'm gonna start a brand new car company from scratch, take on all the other gigantic car companies, build an all-aluminum, battery powered car, price it at $100K, make it faster than virtually anything on the road, and people are gonna wait in line to get them." All of which he did. That's kind of a big deal. Could even qualify as an "authentic miracle."

A couple of my neighbors have solar arrays on their houses that they use to charge their EVs at home. They only use the cars locally, and they never--never--have to visit a charging station. Their operational carbon footprint approaches zero. That's also kind of a big deal.

As I said, I dislike EVs, but my dislike, as yours, is based on feelings and emotion, not technology. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest here.

[retro-tech]

Good posts WAKman. Perennial naysayers like Jack will always be around.

"I have direct sources in the OEMs who tell me that they would stop electric development TOMORROW if the government wasn't forcing their hand. Plain and simple."
Well, if that bit of anecdotal evidence isn't enough to put the last nail in the EV coffin, I don't know what is. Of course, that person that Jack associates with at the OEM is in no way just like him but totally open to EV's. I bet you'd have a hard time finding ANYONE at the OEM's who actually like EV's. /sarc/

The constant comparing of infrastructure that has been evolving for 100 years to a nascent industry is always telling to a persons motives. I bet in 1905 when you had to go buy gasoline by the quart at the local hardware store people were saying, WOW this totally beats my horse that can refuel at any field they pass.

[danio3834]

>Imagine the audacity of Musk: "I'm gonna start a brand new car company from scratch, take on all the other gigantic car companies, build an all-aluminum, battery powered car, price it at $100K, make it faster than virtually anything on the road, and people are gonna wait in line to get them." All of which he did. That's kind of a big deal. Could even qualify as an "authentic miracle."

Musk didn't found Tesla.

[WAKman]

Correct. But he executed the vision I described.

[hyperv6]

Automakers are not afraid of Tesla. Tesla is a big fish in a small unchallenged pond. 

I am no fan of Tesla. They have cars that are aging and stale styling with very long delays for new product. Then they play gimmicks like odd styling, space shots  and In dash bodily sounds. But what Tesla did prove is people would pay much more for an EV car than most ever imagined. 

The Detroit automakers were trying to make a $30k EV car that just would take forever to recover development costs. Today we are seeing them focus on things like the Hummer and Lyriq that will recover the development cost faster and pave the way for a very profitable EV Equinox at $30k. 

The other key is the larger automakers have scale and they are still making as CUV and truck models. 

The large automakers are not in a speed race here as this conversion is a marathon. They are pacing the growth with development to bring costs down. They are not dependent on the EV products now so they can still get costs inline. 

much of these models will depend on the same motors and only the number of them will vary. Batteries will be upgraded but they will be the same across lines just reconfigured. 

The platforms will be similar just configured for the needed application. 

With so much standardized platform parts this will drive down cost. 

Finally development is continuing and will quickly advance with improvements and lowering of cost. 

The greatest thing is the cost will continue to drop on EV while costs on ICE will only continue to increase. Just look now how we are paying an average of $40,000 for cars half the size and half the cylinders. This cost will only continue to rise in the search of more mpg and less emissions. 

Then there is the global markets. To be competitive in a global market will require EV products as they have already set dates in most of these countries. This is an opportunity for many automakers to get in these markets as many other automakers are not going to survive the change over. More mergers and failures along with partnerships are to come. 

My sources in the OEM would love to not make the change but they know that with elections every 4 years they can not keep changing back and fourth the future plans that reach out 15-20 years. Also the global rules are in play. Then smack the CARB rules on top of that in more states than just California now. 

To cap this off most people today are not attached to their cars as an extension of them selves. 

If automakers get range to 400-500 miles. Faster charging and cost equal to ICE and safe. I expect the market to migrate on their own over. 

[AG1962]

Jack, you wrote “Private over-the-road transport accounts for 8-9 percent of CO2 emissions by the most pessimistic reports possible. Not a huge chunk.” Excellent point. Granted, it IS the single largest item in the transportation-related emission basket (and therefore an easy target for regulators), but electricity generation accounts for 25% of US GHG emissions, and commercial and residential heating for another 13%, so those two would seem to be better places to start efforts to “decarbonize”. That would mean massive public investments in converting electrical production from fossil fuels to sustainables, and in converting gas and oil furnaces to heat pumps. Those two measures together would be far more effective at reducing GHG emissions than driving coal-fired Leafs and Teslas, but they would require waaaaay more public expense than just forcing/coercing/incentivizing automakers to build EVs (a strategy that also has the political advantage of tackling the high-visibility private car, hated by many otherwise sane people). Why can’t we have sane public policy debates?

[Billthecat707]

What's the % for cow farts? Just wondering, thought those were near the top of the list.

[Zcd1]

Willfully ignoring the massive environmental impact and very real fire danger that our ICEVs and attendant infrastructure present to make a (debatable) point doesn't make you clever...

[Jack_Hagerty]

Come back to me when you find an ICEV fire you can't put out in an hour, much less four days, and we'll talk.

[danhise]

The most common theme across the world of journalism is "apocalypse now."

[ILikeTranbants]

Great article. I don't agree on some points, but that's how it is ig. The Chernobyl reference, let's just say that didn't age well🇺🇦💀

[cobrafia]

On the subject of EV charging stations, the hours long charging time and lack of current station availability will probably lead to stations that look like current inner city parking complexes. You'll pay by the hour to be admitted on top of the electrical charges on your monthly electric bill. Don't want to pay to get in? No problem, go somewhere else. Of course, there won't "somewhere else", so pay you will.

