Electric Car Arguing 2022

[Max Rockatansky]

Serious question. Is HighwayStar just doing a shtick for attention or is he really that ignorant?

I think those are his true beliefs.

There is no "belief" that Chicago has a crime problem, that is a fact, it has noticeably higher rates of crime than the rest of the country.

I'm just spit balling here but I think most people (myself included) are keying in the assertion that murderers are just roaming the streets of Chicago looking to pick off random folk passing by. 

[GaryV]

the assertion that murderers are just roaming the streets of Chicago looking to pick off random folk passing by.

In blizzards that shut down the roads.

[jeffandnicole]

One may argue that it is much easier to replenish gas on a highway.
On the other hand, I wonder what is the idling endurance of ICE with half tank compared to climate control only EV with half battery

Certainly depends how many people have ran out of gas on the highway. While emergency crews may bring cans with gas, after a while if there's more cars than gallons of gas, they're going to need to replenish.

For electric vehicles, a generator only needs to power up the vehicle 15 minutes or so to give it enough power to eventually get to a charging station. Ironically the generator will need gas to assist that vehicle. But just like now where where AAA Vehicles will bring gas, as more electric vehicles are on the road, similar AAA vehicles will have generators.

Serious question. Is HighwayStar just doing a shtick for attention or is he really that ignorant?

I don't believe much of what he says. It goes back to his opinions of sidewalks. While some people may dislike having sidewalks because they have to shovel snow or maintain them, his belief that no one should even be a pedestrian is highly abnormal.

[SEWIGuy]

One may argue that it is much easier to replenish gas on a highway.
On the other hand, I wonder what is the idling endurance of ICE with half tank compared to climate control only EV with half battery

Certainly depends how many people have ran out of gas on the highway. While emergency crews may bring cans with gas, after a while if there's more cars than gallons of gas, they're going to need to replenish.

For electric vehicles, a generator only needs to power up the vehicle 15 minutes or so to give it enough power to eventually get to a charging station. Ironically the generator will need gas to assist that vehicle. But just like now where where AAA Vehicles will bring gas, as more electric vehicles are on the road, similar AAA vehicles will have generators.

Even if they didn't have generators at the time, no one was going to die on Lake Shore Drive because their electric car ran out of juice.  I get that electric vehicles may not be for everyone - I have only really considered hybrids but never purchased one - but engaging in hyperbolic arguments doesn't really serve any purpose.

Oh and HighwayStar is about 70% troll.

[jeffandnicole]

One may argue that it is much easier to replenish gas on a highway.
On the other hand, I wonder what is the idling endurance of ICE with half tank compared to climate control only EV with half battery

Certainly depends how many people have ran out of gas on the highway. While emergency crews may bring cans with gas, after a while if there's more cars than gallons of gas, they're going to need to replenish.

For electric vehicles, a generator only needs to power up the vehicle 15 minutes or so to give it enough power to eventually get to a charging station. Ironically the generator will need gas to assist that vehicle. But just like now where where AAA Vehicles will bring gas, as more electric vehicles are on the road, similar AAA vehicles will have generators.

Even if they didn't have generators at the time, no one was going to die on Lake Shore Drive because their electric car ran out of juice.  I get that electric vehicles may not be for everyone - I have only really considered hybrids but never purchased one - but engaging in hyperbolic arguments doesn't really serve any purpose.

Oh and HighwayStar is about 70% troll.

I'm thinking more like suburban/rural highways where we have seen massive road closures with motorists stuck on them, such as I-78 in PA or I-95 in Virginia.

[tolbs17]

I hope the new electric cars don't take a while to charge.

[HighwayStar]

One may argue that it is much easier to replenish gas on a highway.
On the other hand, I wonder what is the idling endurance of ICE with half tank compared to climate control only EV with half battery

Certainly depends how many people have ran out of gas on the highway. While emergency crews may bring cans with gas, after a while if there's more cars than gallons of gas, they're going to need to replenish.

For electric vehicles, a generator only needs to power up the vehicle 15 minutes or so to give it enough power to eventually get to a charging station. Ironically the generator will need gas to assist that vehicle. But just like now where where AAA Vehicles will bring gas, as more electric vehicles are on the road, similar AAA vehicles will have generators.

Even if they didn't have generators at the time, no one was going to die on Lake Shore Drive because their electric car ran out of juice.  I get that electric vehicles may not be for everyone - I have only really considered hybrids but never purchased one - but engaging in hyperbolic arguments doesn't really serve any purpose.

