[bigd1276]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

...and do you guys not see the parallels with the trend those "stupid", "anti-EV" folks bring up here time and again? You appear to be quite okay (evangelistic even) with the technological enablers of such draconian, "safety focused" and "greater good" type legislation, but when it inevitably gives rise to these asinine, yet now astoundingly easily conceived and implementable measures, you object as if this was some out-of-the-blue overreach... you think this will end with mandatory speed limiters? Come on.

We "stupid" "anti-EV" people don't object to the existence of EVs, we (okay, at least I) even welcome them for fitting purposes, we just don't want to live under any regime that can and happily will govern your mobility, your diet, your entire way of life with that much ease. In fact I already did, I'm coming from this very road in the belly of socialism and don't want to go back, ever. And please don't say that ship has sailed, it's never too late as long as one is alive and kicking.


Mods, feel free to ban me if this is deemed too political, but I swear it isn't meant to divide or anything of the sort.

Very wise words.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

...and do you guys not see the parallels with the trend those "stupid", "anti-EV" folks bring up here time and again? You appear to be quite okay (evangelistic even) with the technological enablers of such draconian, "safety focused" and "greater good" type legislation, but when it inevitably gives rise to these asinine, yet now astoundingly easily conceived and implementable measures, you object as if this was some out-of-the-blue overreach... you think this will end with mandatory speed limiters? Come on.

We "stupid" "anti-EV" people don't object to the existence of EVs, we (okay, at least I) even welcome them for fitting purposes, we just don't want to live under any regime that can and happily will govern your mobility, your diet, your entire way of life with that much ease. In fact I already did, I'm coming from this very road in the belly of socialism and don't want to go back, ever. And please don't say that ship has sailed, it's never too late as long as one is alive and kicking.


Mods, feel free to ban me if this is deemed too political, but I swear it isn't meant to divide or anything of the sort.

I won’t speak for Number 3, but I can say for myself that if you think I am in favor of California’s all EV by 2035 legislation then you read me wrong. If I recall I was early on pointing out that it was a governor’s Executive Order without the power of law and that the state legislature would have to make it law. Unfortunately and to my surprise, they did. On the other hand I see the merits of EV technology and push back on all the disinformation that comes forward that say “EVs won’t work because of this…” “EVs won’t work because of that…” “EV sales are dropping…” “EVs are rotting on dealer lots…”. And I do that by presenting facts that people on both sides of the issue can read and interpret for themselves.

I have said countless times that ICE and BEV will coexist for a long time and I myself will (and do) own examples of each. Buy what ya like, doesn’t matter to me. But for some reason there are those in these threads that think people shouldn’t have the option to consider buying EVs, so I push back on that too.

Also, I push back on the whole BS argument that people are being forced to buy EVs. More than a million people in the US bought EVs in 2023. Most without any incentive whatsoever. Find me one who did it because they were forced to do so. That may happen in California 11 years from now, but until it does, nobody is forced to buy an EV. But many do. And I push back on the idea that automakers are forced to make EVs. Most of them have seen Tesla’s success, the growth in EV volume in China rapidly making its way across Europe and then to North America, and also realize that ICE emissions technology has reached its peak so they are, for the sake of staying alive and competitive, diving deep into the EV space. Like it or hate it, it is what it is.

And finally, I am in favor of the EV provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act because it will SLOW the import of EVs into the US by giving an ADVANTAGE to US (North American, actually) built EVs, and batteries and give US (and North American)companies time to develop investments into supply chain for the critical materials needed in battery manufacture. More jobs for the US, less reliance on China for batteries and battery materials. The companies that are willing to build the vehicles here with materials sourced from here get an advantage over imports. I’m all for that.

And for the record Arpad, I don’t see anything political about your comments and hope the moderators don’t either.

