octave

Car companies are making profits, although not all of them. Some legacy car companies are struggling. One of the problems for a company like Ford is that they are often selling an EV to an existing customer. People who may have bought Ford utility/pickup vehicles who decide to go EV means that they lose an IC sale but gain a less profitable EV sale. Companies that only make EVs are generally doing much better. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-vs-Toyota-BYD-VW-and-Ford-profit-margins-get-visualized-as-GM-trails-it-four-to-one.691126.0.html Just a few car companies that make profits are Tesla, BYD Stellantis, Volkswagen and quite a few more. Many traditional car manufacturers are struggling and some are not getting into EVs which I think will be a problem for them in the future. Nokia used to be the leader in mobile phone technology but was resistant to the smartphone. The headlines about overproduction and a collapse in sales are wildly exaggerated if you actually look at the figures.

Sure and you are perfectly at liberty to do that. I would argue that progress IS slow. I have often heard the argument that there are not enough EVs to warrant building infrastructure and also that EVs are unviable because there is insufficient infrastructure. During the early years of aviation, governments subsidized aviation and built airports etc. and I think perhaps people may have argued that they shouldn't because it was not developed enough. I would also suggest that pushing forward carefully but purposefully was the hallmark of things like the Apollo program. If car companies are willing to build EVs and people are willing to buy them then what is the problem? mmm not sure about that, they have many pros and some cons. Have you ever driven one? There are targets for ending IC production by the 2030s however this will more than likely happen anyway. There is no reason to believe that EVs have reached their peak technology-wise. The sticker price of the average EV will likely fall below that of internal combustion. Charging times likewise are improving. The infrastructure also continues to improve. I don't actually think that banning IC cars will be necessary anyway. I don't have any problem with anyone saying they don't want to buy one but often the rhetoric amongst many EV haters is they don't want anyone else to buy one either. I am not ready to buy an EV yet either, but this is mainly because I have never bought a new vehicle and at this stage in life I do so few KMs anyway. Having driven many of them though, it is like chalk and cheese. Don't want to buy one? then don't buy one.

. Yep I am aware of that. The dates I used were modern era and mass-produced and still around today. I am not including the EVs such as the one in the video below.

No trade or profession has an inherent right to exist forever. IC cars displaced horse-related businesses and diesel electric displaced the steam industry. Having said that it will be a long time until internal combustion engines disappear. You often say that there is this headlong rush into 100% EV adoption however the change is actually slow. In the case of Hybrids, I think the Toyota Prius first went onto the market in 1997 in Japan. This was 27 years ago. The Nissan Leaf went on sale in 2010, 14 years ago. Globally 14% of sales are EVs and only 4% in Australia. This is hardly a cataclysmic change and surely should not induce anxiety.

Oil is a finite resource. It can be burnt or used to create useful chemicals and products. The oil that makes the fuel we burn in our cars is a once-only product and can not be recycled. The problems of getting to so-called net zero is considered and studied. OME I would suggest exploring Google Scholar for high-quality information.

And too bad if you get killed by a human driver when an autonomous car would have avoided the accident. I say again,IF autonomous cars reduce deaths and injuries then it would be unethical not to go in that direction if it is economically viable. Am I wrong in this assertion?

With regard to autonomous driving, I would argue that if/when it is safer than human driving it would be unethical not to adopt it, subject to the economics of course. I would argue that this may already be the case but to keep the argument simple let's just say that if it can be proven that autonomous is safer then..... There will be a time in the near future I suspect when insurance companies will charge different premiums for those who choose to drive autonomously and those who self-drive and the premiums will be based on the statistical risk and payout amounts. I look forward to autonomous driving, especially as I get older. I well remember my father having his licence pulled at 85 (justifiably) This was quite a blow for him. Living in a place without public transport was not good. The doctor felt so sorry for him that after 6 months he allowed him to drive again. Eventually, it became clear that he was a danger on the road. My mother is now in aged care, and although she is in reasonable shape, it just became too hard for her to get around to shop and visit the doctor. If autonomous cars were a thing right now at a reasonable price she would still be in her own home.

