richard_smith237

To provide unequivocal documented proof that half of the people around us are of below average intelligence !!!...

To be fair to the staff... the questions are so ambiguous they may not know and are simply trying to save face by not helping !!!

Hence the question... When it comes to... Passengers, first responders, fire fighters, the general public etc... - Are 25 EV Fires more deadly / dangerous than 1530 ICE vehicle fires ? (25 / 1530 is ratio of EV to ICE fires) Another facet - EV fires start and spread more slowly than ICE fires giving passengers more time to egress... But, they take longer to put out and the hidden dangers of electricity and water present elevated risk to first responders.

A very valid point... Older cars are perhaps less well maintained and more likely to suffer critical parts failure, this perhaps impacts the stats. I also agree - Raw stats would be great, from which we can draw our own conclusions. That said, the stats are already pretty clear even when they are buried in an article.

Where do you reckon the Op may use this tent ??? ... For the life of me, I've no idea !!!

Only an idiot makes such a sweeping generalisation !!!!

Thats another facet of the discussion... When it comes to... Passengers, first responders, fire fighters, the general public etc... - Are 25 EV Fires more deadly / dangerous than 1530 ICE vehicle fires ?

I'm not sure... But, I suspect exotics are at greater risk of combustion incidents because of the higher temperatures they are designed to run at. So, for ICE's - I'd 'expect' it to be exotics driven poorly, knackered old cars, and cars involved in accidents that make up the 'combustion even stats', whereas my bias would mean I'm inclined to suspect mass and cheaply produced EV's from China to present a greater fire risk than say Tesla etc. We'll never have 100% safety with vehicles.... I think much of the debate surrounds the fact that some people are perhaps learning that we never really did have and that seems to be a difficult fact to swallow when married with a negative bias against EV's.

OK... so that stat has been presented to you already numerous times from numerous sources.... In every single article read the information is universally consistent that ICE vehicles present a greater fire risk than EV's. Numbers quoted are that ICE vehicles are 19 to 100x more likely to be involved in a 'combustable incident' than an EV for the same distance driven. I'm extremely surprised at this stat which clearly highlights many the irrational concerns many of us have with EV's which are completely false and borne of bias.

I don't think you read the article properly. Those stats were not for Tesla. The figure for Tesla was given as "one fire for every 328 million kilometres travelled." The figure of 5 fires per 1.6 billion kilometers was for EV's in general. Indeed... I have been quite surprised by the overwhelming nature of the information provided highlighting the significantly greater incidences of fires involving ICE vehicles then Electric Vehicles. I have not found one piece of information which contradicts this. The only contraction to any of the information presented thus far is ExpatOilWorkers opinion that there is some sort of global conspiracy against ICE's... Its not particularly sensible response - it would be interesting to know if his opinion is something developed from discussions over beers with mates, or if there is any basis in fact. If there were any basis in fact, he'd surely be able to present some such information to back up his belief.

Provide some information... thats all anyone has asked of your input. So far you are refuting the information provided in what I would consider reliable sources. Can you find any information which supports your views ? - it would be a great discussion point to read this.

IF it was a burnt MG we wouldn't have seen KhunLA for weeks !!!.... But... it was a BYD - is there a suggestion that this specific make has fire-safety issues ? OR, is there a suggestion that Chinese made EV's have specific fire-safety issues ?

Just curious - how often do you drive your existing car, fully loaded for 700km at a time ??? We do long trips once or twice per year - and they are usually between 200km and 340km. Nothing an EV can't handle in one go (and charge over night while there). Additionally, we do about 60km per day with the school run and charging an EV over night would mean we save a negligible amount of time not having to fill up with petrol every week. Thus - for our purposes an EV would make sense, but I'd worry about the second hand value of the car falling off a cliff after 6 years. Who wants to buy an 6 or 7 year old Tesla ?? So... while trying to keep an open mind, these discussions are interesting, however, they are often clouded by ridiculous bias - I just don't know why some people hate EV's so much. Personally, I think carbon capture is a better cleaner way to go than EV's... at the point an EV leaves a showroom its carbon footprint is significantly greater than an equivalent ICE and it takes years to offset that difference. But, from a car perspective and convenience perspective EV's have a lot going for them. There are also a lot of irrational emotional arguments against them which have poor grounding in fact.

The numbers per mile driven were already given, as follows: - 55 fires per 1.6 billion kilometres in ICE cars - 5 fires per 1.6 billion kilometres in EV's https://www.straitstimes.com/life/motoring/electric-vehicle-fires-less-common-but-still-problematic I'd say those stats look fairly good for EV's. I think his [ExpatOilWorker's] argument is against Chinese E.V's. It's possible that BYD has a problem and the Chinese EV's are involved in combustion incidents at a greater incidence than EV's from elsewhere (i.e. Tesla) - thus he [ExpatOilWorker] wants to see stats for Chinese EV's alone. I think that would be a useful stat to get hold of given the discussion and that this story is about a China made BYD EV.

