Electric Cars Forbidden In Canada

[valis23]

It was funny reading about electric cars failing vehicle inspections because they don't put out any exhaust for the meters to test.

This, on the other hand, is just this side of warped. There are some good reasons to not allow electric cars on the roads, but crash safety isn't really one of them. They provide nominal safety, and if people want to take that risk, they should have that right.

 

[Apollo]

^ Why should they “have that right”?

Doesn’t everybody in Canada pay for Canada’s “free” health care?

Do Canadians have/use auto insurance?

Of course they have auto insurance. Canada's free health care doesnt pay for fixing your totalled car.

 

[valis23]

^ Why should they “have that right”?

Doesn’t everybody in Canada pay for Canada’s “free” health care?

Do Canadians have/use auto insurance?

Ah! You have a great point! When everybody pays for your health care, your business is everybody's business. The government can dictate how you live your life.

How silly of me to forget. I really should get used to thinking that way, since we're racing down that same dead end like a well-oiled brick.

 

[bighair]

It was funny reading about electric cars failing vehicle inspections because they don't put out any exhaust for the meters to test.

This, on the other hand, is just this side of warped. There are some good reasons to not allow electric cars on the roads, but crash safety isn't really one of them. They provide nominal safety, and if people want to take that risk, they should have that right.

Crash safety is a serious issue! Why should a manufacturer be able to produce and sell a product that cannot meet the same safety standards as other cars? Considering the long and shameful history of dangerous cars produced in North America and the billions of dollars spent to get rid of them, excluding these vehicles would be a very foolish backward step. This sounds something like what "Libertarians" crap on about when they try to scam people into buying dodgy goods and services.

 

[Apollo]

Crash safety is a serious issue! Why should a manufacturer be able to produce and sell a product that cannot meet the same safety standards as other cars? Considering the long and shameful history of dangerous cars produced in North America and the billions of dollars spent to get rid of them, excluding these vehicles would be a very foolish backward step. This sounds something like what "Libertarians" crap on about when they try to scam people into buying dodgy goods and services.

Whats the name of that documentary that talks about the up and coming of the electric car, than how the oil companies and governments killed them off? Watch it.

EDIT:// FOUND IT! Who Killed The Electric Car?

 

[Kurn]

I imagine the Canadian policy has to do with "not just yet." That is, the economics and the infrastructure don't warrant it. They'll probably watch electric car usage in the USA first. After all, they are oil exporters and have no big need to rush into the post-petroleum age.
So now we need some Canuck commentary.
Heh????

 

[D-Base]

EDIT:// FOUND IT! Who Killed The Electric Car?

Thanks for the link, very interesting documentary...

 

[bighair]

From what I saw in that movie "Who killed the electric car?" you don't really need much in the way of infrastructure. Everybody has electricity in their house and businesses already. Some small upgrades might be required but businesses could actually make money on charging stations. <shrug> That was one of the great things about it. You didn't have to rebuild fuel stations to accommodate these cars. Simple converters were easy enough to install.

A possible problem with that is generation capacity- that is if like many countries, Canada is near its limits with the amount of electricity it can generate with existing infrastructure, having tens of thousands of electric cars plugged in during the evening could cause brown outs all over the place! Infrastructure also involves very expensive upgrades to power plants and transmission systems. Also where does the electricity come from ? Eco-friendly renewables like solar? Or coal or oil fired generators?

Electric car technology and its effects can be more complex than many of its advocates suggest!​

 

[levenshulme31]

Ah! You have a great point! When everybody pays for your health care, your business is everybody's business. The government can dictate how you live your life.

How silly of me to forget. I really should get used to thinking that way, since we're racing down that same dead end like a well-oiled brick.

Sorry, that is such a nonsense argument against universal health care. Surely it is better for you to pay the equivalent of whatever your personal health insurance costs as tax and have a system which will fix everyone who gets injured in a car accident (without bankrupting those with no/insufficient/the wrong cover).

Does your health insurance give you carte blanche to ignore the speed limits or drive drunk or are you also subject to pesky, socialist government dictat on such matters?

