All I said was that the car fire stories might have merit if teslas are far more likely to catch fire than regular cars. Shouldn't facts be important? Let's see what the facts are on that first...if Teslas are 5x more likely to catch fire than the rest of the industry, I'd say that would be interesting. I agree the stories are anti-Tesla largely but I also think it's a poor way to argue saying 'OH THIS IS JUST SENSATIONALISM ALL CARS CATCH FIRE!' when you might be embarrassed to find out that while they do, no car catches fire as often as a Tesla.
That line of defense (all cars catch fire so tesla fires are no big deal) is similar to what the Pit Bull lobby does, arguing that 'all dogs bite' therefore pit bull attacks are no big deal. While all dogs bite, pit bulls, which make up only 3% of the dog population in north america, are responsible for over 50% of dog attacks that require hospitalization and for a whopping 60% of the dog attacks that kill people. So while all dogs bite, Pit Bulls are far more dangerous than any other dog and writing off their attacks as no big deal is ignorant and dangerous. If all cars catch fire, what if Teslas are more prone to catch fire than any other brand?
Relating this to the GM ignition switch recall is funny...we're talking about car fires...not ignition switches (which had nothing to do with fires). Starting the car wasn't the problem with the GM recall. It was that the car could be accidentally turned off rather easily if you had big key chain for example and bumped it with your knee while driving, causing a loss to power aids like steering and braking. But hey, why confuse the issue with facts? Pretending the GM cars killed people when they turned the ignition like a mob hit blowing someone up is much more sensational right? Ironic...see what you did there?
At no point did I pretend GM cars exploded like some mob hit, but I see how you can assume my words suggest that. I was referring to something that happened which garnered 'some' media attention, but then was brushed under the rug....GM avoided much of the responsibility of the ignition scandal by 're branding' as 'New GM' and claiming 'New GM' cant be responsible for the actions of 'Old GM' or something ridiculous like that....not exactly the same situation I agree, but its an example of the double standard in today's oil driven society with these companies deemed 'too big to fail'.
I am merely pointing out (as you admit above) these stories are anti-Tesla (actually anti-EV, but since Tesla's are the most popular EV and this is a Tesla forum I referenced that brand)
I do want to keep this a fruitful debate, and focus on the facts, but I also dont want to have this turn into a rabbit hole so will try and state my position a bit more clearly with some facts (and admittedly, some personal bias since I'm sure I will be accused of that as well).
To start I want to address something you've mentioned twice now; multiple times you ask "what if Tesla's are 5x more likely to catch fire?" I find it odd how you ask an open question like that, then go on to use that statement as some sort of fact to prove your point. I've never seen any proof that Teslas catch fire 5x more often than an ICE car...in fact its this sort of statement that proves my point about the fear mongering of EVs....
If indeed Tesla's are 5x more likely to catch fire than ice cars, I agree that it would be a problem. But I seriously question that statement....so lets look at some numbers:
1. There are about 268 million cars on the road in the US (source):
https://www.quora.com/How-many-cars-are-there-in-the-US
2. From 2014-2016 there was an average of 171,500 car vehicle fires per year (source):
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v19i2.pdf
So, thats a ratio of around 0.064% (171,500/268,000,000)
3. I could also hedge bets and add in refuelling related vehicle fires (those that occur at the gas pump), which amount to an additional 5,020 fires per year on average, but I wont do that (source):
NFPA Journal - New Fuels, New Fueling, May June 2017
4. By Q1 2019 Tesla has produced 603,858 cars worldwide (not just delivered in the US).
Tesla, Inc. - Wikipedia
5. In the same link it is mentioned that 182,400 Teslas were sold in the US last year
So
IF Tesla cars were 5x more likely to catch fire than ICE cars, we should be seeing around 0.06% * 5 = 0.32% of the total number of Teslas go up in smoke, right? Except the problem with that is I haven't seen any evidence that 0.32% * 603,858 = 1,932 Teslas have gone up in flames since they started producing cars?
Also, lets take even last year of sales in the US: if 0.32% of them catch fire, then 0.32% * 182,400 = 584 of the teslas sold last year should catch fire this year.....and I just dont believe we are seeing almost 2 teslas/day in the US catching fire, am I?
Maybe there is an error in my logic because I did this on the fly, so if there is please let me know. But in my opinion this demonstrates that if nothing else EVs are MUCH less likely to pose a fire risk vs ICE vehicles.
As I said above, I do definitely agree that an EV fire can be much more difficult to deal with, but that's not the point I was trying to make.
I dont intend my post to come off as argumentative, but its difficult to have a debate on the interwebs without someone taking offence. Lets try and keep the debate civil and stick to the facts.
Even if my math above is off by an order of magnitude, that would mean we should be seeing 50-60 Tesla fires/year in the US...that's 1/week for an entire year. If that happened the media would be having a feeding frenzy. As it is, 1 happens in China with no real back story, and its front page news everywhere
