NEV's Under Attack article.

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dauntless
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 8 months ago
Joined: Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 16:20
Points: 220
NEV's Under Attack article.

Well, it sounds like a valid concern. But always the rush to BAN. Adding some side structure wouldn't make it much heavier, but I think people like the easy in and out of these things.

http://www.evfinder.com/nev_under_attack.htm

Sunday May 23, 2010 - NEVs Under Attack - The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is calling for banning NEVs on public roads because of poor the protection they offer in a collision.

Although most people consider the risk of being rear ended because of 25mph top speed limit for a NEV to be the major problem with driving them on city streets where other drivers may be driving at 35 - 45mph. In truth it is very unlikely that someone will come up behind you and ram you because you are only driving 25mph. They may honk at you, they may give you the finger, they may even do unsafe maneuvers to get around you, but they are highly unlikely to purposely drive into you, they aren't going to want to get their nice shiny car scratched.

The problem that the IIHS found was in direct collisions. They did a side impact test using a Smart travelling at 35mph on a GEM and found that the driver in the GEM would "most likely have been killed". This kind of accident is a more likely sort of accident than the example sited above, a driver running a red light and t-boning a car going through on the green.

We have always known that NEVs, by their very nature, have been less safe than normal cars. On the other hand, the top speed of 25mph and only being able to drive on roads with a top speed of 35mph, combined with typical low usage caused by range limitations of about 30 miles per charge, has tended to make NEV accidents pretty rare.

I have heard it said that there has been no fatalities associated with the crash of a NEV and, although I have not been able to confirm this statement, I have also been unable to find any information about fatalities associated with driving or riding in a NEV either.

I don't think that the NEV should be banned from the roads. There are a lot more vehicles on the streets that are much less safe than a NEV. Consider what happens to a motorcyclist when he gets side swiped on the freeway travelling at 75mph, of the bicyclist who gets hit by a car travelling 31mph as the rider crosses an intersection, yet we don't start to ban bikes and motorcycles from public roads do we.

Sometimes we have to accept that people are willing to risk life and limb to drive the vehicle of their choice. In fact, every day we get into our cars and turn on the ignition we risk life and limb and we don't even think about it. We also have to accept compromises for the greater good. We don't ban ICE vehicles from public streets yet the number of people who die from illness related to vehicle emissions each year makes the number of NEV drivers who die in accidents look like a drop in the bucket.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against legislation that makes NEVs safer. I just don't want it pushed to the point where NEV manufacturers have to go out of business because they can't afford to do government crash testing. In any event they would probably just go to building three wheel cars which would register as motorcycles and we would be no better off.

One of the reasons I have been against current MSV laws is that the way most of these have been implemented is to just allow a NEV to go faster. I have always considered that what we need is a good quadracycle law that allows cars that can travel at speeds that are useful in town and, say 45-55 mph, but not on freeways. They should have safety features like seat belts, air bags, front and rear crumple zones, and side impact protection. However, the manufacturer should be able to get certification by using computer simulation rather than having to go through expensive crash tests.

I expect that the IIHS report will present some pressure for states and cities to think about banning NEVs from their streets, We should aggressively oppose any move by our legislature to take such action.

marcopolo
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 04:33
Points: 837
Re: NEV's Under Attack article.

Sunday May 23, 2010 - NEVs Under Attack - The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is calling for banning NEVs on public roads because of poor the protection they offer in a collision.

I don't think that the NEV should be banned from the roads. There are a lot more vehicles on the streets that are much less safe than a NEV. Consider what happens to a motorcyclist when he gets side swiped on the freeway travelling at 75mph, of the bicyclist who gets hit by a car travelling 31mph as the rider crosses an intersection, yet we don't start to ban bikes and motorcycles from public roads

Doug, it's not often that I take issue with your observations! However, Nev's and bicycles are just two more pests infesting our highways! I would love to ban these pests from most major road networks for the unsafe vehicles they really are! I would also like to compel cyclists to display registration numbers.