As for the safety of electric vehicles, I have no objection to them being subject to the same safety regulations as other cars. I also agree that the silence of electric cars poses a danger to pedestrians who can't hear them coming. An easy solution would be a built in speaker to play a suitable engine noise (it could be quite fun to have a golf cart sounding like a Ferrari). That or pedestrians might be encouraged to pay a bit more attention when they cross the street.

 

[RationalLunacy]

They are citing safety concerns for the ban.

This from a country that can't build a helicopter worth a damn??

 

[Apollo]

It's funny seeing the dynamics of these arguements. If this thread had said the US had banned the electric car, this thread would be on the 3 page with people slamming the US for banning the electric car, I am sure oil hungry would be someone where in there. How big American business is destroying blah blah blah.

And then a few would posts on how America is contribuiting to global warning and destroying the world. But because this is Canada. People are actually thinking with their big boy brains.

 

[Apollo]

No. It's from a country that buys its helicopters from a country that can't build a helicopter worth a damn.

The issue is academic, anyway. There's another reason why B.C. is the only province allowing electric cars, and that's winter.

Cold kills batteries dead — and fast. When its 30 or 40 below, an electric car with the engine on, the headlights on, the heater on, the wipers on, the rear-window defroster on and the radio on wouldn't travel three feet before dropping dead.

An electric-car ''season'' would be only marginally longer than motorcycle season. Maybe three-and-a-half, four months, tops.

Where do you get your information from?

 

[valis23]

Crash safety is a serious issue! Why should a manufacturer be able to produce and sell a product that cannot meet the same safety standards as other cars? Considering the long and shameful history of dangerous cars produced in North America and the billions of dollars spent to get rid of them, excluding these vehicles would be a very foolish backward step. This sounds something like what "Libertarians" crap on about when they try to scam people into buying dodgy goods and services.

I assume the worst of the cars meet the minimum crash safety requirements. If they didn't, I don't think they'd be allowed to sell them in the US either. But there's a huge difference in survivability between tiny cars that barely meet the standards and the Humvee whose CD didn't even skip when it ran over the Yugo. People who purchase cars with shorter wheelbases and lighter components are more at risk, plain and simple.

And for what it's worth, Libertarianism is an extremely valid and progressive social philosophy. There's no need to put "Libertarians" in quotes. Do you similarly try to marginalize the Green Party? There are far more Libertarians in office than Greenies.

 

[star-warrior]

The electricity used to power the car must come from some place. If it requires plugging into the mains to recharge the on board battery, then you're just passing along the polution to the power supplier.

And what do the power suppliers use to produce electricity? Fossil fuels?

It's just passing on the pollution to your fuel supplier.

Unless your car is based on cleaner sources of fuel, it can never really be considered as green.

 

[Apollo]

The electricity used to power the car must come from some place. If it requires plugging into the mains to recharge the on board battery, then you're just passing along the polution to the power supplier.

And what do the power suppliers use to produce electricity? Fossil fuels?

It's just passing on the pollution to your fuel supplier.

Unless your car is based on cleaner sources of fuel, it can never really be considered as green.

More pollution is produced refining and corn ethanol than it would take to power an electric car. We actually use MORE oil to produce corn ethanol than save. Electric cars cut down on emissions and saves energy in the long run.

Also, Hydrogen is not viable and not so green.

The most green car you will find is electric.

Also, power stations could be solely solar energy or wind energy if you want to go that route.

 

[Críostóir]

We're finding that even hybrids are dangerous...because they're too quiet. I just heard a report on NPR about some guys who are making engine-noise simulators for hybrid cars!

The thing that makes them dangerous (for other people, not the drivers or passengers in the car) is that people are used to depending on hearing cars coming. This sounds really stupid, but it's caused a number of accidents.

I think people will adjust to quieter vehicles, except blind people, who will still have a problem. Solving it will be a problem, and I think engine-noise simulators are a really dumb way to solve it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Crash safety is a serious issue! Why should a manufacturer be able to produce and sell a product that cannot meet the same safety standards as other cars? Considering the long and shameful history of dangerous cars produced in North America and the billions of dollars spent to get rid of them, excluding these vehicles would be a very foolish backward step. This sounds something like what "Libertarians" crap on about when they try to scam people into buying dodgy goods and services.