[Flashman]

I love it when you give free rein to your outraged humanism. It can be controversial, but it provokes thought. Your points are valid; you're not merely spouting drivel to provoke controversy. But really, "Valery Legasov"? That's a tad obscure; luckily there's Wikipedia. 1984 is a book everyone should (re)read periodically. I hope you never lose your capacity for outrage and retain your enviable ability to cogently express it.

[wirekat]

I hope you're wrong Jack. When EV's are more than a (well to do's) second car and all the virtue has been gathered for electrifying the deserted highways there may be some technical magic discovered that will give pyrotechnical vehicles real range. Look, it's Halley's Comet!

[wentwest]

Lots of noise in this piece but not a lot of facts. What is burning in the cargo ship? There's no answer in this piece. It's not the ship itself; there aren't any electric cargo ships.

[Jack_Hagerty]

So, in your response to an article about how a massive number of EVs on board a cargo ship makes an otherwise humdrum fire an incandescent and unquenchable malestrom, you've decided to anchor your opposition on the SHIP not being electric?

[Gary_Bechtold]

But Jack you forget the obvious truth. Those fires will be zero emission. Ignore the smoke, nothing to see here, it's zero emissions baby.

I'm expanding that to my life as well. Beef is bad, cows make global warming, climate change, whatever. So all I'm going to eat is Beans and Cabbage. I too will also have zero emissions!

[Spicey]

The KIA Ev6 will go 217 miles on an 18 minute charge.

[Jack_Hagerty]

Amazing, that's almost as far as my Accord will go if I fill the tank halfway in ninety seconds.

[retro-tech]

Yep, but you HAVE to got out of your way to fuel your tank whereas most EV use for commuting means NEVER having to go out of your way for fuel. Just keep hoisting those straw men attempting to force todays infrastructure onto EV's and then pointing how it doesn't work. Never try to think outside the box like a totally new paradigm where most people, most of the time will never set foot in a fueling station.

[Jack_Hagerty]

I understand where you're coming from; I have a barn with 14kW of solar panels on it. I could "fuel" a Leaf (or, more likely, a LiveWire) without too much trouble. But I'm the rural exception. There's no evidence that the existing national grid is ready for the kind of load implied by universal EV ownership. And a significant percentage of car owners don't even have off-street parking.

[retro-tech]

"There's no evidence that the existing national grid is ready for the kind of load implied by universal EV ownership."

Absolutely true, but there is some infrastructure currently in place unlike when ICE's first came on the scene and there was absolutely no infrastructure in place to support them, so what would your position have been on ICE's at the time?
I guess I just don't understand the naysayers who try to present themselves as the rational thinkers by pointing out corner cases (I drive 1000 miles, refuel in under a minute and then drive another thousand and until EV's can do that they aren't ready) or the fallacy of attempting to force fit a new paradigm into an existing infrastructure only to point out how miserably it fails (There's a gas station on every corner in America and until there are as many charging stations, EV's fail!) without thinking outside the box as to how things may change.

Are current EV's the be-all end-all to transportation? No, of course not. But they are improving just as ICE has for the last 100 years.
If you look back to the early days, electrics actually outsold ICE and steam powered cars combined (1899,1900) because of their inherent advantages. Gasoline infrastructure didn't exist while there was the beginning of the electrical grid. It was an advantage not having to go the hardware store to buy a quart of gasoline. Electrics, then as now, are much lower in maintenance requirements than ICE's, something the naysayers seems to never touch on. ICE's were seen as dirty, smelly and dangerous. (see Byron Carter)
Things will keep improving, emotionally vested people will keep complaining, and the world will move on.

[Jack_Hagerty]

You keep referring to the way cars replaced horses... which was driven by customer demand and real-world advantages.

The EV push is driven by regulation and political concerns, the same way the deadly diesel tax structure in the UK was driven by regulation and political concerns.

When EVs are better than ICE cars, they deserve to take over. And they would take over in that situation. California never had to mandate the replacement of horses with cars. Europe never had to announce that it would be illegal to sell horses in 1930. When you see things like that happening, that's a clear tipoff that the technology is not superior. The only question is whether it ever will be, and that's where we need an "unknown unknown" to happen.

[retro-tech]

I'm sorry Jack, there appears to be no actual point to these articles other than to note some valid concerns with current EV technology and infrastructure to all out straw man arguments.

You complain of perceived government overreach by mandates. Does this extend to CARB, CAFE, EPA... all those things that people from 1973 on were clutching their pearls at (I'll admit to being among them at the time) only to lead directly to the electronic fuel injected 700HP, fuel efficient, low emission engines we have today? Of course those same companies that in 1970 were dumping more fuel into more displacement, the same as they did for the previous 70 years, were just chomping at the bit to spend billions of dollars for this development. The OEM's were forced into a situation where they had to innovate fast and furious to meet these mandates and todays engines are a direct result. (We did have to endure the abysmal early attempts in the 1970's and 1980's)

What about the safety mandates of the 1950's and 60's? Did market forces mandate seatbelts in 1965 and dual circuit master cylinders or collapsable columns in 1967 or did safety mandates? As it was the later, I guess I should irrational hate those things 😕 Perhaps you could revisit Ford's flirt with a safety campaign starting in 1955 only to find the public didn't care and soon dropped it. They actually found the public questioning their vehicles for wanting to add safety belts and safety door latches.

While not fully versed on California's reasons for ending non-EV sales (not use!) in some of the most congested and air quality challenged urban areas in the world, could it actually be for other reasons than political motivation as you would like it to be? Could it be the people of that area are actually for the proposal under a democratic system or should they weigh the desires of people in distant states?

To each their own as far as ICE vs EV's go, but these articles have become absurd.