香港吾清楚,大陸大把地方吾俾電車駛入地下停車場,自己小区樓下都吾准,連充电椿都搬到無雷公咁遠露天地方.人地電車生产大國都咁做,人地吾清楚過你？

哈哈！原來又有分身！再討論都係嘥氣。

我做幾十年廠，任何係 德國 市販嘅大電流產品，由生產線到產品，都要經過十分嚴謹嘅考核同測試，所以要買 EV，我建議只買 德國 市面有售嘅流行車款。

油車賣多近十倍咁多,你梗揾到更多油車自焚片断架,前面#168 咪講左囉, 我問每十次自焚,油車, 電車各自有幾多人走得甩. 每十次自焚, 有幾多次係車主同途人第一時間救熄(電車好似為零）？ 每次自焚由冒煙到全車着曬火油車電車要幾耐, 供逃生時間有幾多？
你答左呢幾個問題, 安全問題答案就呼之欲出喇.
你講到ev咁好, 你有無攞你d數據去小九停車場吾俾你架安全電車入呀, 有無小九保险公司收貴你比油車多咁多錢呀, 有無小二手車商小九佢點解咁賤价收你架車呀！
你數據多定保险公司二手車商,定管理人员既數據多呀？

最後修改時間: 2025-06-09 09:35:38

#176

YT 片我揾到呢D.

你搵到幾多EV 車燒死人嘅片？你搵到幾多條,其他人都搵到至少同樣ICE 車燒死人嘅片


你自己講：
"講边d數據咪都係自己揀既. 吾鐘意既數據咪又係當睇吾到."

請賜教有乜數據令你覺得你所講係啱？不如你揀D ICE 自燃率低過EV 數據俾大家睇？


有數據你又扭曲到有目的,你都好打横來.叫你搵ICE 車嘅數據又冇,唉！！！
唔講數據淨係你話“我講嘅係啱嘅”咁就冇得講.


最後修改時間: 2025-06-09 09:09:26

咪講左囉,好多數據都係為目的而造, 為目的而引.同yt片一樣, 真真假假吾係我地普通人可以考証, 你揾到既可能係假數據, 我又去揾d可能假數據去駁你又有也意思呢.
但從利益有関人既行動就反映事实真相喇.
好多地方都禁止ev進入佢地地下停車場,保險公司這幾年不断提高電車保險費,二手車商近乎吾收二手電車.大量ev自焚片,最近重有隻船燒左三千部車.呢d都吾假數據而係事实, 你一問就知.

最後修改時間: 2025-06-09 09:03:19

再 post 多次：

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/research/evs-are-far-less-likely-to-break-down-than-ice-vehicles-study/ar-AA1CTkBJ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=7e07fa5eb25d4f119705b62c35a41f91&ei=31

有兩位師兄 post 咗啦！你覺得不可信咪搵資料反駁囉，但點都唔係話 YouTube 就係事實嘅一切卦？

最後修改時間: 2025-06-09 08:39:46

講數據？ 講边d數據咪都係自己揀既. 吾鐘意既數據咪又係當睇吾到.
比奶滴話銷量數據世界冠軍, d五毛咪用d數據打飛機, 但鋪滿山头一望無尽既庫存零公里二手車數據咪又當睇吾到.

最後修改時間: 2025-06-09 08:33:44

一如既往，同你講數據係嘥時間，YouTube 先至係事實嘅全部。
記得胃痛睇婦科，腳痛睇神經科。。。kaka

真係唔使嘈,對祇顧部份理論就當自己心得的人教化無意思,已先入為主,既定答案,歸究香港教育使人不懂分析及欠缺宏觀,看下YouTube-自燃就明白,電車一燒就烈焰沖天, thermal runaway,人分分鐘走唔甩,自行救火因短路火更猛,要即時遠離,就算消防員救也要用20倍水,所謂秘技,祇是防火布覆蓋,或攝個花灑頭在底盤救,以為救熄,高過400C又再黎過,固態電池有機會好的,但要廠方証書, type test certificate (usually destructive) 同類試一次就可以及test certificate,每件貨品都試

其實同核溶解一樣,又發明一樣嘢自己控制唔到

你揾幾断片ev車着火後車主途人好快救熄既俾大家睇下有無？ 由冒煙到全車着火,ev好快幾秒全車着火既多如牛毛. 你都要駁咁真係無辦法.
十八层地獄同監生燒死近似既地獄有兩三個,又吾係作奸犯科殺人越貨,梗係避得就避喇, 難道只為慳幾蚊油錢？



