The Electric Car Shock

[bungeejumper]

Is it just the UK being a tech backwater or small/unusual market that causes these things? Stuff doesn't get developed for places that aren't big targets? (And if it was worth it it would be done locally!)

Yeah, but we'd be in a bit of a mess if cars were safety-equipped according to where they were being driven. A car's gotta go where it's gotta go, and especially a hire car. Unless you're asking whether it might be possible to disable some facilities in certain postcodes?

WRT the unusual safety and braking record in Britain, I'd agree that it's Britain that's generally the anomaly. The only other European country where I've found courtesy and safety to rival the UK was Spain - and then only among older drivers. (The young'uns are every bit as suicidal as the Greeks. Or the Italians or the Turks. Or the Poles. Or (shudder) the Belgians. I always think I'm going to die when I'm in a Brussels taxi. )

BJ

[Arborbridge]

Several of the previous posts are ringing alarm bells and confirming that these statistics need looking at in more detail - or for the moment being taken with a pinch of salt. I am staying neutral on the conclusions for the moments and would prefer an unbiassed look at the numbers by someone like the More or Less team - they usually manage to tease out the problems by looking more deeply. I must say, quoted percentages of this or that often turn out to be either wrong or misleading.
On the internet it is deadly, with people picking out the particular numbers which prove their POV without quoting the caveats or limitations - thereafter a third or fourth party will quote those as "true", and so falsehoods or hal-truths are proliferated.



Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Blaming the victims for not having evolved fast enough seems to be oddly off the point.

Not to say, at variance with what the Highway Code tells us about the absolute primacy of non-motorised road users when it comes to road safety .....

BJ

Don't blow up my remark into blaming the victims, for it wasn't. I was trying find a reason based on my own habits. I know that I take aural clues as to traffic, often before making sure visually - even if only by a second or so. There has to be a good reason why people walk into a lump of steel travelling at 20mph or more while apparently not realising it's there - and to be honest, I think the pedestrian does bear responsibility for their own safety regardless of what the highway code says.

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of where these accidents happen and at what speeds. That would help us to understand more what is happening.

Arb.

[BigB]

Numerous moving parts and numerous factors, some of them overlapping.

For example, lots of the driver aids and technology are available on ICE and EV alike, but for tech aware consumers they fit the EV positioning more smoothly - EVs appeal to some I think as they appear to offer a different type of driving (tech, semi-automated, diver aids). Even with much of the same overlapping tech, ICEs are not positioned in the same way.

Partly due to this positioning, but partly due also to less interest in younger generations in traditional driving, I think that we possibly have more vehicles and drivers on the road where the actual task of driving appears easier than it ever was, and that some of the positioning of the driver aids (EV and ICE) maybe means we have less drivers on the road who are as fully engaged in the physical process as they would have been 30 years ago in a manual.

I've got 3 kids in their 20s, 1 of them interested in having a car, but less interested in the actual driving. This is different from how it was for me and my cohort 40 years ago. Yet there are now 3 times as many vehicles on the road in the UK.

[Mike4]

Blaming the victims for not having evolved fast enough seems to be oddly off the point.

Not to say, at variance with what the Highway Code tells us about the absolute primacy of non-motorised road users when it comes to road safety .....

BJ

Don't blow up my remark into blaming the victims, for it wasn't. I was trying find a reason based on my own habits. I know that I take aural clues as to traffic, often before making sure visually - even if only by a second or so. There has to be a good reason why people walk into a lump of steel travelling at 20mph or more while apparently not realising it's there - and to be honest, I think the pedestrian does bear responsibility for their own safety regardless of what the highway code says.

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of where these accidents happen and at what speeds. That would help us to understand more what is happening.

Arb.

I strongly agree, we human beans rely heavily on hearing to tell us about moving stuff.

I once saw a lady nearly get hit by one of them new, fast and quiet Hitachi trains running on the line down to Plymouth. It was at an uncontrolled pedestrian countryside railway crossing after some heavy snowfall. Thick fresh snow quietens everything down including that already quiet new train. She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph about 100 yards away. It passed just inches behind her and the wind of it passing almost knocked her down. She just didn't notice it.