[cellsafemode]

the decades old problem of cars are now all so fast and powerful that they have reached beyond the average skill limit of the people buying them and the people driving them are not smart enough to drive within their skill limit and are getting into more accidents that result in injuries and expensive damages.

who will foot the cost? who is responsible for protecting the public from companies that sell a product that is apparently too dangerous for the public using their product? that's specifically what the government is supposed to do. so the public, sucking at driving, has put the government in this very unwanted position of regulating cars this way.

if we wanted to go to the conspiracy big brother option, we would expect them to do what the uk does and put speed cameras everywhere. limiting speed electronically to speed limits in real time at least is a direct safety measure and it conflicts with monetary enforcement measures since it means effectively eliminating the speed ticket shakedown system. the 'muh freedom' crowd would lose the one freedom of speeding, but gain back the much more valuable freedom of not being pulled over by gun wielding officers and risking death. since speeding is the biggest source for this interaction.

personally, i consider speed limits to be suggestions and this kind of development for future cars will inhibit my way of driving. but it's hard to see what other options are available. the public won't back harder driving tests to exclude poor drivers. the public won't buy lower power, slower cars. the public won't buy smaller less massive cars. the public wants affordable insurance. the public, as annoying as it may be for subsets, sucks at driving and can't be trusted driving fast in close proximity to anything but open straight road.

the nice side effect of this though will be updating bs low speed limits that were designed to make ticket revenue. without the corrupt conflict of interest, it just becomes annoyingly slow and the public will pressure for it's adjustment.

i see no problem really with this. I'm more concerned with drivers not using cruise control on highways and having to constantly change speed and traffic having to slow to 20mph if the car density gets just a little high, because again, people suck at driving and drive a variety of garbage that probably shouldn't be sharing the road with anyone.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

the decades old problem of cars are now all so fast and powerful that they have reached beyond the average skill limit of the people buying them and the people driving them are not smart enough to drive within their skill limit and are getting into more accidents that result in injuries and expensive damages.

who will foot the cost? who is responsible for protecting the public from companies that sell a product that is apparently too dangerous for the public using their product? that's specifically what the government is supposed to do. so the public, sucking at driving, has put the government in this very unwanted position of regulating cars this way.

if we wanted to go to the conspiracy big brother option, we would expect them to do what the uk does and put speed cameras everywhere. limiting speed electronically to speed limits in real time at least is a direct safety measure and it conflicts with monetary enforcement measures since it means effectively eliminating the speed ticket shakedown system. the 'muh freedom' crowd would lose the one freedom of speeding, but gain back the much more valuable freedom of not being pulled over by gun wielding officers and risking death. since speeding is the biggest source for this interaction.

personally, i consider speed limits to be suggestions and this kind of development for future cars will inhibit my way of driving. but it's hard to see what other options are available. the public won't back harder driving tests to exclude poor drivers. the public won't buy lower power, slower cars. the public won't buy smaller less massive cars. the public wants affordable insurance. the public, as annoying as it may be for subsets, sucks at driving and can't be trusted driving fast in close proximity to anything but open straight road.

the nice side effect of this though will be updating bs low speed limits that were designed to make ticket revenue. without the corrupt conflict of interest, it just becomes annoyingly slow and the public will pressure for it's adjustment.

i see no problem really with this. I'm more concerned with drivers not using cruise control on highways and having to constantly change speed and traffic having to slow to 20mph if the car density gets just a little high, because again, people suck at driving and drive a variety of garbage that probably shouldn't be sharing the road with anyone.

Part of the problem is that America is so lax with the driving laws that already exist and other countries are far more draconian, which enables them to have even higher speed limits with far fewer accidents than us.

Consider Germany. Their BAC/BAL limit nationally is .05, and your first DUI is mandatory prison for 6 months with a loss of your license for 2 years. FIRST DUI!! And the fines are relative to how much you make and are worth. So the more money you have the higher your fine will be. They count DUIs over your lifetime, and if you get a third one say at 60 years old you go to prison for 10 years and permanently lose your drivers license for life.

That’s just with DUI. As someone who has had a death in the family as a result of our insipid and terribly lackadaisical approach to DUI in America I can tell you that approach alone would save thousands of lives every year here.

Then there’s registration laws. In Germany to get your registration renewed you must first pass a FULL inspection. Just not having your check engine light on isn’t enough. They check tire tread depth, alignment, sysii pi ensign condition, make sure all your lights work, make sure the car is physically in good condition (no rot through on body panels or undercarriage or frame), it must not leak, it must not burn oil, all accessories and features must work properly as intended (they check everything from wipers to power windows to the radio and air conditioning)…. Anything not working must be repaired and reinspected before registration deadline.

