More Tesla Charging Stations Than Gas Stations In NYC Soon

 

The New York Post reports that Tesla Motors has embarked on a plan to expand its network of Manhattan charging stations to 105 by March 31. At present, there are only 40 gas stations in Manhattan and drivers of conventional cars are finding it can take longer to fill their tanks than Tesla owners need to recharge their batteries.

Tesla chargers

Most of those Tesla charge points will be what the company calls destination chargers. Less powerful than the company’s SuperCharger stations, they are intended for use when a car will be parked for at least an hour or more. Equivalent to a DC fast charger, they can add about 60 miles of range for every hour they are connected. A full charge usually takes less than 4 hours even if the battery is fully depleted.

As of this last week, Tesla had finished installing destination chargers in 68 private garages in the city. By this September, there will be a Tesla charging point roughly every three blocks in Manhattan, the company says. Until last year, Tesla had mainly installed its destination chargers at hotels and restaurants, spokeswoman Alexis Georgeson told The Post. “However, in an effort to tackle the need for urban charging, we expanded the program and partnered with public garages that offer parking both by the hour or the month,” she said.

“The garages have a better sense of what’s going on now,” says Paul Gardi, an Upper West Side resident who takes his Model S P85D to the office downtown a few times a week. “A year ago, the garages were saying, ‘Whoa, what’s this thing?’ But now, they know what to do — you can just leave it and say, ‘Plug it in,’ and come back in an hour.”

Another Tesla owner told The Post, “I can look at the Tesla app on my phone and see how many miles I’ve got. If it says I’m low, I call my garage and say, ‘Plug it in for me.’ ” That makes driving an electric car even more convenient than driving a gasoline powered vehicle, at least in New York City, where finding a gas station and getting a tank of gas can take as much as 40 minutes. There is no app for putting gas in your car.

Earlier this week, Tesla opened a 40,000-square-foot showroom and service garage in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Tesla also operates a showroom in the Chelsea area of Manhattan.

Photo Credit: Tesla Motors





About the Author

I have been a car nut since the days when Rob Walker and Henry N. Manney, III graced the pages of Road & Track. Today, I use my trusty Miata for TSD rallies and occasional track days at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen. If it moves on wheels, I'm interested in it. Please follow me on Google + and Twitter.
  • Allan Theobald

    Pure propagandistic dishonesty. Tesla will never be able to build enough charging stations. They purposely pick an extreme location to get the misleading headline. A hour to charge for 60 miles versus one-two minute at a gas station. SC is a scam.

    • Steve Hanley

      I disagree. Remember, we are talking specifically about Manhattan here, where finding gasoline is not as easy as it is in most neighborhoods. Also keep in mind that charging in large cities is an issue for all EV drivers. Tesla is doing a very smart thing here, but it is carefully tailored to the needs of drivers in a very small geographical area. Wouldn’t work at all well in Peoria, for example. Of most other places, for that matter.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

      • Allan Theobald

        That is precisely my point. It is Manhattan. It is misleading because there are very few gas stations in Manhattan compared to regular locations and you are counting single plugs. The accurate way to measure is to count how many cars per day each can fuel. By that count the gas stations provide fuel to vastly more cars. Supercharging is a scam that can never work across America because a six SC station can only fuel 8 cars per hour while a six pump gas station can fill 50-60 cars per hour.

        • Jim Smith

          how is that the accurate way? There are way more outlets at houses than there are gas stations in the entire world.

    • SkyHunter

      Tesla is way ahead of everyone else. And if the charging station is in the parking garage… well, why not charge your battery while you conduct your business?

      • Allan Theobald

        Tesla has no advantage and soon will be out of business .

        • SkyHunter

          The only reason more people don’t own a Tesla is; Tesla can’t build them fast enough. In 2015 Tesla built out much of it’s factory’s primary production capacity. Enough capacity for 100,000 Model S and X plus an additional 150,000 units of spare capacity for the Model 3. Tesla will be building cars for a long time.