She was badly shaken and shocked, but unharmed otherwise. She said she didn't look because she could hear there was nothing coming!

[Howard]

Your link is to a Telegraph article which led me to the the BMJ site. The study is a bit weird because it only looks at data for accidents between 2013 and 2017. There were very few BEVs on the road in that period. But perhaps lots of hybrid vehicles like the Toyota Prius. Would a mild hybrid, which to all intense and purposes is an ICE vehicle be classified as electric in their survey? I'd treat the findings with caution.

Good point, fair query. The BMJ article (https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/pe ... esearchers.) says that the lack of post-2017 data is the result of "a glitch".

They estimated annual mileage from National Travel Survey (NTS) data. These only started including hybrid as a vehicle fuel type in 2013 while an archiving glitch has precluded uploading relevant data since 2018—hence the selected study period of 2013-17.

I'm generally unimpressed. But the difference between urban and rural accident patterns is less marked than I'd supposed:

Most collisions occurred in urban areas, a greater proportion of which involved electric or hybrid vehicles than petrol/diesel vehicles: 94% vs 88%. This compares with 6% and 12%, respectively, in rural areas.

Based on these data, the researchers calculate that between 2013 and 2017, the average annual casualty rates of pedestrians per 100 million miles of road travel were 5.16 for electric and hybrid vehicles and 2.40 for petrol and diesel vehicles.

This indicates that collisions with pedestrians were, on average, twice as likely with electric and hybrid vehicles as they were with petrol and diesel vehicles, and 3 times as likely in urban areas than in rural areas, say the researchers.

But do I believe that high-risk young drivers are more likely than the average driver to be running EVs? Frankly, no. What would you think?

And younger, less experienced drivers are more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision and are also more likely to own an electric car, possibly accounting for some of the observed heightened risk associated with these vehicles, they suggest.

BJ

Yes, I agree with all your points. Particularly the last one. The survey was patently daft to suggest that younger, more inexperienced, drivers were more likely to "own" an electric car in the period 2013 to 2017. Exact quote from survey is "And younger, less experienced drivers are more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision and are also more likely to own an electric car, possibly accounting for some of the observed heightened risk associated with these vehicles", In this period only expensive BEVs were available, generally costing much more than £35k, even hybrids were expensive. Not the sort of cars which most young drivers could afford.

So could I suggest that the survey quoted by the Telegraph was fatally flawed and betrayed a bias against electric vehicles! Not the sort of survey Lemon Fool regulars should give any credence to!

regards

Howard

[DrFfybes]

I once saw a lady nearly get hit by one of them new, fast and quiet Hitachi trains running on the line down to Plymouth. It was at an uncontrolled pedestrian countryside railway crossing after some heavy snowfall. Thick fresh snow quietens everything down including that already quiet new train. She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph about 100 yards away. It passed just inches behind her and the wind of it passing almost knocked her down. She just didn't notice it.

She was badly shaken and shocked, but unharmed otherwise. She said she didn't look because she could hear there was nothing coming!

I lived in Plymouth for circa 20 years.

The only thing about that story that surprises me is that she didn't hear the train because she had the hood up on her onesie.

Paul

[Arborbridge]

I strongly agree, we human beans rely heavily on hearing to tell us about moving stuff.

I once saw a lady nearly get hit by one of them new, fast and quiet Hitachi trains running on the line down to Plymouth. It was at an uncontrolled pedestrian countryside railway crossing after some heavy snowfall. Thick fresh snow quietens everything down including that already quiet new train. She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph about 100 yards away. It passed just inches behind her and the wind of it passing almost knocked her down. She just didn't notice it.

She was badly shaken and shocked, but unharmed otherwise. She said she didn't look because she could hear there was nothing coming!

