this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
552 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
72425 readers
2463 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Every study ever done on the subject has concluded that vehicle fires happen far less in electric vehicles than ICE ones. If you want to talk about responsibility we would ban them all.
100 fires that you can actually put out is better than 1 you can't.
Brother if your life is dependent on someone coming to put out the fire, you're not gonna make it.
"Brother" putting words in people's mouth is literally definition of bad faith.
I was not speaking for terms of "life". Though life certainly is affected by the problems.
Lithium fires cause immensely more damage than ICE fires do. Hell just think of a benign situation like a car catch fire under a bridge. A BEV is more likely to structurally damage the bridge than an ICE fire would.
Lithium fires burn much hotter and spread much faster since it's self-oxidizing. I'll take an ICE fire any day since they will burn slower just by it's very nature. I will have more protection by sheer thermal mass in between me and the firey bit (the engine) than I do would with an EV where the battery is literally underneath the entire passenger cabin.
It's well known that BEV fires are much more destructive. The fact that they happen less often doesn't fix the fact that it ends up being a wash all around.
Edit: Eg, more often x less damage = less often x more damage
Good thing no one did that?
I mean that's pretty clearly the topic at hand, and the most important one.
Damage to what? There ain't gonna be anything left of the car either way.
That's an extremely obscure and cherry-picked scenario to make your point.
Thermal mass is not relevant. You don't die from metal contact, you die from smoke inhalation.
It absolutely is not, and the mere insinuation otherwise leads me to believe you're just being disingenuous.
You did.
Factually wrong. ICE cars are much much easier to put out. Often times ICE engine fires can put themselves out. And since they burn slower anyway, it's more likely you can escape the fire in of itself. Eg. if the fire occurs from a runway combustion in the chamber and the engine locks up starving the combustion chamber from oxygen.
Not really? There's a lot of bridges on the planet... There's lots of tunnels on the planet. There's lots of infrastructure that is a part of our roadways or are close enough to roadways to be affected. Tunnels are actually an even better problem to discuss. Heavy metal toxicity will stick around a lot longer and cause much more problems than an ICE engine that can actually be doused out 1/10th of the way through the burn.
More things between you and the fire = more protection overall... period. And you want to talk about people being disingenuous?
It's not. And you didn't even bother to dispute it.
😂🤣😂🤣 what? There's supposed to be fire in the combustion chamber. If it doesn't leave there, it's not "a fire". If it does leave there, the engine locking up does nothing.
If there's something between you and the fire then there's not a threat to life.