richard_smith237

Did you need any tissues while writing that ???... I think you mentioned your beloved MG about 10 times in that post....

Actually. you are very much mistaken! I didn't buy it; it was made for me for free by a grateful Thai man (a qualified tailor) for taking care of his daughter (in the most honorable way). I wore it only twice, once to go to the opera (where that photo was taken) and at which I was voted the best dressed man! The other occasion was at a Thai wedding, both times in 2006. You will be pleased to know, I no longer have it - the suit, that is! T'was just a dash of cheeky commentary and you turned that around nicely with your positive story, so props to you... ..... If nothing else, it sounds like the tailor managed to steal the show without even hitting a single high note !!!!

Then what on earth were you on when you purchased that red suit ?????

Your passionate advocacy for MG vehicles, often feels so entrenched in its own echo-chamber that it becomes challenging to take your views on EVs, particularly MGs, at face value. It’s easy to present heavily biased information sourced from questionable origins, but achieving true balance is far more difficult when arguing from a position of bias. For instance, you criticised the Celerio’s safety performance while comparing it to a car that similarly lacks NCAP or ACAP ratings for the 2024 model - at least none that are readily available. Moreover, you seem to double down on tangential points, such as the “steel stat” mentioned earlier, as though it fortifies your argument when in reality, it diverges entirely. By this logic, you might next argue that China’s dominance in global semiconductor production somehow validates MG’s superiority. Yes, much of the world’s manufacturing is rooted in China; that’s common knowledge. But citing this does little to address someone’s valid preference for another manufacturer, such as Suzuki. It’s not necessarily disdain for MG or Chinese manufacturing that prompts objections, but rather the overt and repetitive bias in your presentation. I’ve teased you in the past about your palpable enthusiasm for MG, not because I harbour a personal dislike for the brand (though, admittedly, I’m not a fan), but because your overzealous advocacy often tips the scales too far with bias. For example, while MG vehicles may offer competitive pricing, they are not inherently superior to their European, Japanese, or Korean counterparts. Their appeal largely stems from affordability, which is why you chose one. Let’s be honest, if Tesla, Kia, or VW were priced equivalently to MG, it’s unlikely MG would have been your first choice. You’ve made your decision based on personal preference, which is perfectly valid. However, the volume of cherry-picked and unbalanced commentary you share often weakens rather than strengthens your argument. Sometimes, it’s enough to simply state: I like MG because they’re well-priced for what they offer. The same can be said for the Celerio and countless other vehicles within that price range.

You went out with your Go-Pro and 'just didn't want to carry your 220 gram phone.... You'll of course have the 'Go-Pro' photo to show us then won't you.... ... Oh... it was accidentally deleted you say ??? Well, actually you do - because of recent your posting history you have zero credibility - this is an opportunity for you to prove you are not a troll... ... someone who isn't making this story up would post the photo and remove further speculation, or forever be considered what everyone suspects anyway.

Being honest - neither. Given the amount of choice out there we can't just be limited to these. Here's a quick list from AI... from any of the 'small cars'.... I'd be looking at the Chery EQ1 EV... (in fact, I might swap my motorcycle for one !!!)....

Correct - I made the assumption that you hold a bias against EV's based on the tone I read into a couple your comments. That may have been my mistake... I agree - EV fires are harder to put out once they take hold. However, they present a significantly less fire risk in the first place. Thus: while plenty of others are going down the rabbit hole of EV's Vs ICE risk of fire and how hard they are to put out, this seems like 5 page debate whereby everyone is ignoring or refusing to see a greater issue... . ... and for me, that greater issue is the compromised competence of this company to make informed decisions - it would be like banning children from their ferries as they can't swim !!... (I know thats an extreme gaslighting counter argument - but it makes my point that, if this is the concern, the real risks have not been truly evaluated based on facts). The discussion also went down the 'weight' rabbit hole - but everyone discovered that while EV's are heavier, the point is just dumb, because many EV's are much lighter than larger SUV's - so while it was attempted, that discussion was quickly found rather ridiculous and moot - nevertheless, it exposed the bias of some who refused to drop that silly idea. The 'fire risk discussion' holds more water which is why its a better debate, but to me, that would be similar to Airlines banning LapTop Computers and Mobile Phones because of a very scarce fire-risk while at the same time allowing people to carry 1 litre of Brandy... that would make me question the very competence of those making such decisions. With this discussion - I do believe the risks need to be truly evaluated... But in doing so, the risks of LPG vehicles, and ICE vehicles, especially older ones also needs to be evaluated otherwise this becomes a knee-jerk decision fuelled by emotion and incompetence and on these forums supported by those who seem to display a certain bias against EV's... Perhaps not you, but others.