She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph yeah, right. Like Usain Bolt

[Arborbridge]

Yes, I agree with all your points. Particularly the last one. The survey was patently daft to suggest that younger, more inexperienced, drivers were more likely to "own" an electric car in the period 2013 to 2017. Exact quote from survey is "And younger, less experienced drivers are more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision and are also more likely to own an electric car, possibly accounting for some of the observed heightened risk associated with these vehicles", In this period only expensive BEVs were available, generally costing much more than £35k, even hybrids were expensive. Not the sort of cars which most young drivers could afford.

So could I suggest that the survey quoted by the Telegraph was fatally flawed and betrayed a bias against electric vehicles! Not the sort of survey Lemon Fool regulars should give any credence to!

regards

Howard

It seems to me to be full of "if, buts and maybes" Perhaps before long we will have some more up to date figures which require less interpretation. Meanwhile, park this one to the side until results are repeated.

Arb.

[Mike4]

I strongly agree, we human beans rely heavily on hearing to tell us about moving stuff.

I once saw a lady nearly get hit by one of them new, fast and quiet Hitachi trains running on the line down to Plymouth. It was at an uncontrolled pedestrian countryside railway crossing after some heavy snowfall. Thick fresh snow quietens everything down including that already quiet new train. She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph about 100 yards away. It passed just inches behind her and the wind of it passing almost knocked her down. She just didn't notice it.

She was badly shaken and shocked, but unharmed otherwise. She said she didn't look because she could hear there was nothing coming!

She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph yeah, right. Like Usain Bolt

Just my estimate, but shall we do the calcs?

She needed to walk about 2.5m to clear the train in the time it travelled 100m at my estimated speed if 120mph.

2.5m at walking speed of say 7km/hr takes 5 seconds.

120mph train speed is slightly less than 200kph, but let's call it that.

100 yards is a bit less than 100m but let's call it that.

At 200kph a train (or anything else) is travelling at approx 55m/second. Therefore you are right, she would have been easily splattered by the train hitting her. The train needed to have been 138.9m away as she stepped out in front of it, for her to have cleared its path in time for it to miss her.

[servodude]

She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph yeah, right. Like Usain Bolt

Just my estimate, but shall we do the calcs?

She needed to walk about 2.5m to clear the train in the time it travelled 100m at my estimated speed if 120mph.

2.5m at walking speed of say 7km/hr takes 5 seconds.

120mph train speed is slightly less than 200kph, but let's call it that.

100 yards is a bit less than 100m but let's call it that.

At 200kph a train (or anything else) is travelling at approx 55m/second. Therefore you are right, she would have been easily splattered by the train hitting her. The train needed to have been 138.9m away as she stepped out in front of it, for her to have cleared its path in time for it to miss her.

You don't mention if she was wearing a polystyrene hat?
Strangely that's never a concern with a pedestrian but seems critical in every similar story involving a cyclist

[DrFfybes]

She just walked out in front of it doing perhaps 120mph yeah, right. Like Usain Bolt

Just my estimate, but shall we do the calcs?

She needed to walk about 2.5m to clear the train in the time it travelled 100m at my estimated speed if 120mph.

2.5m at walking speed of say 7km/hr takes 5 seconds.

120mph train speed is slightly less than 200kph, but let's call it that.

100 yards is a bit less than 100m but let's call it that.

At 200kph a train (or anything else) is travelling at approx 55m/second. Therefore you are right, she would have been easily splattered by the train hitting her. The train needed to have been 138.9m away as she stepped out in front of it, for her to have cleared its path in time for it to miss her.

Pedestrian walking speed is 1.2m/s, or at least that's the DfT figures used for crossng design.

A train is 2.9m wide, but really you need 4m to clear, so 3.5 seconds.


I do remember standing in a gravel forest in the 1980s one night waiting for the Group B cars. There was a bend about 150m away and we could see it being lit by a car approaching it, and we decided to cross the track, perhaps 5m wide? As we were halfway across the car rounded the bend, we jumped the ditch at the far side and as we turned around the car passed behind us. We didn't do that again.

