Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Recently, some friends were asking how we liked the Bolt. Of course, we gave rave reviews of most everything.

The telling comment at the end was from the distaff side of the couple, "Of course, you never take it on the highway." We said, "Of course, we do when the round-trip is within range." Turns out they own a Prius for town and a honkin' giant Tundra extended cab truck is for the highway. She said, "When big trucks are around, I don't feel comfortable sitting lower in a smaller car; on the highway, I feel safer in something bigger, sitting up higher."

Now anyone analyzing the mass ratios between the 3000# Prius, the 5,000# Tundra and a 80,000# class eight truck will know unless the impact was a glancing blow, you'd be just as dead in the Tundra as the Prius.

Bottom line - perception and feelings are everything. All the facts are never going to prevail. Notice this year's pickups and pickup-based SUVs are ever more huge-appearing. The stylists have bulged and raised the sheet metal to where a step ladder is necessary for short folk to even enter them. Big and tall ride equals safe. Salesmen are now reinforcing that perception by emphasizing, "You keep your family safe, so if something happens, you're wanting to be the ones in this big, bad boy."

jack vines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
Bottom line - perception and feelings are everything.
Yes, to people who think more with their gonads then their brains (ok most people) :nerd:

Now anyone analyzing the mass ratios between the 3000# Prius, the 5,000# Tundra and a 80,000# class eight truck will know unless the impact was a glancing blow, you'd be just as dead in the Tundra as the Prius.
I've long suspected this but never gone through or found the data backing it up, do you have a source?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I've long suspected this but never gone through or found the data backing it up, do you have a source?
No, no handy source for hard data, but as an engineer, you'll be able to calculate the physics of killing a house fly with a sledge hammer versus killing a dragon fly with the same hammer. The hammer doesn't care one is twice as large; it has many times the mass necessary to squash either.

jack vines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
These people are correct in that the likelihood of a car accident between a large SUV and a small economy vehicle, due to the mass of each, would indeed have a higher risk of death for occupants of the smaller vehicle. There is a higher fatality risk for occupants of smaller cars.

Risk is retaliative to reality. Although an SUV is less risky in a collision vs. a smaller car, there are far greater risk you may want to educate your friends about for a better perspective (perception?):

Both the one year, and lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are EQUAL to ones odds of simply walking down the street and being struck by a car. 1 in 51,000 (0.0019%) and 1 in 650 (0.153%) respectively.

However, the lifetime odds of dying due to human pollution driven Climate change is 1 in 10 (9.5%)

Climate change is projected to cause about 250,000 additional deaths per year from heat stress, malnutrition and the spread of infectious diseases like malaria over the next 25 years. This does not take into consideration the global conflicts that will result.

So tell your friends to keep their SUV's, but never, ever walk down a public street. Also note that they should be fine during the remaining years of their lives, but their children and grandchildren will fondly remember their selfish choices as they are bleeding from their eyes, gasping for that last breath.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts
Now anyone analyzing the mass ratios between the 3000# Prius, the 5,000# Tundra and a 80,000# class eight truck will know unless the impact was a glancing blow, you'd be just as dead in the Tundra as the Prius.
A far bigger factor than the vehicle you're driving is your driving habits. Almost everyone I see driving in fast, heavy traffic drives way too close to the guy ahead of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
No, no handy source for hard data, but as an engineer, you'll be able to calculate the physics of killing a house fly with a sledge hammer versus killing a dragon fly with the same hammer. The hammer doesn't care one is twice as large; it has many times the mass necessary to squash either
Yeah and as an engineer (originally physicist) I've had my nose rubbed in my own ignorance too many times to believe I can wing it :nerd: When it comes to these kinds of assessments I prefer actual data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
I recently read an article (which I can't find now) that was basically discussing the sociology of Americans with their big cars and guns. Basically, the author suggested (and I do not disagree) that white males in America feel like they are having everything taken away and they feel like having a big car makes them somehow more important or more powerful than the 'little people' around them. Guns are just another expression of individual power. I'm not trying to start a gun debate here, but I agree that many of my friends 'feel safer' sitting in their big SUVs and trucks. It doesn't matter that I offer the argument that they only use that truck as a truck about 5% of the time and they use it as a car (like my Bolt) the other 95% of the time. This is true for almost everyone except people who tow (as part of their job) or perhaps back woods firefighters, rangers, border patrol, etc. But for normal 'on the pavement' civilians, the truck is largely unnecessary as a daily driver.

