Who Really Killed the Electric Car?

10
400
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s a little rant about who really killed the electric car… and it wasn’t GM:

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

 

 

Share Button

10 COMMENTS

  1. They really should allow those electric golf carts on public roads. Perfect little grocery getter or small errand runner, and hell they’re quite easy to park (and to say nothing of the far lower cost). A truly practical EV if applied to the proper use case. Yes, one can come up with all sorts of arguments against the idea, but, they all fall into the ‘what if’ category, which generally means shitty driver in the first place (ie what if someone tries to take it on the New Jersey Turnpike, or the I-10). I mean, the UK has managed to live with those ‘milk floats’ for all these years without catastrophe, not sure why we can’t have similarly powered EVs.

    • Around here mopeds are everywhere, on every road but the interstate. Sometimes they even show up on the shoulders on stretches of those highways. I can’t see much difference between a guy hunched over two wheels doing 30 mph and someone in a golf cart doing the same.

    • I’m with mrfnuts on this. In my state, a golf cart type electric vehicle with front-and-back lights, turn signals, enclosed with wiper blades and rear view mirrors can be registered and operated as a Low Speed Vehicle Transport but is restricted to roads posted at 35mph or below and isn’t allowed to go more than 25mph on those, which doesn’t make sense to me. A motorcycle is legal and safe enough to operate on the highway at 65mph but a vehicle like the Twizzy can’t be operated on any road going faster than 35mph at all? They should be legal on all non-highway roads posted to 55mph. Any accident you have on a motorcycle is almost certainly going to be at least as bad, if not worse, than one in a cart. Why should I have to drive a cumbersome, heavy electric like the Leaf that can’t go any farther than my bicycle or longboard, totally wastes any real benefit that electric offers.

  2. Hey Eric! Without a doubt Uncle killed EVs, as they have destroyed EVERYTHING that is/was affordable and reliable. It started with the 1970 Clean Air Act, and has been snowballing ever since! To fuel all this nannyism is the rise of socialism and “group identity & rights” as opposed to individual rights and the free market economy. The more control the government is allowed, the things get horribly fucked up. Worse than any biological plague is the epidemic of socialism that is infecting more and more self-entitled young adults. These mentally ill SJWs spread this social disease like the black plague, and it’s likely just going to have to run its course.

    • Morning, Graves!

      Yup. The irony is that socialism is painted as benevolent and yet it pits everyone against everyone. When your neighbor can legally steal your property – as well as your liberty – via the proxy of government, then he becomes the worst sort of enemy. The enemy you are legally defenseless against.

      • Off topic but related: If uncle wants a colorblind society, why does he require everyone to self-identify themselves in every form filled out? Shouldn’t we all look past the color of our skin? And therefore shouldn’t the bureaucracy set the example?

        In fact, I think in future I’m just going to check “other” and fill in “Homo sapien” or “mutt.”

        • Hi RK,

          The ruling elite seeks to destroy everything which can be subsumed under “Western Civilization” because it is synonymous with individual liberty, objectivity and rationality… white, heterosexual males are targeted for termination because Western Civilization is a byproduct largely of white men. Thus, they are the only people shamed for being proud of their heritage while also condemned for not “embracing” a “diversity” which does not include them.

          • I now always refuse to self-identify as long as it remains voluntary. I absolutely refuse to self-identify as “white” by the government’s standard, as it now lists North Africans, Middle Easterners, Turks and other adversarial, non-Western Muslim peoples as if they share the same ethno-cultural heritage as the peoples of Europe. Our societies might be able to live in respectable peace, but we are not kin.

    • You say it started with the Clean Air Act. While that may be true, it got me to thinking how (by and large) the Libertarian model fails in dealing with environmental concerns. The only way I see a Libertarian type of solution would be through tort. (i.e. “your pollution caused me to get sick” – type of things…) And although my inner Bernie Sanders is leaking out here: How/why would car makers produce less polluting cars if they were not forced to by the government? On an individual-purchase type level, I don’t see the single person as caring much about how much his car pukes out. A requirement such as that doesn’t enter into one’s (mine) decision making on a car purchase, for example. So, even collectively, the market-forces would be very small regarding this. Now other things, such as airbags not being required – but I want to buy one b/c of my choice, is another matter.

      • Let’s say government courts decided properly back in the day and instead of ‘prove harm’ they decided on property rights. This would probably have made it such that emissions would need to be zero or as practically close to it as possible. How would that be achieved? It could be through government properly managing the commons or it could be through private standards. Odds are it would have been the later.

        Private standards bodies protect companies from liability by setting standards for the design and performance of products much like government standards do. They are the metric to which products are judged when disputes arrive. However unlike government standards a company can make their products to what they determine to be a more practical or superior standard. They would have to argue that when a dispute occurs of course. Or they can take the risk and not follow the standards.

        When fedgov granted us safe cars all it did was copy and paste SAE standards into FMVSS. The automakers were already following SAE standards. People don’t even think to ask where did all these standards come from fully formed?

        The private standard set most people know of is UL, but there are numerous others. Even now much of what people buy is covered only by private standards. It works so well most people don’t even know it is there.

        But back to auto emissions. As manager of the commons a minimalist government could sue a manufacturer that does not comply with the accepted private standard. That company would then have to argue why it chose not to and why what it does is good enough or better. Say it was little high on HC but much lower on NOx.

        Private standards are always evolving as well so it’s not like technological improvements would not find there way into being minimums. It could simply happen in a more sensible way.

        Of course if things were done this way there would be a lot less government, which is why they aren’t where they aren’t.

LEAVE A REPLY