The Stat That Says What 96 Percent Won’t Admit

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Do you know what percentage of EV owners own only an EV?

About 4 percent.

The rest – about 96 percent – own another vehicle that isn’t a battery powered device. What does this say about battery powered devices?

It arguably says it all.

It could be said that battery powered devices work for only 4 percent of the people who bought them – the remaining 96 percent having bought an EV for essentially the same reason that people buy antique cars or boats; i.e., because they wanted a toy.

Any vehicle that requires you to own another one is that, by definition. I own an old Pontiac Trans-Am muscle car from the ’70s. It does not get driven much because it is impractical to drive it much. I don’t keep it for transportation; I keep it because I like it and because I consider it fun to drive – when I don’t need to drive.

EVs are a lot like that – with a critical difference. I am well-aware that my ’76 Trans-Am is a toy; many people who own battery powered devices like to pretend theirs aren’t. Of course, they know perfectly well that they are; if they actually believed otherwise, then 96 percent of them would not have another (non-electric) vehicle to allow them to pretend their electric vehicle isn’t a toy.

It all begs a question: Why do they pretend?

People who own vintage cars don’t. People who own boats don’t. Most will tell you very frankly that they know their old car or their new boat is as practical as a bikini in Antarctica, but they don’t care because they love the thing. It makes them happy, even if it costs them money it wasn’t necessary (or even wise) to spend. They wanted to indulge and – usually – are happy to confess that they did.

This is perfectly sane.

But what is the applicable diagnosis for a delusion that the afflicted is aware he suffers from – as evidenced by his actions – yet pretends to be unaware he suffers from?

The 96 percenter knows he cannot rely on his battery powered device for spur-of-the-moment, unplanned transportation. It might not be charged up. He might not have time to wait for it to charge up. He is nagged by the knowledge that it might not make it to his intended destination and not just solely on account of its state-of-charge but also because the “fast” charger he planned on using might not be working – or he might be stuck waiting in line for others to finish charging. He knows he cannot rely on the vehicle to accurately give him the remaining range available because the weather – being variable – might alter the range available.

He knows that if he needs to drive outside of his usual orbit, into an unfamiliar area – such as another state – he cannot depend on being able to stop for a charge pretty much whenever he might need one (as one can with a vehicle that burns gas rather than electricity) and that makes him uneasy.

His uneasiness is entirely rational. It is sane. It is based on lucid evaluation of objective reality. Battery-powered devices can be fun; many are almost surreally quick and driving them is an experience entirely different from driving a car with an engine (and a transmission, something most EVs don’t have). Everyone has heard about the immediacy and escalator-like continuity of the acceleration. Some of the higher-end EVs (such as those made by Mercedes, for instance) generate UFO-like sounds to provide an other-than-silent auditory experience.

But they are fun in the way that an old muscle car or boat is fun. As in the kind of fun that isn’t especially practical.

The 96 percenter’s decision to keep a vehicle that works on stand-by is thus rational and sane.

And so would he be – if he were to admit he needs one, because his EV isn’t practical. If he were to smile and say: I just like the thing; I know it’s a little silly – but what the Hell, right? It makes me happy and that’s what’s important.

Of course, certainly. And no one would fault him for so saying. It’s what the 96 percenter won’t admit that makes him pathological.

And the same is true of the media that adamantly refuses to do the same as regards these devices. Ward’s Auto, for instance, says: “Does that mean people can’t rely on EVs exclusively to serve all their mobility needs?”

Yes. It means precisely that.

If it didn’t then 96 percent of EV owners would not be relying on cars that work to “serve their mobility needs.”

When, by the way, did driving needs become mobility needs?

Perhaps around the same time drugs that don’t immunize became “vaccines.”

As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise