From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
      
   Bill Sloman  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I put that forward as a possible explanation for your assertion that   
   diesel and petrol cars were more likely to catch fire than electric   
   ones.  When we have a large number of 15-year-old electric cars on the   
   market, some being maintained by DIY, we shall have a more balanced   
   picture of their relative electrical safety.   
      
   > >>> 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.   
      
   Electrical fires in cars take a long time to work their way around to   
   the fuel tank.  Fuel tanks rarely ignite themselves without external   
   cause whereas lithium traction batteries do.   
      
   > >>> 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?   
      
   You haven't provided any.   
      
      
   > >>> 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?   
      
   Your initial assertion that electric cars are less likely to catch fire   
   then diesel or petrol ones.  You have yet to back it up with any facts   
   to show that a difference exists and is cause by the fuel and not by   
   other factors.   
      
      
   --   
   ~ Liz Tuddenham ~   
   (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)   
   www.poppyrecords.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)