The Electric Car Shock

[tjh290633]

I blame those touch screens. I would ban them.

TJH

[jaizan]

I blame those touch screens. I would ban them.

TJH

Agreed. They are a distraction and are just as dangerous as using a phone when driving. By all means have a screen for configuration, but ensure it only operates at 0 mph.

All the things a driver might need to adjust when driving could be controlled by about 3 rotary knobs, two column stalks and a gear lever.

[Arborbridge]

Posh and stabbing doesn't immediately compute. Surely they have cars with voice control?

I'm pleased to see someone else screws up the quotes like I do, and wrongly attributes

You reminded me of a couple of things: I nearly mentioned voice control, but didn't bother. I should also have pointed out that in normal driving with an EV there is no "stabbing" of anything needed - all the necessary immediate controls (such as the aforementioned turning down the radio or changing channels) are physical buttons on the steering wheel. I never usually have to use the touch screen while driving - and if I do it too much I get told off by the car! Heating controls are on the touch screen, but also can be voice activated - but how often does anyone need to change a heat setting?

In short any driver who drives and ICE or EV along a narrow road endangering pedestrians, is just a plain bad driver - how is that the car's fault? and how is that EV specific?

Arb.

[servodude]

I blame those touch screens. I would ban them.

TJH

Agreed. They are a distraction and are just as dangerous as using a phone when driving. By all means have a screen for configuration, but ensure it only operates at 0 mph.

All the things a driver might need to adjust when driving could be controlled by about 3 rotary knobs, two column stalks and a gear lever.

Indeed!
Don't blame the screen... hang the UI developer!

[Arborbridge]

I blame those touch screens. I would ban them.

TJH

Agreed. They are a distraction and are just as dangerous as using a phone when driving. By all means have a screen for configuration, but ensure it only operates at 0 mph.

All the things a driver might need to adjust when driving could be controlled by about 3 rotary knobs, two column stalks and a gear lever.

I'd agree with what people are saying about touch screens. I think this advent is driven by motives which are entirely to the advantage of manufacturers.

We must be careful though, because "nav screens" are fully entrenched in cars now, so it's hard to avoid them.

To re-iterate: this is not an EV specific problem, but people like to make it so to fit their own agenda. Indeed, I could drive my iD3 without using the touch screen at all, except for the nav function - and that's not needed for most journeys. It could stay allday on the "welcome" screen for all I care - just drive the car!

[Mike4]

And on a related note, I bought an electric bicycle the other day, which is virtually impossible to use without a smart phone!

[bungeejumper]

We must be careful though, because "nav screens" are fully entrenched in cars now, so it's hard to avoid them.

To re-iterate: this is not an EV specific problem, but people like to make it so to fit their own agenda. Indeed, I could drive my iD3 without using the touch screen at all, except for the nav function - and that's not needed for most journeys. It could stay allday on the "welcome" screen for all I care - just drive the car!

Fair comment. I've said, over and over again, that EVs are the future, and I sincerely believe it. If it weren't for the cost of the things, I'd have bought one by now. (But one of our cars is nine years old and the other is 15, and we drive barely 8,000 miles a year between us. You do the maths. )

That doesn't mean that we don't have the right to question the wisdom of car designers. Touchscreens or otherwise. But we started this thread (at least, in its recently-revived form) with the observation that a national study has found that EVs hit pedestrians twice as often as other cars, and we're still trying to draw conclusions, or at least inferences.

I can think of two logical conclusions. Firstly, that a high proportion of EV drivers are natural-born dangerous idiots. Or secondly, and more credibly, that when you give somebody a powerful, heavy car that reduces the task of driving to the minimum, you're likely to find that more people drive them with only half their attention engaged. Which has certainly been my experience of the yummy mummies at our local school. And which would seem (to me) to chime with the findings of the national study.

We can rage as much as we like about that second possibility, but unless we confront the likelihood, we're not going to get anywhere. Which would you prefer?

BJ

[Arborbridge]

Fair comment. I've said, over and over again, that EVs are the future, and I sincerely believe it. If it weren't for the cost of the things, I'd have bought one by now. (But one of our cars is nine years old and the other is 15, and we drive barely 8,000 miles a year between us. You do the maths. )

That doesn't mean that we don't have the right to question the wisdom of car designers. Touchscreens or otherwise. But we started this thread (at least, in its recently-revived form) with the observation that a national study has found that EVs hit pedestrians twice as often as other cars, and we're still trying to draw conclusions, or at least inferences.

I can think of two logical conclusions. Firstly, that a high proportion of EV drivers are natural-born dangerous idiots. Or secondly, and more credibly, that when you give somebody a powerful, heavy car that reduces the task of driving to the minimum, you're likely to find that more people drive them with only half their attention engaged. Which has certainly been my experience of the yummy mummies at our local school. And which would seem (to me) to chime with the findings of the national study.

We can rage as much as we like about that second possibility, but unless we confront the likelihood, we're not going to get anywhere. Which would you prefer?

BJ

I think you are some way from finding an EV specific reason, though there must be one. Perhaps a good subject for Radio 4s More or Less to investigate - starting with what is behind the statistics and how they were arrived at.
I think it isn't so much not making a noise at 20 mph, say in car parks, but at higher speeds. I'd like to know what the distribution of collision speeds was - I'd guess that many were pedestrians walking out in front of cars without looking properly because they have always relied on their ears only before starting out, only then looking properly. If they did indeed look properly, there would be fewer accidents. Natural selection might come in here to evolve the next generation.

Your second reason doesn't see to me to be EV specific at all, but applies to many modern cars - particularly of the type your yummy-mummies drive to protect their sprogs.

Arb.

[DrFfybes]

That doesn't mean that we don't have the right to question the wisdom of car designers. Touchscreens or otherwise. But we started this thread (at least, in its recently-revived form) with the observation that a national study has found that EVs hit pedestrians twice as often as other cars, and we're still trying to draw conclusions, or at least inferences.

I can think of two logical conclusions. Firstly, that a high proportion of EV drivers are natural-born dangerous idiots. Or secondly, and more credibly, that when you give somebody a powerful, heavy car that reduces the task of driving to the minimum, you're likely to find that more people drive them with only half their attention engaged. Which has certainly been my experience of the yummy mummies at our local school. And which would seem (to me) to chime with the findings of the national study.

TBH the latter has been the case for years - we found most red light runners were school run vehicles. Also phones have been a distraction long vefore cars went touchscreen, although the prevalence of them now probably legitamises their use to people who wouldn't dream of using their phone behind the wheel (and yes, I've been guilty of it on occasion).

I believe the increase in ped comflicts with EVs is mainly down to their ability to go from zero to 'far too much for a car park' in no time and with no noise, often catching out drivers and pedestrians.

What I don't know is why all these driver aids they're supposed to have don't kick in and stop them again.

Paul

[Arborbridge]

[
Fair comment. I've said, over and over again, that EVs are the future, and I sincerely believe it. If it weren't for the cost of the things, I'd have bought one by now. (But one of our cars is nine years old and the other is 15, and we drive barely 8,000 miles a year between us. You do the maths. )


BJ

I was more or less in the same position, with one 8 year old car and one over 15. We passed the old one on to the family, but kept the 8 year old diesel. I bought an EV only because I felt like trying one - there was certainly no economic argument in favour, just that this might be my last car, so I, why not? I'm really enjoying it so far - even though like you, my mileage is very low.


Arb.

[Arborbridge]

What I don't know is why all these driver aids they're supposed to have don't kick in and stop them again.

Paul

Good point, and I guess the answer is that some are just not 100% effective. My car has often slowed down sharply because it has spotted a pedestrian that I haven't reacted to, but they cannot be expected to make the right call every time and cover the errors of both drivers and pedestrians. At low speeds it will freak out at a gatepost and do an emergency stop, so my guess is the pedestrian accidents are at higher speeds when the noise generator is silent added to a little carelessness on behalf of the pedestrian.

Which raises the interesting wider question: what hope for autonomous driving? If people have trouble accepting EVs, I think you ain't seen nothing yet, it terms of public grumbling!

[swill453]

Which raises the interesting wider question: what hope for autonomous driving? If people have trouble accepting EVs, I think you ain't seen nothing yet, it terms of public grumbling!

Yep, the "Killer Robot Cars!" headlines are yet to come.

Scott.

[bungeejumper]

I can think of two logical conclusions. Firstly, that a high proportion of EV drivers are natural-born dangerous idiots. Or secondly, and more credibly, that when you give somebody a powerful, heavy car that reduces the task of driving to the minimum, you're likely to find that more people drive them with only half their attention engaged. Which has certainly been my experience of the yummy mummies at our local school. And which would seem (to me) to chime with the findings of the national study.

Your second reason doesn't see to me to be EV specific at all, but applies to many modern cars - particularly of the type your yummy-mummies drive to protect their sprogs.

My first suggested reason was, of course, frivolous. My second reason, however, resonates with the findings of a a national survey which extends well beyond the yummy mummy contingent.

I appreciate why one might be tempted to conflate the safety records of EV and ICE vehicles at this particularly embarrassing moment, but let's be clear about what the London study says. The average of all EV drivers - business drivers, affluent green types, pensioners, busy parents, careful drivers and the fastest boys in the village - are hitting pedestrians at an unacceptable rate. 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

[Mike4]

What I don't know is why all these driver aids they're supposed to have don't kick in and stop them again.

Paul

Good point, and I guess the answer is that some are just not 100% effective. My car has often slowed down sharply because it has spotted a pedestrian that I haven't reacted to, but they cannot be expected to make the right call every time and cover the errors of both drivers and pedestrians. At low speeds it will freak out at a gatepost and do an emergency stop, so my guess is the pedestrian accidents are at higher speeds when the noise generator is silent added to a little carelessness on behalf of the pedestrian.