Before I hear all the howls of protest, I should clarify that I concede the fact that there are cities and communities, particularly closed housing estates, where these vehicles are more suitable than conventional traffic. Well done those urban planners, or those ancient cities that have been preserved.

Those exceptions aside, the highways and road networks of most nations are unsuited for the operation of NEV, bicycles and underpowered vehicles. These traffic hazards are just pests! The main problem is are incompatible with the dynamics of traffic patterns, creating endless problems for the average highway user, and danger for themselves.

Naturally, the moralistic NEV owners and Bicyclists also believe that they have a perfect right to use the highways which are paid for by the taxation of motorists. This irrational belief is due to an erroneous conviction of the superiority of their own sanctimonious ideology.

It would be great if we could evolve an entirely separate road network for bicyclists and NEV type transport. But with a few notable exceptions, the two will never mix.

Given the heavy traffic on modern highways, and road systems we need to promote more road safety and flow compatibility, not less!

marcopolo

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 09:35
Points: 2335
Re: NEV's Under Attack article.

Doug,

I tend to agree with you that the call to ban NEV's because of safety is a little hypocritical because as you say there are plenty of other forms of transport (including walking!) that offer far more risk of death when side-swiped by an automobile. Surely all the insurance companies have to do is to use motorcycle actuarial tables to determine premium costs for NEVs?

The only argument I can see in favor of highlighting this safety issue with NEVs is that some folks will buy these "little cars" and drive them as if they were "regular cars". In other words they may think that they're as safe as a regular car. When one buys a motorcycle one inherently knows it's not as safe in an accident than a car. However, when one buys an NEV one might think it's safe because you sit in an enclosed space. Furthermore, perception of safety is actually a cause of accidents as well - people are less cautious if they think they're invincible.

However...

Marco,

I tend to agree with you that NEV's are so underpowered as to be unsuitable for a large amount of transportation needs. I also agree with your statement that for certain communities they make sense. With appropriate urban design NEV's can make sense however most cities have a car-centric design and the cost of transition would be high. However, I did speak with the founder of GEM the other day and he's developing a blueprint for how to develop such communities and he's considering the transition path (we didn't go into details and I think he may be underestimating the size of the transition problem).

But I don't think they should be banned - but consumer's do have a right to know their relative safety.

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas.

Dauntless
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 8 months ago
Joined: Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 16:20
Points: 220
Re: NEV's Under Attack article.

In case you didn't understand, I didn't write that, I just posted it from the link.

Ban bicycles? (GASP) Prior to my accident (NOT on a bike) I've spent quite a bit of time on the seat. I still ride as I'm up to it. Dang, I have more than a dozen bicycles still, then there's the motorbikes.

Out here we have the definition of a bureaucracy running amok. CARB (California Air Resources Board) used to impound any truck making a delivery to their building so they could make a thorough inspection and cite whatever they could find. Oh gee, that brought an end to deliveries to their building, they were stuck sending someone to pick up anything they wanted. And let's not forget those gas nozzles to collect fumes at stations, which served to spill so much gas they were a source of air pollution.

I'm mad at them currently because they've apparently banned the import of these moped engine kits which people were putting on junk bikes and creating 150mpg transportation. An engine that runs 5-6 hours to use one gallon of gas and probably averages much less than 100 hours of operation in a year is NOT causing our air pollution. Those bureaucratics driving to work probably cause more than the whole 2,000 in our state, week after week, year after year. And yet we're paying those people to waste time on this.

There are not nearly so many unsafe vehicles as their are unsafe drivers. My friend was one of the survivors of a major freeway pileup here when a big rig didn't notice the traffic had stopped until it was too late. (The next driver behind him and on back all didn't make it.) Do we ban big rigs? They're dang useful, arn't they? So are bicycles. And I have neighborhoods near me where you can go several miles from your house, to the store, etc., without using a road with the speed limit over 25mph. The hazard there is the idiots driving faster, not the slower vehicle.