This fire truck is an EV but has a diesel range extender for the rare longer trip. They say that their average journey distance is 5 miles. Some of the benefits are quicker acceleration out of the fire station and at traffic lights etc, Also because diesel fire engines need to have their engine idling to power water pumps and lighting etc. This EV truck means less noise which helps with communication and less breathing in of harmful diesel fumes. The A.C.T. has a firefighting support vehicle that is similar to this, Gilbert Fire's new electric fire truck

Absolutely. It won't be a blanket yes or no though. It will be a case of horses for courses. Is a 4WD vehicle suitable for police work? Well yes in some areas and not in others. The local police in Alice Springs probably need to cover vast areas and speed and acceleration may not be important. Whilst here in Geelong police vehicles travel much shorter distances. With so many Teslas and other performance cars on the road, it will be a bit of a problem if the drivers of these cars know they can easily outrun any police vehicle. The US is well ahead in this and much evaluation has been done World's First 100% EV Police Fleet Saves Taxpayers $300k Westport Police Tesla Model 3 Financial Analysis Here is quite an in-depth video about one of the first Tesla police cars. It is quite long but I found it informative

OME almost every state police force has some pure EVs and many more hybrid vehicles. This is also true of the US and Britain. Did you read all of the articles? NSW Highway Patrol does in fact have an EV NSW Police highway patrol takes delivery of BMW iX electric car Of course there are areas where EVs would not yet be suitable, just as some areas are suited to 4WD vehicles. Queensland Police Kia EV6 electric highway patrol car earns its stripes Blue, red, and green: Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Toyota Mirai police cars trialled Victoria Police add Tesla Model X to highway patrol fleet World's First 100% EV Police Fleet Saves Taxpayers $300k No one is saying that they should do a wholesale replacement of Police cars with EVs. Certainly, experience overseas has been generally good. The average police car in most areas do not travel huge distances each day but I was surprised to read how long police cars spend idling. It is obvious that police vehicles need to keep pace with the cars that are out there. "While Acting Superintendent Flanders is full of praise for the Kia, he admits there may be some police officers who may need to be convinced of the capability of the electric car. "Let me be blunt – I think there'll be some old hard noses who might struggle for the first few minutes of driving the car and say 'why am I in an electric vehicle?'. But like me, after the first couple of minutes, you're sold. It's just so many streets ahead of what our old vehicles used to be," he said." I think most of the pure EVs are still in the evaluation phase so if they are not up to the job they will surely be rejected. This is good, isn't it? You can't just become stuck in time and not be willing to innovate. Many EVs can easily outrun iC police vehicles.

https://www.police1.com/police-products/vehicles/patrol/articles/electric-vehicles-prove-they-can-handle-police-work-kh6xMkZRKTGuuZzF/#:~:text=Can electric vehicles handle police,serve as regular patrol cars. https://thedriven.io/2024/04/16/quicker-and-cheaper-police-departments-add-tesla-model-y-evs-to-fleet/ https://www.drive.com.au/news/nsw-police-highway-patrol-take-delivery-of-bmw-ix-electric-car/ https://www.goauto.com.au/news/general-news/electric-vehicles/evs-of-interest-to-australian-police/2022-03-01/87169.html https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/us-police-department-switching-entire-fleet-to-tuned-teslas https://electrek.co/2023/05/09/tesla-model-y-police-dept-go-all-electric/