Another funny analogy on that same topic came from my brother who drives a Mini Cooper. He got into a debate on the subject because his little car would easily get crushed by a typical full sized pickup. The truck owner said 'I feel safer sitting up high in traffic' and my brother corrected him 'no, you just want to make sure that you have significantly more mass so that you are not the one going to the hospital or morgue even if you are the one making the mistake and causing the accident. When the truck driver agreed, my brother asked 'would it be ok if I welded a iron I-beam on my roof like a battering ram, and made sure it was high enough to miss your bumper so that if I happen to run into you, the ram will prevent my car from striking yours below the bumper (and as an added bonus, the ram will penetrate your passenger compartment and place you and your passengers at risk)? The truck driver did not see the humor or irony of my brother's argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
I find this discussion pointless. My motto has always been fight the battles I can win and ignore the others. Trying to convince somebody who drives a large SUV or truck because it makes them feel ?safe? is a waste of effort. Talk to people who drive small CUVs or hatchbacks.

I personally feel the correct demographic to target is the busy supermom or whatever they are called these days. The Bolt has plenty of space for their children and the stuff they carry around. And you NEVER HAVE TO SAY OP FOR GAS. Every such mom knows that the only time she has to stop for gas is when she is late for something. The Bolt starts each day with over 200 miles of energy for her 30 miles of commuting.

Every family I know of that has more than one driver has more than one car. Why can?t one of them be an electric vehicle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Gosh this sounds like my wife. I like to ride up high in something bigger just because I like it. Me using logic I try to talk to her about the practicality of it all but I get nowhere. When fuel goes up to $4 or $5 a gallon again they will all be complaining how much it cost to fill their tanks. The other problem with sitting up high is those vehicles tend to roll over and that is never a good thing. When people fly past me I sometimes chuckle as I imagine dollar bills flying out of their tail pipes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Another aspect of "Perception vs. Reality" in marketing EV's is the way "range anxiety" is perceived by those who've never owned electric.

My neighbor, a bright young police detective, was outside today and we got to talking cars. I told him, "My wife just drove from SFO to Ripon, California, and back and had 80 miles left when she got home in the Bolt."

The way he held the concept of "range anxiety" really hit me when I heard his reply (given with a furrowed brow):

"Oh gee. What do you do if you run out of power?"

Like by having "80 miles" left, she just dodged the bullet! His concern was palpable, compassionate, and plainly wrong.

I don't know of any effective way to change this common and erroneous mindset other than have folks OWN own their own EV and go through the learning process. A test drive won't do it, and words are a weak tool to get at a person's emotions, especially FEAR. (Like needing to drive a huge SUV, to return to the previously scheduled program.;))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
However, the lifetime odds of dying due to human pollution driven Climate change is 1 in 10 (9.5%)
Good Lord, some people will believe anything!

Read the article you linked. It says nothing like that. What it does say is that IF one assumes a 0.1% per year risk of the extinction of all human life, humanity has a 9.5% chance of extinction in a century. The 0.1% was just an assumption, not proven, nor even forecasted. It has absolutely no basis in science, or even pseudo-science. It's merely an assumption. And it has nothing to do with any individual's probability of death due to global warming, neither in a lifetime, nor over any other period of time. You absolutely, miserably, totally failed to understand the article you inflicted on us.

You may choose to believe pollution is killing you. But your perverse desire to believe does not make it real.:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Good Lord, some people will believe anything!

Read the article you linked. It says nothing like that. ... The 0.1% was just an assumption, not proven, nor even forecasted. It has absolutely no basis in science, or even pseudo-science. It's merely an assumption. And it has nothing to do with any individual's probability of death due to global warming, neither in a lifetime, nor over any other period of time. You absolutely, miserably, totally failed to understand the article you inflicted on us.