          • Allan Theobald

            Another silly Tesla fanatic. Most people have no interest in an overpriced unreliable car you can’t take on a long drive. The more cars they make the more money they lose. Soon they will be gone. Tesla is a failure.

          • SkyHunter

            That is your opinion, distorted by specious facts.
            Tesla’s can go anywhere in the continental US. So your first point is wrong.
            Tesla’s have 97% owner satisfaction and they are supply constrained, not demand constrained. Which is why they are spending so much expanding production capacity. Last year they expanded the Fremont capacity to 300,000 vehicles per year. Enough to cover Model S/X demand and the initial Model 3 production line.
            The margin on the Model S is approaching 30%, and will only get better as pack price drops.

          • Allan Theobald

            Yes you can go anywhere at a great inconvenience. SC is a complete scam because the math can not work. A six bay SC station can only charge 8 cars per hour while a gas station can do 60. The more cars they sell the worse it gets and at peak travel times SC will become a total cluster F. Nothing Tesla can do will solve this problem. They can never afford to build enough SC stations. Musk was dishonest when he promoted the Tesla more than an around town commuting car. That is all it can ever be.

          • Jim Smith

            Most people have no need for the SC network…every day they leave their house with a full charge…over 200 miles of range.

          • SkyHunter

            Super chargers are not intended for everyday use. Most charging will be done at home or at the office. The super chargers are for traveling. As the number of users increase, so will the number of chargers.

          • Allan Theobald

            Most working age young people have no option to charge at home and even fewer at work. This is all progressive fantasy. The numbers don’t work. Yes the SC are for traveling but it doesn’t work yet Musk has marketed the car that way. This of course is because most young people can afford only one car unlike the current S owners.

          • SkyHunter

            Most working age young people cannot afford a Model S. And they will prefer self driving cars on demand. Uber sans the driver.
            And if they work in a progressive state, there will be plenty of charging stations available in the parking garage.

          • Knut Erik Ballestad

            Well, in a more mature EV market, you hardly need the fast/super-chargers any more. They are only utilized when travelling long distance.

            E.g. here in Norway, almost all parking lots have trickle-charging / destination charging available. Most hotels also offer charging at 2-3kWh. There is even a new law now *mandating* charging infrastructure on a quite high percentage of parking spaces on both private and public parking lots that are ment for the general public. Also lots of grocery stores/supermarkets have either trickle charge or fast chargers installed for their customer’s use.

            So, since your car typically spend most of it’s time parked somewhere anyway (home, at the store/supermarked, at public or private parking lots, at a hotel, at a train station – or whereever…), and you can top off your car at any of these locations – who really needs the fast/superchargers anyway?

          • Knut Erik Ballestad

            ….and when travelling, you typically do not top off your car battery at the roadside charger, you just add enough to reach your destination or the next pit stop…
            …At the destination you typically have lots of time to slow-charge and top off your car battery again.

            So it is a false premise that you set when assuming all cars on a supercharger charge from very low battery levels to very high battery levels. Actual capacity in cars per hour is much higher than you assume!

            In my own experience, most supercharger visits are very short, and the main time consumption is when buying some snacks or visiting the toilet, I have actually only ever topped off the battery once on a fast/super-charger.
            – and I have 40.000+ electric miles on my wheels so far 🙂

          • Jim Smith

            people drive cross country in Teslas. That is not a long drive?

        • Jim Smith

          Tesla is dominating the luxury car market, outselling all the big boys. No car even comes close in terms of price/performance. No car comes close to the range. Tesla has higher customer satisfaction than any other car company. Tesla is kicking a$$ and taking names.

    • Jim Smith

      the Tesla has an effective charge time of zero since these people are at work while the car is charging.

      Filling gas at a station takes longer than two minutes on average. The EPA allows the maximum fill rate to one minute per 10 gallons. By the time you find an open pump, get out, open the gas cap, pay, , fill, click yes/no for recipt, put the cap back on, get back in the car, start car, shift into drive, and pull out, you are way over two minutes.