A Libertarian is, obviously, not what you think.
No libertarian would "try to scam people into buying dodgy goods or services" -- a libertarian would lay out exactly what it is he has, and try to convince you that's what you want... as opposed to a Democrat, who doesn't care what you want, but defines what products are permitted, or a Republican, who doesn't care what you want, so long as you don't do anything 'immoral' in whatever you do buy.

More pollution is produced refining and corn ethanol than it would take to power an electric car. We actually use MORE oil to produce corn ethanol than save. Electric cars cut down on emissions and saves energy in the long run.

Also, Hydrogen is not viable and not so green.

The most green car you will find is electric.

Also, power stations could be solely solar energy or wind energy if you want to go that route.

The first part of that is true only because we're idiotically using oil to produce a fuel that's supposed to get us away from oil. It will stop being so when we start, as a fair number of folks have done on their own, using alternative fuels in the equipment they use to produce their alternative fuels. Even the caloric equation will get better if we move in that direction.

Hydrogen may have its place in H2-enhanced fuels, but as motive power... true enough. And it's green only when produced by electrolysis, really, which is a silly process when what we really need is more electricity anyway.

The problem with the electric car being green is that in most places, the electricity for that car will come from burning fossil fuels. That's why we have to focus primarily on making more electricity cleanly, before we're going to clean up auto emissions.

Solar or wind -- we have to go that route! Roofing every building in America with solar might, if we also conserve, do away with imports of oil, but that's just holding ground: it only replaces the fossil-fuel-burning plants we have now; it does nothing for changing the pollution from automobiles. To make progress, we need wind as well -- and nuclear, and geothermal, and wave....



no, not that kind fo wave!

We're finding that even hybrids are dangerous...because they're too quiet. I just heard a report on NPR about some guys who are making engine-noise simulators for hybrid cars!

The thing that makes them dangerous (for other people, not the drivers or passengers in the car) is that people are used to depending on hearing cars coming. This sounds really stupid, but it's caused a number of accidents.

I think people will adjust to quieter vehicles, except blind people, who will still have a problem. Solving it will be a problem, and I think engine-noise simulators are a really dumb way to solve it.

 

[Apollo]

A Libertarian is, obviously, not what you think.
No libertarian would "try to scam people into buying dodgy goods or services" -- a libertarian would lay out exactly what it is he has, and try to convince you that's what you want... as opposed to a Democrat, who doesn't care what you want, but defines what products are permitted, or a Republican, who doesn't care what you want, so long as you don't do anything 'immoral' in whatever you do buy.



The first part of that is true only because we're idiotically using oil to produce a fuel that's supposed to get us away from oil. It will stop being so when we start, as a fair number of folks have done on their own, using alternative fuels in the equipment they use to produce their alternative fuels. Even the caloric equation will get better if we move in that direction.

Hydrogen may have its place in H2-enhanced fuels, but as motive power... true enough. And it's green only when produced by electrolysis, really, which is a silly process when what we really need is more electricity anyway.

The problem with the electric car being green is that in most places, the electricity for that car will come from burning fossil fuels. That's why we have to focus primarily on making more electricity cleanly, before we're going to clean up auto emissions.

Solar or wind -- we have to go that route! Roofing every building in America with solar might, if we also conserve, do away with imports of oil, but that's just holding ground: it only replaces the fossil-fuel-burning plants we have now; it does nothing for changing the pollution from automobiles. To make progress, we need wind as well -- and nuclear, and geothermal, and wave....



no, not that kind fo wave!

True about putting solar panels on roofs, the problem is it is extremely expensive.

I know the government does subsidize some of the cost, and energy companies will actually give you money, if they have to use some of the energy from your solar panels. You have to plug the energy into the grid. It also cuts your energy bill in half, or more than a half.

 

[gsdx]

True about putting solar panels on roofs, the problem is it is extremely expensive.

As with everything, though, the price would drop drastically with more people buying it. They even make solar shingles now. Virtually every home in North America could be self-sufficient

 

[trawler69]

Virtually every home in North America could be self-sufficient

The government could never allow that. They rely on their control of energy and the taxes derived from that control to have power over us. If everybody becomes energy independent it would be the end of the world as they want it to be.