I'm figuring the NEV got around so much of the highway safety rules because they never figured on people getting out in faster traffic. Not exactly the most forward thinking, eh? But again, here we go: Desk jockeys are demanding that we do things their way only.

Remember the line in 'The Princess Bride?' "KILL an ARTIST like YOURSELF???? I'd sooner break a stained glass window!!!!" In this case I'd sooner break the heads of the bureaucrats causing all the trouble than ban the NEV. Of course, that's just my opinion.

http://peapodmobility.com/

WHo dares, WINS!!!!

marcopolo
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 04:33
Points: 837
Re: NEV's Under Attack article.

Ban bicycles? (GASP) Prior to my accident (NOT on a bike) I've spent quite a bit of time on the seat. I still ride as I'm up to it. Dang, I have more than a dozen bicycles still, then there's the motorbikes.

I'm mad at them currently because they've apparently banned the import of these moped engine kits which people were putting on junk bikes and creating 150mpg transportation. An engine that runs 5-6 hours to use one gallon of gas and probably averages much less than 100 hours of operation in a year is NOT causing our air pollution. Those bureaucratics driving to work probably cause more than the whole 2,000 in our state, week after week, year after year. And yet we're paying those people to waste time on this.

Well, I never thought I'd be defending bureaucrats! But highways and roads are shared resources and need to be regulated and policed. Civil Liberties do not include the right to risk other people lives irresponsibly, on common facilities.

I agree, lack of driving skills are a significant cause road accidents. Road safety regulations exist to eliminate as much risk as is practical. However, bicycles are a nuisance on busy highways and city streets, and a an increasing number of cyclists appear to be deliberately aggressive activists, who believe that riding a bicycle is so morally superior that they are immune from the laws of the road! Because cyclists have no rego, there is little control or comeback for motorists and pedestrians. But even the most considerate cyclist becomes a confusing pest in traffic, due to the incompatibility of the bicycle with other road users.

Collisions involving a cyclists, no matter how slight, are potentially so much more lethal than motor vehicle collisions.

Small underpowered two-wheel vehicles are exceedingly dangerous. Just look at the statistics! Likewise, small underpowered three and four wheeled vehicles are not only hazardous, but dangerous, if not equipped with sufficient safety equipment to compete adequately in traffic.

Is cycling healthy? Sure, I own a bike and enjoy riding around the parkland's and river-paths near my home. However, studies of conducted on those who ride daily in heavy traffic are in danger of contracting serious health problems. In fact one study claimed that 2 hours cycling in urban traffic was as toxic to to the cyclist as smoking 20 cigarettes a day! (These always some study, eh!)

Neighbourhood vehicles should stay where they are useful! NEV's should only operate where urban planning has provided facilities designed to accommodate such traffic, and where normal street traffic understands the requirement to conform to such restriction's, or is excluded altogether.

I have commissioned the development and production of an low speed (29 kph) agricultural EV. In some jurisdictions this vehicle can be registered for restrictive road use. But to suggest that it can safely compete on a busy highway, would be irresponsible.

marcopolo

KayaG
KayaG's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 8 months ago
Joined: Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 22:07
Points: 7
Re: NEV's Under Attack article.

I think it is not really fair to implement such ban NEVs. For there are really a lot of other reasons for risks of death. Such as the windshield wipers of cars that ignites, which have in fact, caused another GM recall. I have often thought older models were safer, and being the second vehicle recall this week alone, my thoughts are validated. Some from the newer GM models have heated windshield wipers that have caught fire numerous times causing a recall of 1.5 million automobiles. The wiper manufacturer has gone bankrupt so GM isn't capable to just upgrade the model. So that consumers don't need to get a pay day loan to fix the issue, GM is giving them $100 compensation and nevertheless disabling the system.

Log in or register to post comments


Who's online

There is currently 1 user online.

  • flapjacksbestof

Who's new

  • Elitesocietylondon
  • bestscooterskids
  • laychris
  • Torri
  • scarpesuperflyv

Customize This