      • Allan Theobald

        Maybe try reading the article. It states 60 miles of driving time for an hour of charge time. This is two gallons and can be added in twelve seconds of fill time. This is why it will never work except around town. SC is a scam not because I’m against it but because the simple math doesn’t work and can never work unless the charge time can be greatly reduced.

        • Jim Smith

          i guess you failed math, along with logic because you are not making any sense. The Tesla charges while the people are sleeping and in this case, at work. They are working while it charges, unlike the time it takes to fill up with gas which they have to be present and waiting.

          • Allan Theobald

            Another HS student. Do you really think most young workers have parking places at home or at work with access to a plug in? Please live in the real world. Go walk around and see where normal people live and work. Virtually no one has a regular spot with access to electricity. This is why all the S buyers are older, own homes, and can afford multiple cars. It doesn’t work.

          • Jim Smith

            so i destroyed your other nonsense, so now you move the goal posts again. I am getting bored of destroying your statements.

          • Allan Theobald

            Jim this isn’t HS or college. You lost the argument before you started because the basic math doesn’t work. You keep saying Tesla charges while to are at work. This is nonsense since virtually no one has a parking spot where you can charge and few even can charge at home. Very few people under 35 own their own house. So where exactly are they going to charge on a reliable regular basis. Bedsides no one disputes that Tesla can be used around town. The scam is the nonsense about using it for long trips. It doesn’t work and will never work for the vast majority of people. SC is the real scam.

          • Jim Smith

            you are still rambling on with nonsense. The math does work, you simply do not understand it. Please provide sources for your statements. Of course you can’t because they are nonsensical.

            People with Tesla’s go on long trips all the time. Try reading up on the Tesla motor club forum. So again, you are incorrect. Saying it “will never work for the vast majority of people” is completely false. Again, ask the Tesla owners.

            SC are the real deal and work awesomely. They are being used by the vast majority of Tesla owners. Where are you going to move the goal posts next so i can destroy that too?

          • Knut Erik Ballestad

            In more mature EV markets (like e.g. Norway where I live), this is not the case. We are 4 million people, and have way over 10.000+ public charging locations.

            My local city (40.000 people) have 12 Tesla superchargers on one location, ~15 Chademo/CCS chargers on 6 locations (also usable for Tesla’s with adapter), charging infrastructure on *all* mall’s/supermarkets, and most private or public parking spaces – with lot’s of the public parking spaces offering both free parking and free trickle charging (2.2 – 3.6 kW). All public transportation hub’s offer free parking+free trickle charging.

            Most people lives in private homes here – with charging easily available, but lot’s of apartment buildings also offer trickle charging for their residents.

            – it is actually quite a lot harder to find parking locations *without* charging available than the other way around.

            Most owners of parking lot’s either see charging as a business opportunity, and charges for charging 😉
            – or they use free charging to attract customers owning EV’s.

          • Allan Theobald

            Another Tesla nut compares tiny Norway to the USA. Maybe you also will explain to the readers the unbelievable tax deductions Norway provides to EV’s . Without these tax breaks Tesla would be dead in Norway. And also please remind me how Norway makes most of it’s money. Could it be north sea oil. What hypocrisy.

          • Knut Erik Ballestad

            Why did you assume that I was a “Tesla nut”?
            – I do neither own nor have access to a Tesla, and will not order a Tesla..

            Yes, I would gladly explain the “unbelievable” “tax deductions” in Norway – that’s easy 🙂

            1. There is no import tolls on Zero emission vehicles
            2. There is no sales tax on Zero emission vehicles
            3. Zero emission vehicles do not pay on public toll roads
            – that’s it!

            Of, course there are some usage benefits also, like some cities allowing access to bus/HOV lanes on their freeways, and lot’s of public parking spaces offer free slow/trickle charging – not really much of a benefit though, since electric power anyway is very cheap here (3-5c / kWh)

            And, yes – how does Norway make most of it’s money 🙂
            – Currently, the export of fresh fish (mainly cod + salmon) is our largest income source 🙂

            I guess you wanted me to tell that oil exports was our main export/national income – but since oil prices fell recently, this is no longer the case….

            And then maybe you could explain me the hypocrisy in supporting and encouraging the transition to clean energy – regardless of your current income basis?

            – Norway already have the world’s highest percentage of clean energy in our energy mix, ~100% – based mainly on hydro-electric power stations
            – We are currently building some of Europe’s largest wind power parks, to support energy-intensive process industry being built here instead of in countries based on coal/oil
            – We are building very powerful import/export power lines, that will help balance the european power grids, and hence help other countries achieve a higher percentage of renewable power in *their* power grids.
            – We are continuing to build renewable power, although we already export a lot of electric power each year – generating national income, as well as reducing CO2-emissions in *other* countries

            Of course, all these actions also bring income to the country, we are not doing this out of “kindness” – but you should go elsewhere with your hypocrisy theories….

    • Knut Erik Ballestad

      The scam is that you apply the pattern of refueling an ICE to EV’s.
      – as an EV market mature, the refueling patterns are the first ‘culture’ that changes:

      1. ICE refueling can typically *only* be done at public gas stations
      – When refueling an ICE, the pump time is small, and the extra pump time to top off the fuel tank vs only filling enough to reach your destination is neglible.
      – You also are used to the pattern that you cannot refuel at home or at other location without planning (you need to bring gas there first to do this). Therefore you always want to max out on fuel when already being at one of these sparse refueling locations

      2. BEV’s can typically be recharged at any location where you park your car
      – you typically very seldom park your car at a location where no electricity is available!
      – When recharging a BEV during travel you typically also have the ability to recharge on your destination location, so you have no immediate need to top off your battery roadside.
      – In a more mature EV market, charging infrastructure is ubiquitous, you simply know that whenever you start driving from whereever, your car battery is topped off.

  • Peter K

    There a recharging stations everywhere, wherever there’s an accessible plug. And as EVs expand more and more homes will have 240v in the garage – it’s been written into some local building codes in California.

    I plug in at night in the driveway or garage. Other than when I’m on a road trip, when I need to stop every few hours anyway for food, coffee and a restroom, I spend a few seconds a day to refuel my car – the time it takes to plug it in. And every morning I’ve got a full “tank”.

    It’s the future – get ready for it.

    • Allan Theobald

      It is not the future and will not work. The vast majority of young people do not own a house and will not have access to plug in in a reliable way.

      • SkyHunter

        Self driving cars on demand, Uber without the driver, will be the preferred transportation of young people in five years.

        Tesla will be in a unique position to provide those cars.

        • Allan Theobald

          Absolute nonsense. They can’t drive in the rain or snow and many other conditions.

          • SkyHunter

            Not yet. Uber just ordered 100,000 self driving Mercedes by 2020, because Tesla wouldn’t fill the order. Self driving cars will have more sensors and redundancy. But they are coming.

          • Steve Hanley

            I know the prospect of self driving cars is hard for some of us to grasp, but Elon Musk says they will be as common as automatic elevators soon.

            Elon’s idea of “soon” may not be the same as “soon” to you and me, but putting inside the issue of when, there is no question that Musk is right. It won’t be tomorrow, but it will be, well, SOON!

          • Allan Theobald

            You are both silly fools. Driverless cars will not be here soon because of many many unsolvable problems. They can not be used in bad weather and the liability makes it impossible. What happened when a driverless car kills someone? Who pays? You two talk like dreaming children.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Wow…. We could play adlibs with your ignorance and insert dozens of technologies that DID happen, where folks like you said were impossible.

            Who pay? The auto insurance industry already has “no-fault” rules in some places. The idea is that the insurance company pays when something happens, regardless of fault. You know, what insurance is supposed to be for, paying damages.

            The weather is a engineering problem. Sensors and computing power will quickly exceed the human eye’s capability, as they have already exceeded human reaction time.

