BECAUSE, not just die in a car that caught fire, but actually BECAUSE of the fire. That's what we have seen documented many times with regard to BEV. Always explained as being because the battery fires are explosive, so you only have seconds to get out.
An ICE car does not catch fire in that way, and even if they are much more common, the vast majority are relatively harmless.Seems to me the people responding to me negatively are the ones that are not in good faith, pointing to statistics that don't show what they claim.
That 1 in 80 fires are BEV doesn't say much if BEV is only 1% of cars, and it doesn't say much if the lethality in a BEV is 10 times as high. The stats need to show a usable picture, not just snippets that separated from context are useless.
To die in a fire, does not necessarily mean to die because of the fire, the death can easily have happened in an accident that caused both death and the fire.
So where are all the comments about daily mail not being trustworthy now?Why isn't this downvoted to oblivion when a story about false accusation of rape was? With comments all over the place on how daily mail is untrustworthy and had an agenda!Is this part of that agenda too? Because that seems a bit weird IMO.