And then of course, to get your license you must be 18, take a 6 month highly demanding driving course, and you must take your test with a manual transmission or you will get a mark on your license stating you are not legally permitted to drive a manual transmission. Unlike America, roughly 70% of all new cars sold in Europe are still with a 3 pedal manual transmission.

That’s partly why they can have a highway where they can trust people to safely and properly drive at 150 mph in the slow lane because they’re about to be passed by someone at 170 mph in the fast lane.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I won’t speak for Number 3, but I can say for myself that if you think I am in favor of California’s all EV by 2035 legislation then you read me wrong. If I recall I was early on pointing out that it was a governor’s Executive Order without the power of law and that the state legislature would have to make it law. Unfortunately and to my surprise, they did. On the other hand I see the merits of EV technology and push back on all the disinformation that comes forward that say “EVs won’t work because of this…” “EVs won’t work because of that…” “EV sales are dropping…” “EVs are rotting on dealer lots…”. And I do that by presenting facts that people on both sides of the issue can read and interpret for themselves.

I have said countless times that ICE and BEV will coexist for a long time and I myself will (and do) own examples of each. Buy what ya like, doesn’t matter to me. But for some reason there are those in these threads that think people shouldn’t have the option to consider buying EVs, so I push back on that too.

Also, I push back on the whole BS argument that people are being forced to buy EVs. More than a million people in the US bought EVs in 2023. Most without any incentive whatsoever. Find me one who did it because they were forced to do so. That may happen in California 11 years from now, but until it does, nobody is forced to buy an EV. But many do. And I push back on the idea that automakers are forced to make EVs. Most of them have seen Tesla’s success, the growth in EV volume in China rapidly making its way across Europe and then to North America, and also realize that ICE emissions technology has reached its peak so they are, for the sake of staying alive and competitive, diving deep into the EV space. Like it or hate it, it is what it is.

And finally, I am in favor of the EV provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act because it will SLOW the import of EVs into the US by giving an ADVANTAGE to US (North American, actually) built EVs, and batteries and give US (and North American)companies time to develop investments into supply chain for the critical materials needed in battery manufacture. More jobs for the US, less reliance on China for batteries and battery materials. The companies that are willing to build the vehicles here with materials sourced from here get an advantage over imports. I’m all for that.

And for the record Arpad, I don’t see anything political about your comments and hope the moderators don’t either.

Thank you James, you know that I respect you, always welcoming and appreciating your insider insights I will say, though, that sometimes a direct, succinct answer, addressing the exact concern brought up would be preferable... but then it's also true that at our age we just like to talk, don't we (yours truly being even more guilty at that ).

As an example, just so my talk isn't idle, please don't tell me that the average fleet CAFE regulations aren't forcing manufacturers to make EVs. When you are the government and you bring forth regulation calling for standards known to be impossible to meet with technology X, this is definitely tantamount to forcing manufacturers to move away from technology X. Sure, nobody said "you must buy technology Y", but if X and Y are people's only choices, you as the government effectively just did. Yeah, there are hybrids, too, but the pickings are relatively slim and expensive there.

Originally Posted by olrocker

Part of the problem is that America is so lax with the driving laws that already exist and other countries are far more draconian, which enables them to have even higher speed limits with far fewer accidents than us.

Consider Germany. Their BAC/BAL limit nationally is .05, and your first DUI is mandatory prison for 6 months with a loss of your license for 2 years. FIRST DUI!! And the fines are relative to how much you make and are worth. So the more money you have the higher your fine will be. They count DUIs over your lifetime, and if you get a third one say at 60 years old you go to prison for 10 years and permanently lose your drivers license for life.

That’s just with DUI. As someone who has had a death in the family as a result of our insipid and terribly lackadaisical approach to DUI in America I can tell you that approach alone would save thousands of lives every year here.

Then there’s registration laws. In Germany to get your registration renewed you must first pass a FULL inspection. Just not having your check engine light on isn’t enough. They check tire tread depth, alignment, sysii pi ensign condition, make sure all your lights work, make sure the car is physically in good condition (no rot through on body panels or undercarriage or frame), it must not leak, it must not burn oil, all accessories and features must work properly as intended (they check everything from wipers to power windows to the radio and air conditioning)…. Anything not working must be repaired and reinspected before registration deadline.

