Another fire Truck??

It doesn't seem to have burst into flames at least. I guess the battery didn't suffer sufficient damage this time. I wonder if it or the unfortunate passenger was doing the driving?

Interesting that Musk has declared that humans are underestimated (I assume he means by him) as he chucks out all the amazing smart production robots because they don't work, but still seems to think they are safer than humans at driving which is a much more complicated, unpredictable and dangerous activity.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

 

Apparently Martin thinks that any Tesla car crashing without instantly bursting into a conflagration is one of those "impossible things".

I guess Martin is disturbed by the fact that when it comes to fire hazard, Tesla cars are more than twice as safe as gasmobiles, on the basis of miles driven.

More info (i.e., actual facts and not "alternative facts") here: https://insideevs.com/number-of-fire-related-deaths-per-year-caused-by-evs/

​

 

I blocked two others, not Pushmi-Pullyu. Although he is a little 'reactive', his understanding of physics and chemistry matches what I learned in high school and college. Eventually you'll see who is in touch with the natural laws.

Personally I wish Pushmi-Pullyu would adopt my ignore list. I am convinced these individuals are 'stroked' by any reply. Facts and data have no effect suggesting they are 'selectively deaf' and not worthy of further note.

Bob Wilson

 

I understand but happily we get along well enough.

BTW, I call 'ignore user' the same as a squelch control to block objectionable stations. Blockage could be due to a number of causes including boring. A funny thing happens, many of them disappear after a month or so. It is my practice to sample their latest postings and if they are still on a mission to oblivion, silently put them back on my list.

Bob Wilson

 

The problem with Pushmi is that his physics is stuck at a bit below high school level and it isn't adequate to support the argument he makes.

I find him deliberately misquoting me to be mildly annoying, but as it is done so clumsily it reflects on him more than me, so good luck to him.

I will observe once again that of four tesla crashes severe enough to kill people, three have involved fires.

 

That may well be a factually correct statement. If you had said that there seemed to be (or is) a correlation between Tesla car accidents severe enough to kill the occupants and Tesla car accidents severe enough to cause a fire, that would be logically defensible, and arguably a fair assessment. It would also most likely be true to say that there is a strong correlation between Tesla car crashes with very severe damage to the car, and accidents which the NHTSA chose to investigate.

But that's very far from the FUD you posted on the subject. I've quoted what you said, I have taken nothing out of context. You didn't just say it once, you doubled down on the FUD twice in the original post, as well as referring to something I said and then falsely stating "The actual facts clearly imply the exact opposite!"

In later posts, you again doubled down on that original FUD least two or three times. Yet now you're trying to pretend you didn't say that, and to deflect, you are accusing me of misquoting you. Anyone can see what you actually posted here.

Or, long story short, Martin: You have once again shown that you are incapable of admitting that you were wrong, even when everyone can see that you were.

​

 

How very clever of you to know what everyone else is thinking! Everyone, How on earth do you know? I'd call that a trifle arrogant, personally.

Mind you, you often tell everyone what I am thinking too. As usual, it is seldom anywhere near the mark.

Here's something that I AM thinking however. Of the four crashes violent enough to result in fatalities, the only one that DIDN'T burst into flames was the one where the vehicle went at speed under a truck, which presumably ripped off the upper part of the car, killing the occupant, but left the battery which is lower down sufficiently undamaged for a blaze not to occur.

If you remember, I calculated the probability that - if battery cars and petrol one are EQUALLY vulnerable to ignition on impact - of three out of four battery cars igniting was on in about 38,000. In other words, though the sample is small, it is looking extremely likely that battery cars are far more likely to end in a fire after a violent crash.

I look forward to your misinterpretation of this, and the construction of a straw man which you will knock down in triumph accompanied by some ridiculous emoticons beloved of the immature.

 

He's only mildly annoying. Not really worth the effort of ignoring even.

 

I don't know. The only report I have is that drugs and alcohol do not appear to be involved. Of course, this doesn't exclude inattention due to trying to surf the net on a smartphone, falling asleep, and many forms of sheer lunacy too often seen in drivers. Or the autopilot of course.

 

A pretty shocking admission of how hopeless these things are! No doubt this woman will be unable to claim any compensation due to these weasel words in the small print.

 

On the basis that emergencies only happen at low speed???