Oh and HighwayStar is about 70% troll.

How is it "troll" to point out that Chicago has a crime issue and I would rather break down in the countryside?

[hotdogPi]

No, it's trolling to say that sidewalks shouldn't exist, SUVs shouldn't exist, price gouging doesn't exist, McKinley was the original name and not Denali, undesirables (i.e. low income, which is who you think is undesirable rather than actually being undesirable) should be put in freeway medians, and control cities should be signed to remind people that a freeway didn't get completed instead of actually helping people get where they're going.

Except I think you actually believe all this, in which case it isn't trolling, but rather extreme ignorance.

The idea of major cities being gun violence hellholes is an irrational fear spread by conservatives. This is a common enough belief that it's not outlandish, but it's still wrong. Visiting a place and just passing through is safe pretty much anywhere in the United States, if you disregard COVID-19 which isn't what we're talking about right now. Remember that some people live there their entire lives, and most of them are fine. Also what several of us have said before about most victims not being random people on the street.

[Scott5114]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

[SectorZ]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

The media has sensationalized the hell out of violent crime that every poll asking people whether homicide rates have gone up or down in the past 50 years always shows people guessing incorrectly, thinking it went up. That has more to do with people being unable to think for themselves.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

The media has sensationalized the hell out of violent crime that every poll asking people whether homicide rates have gone up or down in the past 50 years always shows people guessing incorrectly, thinking it went up. That has more to do with people being unable to think for themselves.

Whereas the Uniform Crime Report shows a largely downward trend in violent crime. 

[HighwayStar]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

The media has sensationalized the hell out of violent crime that every poll asking people whether homicide rates have gone up or down in the past 50 years always shows people guessing incorrectly, thinking it went up. That has more to do with people being unable to think for themselves.

I go by statistics, not what the media sensationalizes. And I am more than capable of thinking for myself.
I am well aware that homicides have declined relative to their high levels seen in the 70s/80s, mostly due to the crime bust in the 90s/00s, but in the last decade that trend has started to reverse.

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well. Frankly, asking the average person about the crime rate is just typical gaslighting, rather than trying to have an honest discussion about the problem.

[kalvado]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

The media has sensationalized the hell out of violent crime that every poll asking people whether homicide rates have gone up or down in the past 50 years always shows people guessing incorrectly, thinking it went up. That has more to do with people being unable to think for themselves.

I go by statistics, not what the media sensationalizes. And I am more than capable of thinking for myself.
I am well aware that homicides have declined relative to their high levels seen in the 70s/80s, mostly due to the crime bust in the 90s/00s, but in the last decade that trend has started to reverse.

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well. Frankly, asking the average person about the crime rate is just typical gaslighting, rather than trying to have an honest discussion about the problem.

Time for another split off a split off thread?

[Max Rockatansky]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

The media has sensationalized the hell out of violent crime that every poll asking people whether homicide rates have gone up or down in the past 50 years always shows people guessing incorrectly, thinking it went up. That has more to do with people being unable to think for themselves.

I go by statistics, not what the media sensationalizes. And I am more than capable of thinking for myself.
I am well aware that homicides have declined relative to their high levels seen in the 70s/80s, mostly due to the crime bust in the 90s/00s, but in the last decade that trend has started to reverse.

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well. Frankly, asking the average person about the crime rate is just typical gaslighting, rather than trying to have an honest discussion about the problem.

Time for another split off a split off thread?

Even better, delete back to when the EV talk actually stopped.

[HighwayStar]

Most of the places in this country that are held out as scary, dangerous hellholes have actually seen a marked improvement in crime rates since the 1970s (as has all of the country).

I read an online comment from a user who had lived in San Francisco's Tenderloin district since then and his experiences went from occasionally finding bodies at the beginning of his stay there to really not being bothered by much more than panhandlers in that time frame, and yet his neighborhood is still the subject of sensational news coverage about how bad it is.

The media has sensationalized the hell out of violent crime that every poll asking people whether homicide rates have gone up or down in the past 50 years always shows people guessing incorrectly, thinking it went up. That has more to do with people being unable to think for themselves.

I go by statistics, not what the media sensationalizes. And I am more than capable of thinking for myself.
I am well aware that homicides have declined relative to their high levels seen in the 70s/80s, mostly due to the crime bust in the 90s/00s, but in the last decade that trend has started to reverse.

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well. Frankly, asking the average person about the crime rate is just typical gaslighting, rather than trying to have an honest discussion about the problem.