And then of course, to get your license you must be 18, take a 6 month highly demanding driving course, and you must take your test with a manual transmission or you will get a mark on your license stating you are not legally permitted to drive a manual transmission. Unlike America, roughly 70% of all new cars sold in Europe are still with a 3 pedal manual transmission.

That’s partly why they can have a highway where they can trust people to safely and properly drive at 150 mph in the slow lane because they’re about to be passed by someone at 170 mph in the fast lane.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the lack of skill part (even more so here in Tennessee, oh well).

I first got my driving license in Hungary, and driver ed/testing was quite onerous. Mandatory classroom education and knowledge test, rendering first aid, test course drills (manual transmission car or you get a nerf license when you pass, backing up, slalom, parking 90° and 45° between cones forward and back, hill start with handbrake and clutch etc., about 10-15 different scenarios), 45-50-minute road test with technical questions about the car, several mandatory maneuvers during both highway and city driving, negotiating one-way streets, yielding to police/ambulance, parallel parking plus any ad-hoc requests from the testing officer... and worst of all, one single "major" error line such as failing to yield at an intersection or starting a U-turn too soon after activating your turn signals meant automatic failure. I passed with 3 minor error lines (max was 9 before you fail), and it was hard to find anyone to flawlessly pass these tests.

Contrast that to my daughter's road test a couple months ago, which took all of 10 minutes and consisted of basically driving around the block and parking in a ginormous Walmart parking lot. We did teach her and she isn't a danger to anyone on the road, but it's unsettling how easy it is for anyone to pass a road test, relatively speaking.

Overall, even though it was quite a chore for me, I for one would welcome similar or just a slight bit less rigor here in the US, with the mindset that driving, even though it's a necessity for survival for many, is a privilege and not a birthright, because we command several thousand pound hunks of metal capable of killing in an instant. DUI is absolutely unacceptable in my books, too.

Better driver ed and doubling down on DUI (with more reasonable or even dynamic speed limits) would IMO substantially reduce accident risk. And then nobody would need to entertain these stupidly invasive technological approaches to enforcement (think of breathalyzers, too, that are on their way to becoming mandatory before starting the engine).

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Thank you James, you know that I respect you, always welcoming and appreciating your insider insights I will say, though, that sometimes a direct, succinct answer, addressing the exact concern brought up would be preferable... but then it's also true that at our age we just like to talk, don't we (yours truly being even more guilty at that ).

As an example, just so my talk isn't idle, please don't tell me that the average fleet CAFE regulations aren't forcing manufacturers to make EVs. When you are the government and you bring forth regulation calling for standards known to be impossible to meet with technology X, this is definitely tantamount to forcing manufacturers to move away from technology X. Sure, nobody said "you must buy technology Y", but if X and Y are people's only choices, you as the government effectively just did. Yeah, there are hybrids, too, but the pickings are relatively slim and expensive there.

…
Gonna TRY to keep it short

EPA and NHTSA have the same information as I did when I was at an OEM as well as what I have now as an unaffiliated industry analyst and consultant with regards to remedial technologies to address emissions. We all know who is working on what and have some idea of how effective specific technologies may be. What EPA and NHTSA don’t necessarily know or care about is what the cost to bring those technologies to market at scale would cost. That part is left to the manufacturers to figure out. More and more the automakers are saying “if I gotta put gas particulate filters on everything” (cost not recoverable) or “I gotta put dual injection hardware on everything” (cost recoverable on small volume of performance vehicles) or “I gotta put hybrid tech on everything”…”Or I can go high volume EV and just leave ICE for heavy duty applications and charge top dollar on both technology paths”. Luxury brands have already chosen the EV path. Now that battery prices on a $/kWh basis are coming down we’re seeing mainstream brands do the same thing. Truly global automakers like BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Jaguar Land Rover realize they are not big enough to have a foot in both camps and since their biggest markets are in China, they’ve already started the shift to full EV.

