Tesla & other EV's and hybrids are dangerous!

[bdunham7]

Man was working on a hybrid and all of a sudden it went up in flames. If it was fuel you'd run away. But it was batteries. He got badly burned, his business got destroyed.

There's no information in that video to support any of your conclusions.  What type of car, exactly?  What happened?  How do we know gasoline wasn't involved?

[tom66]

All of this has nothing to do with being an EV or hybrid.

I hope your reconsider:



Man was working on a hybrid and all of a sudden it went up in flames. If it was fuel you'd run away. But it was batteries. He got badly burned, his business got destroyed.

Most hybrids use NiMH batteries which are very stable;  Toyota still uses these in current generation hybrids.  But there is nothing in that video that tells us what caught fire. Many garage fires are started by people welding near fuel tanks which can easily start a fire.  Others are started by fires in the interior when the welder fails to recognise that they've overheated interior materials.  The biggest contributor to modern car fires, EV or ICE, is the interior materials - these are not required to be flame retardant like a sofa or bed is required to be.

Result is a massive medical bill, years of recovery, business that most likely will not bring money again. This is U.S.. No income, no way to pay for your house. You know what happens next.

Shit sucks, but that's nothing to do with the propulsion method the car uses, or used.

GD sound like you can have a coffee before you attempt to rescue yourself out, and firefighters can get there without lights and siren!

Yup, it does appear that EV fires propagate slowly, since the battery is well shielded from the cabin and vents to the outside; this presents far less risk than a conventional car where the engine is up front and the most likely contributor to a fire following a crash.  Most people who aren't injured could self-extricate in the event of an EV collision that does start a fire.  If they can't -- well, that's bad, obviously.  But do we have any evidence that the situation is noticeably worse compared to the state of the art in ICE vehicles?  Cars of all forms can catch fire following high speed collisions, it's an acknowledged risk.

It must be said that these conditions that can lead to a battery fire are rare and specifically designed out.  Euro NCAP testing, to achieve high-star ratings, requires EV batteries to be monitored pre- and post-crash and no impact upon the battery can be observed; no thermal runaway, no voltage drop, not even leaking coolant.  At the same time, electrical contactors or pyrofuses isolate the battery so that occupants can be cut out if necessary.

[Psi]

Don't trust any news about EV fires.

Most of the time they don't even issue a retraction like they did here.

[NiHaoMike]

The aircon/heatpump refrigerant R32 is used in lots of houses and it produces hydrogen fluoride when it burns which is highly toxic. People getting injured by it during house fires happens but it's rare enough that it's not considered an issue that needs fixing. It's really only something firefighters need to be aware of when entering a burning house.

Older refrigerants would create phosgene when exposed to fire. So hardly a new problem.

The biggest contributor to modern car fires, EV or ICE, is the interior materials - these are not required to be flame retardant like a sofa or bed is required to be.

That needs to be updated. There is the tradeoff of flame retardant additives having negative health effects, but that should actually be much less of a concern in a car than in a house as most spend far more time in a house or other building than in a car. And also make it illegal to smoke while driving as there's many reasons why that would be unsafe.

[indeterminate]

Went to a rescue a couple of week's ago
Driver had manged to lock them selves in a car and flatten the battery , couldn't get out so called the fire brigade.
The only manual release on this car is the rear hatch witch the driver could not get to
ended up popping the bonnet and connecting a external battery.
The regulators have been caught with there pants down on stupid designs like this.
and what moron at the manufacturers thinks this is a good idea.

[Psi]

The biggest contributor to modern car fires, EV or ICE, is the interior materials - these are not required to be flame retardant like a sofa or bed is required to be.

That needs to be updated. There is the tradeoff of flame retardant additives having negative health effects, but that should actually be much less of a concern in a car than in a house as most spend far more time in a house or other building than in a car. And also make it illegal to smoke while driving as there's many reasons why that would be unsafe.

Yep, and fire-retardant things tend to be more toxic and create more toxic smoke than non-fire-retardant things when they burn. The main goal of fire-retardant things is to slow down burning to give the person time to get away or to put the fire out. It's better to get exposed to some toxic fumes and have to recover from some lung issues than to die from a fire that flares up so fast you can't get away.

[AVGresponding]

It's not beyond possibility to have both; LSF, LSHF/LSZH cables are common enough, for example, though more expensive than PVC

[tooki]

Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.

You mean, just like what was standard in automotive before "software guys" took over?

Yup.