As I wrote - apologies if my interpretation was flawed - but did wonder why you wrote EV'ers and not just Drivers. On to the the other point I made regarding social media bias: IMO it does seem that there is a very firm bias against EV's in 'some' social media circles whenever there is an event... i.e. A car fire, in a car park etc, it seems before there is any proof a lot of commentators in forums such as this start pointing the finger at EV.... its almost an anti-Ev echo-chamber that self feeds... I also see similar anti-ICE bias in other threads when people start accusing ICE drivers of polluting the world etc - it seems there is an inability to have a discussion around the 'middle ground' as the voice from the extremes shouts loudest and the balanced median within which most of us remain remain ignored or unheard until pointing out the bias of the extremes - by which time we are labeled anti-this or pro-that etc... the same happens in political discussions. One good example of the anti-EV bias was with the massive carpark fire at Luton Airport in October 2023 which destroyed 1352 vehicles in total and the carpark itself - following investigation the 'source' vehicle was found to be a Diesel Range Rover - but that did not stop a huge amount of comments at the time suggesting the cause was an EV's, or that EV's shouldn't be allowed in car parks etc.... Lots of heavily bias comments without factual backup. With a name like Transam - I'd expect you to be quite bias towards V8' engines or a bloke call Sam who wears dresses, of course, we know its the former and given your forum posting history I'm surprised if you are actually bias and dislike EV's as you seem to have more genuine opinions and also take on the fight against the trolling extremes of whom there seem to be many on this forum. I'm interested in the balanced discussion - particularly as we have an EV parked in-front of our house, if that goes up, so does the front of our house !!!... IF I start reading 'facts' regarding the greater risk of EV fires, I'll re-think where I park my car, so I pay attention to stats, facts, real news and informed comments - but also object to the silliness that also arises. Thus for me, the debates in threads such as this are not just to 'attempt' to bring balance and rein in some of the ridiculous bias, but also to learn. - One take away so far, is that I have greater confidence that EV's are significantly less of a fire risk than other vehicle types, but the time at which they are at highest (relevant) risk, is when they are charging (thats still relative and they are less at a risk of fire than an ICE, especially if it has just pulled up and parked) - Another take away so far, is to discussion on thermal sensors - It would make sense to install a sensor overlooking the car where it charges, but I'd also argue, given the info and stats, if we are going to go down that road, it also makes sense to have such as sensor where any car is parked in front of or under our house.

I do get taxed by BitKub - but its not a large amount (and I don't really understand their taxation system anyway) but its a few thousand baht (on a few million). As far as bringing money in and taking it out. Trx Out: Buying Coins on BitKub (i.e. BitCoin etc) into a Cold Wallet, transfer to another overseas Exchange such as Kraken or Binanace into your overseas account.... Vice Versa. Transferring into Thailand: Purchasing BitCoin on an overseas exchange such as Kraken or Binance, transferring to a Cold Wallet, transferring from Cold wallet into BitKub, then withdrawing from BitKub into your Thai account. Of course, hoops need to be jumped through with setting up accounts etc. >> IF there is No Tax on BitKub With drawals, then that is a good solution (and a strong argument against the Anti-cashless crowd).

