From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 22/12/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 21/12/2025 10:20 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 21/12/2025 3:08 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:   
   >>>>> Liz Tuddenham  wrote:   
   >>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 20/12/2025 10:02 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 19/12/2025 6:49 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
      
      
      
   >>>> There is one, and it's in popular use. Internal-combustion-engined cars   
   >>>> catch on fire rather more frequently than their electric counterparts,   
   >>>> if the car insurance statistics are to be believed. The fossil carbon   
   >>>> industry propaganda machine doesn't highlight that particular statistic.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>    There are a lot more internal-combustion-engined cars and they are, on   
   >>> average, much older.   
   >>   
   >> The insurance statistics talk about the chance of single car catching   
   >> fire. More cars may mean more reliable statistics, but doesn't change   
   >> the probability of a single car catching fire.   
   >>   
   >> The insurance statistics do include the age of the car. If older cars   
   >> did catch fire more often they would have noticed it, and jacked up the   
   >> premiums. The car I drive was bought fifteen years ago, and the   
   >> insurance premiums haven't gone up   
   >   
   > Is that an electric car (the type of car we are talking about)?  If not,   
   > what is the relevance of your insurance premiums to the safety of   
   > electric cars?   
      
   It's not an electric car - the fact that my wife and I bought it fifteen   
   years ago should have made that clear. The relevance was to your   
   implicit and unsupported claim that older cars were more likely to catch   
   fire.   
      
   >>> Most of the fires in cars originate in the   
   >>> electrics and most of the electrics are the same in electric cars and   
   >>> internal-combustion-engined cars, so the means of propulsion isn't the   
   >>> reason.   
   >>   
   >> The fires may originate in the electrics, but most electrical faults   
   >> don't start a fire. The problems with internal combustion cars mostly   
   >> come when the fire manages to ignite the fuel tank. The batteries in   
   >> electric cars do seem to be harder to ignite.   
   >>   
   >>> If you want a fair comparison you should separate the causes: compare   
   >>> spontaneous battery fires with spontaneous fuel tank fires (petrol=some,   
   >>> diesel = none).   Compare refuelling fires: forecourt with home   
   >>> electrics.  Compare non-fuel engine fires with electric motor fires and   
   >>> compare electrical system fires with electrical system fires.   
   >>   
   >> A perfectly splendid program. Have you worked through it with real   
   >> statistics?   
   >>   
   >>> Then look at the ease of extinguishing them, the pollution they cause   
   >>> and the severity of collateral damage.   
   >>   
   >> There's a whole insurance industry that has been doing that for years.   
   >> They hire actuaries to do it. You aren't an actuary.   
   >>   
   >>> Then weight the whole exercise to account for the difference in number   
   >>> of vehicles.   
   >>   
   >> I'm sure that you think that you sound like an actuary. You don't.   
   >   
   > You made the original assertion, not me.  The onus is on you to prove   
   > it.   
      
   Which original assertion was that? As debating tricks go, that's an old   
   one, but not a good one.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)