Time for another split off a split off thread?

Even better, delete back to when the EV talk actually stopped.

Second.

[vdeane]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

[HighwayStar]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

The difference is that there is some positive value created by transportation, whereas there is no positive value created by crime.

[brad]

Sorry. Didn't mean to derail. The Chicago crime comment was not the focus of my post. I mean, everything he said is troll-ish, especially EV comments. If you don't like EV's, that's fine. Don't drive one. But why make false and defensive statements?

[1995hoo]

Sorry. Didn't mean to derail. The Chicago crime comment was not the focus of my post. I mean, everything he said is troll-ish, especially EV comments. If you don't like EV's, that's fine. Don't drive one. But why make false and defensive statements?

Well, you are talking about the forum member who insists I-70 does not enter Baltimore.

[Rothman]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

The difference is that there is some positive value created by transportation, whereas there is no positive value created by crime.

Paraguay says hello.

[HighwayStar]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

The difference is that there is some positive value created by transportation, whereas there is no positive value created by crime.

Paraguay says hello.

Paraguay is a third world country that is about as comparable to the US as a hot wheels car is to an actual car.

[jamess]

So to throw a bone to HighwayStar, I was just reading a review of Mazda's new EV, the MX-30. The review generally praised it but noted one not-so-minor problem: Its EPA-estimated range is only 100 miles, and the review said in practical use (including some highway driving, climate control on, etc.) the actual range is more like 70 miles. That's ridiculous, especially in a vehicle with a starting MSRP of $33,000. 70 miles is nothing. It's easy to drive 70 miles just in local driving.

My understanding is that it is a compliance car, and will only be sold in California.

Mazda, Subuaru and in many cases Toyota are shockingly behind in EV development.

The Hyundai Ionic 5 is a much better new release to reference and is in the same price range.

Small-battery EVs have a place, but that is something like the electric golf cars popular in retirement resorts.

[Rothman]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

The difference is that there is some positive value created by transportation, whereas there is no positive value created by crime.

Paraguay says hello.

Paraguay is a third world country that is about as comparable to the US as a hot wheels car is to an actual car.

You've moved the goalposts. 

Paraguay's GDP was infamously held up by smuggling for decades and therefore still had "positive value" created by crime.

The lack of positive value is a matter of perspective.  From those profiting off the crime, there's quite a bit.

Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

[skluth]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

The difference is that there is some positive value created by transportation, whereas there is no positive value created by crime.

Paraguay says hello.

Paraguay is a third world country that is about as comparable to the US as a hot wheels car is to an actual car.

You've moved the goalposts. 

Paraguay's GDP was infamously held up by smuggling for decades and therefore still had "positive value" created by crime.

The lack of positive value is a matter of perspective.  From those profiting off the crime, there's quite a bit.

Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

Not really. That same allegedly positive value is countered by all the negative value from the crime. You're arguing the equivalent of Al Capone created positive value because he sponsored soup kitchens and shelters, employed a whole lot of people, and tipped well while ignoring the negative effects of mass murder, extortion, and corruption by the many people he employed. Those who benefited from crime in Paraguay were doing much the same. Keeping an entire country in poverty while a cherished few are living well is not an example of positive value.

[kalvado]

Moreover, the "well it used to be worse" response falls flat when you really think about it. Lots of things used to be worse, but that has never stopped us from considering the status quo to be unacceptable as well.

Now you sound like a Vision Zero proponent.  That's the same argument they use.

The difference is that there is some positive value created by transportation, whereas there is no positive value created by crime.

Paraguay says hello.

Paraguay is a third world country that is about as comparable to the US as a hot wheels car is to an actual car.

You've moved the goalposts. 

Paraguay's GDP was infamously held up by smuggling for decades and therefore still had "positive value" created by crime.

The lack of positive value is a matter of perspective.  From those profiting off the crime, there's quite a bit.

Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

Not really. That same allegedly positive value is countered by all the negative value from the crime. You're arguing the equivalent of Al Capone created positive value because he sponsored soup kitchens and shelters, employed a whole lot of people, and tipped well while ignoring the negative effects of mass murder, extortion, and corruption by the many people he employed. Those who benefited from crime in Paraguay were doing much the same. Keeping an entire country in poverty while a cherished few are living well is not an example of positive value.

Of course certain crime can have positive value locally - except for crime victims. Think drugs, for example - this is manufacturing and distribution of expensive goods. Compare that with cigarettes for example

Now those not directly involved may get benefits. If you think, why crypto is surviving?