          • Allan Theobald

            You think the insurance company is going to pay for a wrongful death by a driverless car? You people must be HS students. Do you have any clue how the real world works? There is no way any company will accept that type of liability. You clearly have no idea what no fault even means.

          • Volvo has already said they’d take on the liability of autonomous cars they build, with Google and Tesla having informally commented that they’d do the same. Way to talk down to people without doing any research and making yourself look like an asshat, though. You must be in Jr. High or something.

          • Allan Theobald

            Volvo is nothing. Try paying attention. In Europe maybe but have you noticed the Erin Andrews and Hulk Hogan awards. Unless the US liability is limited it’s not going to happen.

            Not all automakers are taking the same public stance as Volvo. Audi, which is owned by Volkswagen Group, is taking a step-by-step approach with its autonomous tech. Audi’s current model cars don’t have a fully, or even highly autonomous mode, so taking a position now is a bit premature, according to spokesman Brad Stertz. The 2016 Q7 will have a semi-autonomous traffic jam assist feature. The company’s first highly automated system, which will will handle driving tasks in congested highway traffic up to 37 mph, will come out in the next generation A8 in the next few years.

            Audi is concerned states could create a patchwork of regulations, Stertz told Fortune. “We’re particularly wary of legislation that regulates technology that doesn’t exist yet,” Stertz said, adding that the days of sitting back and drinking a latte while your car picks you up and shuttles you around are many years off. GM takes a similar stance. Spokesman Dan Flores noted that currently the technology has its limitations. And while the technology is catching up, it’s a bit early for GM to make public declarations on liability for fully self-driving cars, Flores said.

            “We do have an increasing number of automated and driver assistance features in our cars, but the driver is still in control and is still ultimately responsible, he said.

            Meanwhile, Ford has not revealed its position on liability surrounding autonomous vehicles, and probably won’t for some time. Company spokesman Alan Hall says the company is focused on its own plan for autonomous vehicle development and will share details of its future plans at the appropriate time. He did not provide a timeline.

            Automakers are in a race to develop self-driving tech that will turn drivers into passengers. Audi, Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz, Ford F -0.51% , Tesla TSLA -1.75% , and General Motors GM -0.56% all are developing autonomous driving features.

            Automakers have upped the self-driving ante over the past year. A number of companies, including Audi, Bosch, Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz unit, Delphi Automotive DLPH 1.24% , Google GOOG -0.14% , and Nissan have permits through a California DMV program for testing self-driving cars. The pace of development has accelerated in recent months. Google has expanded its testing of autonomous vehicles into Austin, and in June introduced a self-driving car that it designed itself. That car has no pedals or steering wheel, but does have a lot of sensors and software. Google hopes to commercialize its technology by 2020.

          • Joe Viocoe

            And again… the concept of insurance is completely missing from your comment, and your brain.

          • Allan Theobald

            The potential awards are just too big and too frequent for any company to take the risk. Unless the US government removes or limits the legal risk it will not happen. 10 people dying in just one crash could exceed a billion dollars. As I said the recent awards make it clear that jury awards are out of control.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Damage limits? That’s a state issue.

            Your fear mongering doesn’t make sense. How do you think anyone drives around these days?

          • Allan Theobald

            Do are a dense nut. Right now there is no insurance liability crisis. So why would a car company already doing well expose themselves to billions in potential liability for no increase in profits? You must work for a public entity.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Autonomous vehicles statistically do less damage than human.
            The only concern is that liability doesn’t fall on a single human.
            Insurance companies become LESS EXPOSED.
            The fact that you think I’m working for a public entity proves that you are only here with a political motivation.

          • Allan Theobald

            That of course is why it won’t work. The individual responsibility means the liability for the car companies is very limited. The car companies can never take on this new liability. You are a loon who has never run a business. You think the car company shareholders are going to shoulder the burden for society? Please stop embarrassing yourself with this drivel.

          • Joe Viocoe

            “The individual responsibility means the liability for the car companies is very limited. The car companies can never take on this new liability. ”

            Listen to yourself… and read my several comments…. the automakers don’t have to take the liability.