You didn't call us 'drivers' though.. 'EV-ers' implied a negative tone because you disagree, apologies if that was not true. What I observe in this discussion is a growing divide between those who drive internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and those who drive electric vehicles (EVs), with the gap seemingly widened by exaggerated and flawed biases of those who refuse to look into or accept facts. It appears that some 'anti-EV' individuals participate in these threads with a notable degree of negativity, often dismissing opinions that I find to be well-balanced and reasonable. Regarding the 'fire threat' associated with Raja Ferries, I do not believe this poses any credible danger. If such a risk were genuine, we would already see car ferries in Western nations banning EVs, alongside documented incidents of fires occurring on ferries. The reality is that the risk is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant, yet it seems to provide some individuals with ammunition to advance an anti-EV agenda.

This is the issue with these threads... When mostly there is intelligent balance, but to make a point the voice of the more radical and extremes gets louder... ..... with terms 'like EV-ers'... its much the same with the computer or phone debates and using Apple Fan Boys, or when there is a debate about some issue in Thailand and some accuses someone who's just made a valid point of being a Thai-Basher, or Thai-Apologist, depending on perspective.... Now... What do you call someone who has both EV's and ICE's ???... Are they EV-ers ??.... or ICE-ers ??? Or is it just possible that there are benefits and advantages to having both around ? Just like the discussions on a cash-less society - its important to have choice.... But these stories regarding Raja ferries are borne out of stupidity and paranoia without any real solid basis in valid information, facts, statisics or a true understanding. Its just 'knee-jerk-stuff' which is fueling bias and prejudice without intelligent debate - some are even posting old videos made by outlier firefighters about batteries that are no longer used in EV's...

I don't thing its being touchy at 'protecting the reputation about EV's'... Its more a lack of tollerance for dumb arguments used by those who are anti-EV... You've just done it yourself by mentioning fragile and "protecting their little darlings" which highlights a bias.... ... thus its the inaccuracy that is somewhat irritating - I really couldn't careless if I have an EV or an ICE - I just get the car I like.... ... But if people starterted making unintelligent arguments against ICE's - I'd be highlighting the flaws in their points. But here's one point that highlights the flaw in an argument that you have presented... so its the lack of intelligent thought which is, well, rather, zzzzzzzzz.... Most EV owners will have waited less to charge than you have had to wait for your Motorcycle to get refuelled.

Ah, yes, "most" of the halfwits gullible enough to waste their time indulging in your puerile little troll poll. Truly, a masterstroke of intellectual achievement - if your audience is a forum full of village idiots. The combination of sheer idiocy and arrogance it takes to believe that the drivel-spewers who bothered to respond to your pathetic excuse for a poll somehow represent a meaningful cross-section of Western or foreign society in Thailand is hilarious, as is the idea that you are now quoting the results as some form of valid fact. The poll itself a glaring testament to the gaping chasm in your logic-forming abilities only surpassed by the comical idiocy of your comments referring to said poll.

