It's an interesting question and the commenters at the bottom of the article make some interesting points too - well done for an interesting debate - I'd like to continue it here but virtually nobody reads my Blog and I can't be doing with promoting it.
Hertz, who have got shut of 20,000 Teslas say it is because "they were involved in more accidents than the renter’s ICE vehicles."
I would dispute that the reason was their electricness though - I'd have thought it was more down to renters struggling to get used to the stupid controls and lack of indicator stalks and the distracting central screen.
Other factors making electric more likely to crash would be they tend to be:
heavier
taller (bloody SUV cross-overs)
driven by younger people
have more distractions for the driver
The weight may be countered by the fact that they have a low centre of gravity due to mostly underfloor battery packs.
And, as well as the more distractions, there will also be more safety features.
So what do the insurers tell us?
The Autocar story quotes Howden UK&I Retail who tell us “There are 26% more accident claims for EVs than for ICE vehicles.”
That seems quite conclusive.
Except, Thisismoney (who I nicked my photo off) tell us that HPI tell us "Looking specifically at cars up to a year old, the study found that a total of 40 EVs (0.01 per cent) were scrapped out of the 334,525 on the road last year. This compared to 701 of 2,026,146 ICE vehicles (0.03 per cent)"
And Fleeteurope.com have this story telling us that the German Insurance Association analysed data showing that electric cars are responsible for five to 10 percent fewer accidents on average than comparable vehicles with ICE engines. "responsible for" though - not "involved in"
I honestly don't know the answer to this - maybe nobody does yet.
In the meantime - just enjoy the charged discussion.
The new new Top Gear Magazine (which I'm still not overly sure about) has a section called "Vapourware Files" which pays tribute to the many new cars announced by new car companies that never actually reach fruition.
I wonder if this is going to be featured in a future edition.
It's by Mika.
No, not the bloke who sang about Grace Kelly and the Bells Ending, pictured here with a Mini he's vandalised.
The "car" in the top picture is by Warwickshire based car company Mika - this Autocar story tells you more.
But in that particular hue, it looks like a shark.
Not a BYD Shark - that looks like a Ford F150.
And from the rear view, it looks worse.
The article makes a big play of the enveloping frame formed from "composite pultrusions" which "form an extremely rigid survival cell for occupants in the Mika"
I'm not sure if it is these that make the car look like an Alfa Romeo SZ that has been rear-ended.
Maybe that's the safety angle they will be going for - the probability of a car being in TWO serious accidents is extremely low.
It uses "cloud-based algorithms" so it must be good.
The idea is to plonk a policeman at the side of the road then get cameras to look at cars on nearby roads to see if there is any driving that could indicate an impaired person at the wheel.
It seems to be a possible solution to the issue of the loss of thousands of experienced police officers, including traffic officers, during the cuts of the last Government. That's a lot of noses.
I hope they are combining the cameras properly though - I was following a car on the motorway yesterday that kept veering out of its lane - I have no doubt that the driver was using a phone - and probably sober.
The outcome seemed to be that if you have a big car, you don't agree with the idea while if you don't have a big car, then you don't have anything against the idea.
Although the article also mentions Haringey in London, where the council proposed adding a 5% surcharge for medium sized vehicles (4-4.49m long), and a 10% surcharge for large vehicles which are allegedly over 4.5m long.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea.
It doesn't affect me in the slightest as I never park anywhere inside the M25 but my car is 4.761m long so it's the principle that counts.
Now if it were up to me, it wouldn't be the length of the vehicle that was used - it would be the height.
But then I've always had it in for cross-over SUVs.
Meanwhile, have you seen Jaguar's new concept car?
The opinions that has elicited seem to have fallen into three main categories:
It's woke
It's gay
It looks like Lady Penelope's car
I do have some sympathy for that third one.
The first two seem to have also been influenced by the recent Jaguar advert which was just too surreal and pretentious for my liking - like every single perfume ad - I really hate the Johnny Depp Sausage one.
(Not familiar with the work of PIG but I like their style)
People who think that car is "woke" need to invest in a dictionary - IT'S A CAR! I'm proud to be woke given that the alternative is being ignorant.
And those complaining about the gayness seem to be trying too hard - maybe a bit of insecurity about their own sexuality?
And there will only ever be one Jaguar advert for me, the one that appeared while I was a Jag owner.
At least I dislike the new ad for woke reasons. I dislike the car because it just looks wrong. It looks considerably better in a sensible colour.
But, much as I dislike cross-overs, I do think it helps to able to sit in a car without having to tilt your head.