            Individual responsibility isn’t enough either, because a single accident with a single injury is enough to bankrupt an individual…. THAT is why we invented INSURANCE.

            All the asinine reasons you seem to repeat over and over… already have a solution.

            Look around at the other comments… If you knew how to read, instead of glancing and responding without thought… you would be the one who is embarrassed here.

            I am getting more and more sure that you are some inexperienced teen who never even been in middle management, let alone run a business. Because you seem very new to these concepts. Either that, or you’re some industry shill, trolling everyone here. Makes sense since you are obviously politically motivated.

          • Allan Theobald

            Joe you seem to have a small brain. The lawyers always go for the deep pocket. With no driver the risk is on the auto maker and not limited to the passenger. Are you in HS? You have zero understanding of how the legal system really works.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Who cares what lawyers “go for”… they go for automakers now anyway. Lawyers will sue regardless. Insurance still mitigates the risk.

          • Allan Theobald

            Joe you sound so silly. Most individual drivers have a very limited liability coverage from car insurance under a million dollars. Moreover most drivers have a minimal net worth. This means the contingency lawyers rarely go for larger settlements because there is no deep pocket to pay the bill even if they win. But in a driverless car this is not true. The owner of the car’s insurance is not going to take responsibility of the car killing a pedestrian in a snowstorm or fog. The responsibility will fall to the maker of the car and this will amount to billions. The ambulance chasing attorneys will have a feeding frenzy for this pot of gold. Yes government could limit the liability but with the attorneys owning the Democratic Party I think this is unlikely.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Again… proof you’re here just as a political shill.

          • Allan Theobald

            Really. So you haven’t ever heard of medical malpractice? Do you have any idea what that insurance costs for 1 million/3million? Well it ranges from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. That is the cost of real coverage. Right now most drivers are paying under 2k. So please explain how that is going to work? You can’t Joe because you don’t understand how insurance works. With a new large risk to be covered someone has to pay the insurance bill. It’s a huge new cost that will immediately be created by driverless cars. The companies could pay but it would be a very expensive new cost. As long is there is a driver left in charge to override the autopilot mode there is no new risk or cost. Surely even your simple mind can understand that under these circumstances the companies will cover their asses by leaving the driver responsible.

          • Joe Viocoe

            The risk is lower with autonomous driving.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Autonomous vehicles statistically do less damage than human drivers.
            The only concern is that liability doesn’t fall on a single human.
            Insurance companies become LESS EXPOSED.
            The fact that you think I’m working for a public entity proves that you are only here with a political motivation.

          • Allan Theobald

            I agree that the accidents will decrease but that isn’t the point. Suddenly now every accident and injury will be the fault of an infinitely large deep pocket. Unless a new law is passed shielding the car companies it can’t work.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Insurance is for large rare events like a hurricane.

            You obviously don’t have any clue… or are purposefully being obtuse about it to spread an agenda.

          • Allan Theobald

            And what do you think insurance is for? Everyday expenses? Insurance isn’t free and ultimately the insured pay the bills not the insurance company. Do you not get that? Today almost all of the liability from accidents is borne by the drivers and paid for by the drivers through personal car insurance. But driverless cars suddenly transfers all the risks and costs to the car companies. There will be less accidents but when things inevitably go wrong the settlements will be huge. As I said go look at the Gawker/Hulk Hogan and Erin Andrews cases. Then multiply by thousands of accidents in 50 states. The total number of accidents will go way down the but pay outs will be huge and the ambulance chasing attorneys will have a field day.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Car companies have their own insurance too. And legal teams. Automakers are already sued again and again. It doesn’t break them, nor does it stop the progress.

          • Allan Theobald

            Car companies aren’t sued when a driver hits a pedestrian but only when there is a defect in the car. That is totally different. If you can’t understand the difference then your incapable of rational analysis.

          • The deep pocket isn’t the automaker, it’s the national agency that licenses the vehicle for use on the roads (which is why the automakers are willing to take on the liability: they’ll push blame up to the gov’t). Thanks for playing, kiddo!

