EV Owners Frustrated as Samui Ferries Restrict EV Transport Over New Year Period

[transam]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

The thread is about EV's, Thai ferries and safety, your assuming I am biased against EV's is daft, this is a discussion forum where, like you, I make points, but sadly there are those who own EV's have a problem with my points, bit like they have given up cigs, so now all smokers are AH's, which to me is quite funny.....🤭

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, transam said:

The thread is about EV's, Thai ferries and safety, your assuming I am biased against EV's is daft, this is a discussion forum where, like you, I make points, but sadly there are those who own EV's have a problem with my points, bit like they have given up cigs, so now all smokers are AH's, which to me is quite funny.....🤭

 

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.