I think Red's camera analogy is correct. When it comes to the charging infrastructure lagging behind, this is always the case with new tech. We didn't wait for a network of airports before people started to travel by plane. Early aviation was certainly not the most convenient method however early adopters enthusiastically became willing to fly. The infrastructure soon followed. Actually, I would argue that airport infrastructure still lags behind need. How many airports are hampered by being at their full capacity? The early internet was abysmal compared to today. The network's bandwidth could not keep up with the speed of the computers of the day. Early petrol car drivers had difficulties purchasing fuel. Something I find annoying is how the anti-EV crowd presents the worst-case situation to illustrate the so-called fatal flaw in EV tech. "I can't drive through the outback" they will say. If that is what you want to do then certainly EVs are not yet ready to do this easily. In the EV group am in people document their trips around Australia and through the outback. At this stage, I would liken it to cross-country flying in light or rec aviation. You need to do planning. In the case of aircraft it is a question of "where can I get fuel", "What is my backup plan if the airfield unexpectedly can not supply fuel"? At this stage this kind of EV driving is for enthusiasts and early adopters. Regional and city driving is quite a different matter. I do suspect some folks feel that through their lifetime they have built up a good deal of knowledge about internal combustion engines and that this may now be devalued. This occurs in many fields and is unavoidable. It is not all bad, in the future when IC vehicles are more of a rarity those folks with great knowledge will probably be admired like the people who keep steam trains running. I recently had a great conversation with my 90-year father-in-law. He retired about 30 years ago. He used to work at Tesltra in the materials testing branch. This department used to assess and test everything Testra purchased. This could be rubber gloves or shovels or switchboards or generators anything really. When he was still working he took me and my wife on a tour of the laboratory. There were amazing things such as a room full of lead acid batteries whose sole purpose was to test how fuses blew and to photograph with high-speed cameras On a recent visit we were sitting in his loungeroom and he was showing me his new lounge suite that had multiple push button adjustments. He made the point that this would not have been doable a few years ago because the motors would have been too big and heavy. I was impressed with his knowledge both of old electric motor tech and how motors have developed. Sometimes talking to an older person can be a bit of a drag if all they know or care about is the past and they have no interest in the future. There are many things I don't want to discuss with my father in law but discussing technology is always fun and enlightening.

The death of EVs has been greatly exaggerated. It is a brave person that makes these cataclysmic predictions based on such a small amount of evidence. Although this very recent drop is quite large this graph shows that the upward trend has always zig-zagged. . Adoption of new technology does take a rather predictable path. First there are the "innovators" followed by the early "adopters" Then after this population has been satisfied we reach a point called the "chasm" All the enthusiasts have adopted but the "early majority" is still cautious. Certainly, this is a time when new technology can fail to gain wide acceptance but most technology we take for granted has taken this trajectory. There are many reasons why EV sales in the FIRST QUARTER have reduced. We are in fairly tough financial times and EVs still have a higher sticker price, if not a higher lifetime cost. Most countries are winding back incentives. EV sales collapse as subsidies and tax credits come to an abrupt halt I would suggest that new car sales generally are depressed. This graph below admittedly is from one country but it suggest that the EV slump is not remarkable given the slump in petrol car sales. I would suggest that the joy and excitement by those in the iC car industry or related industries as well as for those who are just apprehensive about change is a little premature. This conversation would be more sensible in a years time. That is something that will become clear in the next few years. In terms of how we drive the wheels of a car, electric is just a no-brainer, isn't it? What we are really talking about is how the energy to do this is stored. Battery technology is far from the end of it's development. The price of EVs has been too high for the average buyer, now the price (not the sky) is falling. Some companies may not be able to survive but as long as there is a profit to be made EVs will continue to be built. I am often bemused by the almost hysterical zeal of the anti-EV crowd. I am in an EV group on FB where owners and people who are interested in technology discuss things. Almost daily someone will join the group solely to post FUD (if you don't know what FUD is look it up) This to me seems pretty unhinged. My passion for EVs is dwarfed by the passion of the average anti EV person. I am happy to discuss this subject with people who present good quality evidence but as we see just on this forum people are happy to post videos of firery crashes that actually turn out to be something quite different or clips about naughty boys unplugging EV charging cables whilst they are charging (you cant do that) or fires in carparks that turn out to be caused be a diesel vehicle (Lutton) If you don't like EVs don't buy one. If you resent government incentives (which are dwindling anyway) then talk to your local MP. But I can't see why there is resentment towards those who make the choice to purchase an EV. Technology has not reached a peak whereby we say anything new is scary or we just say let's halt thousands of years of innovation and change. There is that quote which is attributed to several different sources "Everything that can be invented has been invented" allegedly said in 1899.