Take a moment to read up on the issue instead of relying on social media click-bait. You were already fed a link earlier. Here is some info - you can educate yourself... The speed of a fire in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle differs significantly from that in an Electric Vehicle (EV) with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. Here's a comparison based on typical scenarios: 1. Fire Initiation Speed ICE Vehicles: Time to Ignite: Fires in ICE vehicles can start almost instantaneously after an event like a fuel leak combined with a spark (e.g., from a crash or mechanical failure). Triggering Events: Fuel leaks from damaged tanks or fuel lines. Contact between hot engine components (e.g., exhaust manifolds) and flammable fluids like oil or coolant. Electrical shorts in the wiring harness. Key Factor: Liquid fuels (petrol or diesel) are highly volatile (especially petrol) and ignite rapidly when exposed to heat or sparks. EVs with LFP Batteries: Time to Ignite: Fires take longer to initiate in LFP battery systems due to their higher thermal stability. Thermal runaway or ignition typically requires seconds to minutes under extreme abuse conditions. Triggering Events: Overcharging or internal short circuits. Mechanical damage (e.g., puncturing of cells). Prolonged exposure to external fires or heat. Key Factor: LFP batteries have a higher ignition threshold and are less likely to ignite spontaneously compared to petrol in ICE vehicles. 2. Fire Spread Speed ICE Vehicles: Speed of Spread: Extremely rapid, especially if the fire involves petrol or vapour. Once ignited: The fire can engulf the engine bay in seconds. Fuel leaks can lead to flash fires that spread to the rest of the vehicle in 1–2 minutes. Vapour fires (in petrol) are explosive and spread faster than liquid-phase fires. Key Factor: The volatility of liquid fuels contributes to rapid fire escalation. EVs with LFP Batteries: Speed of Spread: Slower compared to ICE fires due to: Lower flammability of LFP materials. Gradual thermal runaway in affected cells, with propagation to neighbouring cells taking minutes to tens of minutes. Fire containment measures in the battery pack, such as fire-resistant barriers. Key Factor: The controlled release of energy during thermal runaway leads to slower fire spread compared to liquid fuel combustion. 3. Toxicity and Heat Intensity ICE Vehicles: Toxic Fumes: Burning petrol, diesel, plastics, and engine fluids produce dense, toxic smoke. Heat Output: Fires can reach extreme temperatures quickly due to the combustion of flammable liquids. EVs with LFP Batteries: Toxic Fumes: Burning LFP batteries release less toxic gases compared to other lithium-ion chemistries but still produce harmful emissions, including carbon monoxide and potentially toxic electrolytes. Heat Output: The heat release is slower and less intense than ICE fires, as LFP chemistry produces less heat during decomposition. Overall Comparison Aspect ICE Vehicles EVs with LFP Batteries Ignition Speed Almost instantaneous Seconds to minutes Fire Spread Speed Extremely rapid (seconds) Slower (minutes to tens) Explosiveness High (vapour flash fires) Low Toxicity High Moderate Heat Intensity High Lower than ICE fires Conclusion Fires in ICE vehicles ignite and spread far more quickly than fires in LFP-equipped EVs. In ICE vehicles, the combination of flammable liquids, heat, and sparks makes fire initiation and propagation nearly instantaneous. In contrast, the stable chemistry of LFP batteries and the design of EV battery packs provide a slower and more contained fire progression, offering critical time for evacuation and intervention.

Agreed.... I also object to business going cashless and considerate it a foolish business model to exclude any potential customer, yet I have been to shops which do not accept cash any more. It doesn't impact me (as I'm primarily cashless anyway) - but if I saw two options, I'd use the shop that accepted cash over the one thats cash-less only. As you mentioned - its key to maintain choice.

Got more chance of the ferry itself, catching on fire than the cargo it's hauling, as the ferry is the only think in operation; motor, fuel & electrical systems, They've had their share of oops already, and actually avoid, for various reasons. And thats why people looking at the EV aspect alone are narrowing their focus on a flawed bias. With such a company there are greater safety concerns... If the owners are making such daft decisions as banning EV's we can be sure they are making daft decisions elsewhere and these could be compromising our safety more severely - particularly when it comes to seaworthiness etc... ... For me - this is the primary take away from this thread - not what is being discussed about EV's and the fire risk - but that this company clearly lacks technical competence if making such decisions, in which case I wonder what other decisions devoid of technical competence they have made elsewhere.

Ok - so who's got a bunker full of baked beans, biscuits, water and loo-roll ??? Its all getting a bit dooms-day preppy for an intelligent discussion on pros vs cons of cashless payments.

I'll ask this question differently... A ferry full of LPG cars or ICE Cars ? A ferry full of Hybrid cars or ICE cars ? My Answer: I'd chose a ferry full of EV cars than ICE's cars - because fires start more slowly and spread more slowly from EV's than than ICE's... there's more time to escape to safety.