最後修改時間: 2025-06-08 22:29:18

真係憑空想像,yt大把片講點解ev吾安全,大把片關於汽車起火既,你可以分析下從冒煙到全車起火有幾多秒,大把片講d人斉斉幫忙救火,救極吾熄既片.
請多無謂,自己斟酌
講多無謂,商人利益最实際,同价車電車油車, 一両年後收幾多,心知肚明


最後修改時間: 2025-06-08 22:02:56

#168

咁你有冇數據 EV起火走唔甩燒死人嘅機會大過 ICE？冇從的話你所講係憑想像 wor。真實數據係 ICE車起火燒死好多人。
飛機空中出事實冇得剩，咁是否只會用車、郵輪或行路？

不如簡单講,每十次起火,電車油車幾各有幾多次走吾乜燒死左喇,不如講埋,每十次起火,有幾多次係即時俾車主及救援途人即時撲熄, 又最好答埋,起火速度燃燒快慢,可以即時逃生既時間边個耐d,搵咁多irrelevant figures做乜！

最後修改時間: 2025-06-08 21:04:52

#164 愚村 買 Tesla 班友炒到九彩，梗係貴啦！
即係當年啲 掃把佬，新牌直頭唔做。

保險 Tesla 頗貴，因修理費較高. Tesla 多部件由 gigapress 壓成，一換成大件換。我友人的 Nissan Leaf 保險費和油車差不多。

每年 ICE車起火燒死人一定多過電車，因為 base absolute figures 細，但以 reported percentage來計暫時都係 EV車低好多。困難係冇可靠 database 話 EV 車起火走唔切燒死人。

It's challenging to get precise, universally agreed-upon global statistics solely on deaths caused by EV fires versus ICE fires, primarily due to the complexities of data collection and attribution. However, the overwhelming consensus from multiple studies and agencies indicates that EVs are significantly less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles, and consequently, fatalities directly attributed to EV fires are also much lower.

Here's a breakdown of what the available data and studies generally show:

Key Takeaways:

Fires are much rarer in EVs: ICE vehicles have a substantially higher fire incident rate than EVs. Studies consistently report ICE vehicles being anywhere from 20 to 80 times more likely to catch fire. This inherently means fewer opportunities for fatalities from EV fires.

ICE vehicle fires cause hundreds of deaths annually: In the US alone, highway vehicle fires (predominantly ICE vehicles) cause hundreds of civilian deaths each year. For example, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reports an estimated annual average of 579 civilian deaths from highway vehicle fires in the US between 2018-2022.
EV fire fatalities are very low: While the total number of EVs on the road is growing, the number of confirmed fatalities specifically from EV battery fires remains very low globally.
EV FireSafe (an Australian organization that tracks global EV battery fires) recorded 511 verified passenger EV battery fires worldwide from 2010 to June 2024. While they track injuries and deaths from e-scooters and e-bikes (which have a higher fire risk due to less sophisticated battery management), they don't explicitly break down fatalities for passenger EVs in all their public summaries, but the general implication is that the numbers are extremely small compared to ICE vehicles.
One source mentions that in the first half of 2023, 35 electric vehicle battery fires resulted in eight injuries and four deaths worldwide (this often includes vehicles beyond just passenger cars, like e-scooters and e-bikes, which have a higher fatality rate due to fire).
One study highlights a "fatality rate resulting from EV fires is 68% lower than those involving gasoline vehicles."
Hybrid vehicles sometimes show higher fire rates than pure ICE or EV: Some data suggests that hybrid vehicles, with their dual powertrains, can have a higher fire rate than either pure ICE or pure EV vehicles.
Challenges in direct comparison:
"Cause" of death: It can be difficult to definitively attribute a death solely to fire in a vehicle crash, as the impact itself might be fatal before the fire starts.
Data granularity: Global, standardized data collection on vehicle fires and associated fatalities is not uniform across all countries and agencies.
Vehicle age and fleet size: The ICE fleet is much larger and older on average, which contributes to higher fire incidents due to wear, tear, and less advanced safety systems. EVs are a newer, growing segment.
In summary:

While specific, global numbers for "deaths caused by EV fire" are hard to isolate and present in a neat statistic compared to the vast and well-established data for ICE vehicle fires, the evidence strongly suggests that the risk of dying in an EV fire is substantially lower than in an ICE vehicle fire. The rarity of EV fires itself directly translates to fewer associated fatalities.


不過無論有幾多數據， bias一定存在-＞只要唔合心中所想見嘅"數據"都係錯。

最後修改時間: 2025-06-08 20:24:19

其實睇保險費會唔會知道那一種比較風險高？始終保險公司的數據最齊，又有精算師。

關乜事！成日都係開吾切/到門呀

最後修改時間: 2025-06-08 19:58:08