# The Press and Reality: NTSB edition



## MARC Rider (Yesterday at 2:31 PM)

One of the speakers at the TRB meeting was Jennifer Homendy, head of the NSTB. The main point of the talk was a passionate defense of the agency's goal of "zero fatalities" from transportation. But if you believe the journalists, you would think that she's trashing electric cars, which just happen to be one of the key elements of the transportation policy of the administration of which she is a member.









US official warns of risks posed by heavy electric vehicles


DETROIT (AP) — The head of the National Transportation Safety Board expressed concern Wednesday about the safety risks that heavy electric vehicles pose if they collide with lighter vehicles. The official, Jennifer Homendy, raised the issue in a speech in Washington to the Transportation...




apnews.com





OK, it is true that electric cars are heavier than the equivalent gas-powered car, and I was fascinated by the factoid that the battery alone of the electric Hummer weighs more than a Honda Civic, but that was not the point of her talk. I know. I was there and heard the entire speech. I hope this sort of reporting doesn't lead to some sort of internet meme that "electric cars are unsafe" or something. I just reinforces my view that you have to be careful about drawing conclusions from what you see or read in the new media.


----------



## jis (Yesterday at 2:36 PM)

MARC Rider said:


> One of the speakers at the TRB meeting was Jennifer Homendy, head of the NSTB. The main point of the talk was a passionate defense of the agency's goal of "zero fatalities" from transportation. But if you believe the journalists, you would think that she's trashing electric cars, which just happen to be one of the key elements of the transportation policy of the administration of which she is a member.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These days my primary assumption is that the reporting in run of the mill news media is more likely misleading either due to incompetence or driven by some hidden agenda. So I look for multiple corroborating independent sources before stating accept a report. This is especially so for matters technical. The run of the mill, even neutral, new reports are usually atrocious. Of course I realize how atrocious only when the report is in an area of my expertise. Of course there are exceptions, but they are usually in technical specialized publications.


----------



## daybeers (Yesterday at 2:38 PM)

I mean, it is true that electric cars aren't any safer than ICE ones; in fact they're more dangerous due to their weight (momentum and damage to road surface) and fires (takes about 40k gallons to put out while burning much, much hotter).

Electric cars won't save us because they are still cars. Same reason pie-in-the-sky autonomous software won't.


----------



## jis (Yesterday at 3:05 PM)

daybeers said:


> Same reason pie-in-the-sky autonomous software won't.


Shhh. Don't tell NASA. They don't realize that their unmanned space program and most of their manned space program even, what with all those "flying in the sky" autonomous pieces of software, does not work  Granted they are not cars, but still ....


----------



## Trogdor (Yesterday at 8:20 PM)

jis said:


> Shhh. Don't tell NASA. They don't realize that their unmanned space program and most of their manned space program even, what with all those "flying in the sky" autonomous pieces of software, does not work  Granted they are not cars, but still ....



There’s a huge difference between space, where (for the most part) all you have to deal with are the laws of physics, and roadways, where you have the vagaries of human drivers, pedestrians, roadway deterioration, variable weather conditions, etc.

Heck, we’ve had autonomous trains for a few decades working just fine. But they operate, by and large, within a closed system. Daybeers’s point (as I understand it) is that the main problem with cars is that they’re cars, not how they’re powered or how they’re controlled.


----------



## Cal (Yesterday at 8:34 PM)

daybeers said:


> Electric cars won't save us because they are still cars.


This caused me to immediately think of Alan Fisher's (hes great) video about that very sentence.


----------



## daybeers (Yesterday at 10:30 PM)

Trogdor said:


> Heck, we’ve had autonomous trains for a few decades working just fine. But they operate, by and large, within a closed system. Daybeers’s point (as I understand it) is that the main problem with cars is that they’re cars, not how they’re powered or how they’re controlled.


Yes, my point was that they're all cars, which all have the same geometry, land use, isolation, and risk issues no matter their power source or control, but also that the technology that is behind autonomy in uncontrolled environments is inherently faulty. It's just never going to work. I find it egregiously wrong that the feds are allowing what is essentially beta—no really alpha—testing of this kind of software in consumer products under a false premise that it's safe and that the driver does not have to pay attention. I think it's ridiculous that the public roads I travel on daily, often in modes other than a personal vehicle, are providing the same function as closed runways, deserts, or limited access highways for testing unproven technology.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Today at 9:08 AM)

It seem a tractor trailer that is electric will have a higher gross weight than a tractor trailer that is diesel power. This is not necessary a problem, but more weight will equal longer stop distances, and more tear and wear on the roadway.


----------

