Comments on: Car Wars: 10 Electric Car Lawsuits

By: ford f-150 parts

ford f-150 parts — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:06:54 +0000

Electric cars really is the way to go. Especially now that the price of gas is unstable in the market. I think it is the wisest option.

By: Ty

Ty — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:54:06 +0000

Ok. So add the Sierra Club to the list of evil doers that should be sent to the worst place in hell.

" The perfect is the enemy of the good. "

They are making it worst in trying to make it better. We WANT better/cleaner vehicles. But #ssholes like the Sierra Club are keeping incrementally better/cleaner vehicles off the market until the 'perfect' vehicle is offered. This has been going on for a while now and looks to continue for the next 10 to 20 years. I would LOVE to buy a diesel people mover that gets 62.8 mpg. ( Honda makes one. ) But Cal. and CARB say I can't buy one. And I don't even live in the state!! So I'm stuck with my 'someteen' mpg SUV until something better comes along. So all you SUV haters out them - here's the bird ! - Your keeping everything better off the market!

By: RKRB

RKRB — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:58:47 +0000

-ACAGal raises a valid point: research indicates diesels generate unhealthy levels of particulates (along with many other pollutants, just like any engine), and diesels produce particulates at higher levels than gas engines. The point, while compelling, is not conclusive evidence that diesels should be abandoned (just like current evidence suggesting "cell phones cause cancer" mean cell phones must be tossed -- yet -- much as we'd like to do this sometimes). Several questions must be considered, among them:
--what are the relative and absolute risks of exposure, and can it be generalized across the population or only to certain populations with controllable risk factors? What are the morbidity/mortality figures, are they location- or dose-dependent, etc.?
--what epidemiological or in vivo evidence backs up this research?
--are there any good meta-analyses of this question (although meta-analyses can be just as defective as any other study)?
--what are diesel's risks compared with gas, and does gas have significant relative risk factors too (including gasoline's neurological toxicity, carcinogenicity of additives, groundwater contamination, higher volatility and flammability, not to mention the high social risks of having to procure the higher quantities of fuel from politically unstable areas and having to "defend" those areas)?
--what is the contribution of diesel to overall particulate levels with expected numbers of diesels?
--are cleaner diesels less risky than old-tech diesels?
--if the risks of diesels (or gas) are indeed somewhat higher than gas (or battery power), should we take steps to outlaw diesel (or gas) engines entirely?
--indeed, given that our society and civilization uses so much fuel, what actually ARE valid and acceptable risk measures? Who determines them??
--finally, among the most important questions to ask in evaluating any scientific study: who paid for the research?

Although all these (and more) questions are controversial, one point has little controversy: diesels are considerably more fuel-efficient than gas engines. We don't need much research to sort that one out, and it's right here in front of us.

It's a tough question and we don't have enough data yet, although perhaps the best eventual solution may well be abandoning diesels (or gas). As the article suggests, Americans generally leave these questions to the lawyers. I strongly suspect this question needs considerably more research validation, including epidemiologic studies and good meta-analyses, and our answers may never be complete. I also suspect the search for a riskless fuel source is theoretically possible, but gooood luck. Our best solution surely includes decreasing the use of ANY fuels, but it's hard to argue conclusively that we should realistically abandon cleaner diesel (or gas) engines. Not yet.

By: ACAGal

ACAGal — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:07:09 +0000

RKRB:
Sorry, but out here in So CA the universities of UCLA, USC, UCI and others have done studies on the small and ultra fine pollution of diesel, which is now implicated in blood thickening diseases, heart, stroke and lung diseases (the most recent finds trucker have a high rate of lung cancers). Additionally the chemicals in diesels have been implicated in several cancers including leukemia.
Personally, I hate diesel, because of the mess it makes outside my house, and in (if I dare to open the windows for ventilation). My next door neighbor has diesel. Like coal, I don't believe clean diesel is possible...cleaner than it now is, maybe, but never clean. I have been to Europe, but they have pollution and green house gas issues because of shipping, auto and air fuels. Their trains operate on electric/electric-diesel systems. They are cleaner than US trains.

By: RKRB

RKRB — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:11:17 +0000

-Yes, law and efficiency make strange bedfellows.
-Speaking of which, it's worth noting the Sierra Club has strongly (and successfully) lobbied for years against diesel cars, even the cleaner ones. They have done so at the cost of using more and more oil over that time, and of denying Americans access to European-style energy efficiency (and I'd like to see some hard data suggesting how Europeans have suffered because of it). BTW, I have been a life member of Sierra Club for over 10 years.
Looks like people may be wondering (again) Who Killed The Electric Car, and it's worth noting who helped kill (or delay) the diesel, too.

By: Samie

Samie — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:49:32 +0000

Not sure I blame the lawyers here. This happens in every developing industry example Bill Gates taking Zerox and Apple technologies and applying it to Dos and Windows. Same thing but legal issues will continue to happen as the industry tries to build on technological innovations.

As for the auto industry in general they spend billions each year fighting regulations and lobbying boards like the one in California. Clearly shameful waste of money but I guess some were so fixated on needing to sell high end vehicles. Maybe restructuring to profit from smaller cars was way over due for some of these companies.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:49:12 +0000

This does suck. One of the issues I have with the legal system, or any bureaucracy.. is that the people who decide what services are rendered are the same ones who get the money for said services.. I understand I'm voicing a philosophical rant. But, in engineering, if you don't like a computer, you don't buy it. You don't go to the computer store, and they TELL you to fork over the money. No money is exchanged until that product is "good".

However, Lawyers have a clear incentive to continue doing things like this, not finding better ways. And, I do put it on their collective character that they are doing this.. instead of finding ways for people to just get on with solving problems.

By: Shines

Shines — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:20:24 +0000

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I guess this is human nature.

One thing's for sure, the lawyers are making money...