(As someone who used to work in the software industry, I am sympathetic to some of their decisions, but I absolutely abhor modern interface and web design. So many babies were thrown out with the bath water at the alter of "modern" design... Today's interface designers would do well to read and take to heart things like Apple's older Human Interface Guidelines, the ones written when they still gave a crap about ease of use.)

[tooki]

Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.

Absolutely. How it ever became legal to have essential controls like fog lights, windscreen wipers and the like on a touch screen is beyond me.

To me, it is so reckless it should be considered criminal.

Not to mention the stupidity of moving the satellite on the steering column that since forever controls the turn indicators over to two bloody touch buttons on the steering wheel itself. Try to indicate you way off a roundabout with that. Does prevent me from ever buying a Tesla again.

I'm not quite certain what you mean by "satellite". It sounds like you mean the turn signal stalk? If so, then my reaction is: Wait, they did what?! How the fuck is that even legal?? I thought those were covered by legal requirements.

[tooki]

afaiu NCAP is going to start deducting safety points when certain control are not physical buttons

I suppose that's a start...

[Analog Kid]

Today's interface designers would do well to read and take to heart things like Apple's older Human Interface Guidelines, the ones written when they still gave a crap about ease of use.

Yes.
Or make them read the old SAA/CUA interface guidelines, published way back when by the likes of IBM (!). Good stuff.

Heh; reminds me of some design meetings back when I worked as a tech writer/programmer, working on a user interface for a machine we were building.
Someone criticized the design by calling it a "Fisher-Price interface". Which is apparently now the basis for things like Windows 11.

[tooki]

Today's interface designers would do well to read and take to heart things like Apple's older Human Interface Guidelines, the ones written when they still gave a crap about ease of use.

Yes.
Or make them read the old SAA/CUA interface guidelines, published way back when by the likes of IBM (!). Good stuff.

Heh; reminds me of some design meetings back when I worked as a tech writer/programmer, working on a user interface for a machine we were building.
Someone criticized the design by calling it a "Fisher-Price interface". Which is apparently now the basis for things like Windows 11.

No kidding!

Many of today's flat designs are actually flatter than the fucking mockups we did back when interfaces had depth.

Also, can they stop making text bigger and bigger and bigger?? (Browsing through the Wayback Machine is wild, seeing just how space-efficient websites used to be. It boggles the mind that we now often fit less information onto a 4K, 27-32" display than we did on a damned 800x600 SVGA back in the day. Absolutely absurd.)

[thm_w]

- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.

Hazard, volume, back/fwd, are all physical buttons/wheels in tesla.

Temperature not as easily, but there is enough demand that you can buy an aftermarket knob to do it.

[tom66]

- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.

Hazard, volume, back/fwd, are all physical buttons/wheels in tesla.

Temperature not as easily, but there is enough demand that you can buy an aftermarket knob to do it.

Yet somehow not the indicator function, at least on the 3 and older Y - that's a haptic button the steering wheel.  Really silly when you use a roundabout, making it very difficult to indicate properly... I guess Americans don't have that many, or indicating isn't common there for roundabouts? 

They changed that in the Model Y refresh for Europe at least, it gets the indicator stalk back.  But there are still plenty of cars without indicator stalks out there now.

[thm_w]

Yet somehow not the indicator function, at least on the 3 and older Y - that's a haptic button the steering wheel.  Really silly when you use a roundabout, making it very difficult to indicate properly... I guess Americans don't have that many, or indicating isn't common there for roundabouts? 

They changed that in the Model Y refresh for Europe at least, it gets the indicator stalk back.  But there are still plenty of cars without indicator stalks out there now.

Yeah don't disagree, its just a blatant cost cutting measure that no one would want. They also charge too much for the retrofit at $600 (install included).

Very few roundabouts in America. Very few in Canada where I am, they've only recently started to put more in.

[Analog Kid]

Very few roundabouts in America. Very few in Canada where I am, they've only recently started to put more in.

We have them, and more and more are being built.
Turn signal buttons on the steering wheel????? How the hell do you know which one you're enabling when you spin the wheel?

[TimFox]

Like them or not, roundabouts have become numerous (I almost wrote popular) in the US Midwest, especially Wisconsin and Indiana.

[tom66]

I'm curious about something.  Obviously your roundabouts in the USA go reverse to the UK, so turning left means going across the ahead lanes.  Do you indicate for that move?  In the UK, we're taught to indicate at roundabouts.  Left if taking the first exit if it is before 180 degrees, no indication if going ahead, and right if going past 180 degrees.  For very complex roundabouts that have exits that aren't at nice even 90 degree intervals, or where there are more than four exits, you generally indicate left after passing the exit before the one you intend to use. 