Paul

[dionaeamuscipula]

You don't mention if she was wearing a polystyrene hat?
Strangely that's never a concern with a pedestrian but seems critical in every similar story involving a cyclist

She probably wasn't doing 20 miles an hour while attached to an inherently unstable machine.


DM

[88V8]

You don't mention if she was wearing a polystyrene hat?
Strangely that's never a concern with a pedestrian but seems critical in every similar story involving a cyclist

She probably wasn't doing 20 miles an hour while attached to an inherently unstable machine.

If she whirled her arms she could create a gyro effect to improve her stability.
It works very well.
You should try it next time you go walking.

V8

[SebsCat]

But they have required it - EVs make a noise at 20mph or less and quite honestly, I have been nearly caught out by ICEs in car parks which can be quieter than EVs. No one complains about them.

No they don't! I regularly walk along the single-track country lane that leads to a posh private school, and I've lost count of the times that I've had EVs coming up behind me in total silence. Not even tyre noise, although some will make a very faint whirring noise. (Can they switch the sound off? It seems like they do.) And they're nearly always doing below 20 mph - as indeed, they ought to, since it's a 10 mph road.

My wife's Kia Niro EV has a not-very-loud beeping when in reverse (noticeable in our quiet home environment but nothing like the really annoying reverse beep on eg construction vehicles) but seems completely silent in forward at very low speeds. When out walking on country lanes I've really not noticed much difference in sound levels between EV & petrol with road noise dominating even at 20mph IMHO. But that might be more a reflection on the typical poorly maintained road surfaces around here than what might be found in posh private school environs...

[ayshfm1]

I am also of the opinion that electric cars are the future. This is based primarily on just how efficient an electric motor is - energy in and movement out. Not much loss especially when regenerative breaking is added to the mix.

But I've ordered an ICE car and have been awaiting a build date since March, so anecdotally they are hard to get hold of, I could walk in and have a Tesla of my choice right now with a fat discount, so I'd say the buying public remains sceptical.

I'm a pretty good EV candidate and what stopped me was the battery. This costs roughly half the car and thus any issues with it risk insurers writing it off. At three years when the EV is worth less than half it's new price then they are writing them off for any battery fault. Having dealt with insurers over the years when things happen even when it is not your fault I always ended up out of pocket one way or another and I would rather not be sat on a three year old car that would be written off for even a minor dink that might have compromised the battery.

Then there are the corner cases where they deem the battery problem is not covered, there have been examples where people have driven over debris on the road that punctured the battery that the insurance walked away, leaving it as the owners problem.

I reckon my new ICE will serve me pretty well for the next 10 years and by then battery chemistry will be more insurer friendly and the charging network will be sufficiently developed that the huge batteries currently fitted can be scaled back, hauling the thick end of a ton of battery about seems crazy to me.

[bungeejumper]

I reckon my new ICE will serve me pretty well for the next 10 years

I'm reckoning another 15 or 20 years from my ten year old Toyota. Old-school, no turbo, everything simple.

and by then battery chemistry will be more insurer friendly and the charging network will be sufficiently developed that the huge batteries currently fitted can be scaled back, hauling the thick end of a ton of battery about seems crazy to me.

Agree on all the points you've raised. It's not just that depreciation on EVs is frightening - it's the likelihood that it'll get significantly worse when secondhand buyers have seen what else they can get for £15K in five years' time......

Such as a brand new car, double the battery range, more compact and rapidly chargeable batteries - and who knows, maybe even a proper protective cage for those precious batteries that won't get damaged in ordinary accidents? You know, like those things that we traditionalists insist on calling petrol tanks?

Of course, the industry could do a lot to help itself by introducing a single charging set-up,whereby every charging station will let you fill up on a credit card, and no need to have twelve different apps on your phone. (Plus the one you need right now, but that you haven't got yet.) Bit like, ermm, what did we used to call them? Petrol pumps?

Yes, I know that credit card access is becoming mandatory on new charging stations, but I understand that there's no pressure on the older stations to fall into line. It all creates obstacles to consumer confidence, and that's just so bloody silly.

Nothing that five years can't sort out, though. I'll have my cheque book ready.

BJ