[dpevans]

Some people should not even have the privilege of driving. There is no way you could have an Autobahn in the US because you have people who think drive time is time to get chores done, make phone calls, pretty much do anything else but pay attention to the road let alone pay attention to their surroundings. Just knowing where cars are to my left and right has saved me several times from people doing stupid stuff like stopping on an interstate because they needed to change three lanes to their exit. I am still shocked that insurance companies are not plugged into your OBD port and anytime you speed and brake hard are not sent a notification and after so many they cancel your insurance. They way they will limit your driving privilege is through the insurance companies.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by dpevans

Some people should not even have the privilege of driving. There is no way you could have an Autobahn in the US because you have people who think drive time is time to get chores done, make phone calls, pretty much do anything else but pay attention to the road let alone pay attention to their surroundings. Just knowing where cars are to my left and right has saved me several times from people doing stupid stuff like stopping on an interstate because they needed to change three lanes to their exit. I am still shocked that insurance companies are not plugged into your OBD port and anytime you speed and brake hard are not sent a notification and after so many they cancel your insurance. They way they will limit your driving privilege is through the insurance companies.

Paraphrasing a real conversation during a Product Development call. This was back when GM owned Opel / Vauxhall. The vehicle being discussed is a minivan developed in the US, but with planned Opel and Vauxhall versions.

US Guy: We need to talk about placement of cupholders.

Opel Guy: Why do we need to talk about cupholders?

US Guy: Our consumer surveys indicate that we need to have X placeholders in the cabin. All our competitors have at least X cupholders.

Opel Guy: Why does the driver need a cupholders? Shouldn’t he be driving?

Probably happened at least once on just about every global product for a while.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

…
Gonna TRY to keep it short

EPA and NHTSA have the same information as I did when I was at an OEM as well as what I have now as an unaffiliated industry analyst and consultant with regards to remedial technologies to address emissions. We all know who is working on what and have some idea of how effective specific technologies may be. What EPA and NHTSA don’t necessarily know or care about is what the cost to bring those technologies to market at scale would cost. That part is left to the manufacturers to figure out. More and more the automakers are saying “if I gotta put gas particulate filters on everything” (cost not recoverable) or “I gotta put dual injection hardware on everything” (cost recoverable on small volume of performance vehicles) or “I gotta put hybrid tech on everything”…”Or I can go high volume EV and just leave ICE for heavy duty applications and charge top dollar on both technology paths”. Luxury brands have already chosen the EV path. Now that battery prices on a $/kWh basis are coming down we’re seeing mainstream brands do the same thing. Truly global automakers like BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Jaguar Land Rover realize they are not big enough to have a foot in both camps and since their biggest markets are in China, they’ve already started the shift to full EV.

Makes perfect sense (thanks for the info, again). If I were responsible for strategy, given these constraints, I'd probably think twice about straddling the fence, too.

Now, we all know that government with their departments and committees and task forces never ever reduces its own size or self-reinforced sense of importance, so at some point a clean sweep and reset/rebuild is desirable (Ramaswamy style, hope I don't get banned for this either ), which is unfortunate, but I see no other way.

Originally Posted by dpevans

Some people should not even have the privilege of driving. There is no way you could have an Autobahn in the US because you have people who think drive time is time to get chores done, make phone calls, pretty much do anything else but pay attention to the road let alone pay attention to their surroundings. Just knowing where cars are to my left and right has saved me several times from people doing stupid stuff like stopping on an interstate because they needed to change three lanes to their exit. I am still shocked that insurance companies are not plugged into your OBD port and anytime you speed and brake hard are not sent a notification and after so many they cancel your insurance. They way they will limit your driving privilege is through the insurance companies.

True that 100%. OBD-II is already an option for potential discounts (so only carrot at this point), many insurance companies have an app that uses just the phone, but unless they get complete telemetry with video, there is no way for them to know whether you're a moron that parked on the highway to make an exit or you did have to stop because there was an impenetrable road hazard, to stick to your example.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Paraphrasing a real conversation during a Product Development call. This was back when GM owned Opel / Vauxhall. The vehicle being discussed is a minivan developed in the US, but with planned Opel and Vauxhall versions.

US Guy: We need to talk about placement of cupholders.

Opel Guy: Why do we need to talk about cupholders?

US Guy: Our consumer surveys indicate that we need to have X placeholders in the cabin. All our competitors have at least X cupholders.

Opel Guy: Why does the driver need a cupholders? Shouldn’t he be driving?

Probably happened at least once on just about every global product for a while.

No wonder they wonder By the way, I had a German boss for years, I can almost hear the accent and see the facial impressions in my head

[GreenZLE]

When the grid in just California can handle everyday electrical loads without black outs and brown outs and EV's can run the whole day at a HPDE event, lemme know.



