“Likelihood of crashing” is part of the cost of ownership (regardless of engine type). For example, suppose a particular model comes with certain features that are more likely to distract the driver, thus increasing the rate of highway collisions, thus either increasing the cost of repairs over the life of the vehicle or just shortening the life of the vehicle—all else equal, this vehicle has a higher cost of ownership than a different model with fewer distractions, collisions, repairs, etc.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
If you read the article, it’s nothing to do specifically with EVs, they just had an unusually high crash rate.
“Likelihood of crashing” is part of the cost of ownership (regardless of engine type). For example, suppose a particular model comes with certain features that are more likely to distract the driver, thus increasing the rate of highway collisions, thus either increasing the cost of repairs over the life of the vehicle or just shortening the life of the vehicle—all else equal, this vehicle has a higher cost of ownership than a different model with fewer distractions, collisions, repairs, etc.
Uh, no, it’s definitely not.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.