As far as I am concerned the only justification for hitting someone is direct and immediate self-defence from a physical attack.

I do have slight discomfort with the idea that a driver of violence is "humiliation" or "disrespect" It may well be but it should not be. I think one of the problems is that these are subjective things. Some people are quick to interpret things as being disrespectful or as rejection. I think between myself and my wife I am quicker to define things friends or colleagues have said as "having a go" Fortunately this does not lead me to aggression. I related a story about a female colleague whose partner wanted her to be home from work ASAP and couldn't tolerate her having a drink with her colleagues. This did lead to him hitting her after which she rightly left him. In his eyes, he felt she was disrespecting him by not doing exactly what he wanted. Anyone who uses violence against their partner will always believe there was a good reason. I think we can all feel rejected, disrespected or humiliated, that is just life. the question is how do we deal with these feelings? Humans of all genders and ages are rejected, humiliated or disrespected at some time but most do not react with violence. I do hate the idea that we men are so emotionally fragile that we can't help ourselves.

Here is a compilation of various clips of this accident. You can literally see the gas cylinders. The original post said this took place in Canada however everyone you can hear seems to speak Russian. I realize that you merely passed this on but this is the essence of the fake news problem. A quick fact-check is always a good idea.

Oh dear, it does pay to fact-check. https://factly.in/viral-video-shows-gas-canisters-exploding-after-the-non-electric-truck-carrying-them-crashed/ https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/explosive-video-gaslights-electric-vehicle-drivers/ https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33QG9KY

Yep and we could also pose the question "What is the difference between those who do hurt others and those who don't"

The stand-out figure for me was that murder generally is a male vice. 87% of murders are committed by men. I do think we have to have the courage to ask why. I don't think we men need to be defensive about asking this question. I do not think it reflects badly on me. Solve this conundrum and you could drastically cut the number of murders of men, women and children. Am I wrong to ask this question?

Nomad, My comment was in reference to the graph I posted about historical Intimate Partner homicide rate, males and females. This seems relevant to be relevant the discussion. If we are talking about lesser assaults then there can of course be questions about who did what to whom. We can suppose things like I bet the alleged victim played a part in what happened. Presupposing such things is not helpful. It cuts both ways. In the case of a male victim, one could ask "What did he do to cause her to attack him."

The graph I posted is specifically about intimate partner homicide both male and female. I might be misinterpreting the above quote but it does sound a little bit like "perhaps they were asking for it."

Something that concerns me as a man is it is not just a case of who is being killed but who is doing the killing. It is not that we are all collectively guilty but we cant just brush this fact under the carpet. "First, there is a significant gender disparity: in 2022-23, 87 per cent of homicide offenders were male, while 69 per cent of homicide victims were male. Predominantly, men are killing men. And while men were most likely to be killed by a friend, acquaintance or some other person who was not a family member, women were more likely to be killed by a former or current partner (49 per cent of all victims)." https://lsj.com.au/articles/new-homicide-statistics-show-surge-in-intimate-partner-killings-and-huge-disparity-in-first-nations-victims/#:~:text=First%2C there is a significant,Predominantly%2C men are killing men.

OME, would agree though that the intimate homicide rate has dropped dramatically since 1989 with a recent uptick last year and this year? Again I am not trying to diminish the recent incidences but the narrative that this is some new epidemic does not seem to be the case.

It is important to rationally analyse the statistics. Yes there has been a spike in intimate partner homicides last year and in the first part of this year. This is against a background of falling domestic homicides. I definitely don't want to diminish the severity and horror of this spike and we ought to be working on reducing and eliminating all violence. https://theconversation.com/new-homicide-statistics-show-surge-in-intimate-partner-killings-and-huge-disparity-in-first-nations-victims-228890 The notion that it is a new problem caused by those youngns does not really stand up to scrutiny. If we look at the graph there is a downward trend with many ups and downs or spikes.