No I don't.... But, I am completely open minded on this. As you've disagreed with every stat presented thus far - perhaps you could find something ? So we are now looking for: ICE fires per 1,000,000 km travelled (or measurable metric) EV fires per 1,000,000 km travelled (or measurable metric) China made EV fires per 1,000,000 km travelled (or measurable metric)

I've just received an e-mail from Thai Elite - they've switched to 'working from home' because some of the staff reported testing positive with Covid-19. Meanwhile after a couple of weeks back at a Major international school following the summer holidays so many kids 'caught a cold' (from other kids - not unusual at the beginning of an academic school year). Son caught a cold, Wife caught a cold, I caught a cold... A week or so later, there are reports from numerous parent their kids had tested ATK positive. So, we probably caught Covid-19.... No hysteria, no over reaction from the school, no shutting down, no online learning, no insistence on masks etc... Everyone is simply going about their life as normal because they either have a mild cold, or possible Covid which in its current guise is exactly the same as a mild cold. I'm glad the school have handled this without completely over reacting like some people and businesses seem to be doing.

Yep... the trend I see is you consistently applying your bias. In all of the reports I'm reading I do not see any that indicates EV's are a greater fire risk than ICE's. I've applied some biased search terms such as googling: << EV's greater fire risk than ICE's >> and the results return information which contradicts and highlights ICE's are the greater fire risk. Now, you are arguing all the published stats with only your opinion without researched facts, yet you are suggesting that the published information is propaganda pushed on naïve souls. This propaganda conspiracy you are suggesting seems world wide, the harder I try to look for information which states ICE's are less fire risk than EV's the more I'm faced with exactly the opposite. Perhaps you can find something which backs up your suggestions that ICE's are less of a fire risk than EV's (even Chinese EV's). I need to reiterate - I'm neither pro nor anti EV.... I am merely interested in unadulterated non-bias facts. (actually, I am anti Chinese EV, or rather anti-Chinese car, simply because of my bias against build quality of Chinese cars which may well be flawed). Even in this article (linked) which quotes an increase in Chinese EV fires (because of an increase in EV's on the road) the incidence is less than ICE vehicles. https://www.cjoglobal.com/2023/08/08/how-many-ev-car-fires-are-there-a-year/

Exactly... some of the robotic, hard-line, hang-em-high responses are completely devoid of the recognition that innocent mistakes happen. In this case I'm not sure how 'innocent' the overstay was if they are going to ban the overstayer... But, neither is overstaying an horrific crime, it could be argued that it's primarily victimless.

According to common reports.. 1x tesla fire fire per every 205 million miles travelled.

One other valid point: The difficulty of dealing with E.V. fires compared to ICE fires. That said, E.V. fires start and spread more slowly apparently, allowing passengers time to get out (if / when that happens). But, if choosing a car solely on fire risk - it seems E.V. is the safer option, yet no one is worried about a fire in an ICE because that is a product we are extremely familiar with and due that familiarity may favour.

An excellent stat to get hold of... The information I can find (quickly) is... - 55 fires per 1.6 billion kilometres in ICE cars - 5 fires per 1.6 billion kilometres in EV's https://www.straitstimes.com/life/motoring/electric-vehicle-fires-less-common-but-still-problematic#:~:text=The Phosphorus%2C Inorganic and Nitrogen,EVs for the same distance.

The comparison is 'like for like'.... The information clearly outlines that any greater concern for the fire risk of E.V's compared to ICE's is flawed. I agree there is 'propaganda' flooding the internet from both angles (pro and anti E.V.). In this example (this story) it highlights there is a risk that E.V's can catch fire, but many of the responses highlight a bias that completely ignores the reality ICE's can also catch fire and information suggests more so than E.V's.

Indeed... utter fools... Ask them to run into a wall as fast as they can which is about 20kmh and the logic will be completely lost on them.

Perhaps it is the sense that is not so common when it comes to wearing helmets in Thailand.

Agreed... anyone not wearing a helmet... it doesn't make them look stupid, they just are stupid. A couple of friends carry their own motorcycle helmets around, they don't have motorcycles, but they are smart enough to use a good helmet when they need to get somewhere on a bike (back & forth from work, football etc)... One of the things that has astonished me about Thai's throughout Covid is how they were all convinced to wear masks yet the numbers wearing helmets remained so outrageously low.