For short commutes in areas that can handle their numbers, they're fine.

[Hyperion]

This is the legislator proposing this awful bill. He was successful in reducing knowingly exposing others to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. Clown government.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

As an example, just so my talk isn't idle, please don't tell me that the average fleet CAFE regulations aren't forcing manufacturers to make EVs. When you are the government and you bring forth regulation calling for standards known to be impossible to meet with technology X, this is definitely tantamount to forcing manufacturers to move away from technology X. Sure, nobody said "you must buy technology Y", but if X and Y are people's only choices, you as the government effectively just did. Yeah, there are hybrids, too, but the pickings are relatively slim and expensive there.

They never seem to really make this concession.

Some of us would be a lot more accepting of EV's alleged merits if ICE didn't have to compete with both hands tied behind its back. Rightly or wrongly, the force of government makes many of us skeptical, especially when we lose alternatives we're sure will work for us.

Part of being an EV advocate seems to be idealogical, you have to be fully subscribed to the ideas of climate alarmism to dismiss the fact that the for force of law/regulation is a driving force behind EV adoption rates, yet all we hear is how EVs are "winning" based on their merits.

I guess none of us will ever know if EVs would have ever got a foothold in the American martketplace without the goverment. I don't beleive they would have, but we can (and will) disagree.

When the governnment takes things away, it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical, and assume you'll be given an inferior alternative.

[N Camarolina]

Originally Posted by Capricio

They never seem to really make this concession.

Some of us would be a lot more accepting of EV's alleged merits if ICE didn't have to compete with both hands tied behind its back. Rightly or wrongly, the force of government makes many of us skeptical, especially when we lose alternatives we're sure will work for us.

Part of being an EV advocate seems to be idealogical, you have to be fully subscribed to the ideas of climate alarmism to dismiss the fact that the for force of law/regulation is a driving force behind EV adoption rates, yet all we hear is how EVs are "winning" based on their merits.

I guess none of us will ever know if EVs would have ever got a foothold in the American martketplace without the goverment. I don't beleive they would have, but we can (and will) disagree.

When the governnment takes things away, it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical, and assume you'll be given an inferior alternative.

I appreciate your point of view here, but have you ever stopped to question the possibility that humans as a species are a threat the future of this planet?

If you can remember learning about biology, every species has a limit to its population size (called "carrying capacity") that once crossed, will be it's own demise because it's destroying the balance with the environment it lives in (eating too many of it's prey items until there isn't enough to sustain it, or destroying it's own environment that's been enabling it thrive). Humans have now exceeded their carrying capacity limit because of the atmospheric pollutants we are dumping into the air. It is causing more heat to be retained within our atmosphere and this is melting the polar ice caps, changing salinity of our oceans, and altering the normal water and air currents. The result is rising sea levels and more violent weather patterns. One need only look at the last 2 or 3 years at weather patterns in the US to see that there are unusual events happening much more frequently than in my last 50+ years on this earth. Any if this isn't the sentinel event that does us in, I'd bet it will eventually be that we have expanded our human footprint to the point that we've removed too much green vegetation and we no longer have enough oxygen to support ourselves.

Some governments around the world (including US) understand this and have put mandates in place to try to stem the tide of all this by putting aggressive limits on CO2 and other pollutants. It isn't about trying to limit the choice of individual humans. It's about trying to protect future generations of humans from the actions of past and current humans.

If ICE engines can't meet the pollutant targets then they go the route of the dinosaur. I don't like that one bit, but I'd rather see that than to know that we all helped destroy our only available home and didn't care enough to try to do something about it.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by N Camarolina

I appreciate your point of view here, but have you ever stopped to question the possibility that humans as a species are a threat the future of this planet?

Yes, I have, and I concluded that bringing automotive emissions to zero will accomplish nothing for climate change.

The point I was trying to make is... for all your "concern" about losing ICE, can you at least concede we don't have to enjoy having this forced down our throats? Because it *is* being forced upon us. Semantics about ICE remaining an option while it's being priced and regulated out of existance is just BS. Trying to convince people "you need this for your own good" because "You know what is better for us" won't sell well. Never has, never will.

Sorry if this got derailed into another EV thread but it's all part of the regulatory over-reach taking place.