          • Allan Theobald

            Total nonsense. You can’t sue the federal government. Are your posters for real.

          • The insurance companies will offer coverage, as will the banks- they’ll all back the manufacturers, who will eventually get cleaned out and get another bailout. Maybe they’ll get smart- like Ford- and hide their massive bailout in their financial arm.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Yes, it is called “no-fault” insurance. And they do it all the time.

          • Allan Theobald

            Every death or injury would lead to a huge lawsuit after the deep pocket. No company can accept that type of unlimited liability. Driverless cars are just a progressive fantasy because of our legal system.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Lawsuits can be mitigated as they are now… With insurance companies.

            There will always be landmark cases that show the extreme. Million dollar settlements for this or that. Hot coffee, whatever. We don’t stop technology because of any of it.
            The liability will need to be something that is deeply considered…. but it has never…. EVER, stopped a technology before… and it won’t stop autonomous vehicles.

            Think of the first child killed in a car. Did we go back to horses? Nope.

          • Allan Theobald

            Yes but drivers are free since they own the car. You are smoking crack. No manufacturer will ever take that risk. You clearly have zero business experience.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Haha… so this is a business man pissing contest now?

            Automakers don’t have to take the full brunt of risk. THAT is what insurance is for.

          • Allan Theobald

            You don’t understand the discussion. The injured parties are going the sue the manufacturer like Tesla. There is no way Tesla can afford that risk. Just a few deaths could destroy them.

          • Joe Viocoe

            I understand your fear perfectly. But it is irrational.

            Lawsuits don’t necessarily mean payouts. Tesla has plenty of capital to cover legal expenses. But then again… Google, GM, Mercedes and others are also getting into autonomous vehicles.
            They have way more legal defense funds at their disposal.

            Yes, people will sue in this litigious society. See Vince Megna and all his nonsense.
            Yet, progress marches on.

            Bottom line… you keep bringing up risk… as if the automakers will try to absorb all of it. No, they won’t. Just like any risky venture, insurance companies will take on the risk.

          • Allan Theobald

            Joe you are a pleasant loon. “Tesla has plenty of capital”. Tesla is hemorrhaging red ink. Do you really think Musk and the board are going to spend hundreds of millions settling lawsuits rather than just requiring a driver. I’t s risky venture with no upside because there are no extra profits. It’s never going to happen.

          • Joe Viocoe

            You seem to be quite lacking the understanding of basic terminology.

            Telsa is indeed spending more than they earn, or ‘burning cash’. This is called runway… because they have raised a lot of capital already. This is why they are still in business and will be for a while. They still have capital left to burn.
            Capital is NOT the same as Revenue.

            Nobody said anything about “settling lawsuits”. In fact, if you were a proficient reader, you would have understood when I said, “Lawsuits don’t necessarily mean payouts.”
            Lawsuits get tied up for years, and there are still legal fees way before a judgement.

            Once again… Google, GM, Mercedes and others are all moving toward autonomy. So if the risks were untenable and automakers must assume all of it… why are these companies doing it?
            Could it be, they have insurance?

            Did ambiguity over insurance and liability prevent companies like Uber and Lyft? No,… and not because the drivers are on the hook for everything. Because there are supplemental insurance policies that are provided.
            But I am sure you’re baffled how they are still in business too.

            So how do cars exist instead of just horses… if, as you say, the risks are too great?

            It is becoming apparent from your responses, that you are merely just anti-Tesla, and don’t want anything to change from the status quo.

            One final question… do you even think about the liability of 30,000+ deaths each year from human drivers? Do you think that individual drivers are the ones paying the costs?

          • Joe Viocoe

            I don’t know about any progressive agenda….
            But seems very hypocritical of any conservative who ignores the 30,000+ American’s killed each year (that’s men, women and children). That is like Al-Qaeda successfully carrying out a 9/11 scale attack EVERY MONTH.