Just like the hotel fires with emergency doors closed, broken deluges / sprinkler systems, the nightclub fires with no fire-exits (or locked exits), the passenger ferries with insufficient like jackets etc.... The doubts regarding the safety / fire equipment on such ferries are highly justified. I think any fire that can't be dealt with in minutes with a single fire extinguisher is going to catastrophic enough to warrant evacuation of passengers - then the lifeboats, life vests etc becomes a bigger issue which is why when considering such subjects my concern is not about EV's vs ICE's.... its about greater issues... Thus questioning the 'safety culture' on a whole, seems to have greater validity than arguing specifics of EV vs ICE particularly when decisions seem to be made more on emption than operational competence.

OK - concentrating on Raja's boats - given their history, there is a greater risk of capsize !!... Why has the company chosen to Ban EV's ???.... This is a concern... IF this company executed a factual analysis it would reveal that the risks associated with EVs and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles on ferries are virtually indistinguishable. Thus, the real issue is the knee-jerk decision-making within the company, which casts doubt on its overall operational competence. If the alleged risk were genuine, why impose a ban on EVs only during the New Year period? - the inconsistency highlights the policy is purely emotional, driven by someone in a position of authority within the company who lacks the requisite technical knowledge. Hence the concern: the broader perspective regarding other decisions that may be made with similarly flawed reasoning, particularly where safety is concerned - and perhaps why the company has had issues regarding safety in the past.

I'm not as confident as you that sound judgement was involved - this is in fact a bigger red flag for me !!! i.e. the fact that this was more than likely a decision based on emotion rather than any basis in science or effective risk assessment. If you haven't already done so, you may also be interested in a link posted earlier that the 'break-out' of fires from an ICE vehicle is faster and more extensive, as well as a statistical higher probability than fires from EVs... but, also admittedly once an EV fire has taken hold its far more difficult to extinguish.... It should also be noted that due to the high density of vehicles any fire whether started by Hybrid, LPG, ICE, EV is likely to catastrophic and uncontrollable without highly advanced systems. Thus: IF this risk were as significant as some are 'emotionally' suggesting - EV's would be banned on all ferries, all car parks in condos and shopping malls etc.... and then they'd have to look at all other cars which present a greater risk of fire, particularly hybrids and LPG vehicles.... The reality is - the risk is low enough from all types of vehicle for this not to be a significant concern. Thats not to say risk is absent, but as with taking an Aircraft flight the risk is small enough not for it to be a concern.

He's a drunk driver, its a matter of time.... In fact, even without the half-witted Dunning-Kruger effect of being arrogantly stupid and a drunk-driver, an accident can occur the next time we ride or drive.... ..... its a complete unknown, we can only do our best to ride / drive intelligently, to the conditions, surroundings, local culture while riding defensively.... yet anything can still happen at any time - which is why we wear seatbelts and safety gear... (helmets, gloves, jackets etc)....

I'm going for 'Stupidity'..... I see lots of owners make rather stupid business decisions all over the world, Thailand is not immune to this. Perhaps over beers the owners mate told him that EV's are dangerous and the owner took the next leap and made this decision.... In fact, my suspicion is more this, than anything else.

Hilarious... drunk driver thinks he has defensive driving skills..... But... drink driving aside - at least you are consistent in your level idiocy when you 'think' you can prevent someone from driving into you though your own skill... I've also had two cars drive into mine while I'm stationary - I bet you believe you could have avoided those by being one step ahead, prepared and using your defensive driving skills !!!..... utter numpty !!!!

I'm not so sure about that either.... I think more knee jerk opinion than informed response is at play here. I've been in 'meetings' here... with owners of companies etc... The Pu-Yai speaks and everyone else agrees, thats that... ... this is why we see so many of these announcements in the first place... .... Big Boss says something and no one else is brave enough to stand up and say "Are you for real, thats ridiculous"... then we read the news of this policy, that policy etc.... and then debate the idiocy on here... BUT... lets say your 'insurance idea' is a genuine issue - why is this just for New Year only ? - that part makes no sense - and thus, IMO the insurance aspect to this discussion does not hold water (no pun).