Its also possible the people that made the sheet haven't followed up on all its data like many such projects.
NTSB chief - FSD misleading and irresponsible
- Thread starter 2EHA
- Start date
Ya the vehicle is part of that. EVs by design are inherently safer however there are other attributes which can artificially increase the perceived safety of Teslas. Things like the age and condition of the vehicle, age of the driver, rural vs urban, snow/ice operating. Teslas are basically commuter-only cars for the middle-upper class and higher. As you should know, that the chances of dying in a car accident while in rush hour traffic or driving in the city is very low simply because the speeds aren't there.When looking at comparative fire data, it appears the EV is far safer.
Tesla Vehicle Safety Report | Tesla
At Tesla, we believe that technology can help improve safety. That’s why Tesla vehicles are engineered to be the safest cars in the world. We believe the unique combination of passive safety, active safety, and automated driver assistance is crucial for keeping not just Tesla drivers and...www.tesla.com
From 2012 – 2020, there has been approximately one Tesla vehicle fire for every 205 million miles traveled. By comparison, data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in the United States there is a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled.
In order to provide an apt comparison to NFPA data, Tesla’s data set includes instances of vehicle fires caused by structure fires, arson, and other things unrelated to the vehicle, which account for some of the Tesla vehicle fires over this time period.
If like to see some thread party comparisons like the NHSTA's own data.
View attachment 81606
In any case the numbers bear out that in the unlikely event of an accident a Tesla you have 10-15 percent chance of dying from a vehicle fire.
We agree commuting crashes are almost always more survivable than highway crashes.
Im not sure that the Telsa are commute only cars though, the supercharger network is a massive enabler of long trips and is so easy our boomer parents can use it. (Im genx)
It's probably more like 80/20 or maybe 70/30.
Last edited:
Musk’s fan boys constantly get over the fact that is most important here: how intense fire is!
As for ICE, fires start bcs. bad/old wiring, bad grounds etc. They don’t start at fuel tank.
Average age of cars in US is higher than age of Model 3. Let’s wait until EV become more mainstream, popular on used car market etc.
As for ICE, fires start bcs. bad/old wiring, bad grounds etc. They don’t start at fuel tank.
Average age of cars in US is higher than age of Model 3. Let’s wait until EV become more mainstream, popular on used car market etc.
You can play “locate Tesla” here in the mountains as long as you want, but you won’t find one at any resort where people commute from the Front Range to ski. You will in Aspen, Vail, Telluride or Beaver Creek, but than that is mandatory ticket to get to hang out with cool crowd.
Remember just 5 years ago when it was "impossible" for Telsa to do what they actually did?
No doubt there are place few to none go. Doesn't really mean a whole lot.
You see them all over the mountains here in Cal/ Neva. They and their charging station are coming to a mountain pass near you.
There are chargers, but for the cool crowd that takes vehicle from their lodge to Vail parking.
Those who know better don’t ski there. And getting there requires more than parking charger.
"Cool" - sure for some % thats true.
Maybe its just more practical a higher % of the time for some people to charge at home?
OR maybe they like the driving dynamics of an electric car?
Lots of owners of Ev's could care less whats "cool" it just works for them like your ice car does for you.
Right now Ive got an empty ice car in the driveway that needs to be fueled before it does much of anything - it would be full if it were electric and would save me the trip and time.
We could discuss how Trex type decks are hard to put out compared to wood. I would guess a foam type solution needs to be used , 28,000 gallons?Of course they catch fire.
But:
“For example, NBC News reported on an crash outside Houston in April that killed two people in a Tesla Model S that caught fire. It took firefighters seven hours and 28,000 gallons of water — an amount the department normally uses in one month — to douse the blaze because the car kept reigniting. The NBC report said it takes about 300 gallons of water to put out a typical fire involving an internal combustion car.”
Automakers trying to figure out what's causing fires in electric vehicles
A pair of Teslas burned in a garage, badly damaging a home in San Ramonwww.sandiegouniontribune.com
We have been discussing this in another topic.
You've left out an important qualifier - in the event of a fatal collision in a Tesla, you have a 10-15 percent chance of being involved in a fire at some point in the process. If I get run over by a tractor-trailer combination, am killed immediately, then get barbecued, I don't really care about the last part.
Until I can hit the road in the morning, get stuck 7-8hrs on I70 in blizzard at -20, then drive back 3 hrs, we are talking vanity.
People at the mountains who drive EV, always have oversized SUV that gets 6mpg, ready for “action.”
And yes, it is cool crowd issue. That is why you don’t see them at local resorts.
So unless it works for you, or that exact scenario - its vanity?
JHZR2
Staff member
Agree. Battery failure is vastly different from a fuel-air fire outside of a vehicle. Rapid venting of cells into the cabin is a major safety issue. It includes toxic gasses and flammables, carbon particles, etc. Scariest is if HF is in the mix and etches peoples’ eyes and lungs before it etches glass and metal.
JHZR2
Staff member
What if I can reasonably say I don’t need that scenario?
I mean, I’m concerned about infrastructure, battery safety, etc. definitely… but such cases as you describe is not in the mix.
That said, I recognize that some folks do have that as a plausible situation, which is why mandated removal of options is not a good thing. It’s also why I’m more a believer in PHEVs. Those who need a scenario you depict can buy one biased with a big engine and fuel tank.
That scenario is very plausible between Denver and Eagle on I70. Happened numerous times to me.
JHZR2
Staff member
Of course.
We can go bact and talk hurricanes, tornados etc.
As long as EV is not primary vehicle, it is vanity.
Same like my BMW is vanity. I really don’t need it, Sienna goes from A to B, does Home Depot runs, road trips. Actually, I could have one vehicle. But I don’t.
Actually we might get EV if wife decides to get new car. ID4 or something like that. Why? She makes 5,000 miles a year, goes to TJ, Costco etc. Most hwy miles are done by me to get car “out.”
So, yeah, why not EV? We have two cars that we can depend on when really matters.
I think we are coming back to present or future? It is future, there is no doubt about it.
In 30 years.