Which raises the interesting wider question: what hope for autonomous driving? If people have trouble accepting EVs, I think you ain't seen nothing yet, it terms of public grumbling!

I think this automated emergency stopping will turn out to make autonomous driving virtually untenable. Not only scroats having a laugh provoking them into auto-stopping but regular pedestrians will learn they can just walk out in front of one to cross the road and it WILL stop. This will make the things very unpleasant to ride in and people won't buy them.

[bungeejumper]

I think this automated emergency stopping will turn out to make autonomous driving virtually untenable. Not only scroats having a laugh provoking them into auto-stopping but regular pedestrians will learn they can just walk out in front of one to cross the road and it WILL stop. This will make the things very unpleasant to ride in and people won't buy them.

We had that problem for a while in leafy Bath, where there are always hundreds of continental teenagers staying in the city on short residential language courses. I suppose it must have been about ten years ago that they all wised up to the fact that you could prance stright out onto a main road full of traffic, and it would stop for you. There was only the most negligible chance that you'd be unapologetically flattened, as would happen in Paris or Milan or practically anywhere else.

It didn't take very long before the little buggers turned this realisation into a deadly game of dare. And things got so bad that the language schools were ordered by the police to read the riot act to their young charges. I believe a fair few students were sent home before the craze eventually subsided. Yes, it'll be interesting to see what the powers that be can do to stop that from happening as auto-braking becomes the norm?

BJ

[Howard]

In a different sort of shock, it has been noted in the Grauniad that [ih]ybrid and electric cars are more likely to strike pedestrians than petrol or diesel vehicles, particularly in towns and cities, according to an analysis of British road traffic accidents. Data from 32bn miles of battery-powered car travel and 3tn miles of petrol and diesel car trips showed that mile-for-mile electric and hybrid cars were twice as likely to hit pedestrians than fossil fuel-powered cars, and three times more likely to do so in urban areas.[/i]
:o

No great surprise - a neighbour up the road has more than once nearly run me over in his sneaky electric trolley.

In Blade Runner (1982), the EVs made a musical note when running. It has been blatantly obvious that such is necessary, so why is that the orforities who are so fond of interfering in car design, have not required it?

V8

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.

Years ago I drove a lovely V8 Jag which was incredibly quiet at low speed. It had a big battery.

On the other topic on this thread, our BEV has incredibly simple non-touchscreen controls but my sophisticated ICE car has a touchscreen with a huge number of distracting options and programmable features.

Most distracting however is the mobile phone. I try never to fiddle with this whilst moving, it takes me some time to set up at the beginning of the journey.

regards

Howard

[bungeejumper]

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

[servodude]

And on a related note, I bought an electric bicycle the other day, which is virtually impossible to use without a smart phone!

Please explain....

the one I've got can be linked to a smart phone (if I want a crap map & Speedo app... or to change the gain levels on the assist)
- but mostly it's just a battery & motor on a trendy urban bike


...and a helluva lot of fun!

[servodude]

I think this automated emergency stopping will turn out to make autonomous driving virtually untenable. Not only scroats having a laugh provoking them into auto-stopping but regular pedestrians will learn they can just walk out in front of one to cross the road and it WILL stop. This will make the things very unpleasant to ride in and people won't buy them.

We had that problem for a while in leafy Bath, where there are always hundreds of continental teenagers staying in the city on short residential language courses. I suppose it must have been about ten years ago that they all wised up to the fact that you could prance stright out onto a main road full of traffic, and it would stop for you. There was only the most negligible chance that you'd be unapologetically flattened, as would happen in Paris or Milan or practically anywhere else.

It didn't take very long before the little buggers turned this realisation into a deadly game of dare. And things got so bad that the language schools were ordered by the police to read the riot act to their young charges. I believe a fair few students were sent home before the craze eventually subsided. Yes, it'll be interesting to see what the powers that be can do to stop that from happening as auto-braking becomes the norm?

BJ

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!)

The hire car I had over Xmas cracked the shits several times on the way to the Burns monument because ...oh a person on the other side of the road opened a door! And look a narrow bit! ... full on brakes hitting hard... and the vehicle shaking like it needs exorcised!

Smells like stuff deployed where it's not fit for purpose... given I've helped put gear out to work that can plant seeds in a furrow and not run over the folk that shouldn't be in the field!

[Mike4]

And on a related note, I bought an electric bicycle the other day, which is virtually impossible to use without a smart phone!

Please explain....

the one I've got can be linked to a smart phone (if I want a crap map & Speedo app... or to change the gain levels on the assist)
- but mostly it's just a battery & motor on a trendy urban bike


...and a helluva lot of fun!

Mine needs to be logged into the app so you can select your preferred "assistance profile", or design your own!