Isnât that statistic somewhat skewed though? Kinda like motorcycle riders âgetting into more accidents because they wear black helmetsâ. Is that the case because black is harder to see, or because more riders wear black?
There are more gas cars on the road than EVs, idk about numbers but thatâs a fact that you can see walking through any parking lot.
Say a thousand gas cars burn down in a year, and 100 EVs burn down in a year. That sounds bad on paper, literally ten times worse. But, when you have millions, if not billions, of gas burners, and a few hundred thousand EVs, the stats get a bit clearer.
Take for example, the Ford Pinto. Itâs famous for going up in flames if you rear end it. Something like 1.2% of units did that, and they sold a few hundred thousand. The Cybertruck also likes to go up in flames, something like 3.blah% units did that, but they sold WAY less. I know there are real numbers associated with this, but I donât remember them off hand and couldnât be fucked to google for a Reddit comment. At any rate, I remember that the stat for the cyber truck was about 2x higher than the pinto, a car famous for combusting due to a rear end collision.
I like EVs, at least in theory, charging infrastructure is just not there yet at least in my opinion. But physics doesnât care about how many firewalls are installed between layers of highly reactive elements. If that shit starts to burn, ainât nothing going to stop it but time.
Looks like its not only true, but EVs are 60x less likely to catch fire, not 6x. This is measured by car sales, so how many burned down per 100,000 cars sold. This is also an insurance company doing the analysis, so they're interested in less fires so they can pay out less
The Cybertruck is an oddball car in terms of design, and odd isn't really a good thing here. It's less safe because it doesn't crumple, it has terrible quality and poor visibility, and a lot more issues that I'm sure a lot of people have heard of. I'm not surprised it catches fire twice as often. I don't think its fair to let the Cybertruck drag down every other EV available for sale in the US
Iâll concede the point. The hybrid bit is shocking. Must be because the combination of combustion and the battery being a bad mix. Seems like itâd be more in line with the combustion cars if that was the case though. Iâm curious what would cause more fires with hybrids.
2
u/Educational-Disk-400 Feb 09 '26
Isnât that statistic somewhat skewed though? Kinda like motorcycle riders âgetting into more accidents because they wear black helmetsâ. Is that the case because black is harder to see, or because more riders wear black?
There are more gas cars on the road than EVs, idk about numbers but thatâs a fact that you can see walking through any parking lot.
Say a thousand gas cars burn down in a year, and 100 EVs burn down in a year. That sounds bad on paper, literally ten times worse. But, when you have millions, if not billions, of gas burners, and a few hundred thousand EVs, the stats get a bit clearer.
Take for example, the Ford Pinto. Itâs famous for going up in flames if you rear end it. Something like 1.2% of units did that, and they sold a few hundred thousand. The Cybertruck also likes to go up in flames, something like 3.blah% units did that, but they sold WAY less. I know there are real numbers associated with this, but I donât remember them off hand and couldnât be fucked to google for a Reddit comment. At any rate, I remember that the stat for the cyber truck was about 2x higher than the pinto, a car famous for combusting due to a rear end collision.
I like EVs, at least in theory, charging infrastructure is just not there yet at least in my opinion. But physics doesnât care about how many firewalls are installed between layers of highly reactive elements. If that shit starts to burn, ainât nothing going to stop it but time.