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/roundabouts.html

This is a problem for a steering wheel indicator, because if you're turning right (crossing our ahead exit), the wheel is going to be upside-down for some of that turn.  It's not then possible to press the left indicator without crossing your hands.

There are roundabouts in California, and one of the things that has been said about Tesla is because the engineers tend to be from that area, they think different to the Detroit engineering mindset... where you have problems like snow, rain, and winter.  It explains things like the nearly useless auto wipers.  Could it also explain the lack of an indicator stalk?  We don't use them here, so they aren't needed anywhere.

[Analog Kid]

I'm curious about something.  Obviously your roundabouts in the USA go reverse to the UK, so turning left means going across the ahead lanes.

Don't understand the question. In our roundabouts the circulation is counterclockwise (you turn right upon entering). You're never going "across" any lanes, just around the circle until you reach the exit you want, whereupon you turn right into it.

Do you indicate for that move?  In the UK, we're taught to indicate at roundabouts.

That's a new one on me, so no, no turn indication needed, as you're never crossing opposing traffic to exit.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here ...

[tom66]

I'm curious about something.  Obviously your roundabouts in the USA go reverse to the UK, so turning left means going across the ahead lanes.

Don't understand the question. In our roundabouts the circulation is counterclockwise (you turn right upon entering). You're never going "across" any lanes, just around the circle until you reach the exit you want, whereupon you turn right into it.

Do you indicate for that move?  In the UK, we're taught to indicate at roundabouts.

That's a new one on me, so no, no turn indication needed, as you're never crossing opposing traffic to exit.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here ...

Perhaps I explained it badly.  I just mean that your left turn on the roundabout means that you will probably pass what might be canonically known as the "ahead" exit, a continuation of the direction of the road you joined from, unless there is no such exit.  In the UK, that is the case for right turns. 

Have a look at the diagrams on the Highway Code website I linked, they will probably do a better job of explaining the rules of indication.  One problem is, they aren't that well defined for some non-standard roundabouts (what is an 'ahead' vs 'left' vs 'right' turn is down to your judgment), but it seems most driving instructors teach something along the same lines as what I explained.  Probably about 50% of cars actually bother to signal properly, so it could be argued to be kind of pointless, but I will continue to do it properly.

[Analog Kid]

None of the pages describing roundabouts--and I looked at several, all from different DOTs in various US states--say anything about signalling.



It just isn't necessary, as exiting the circle doesn't involve cutting across anyone's travel path; you just leave the circle.

[Monkeh]

It just isn't necessary

The purpose of roundabouts is to improve traffic flow. Signals allow telling other users where you're going, and therefore allow them to determine sooner if you're exiting and therefore they're clear to enter prior to your exit. So yeah, they're necessary.

[Mr.B]

It just isn't necessary, as exiting the circle doesn't involve cutting across anyone's travel path; you just leave the circle.

Lets visualise your diagramme as the roads pictured being north, South, East and West.
You are in a car approaching from the South with the intention of going West.
A car is approaching from the North with the intention of going South.
You enter the roundabout first.
Shurely you indicate Left to inform the southbound car of your intention to drive across the front of it...

[thm_w]

Lets visualise your diagramme as the roads pictured being north, South, East and West.
You are in a car approaching from the South with the intention of going West.
A car is approaching from the North with the intention of going South.
You enter the roundabout first.
Shurely you indicate Left to inform the southbound car of your intention to drive across the front of it...

For US/Canada we only signal when about to exit the roundabout, not when entering. So in your example the southbound car should wait if it can't safely enter before the other car.

https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-popular-links/d3-roundabouts

[Analog Kid]

It just isn't necessary, as exiting the circle doesn't involve cutting across anyone's travel path; you just leave the circle.

Lets visualise your diagramme as the roads pictured being north, South, East and West.
You are in a car approaching from the South with the intention of going West.
A car is approaching from the North with the intention of going South.
You enter the roundabout first.
Shurely you indicate Left to inform the southbound car of your intention to drive across the front of it...

No, I don't think so. Keep in mind the rule that cars already in the circle have priority over those entering.
In other words, all cars entering must yield to those in the circle. (That's why they say "Look left". In your country that would be the opposite.)
So it's on the southbound driver to wait until all traffic is clear before entering. Hence no need to signal.