You may choose to believe pollution is killing you. But your perverse desire to believe does not make it real.:eek:
Them some mighty big words there @phil0909, but I be just a humble man-made Climate Change believer. I did take your recommendation and re-read the article. I have no fear of falling on my sword, thus I, the editor of The Atlantic, and the resource for the assumption (Global Priorities Project) will concede to your specific position that revolves around the "assumption":

Updated note to the linked article:
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story presented an economic modeling assumption—the .01 chance of human extinction per year—as a vetted scholarly estimate. Following a correction from the Global Priorities Project, the text below has been updated.

I Hopefully this correction (made well after I sited the article, so my understanding of it was likely accurate prior to the rewrite) will put your mind at ease.

However, Just for clarification; Is it your position that the net result from increasing atmospheric CO2 has negligible severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity? I imagine this is not your belief. Either way, the spirit of my earlier post was that lower MPG SUV's have a larger carbon footprint, which in turn contributes more air pollution. Which I indeed believe leads to premature deaths of many people. Therefore if one can be persuaded to consider the repercussions of ones personal Carbon footprint and how it affects the health of others, then they may reconsider their position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
"concede to your specific position that revolves around the "assumption":"

Will you further concede that your entire post was gibberish? That you failed to comprehend the difference between individual mortality rates and the extinction of the human race?

You actually believed you had a 10% chance of dying from pollution? Because you thought you read it in a magazine? A literary magazine, in an article written by a kid four years out of college - and he was a music major. This is where you get your scientific beliefs? I guess you're lucky the kid's editor eventually corrected him.

No adult with an ounce of common sense could believe such nonsense. Of course, some people have no sense. As I said, some people will believe anything. Your views on atmosheric carbon dioxide are worthless. Don't go around spouting gibberish, and then try to claim that the "spirit" of your gibberish is righteous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,218 Posts
I recently read an article (which I can't find now) that was basically discussing the sociology of Americans with their big cars and guns. Basically, the author suggested (and I do not disagree) that white males in America feel like they are having everything taken away and they feel like having a big car makes them somehow more important or more powerful than the 'little people' around them.Guns are just another expression of individual power. I'm not trying to start a gun debate here, but I agree that many of my friends 'feel safer' sitting in their big SUVs and trucks. It doesn't matter that I offer the argument that they only use that truck as a truck about 5% of the time and they use it as a car (like my Bolt) the other 95% of the time. This is true for almost everyone except people who tow (as part of their job) or perhaps back woods firefighters, rangers, border patrol, etc. But for normal 'on the pavement' civilians, the truck is largely unnecessary as a daily driver.
t.
If you don't want to start a gun debate, then, well, don't :) --- 'tis is a car forum here, so let's talk about autos.

The author of the article you mentioned would do well to get out of their air-conditioned echo chamber and see for themselves what life is in the rural USA is like, where people often live remotely and away from public transportation routes, do physical work (construction, agriculture, forestry, equipment service), raise large families, and conduct outdoorsman, self-reliant lifestyle.

Where we live, which is rural VA, the choice of popular vehicles has little to do with ethnicity or gender and everything to do with the economy, geography and the necessities of life.

Also, trucks, vans and large SUV's tend to be overbuilt; often people make a deliberate choice to drop $40K on such a vehicle that would last for 250K miles until overhaul and will cover 100% of their hauling needs instead of perhaps a $20K Mini Cooper that would never make it through their driveway after the first snow :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Will you further concede that your entire post was gibberish?
Nope.

I do understand your immense personal frustration however. My suggestion is let's not get off into the weeds
about a singular online post that you vehemently disagree with. My position will remain the same regarding
our individual responsibility to manage our air pollution output.

I would be happy to entertain any new evidence that suggest pollution due to carbon emissions should't be a concern;
could change my thinking. The beration of my already admitted mistake however will not change that.

I think your views are very important, but Perhaps you and I are simply going in two directions on this.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top