            Pure arrogance is the only reason I could see to justify this. Everyone thinks they are the best driver. But the number of fatalities and injuries is just tragic.

          • Knut Erik Ballestad

            You base that on the assumption that the law allows unlimited liability. In my country this is not the case, and it might also change where you live – such laws are not necessarily static and lasting into eternity…..

            And, yes the driver needs to be present at the *current* level of technology – but technology is changing fast….

          • Jim Smith

            airplanes fly themselves in bad weather all the time. Cars will be no different. The technology is very young. 50 years from now, kids will not know what a steering wheel is.

          • Allan Theobald

            Airlines jets are flown by two pilots with years of training. Are you really unable to see this destroys your argument. It is not going to happen unless the liability problem can be solved.

          • Jim Smith

            there is this magical thing called: auto-pilot invented recently in 1912. Are you really telling me you have never heard of it? LOL. Liability is something being worked on now. Laws always follow advances.

          • Steve Hanley

            I do not dispute that I am a silly fool. Who else but a fool would give up a perfectly good job to sit home and write drivel for an online blog like Gas2? ; – )

          • Allan Theobald

            That I agree with. Forgive my post as I would not intentionally be rude to the writer. Most of these poster’s have never used the car. I think EV’s are fine around town. My objection is the way Musk has promoted the car as a good long distance vehicle. While SC can work the problems with peak travel and long lines are not solvable. Most people will do exactly what we have done which is use an ICE for all trips.

          • Joe Viocoe

            You call folks in their 30’s and 40’s, many who are professionals in science and engineering… youngsters?

            I am sorry, but I don’t equate age with wisdom when it comes to technological topics.
            This is further proven by your lack of understanding regarding superchargers, Tesla vehicles, and the reality of driving an EV today.

            You’ve obviously gotten to an age where every change is too scary. Had you been born in the 19th century… cars would have seemed too ahead of their time.

            Statistically, the worst drivers are the very young (16-25), and very old (55-70+). I am sure you “think” you’re still a great driver. But a computer should replace you, and it will. Driving isn’t well suited for human interaction. Our brains get distracted, and slow down, and have numerous blind spots.

            You may never find yourself in an autonomous car… but the future isn’t for you. It is for the billions of people of a younger generation.

            Eventually, your eyes and motor skills will fade, and you will either need to be driven, or stay home. When that happens, please just stay home.

          • Allan Theobald

            By youngsters I mean the vast majority can’t afford to buy their own home. Without a home plugging in is a major problem.

          • Joe Viocoe

            You do realize having a dedicated parking garage/spot, does not require home ownership. People rent homes you know. Yes, we need to address street parking. But nothing to do with buying their own home.

          • Knut Erik Ballestad

            Well, this “youngster” is ~50 years old, is both an electrical engineer and has a masters degree in computer science, as well as having a key technological position in one of Norway’s largest companies 🙂
            – and I also like to think that I understand “the real world” 🙂

            I have also been lucky enough to live in a country that is many years ahead of the rest of the world with regards to the transformation to zero emission vehicles – a country where more than a third of all new cars currently being sold are electric vehicles.
            So I have seen the “speed bumps” in this transformation first hand, and have also witnessed that when infrastructure is readily available and a critical mass of people have first-hand experience with electric cars – prejudiced opinions like yours starts to drown in facts and real neighbor/friends/family experience.

          • James Rowland

            Semi-autonomous systems already work in the rain.

            You really don’t pay much attention to reality, do you?

      • Jim Smith

        Zero sum fallacy. EVs are here today and are going to slowly eat away at fossil fuel burners. That is a fact. The only thing holding back EVs is battery prices, and those are falling rapidly. The Bolt, Leaf 2.0, and Model 3 are going to rapidly accelerate the adoption of EVs. The generation after that will be the real killer of fossil fuels.

      • Joe Viocoe

        It not about age. It is economics.

        First off… there is no need for home ownership. Many houses are rented.
        Many multi-family dwellings are also already equipped with dedicated parking.
        It has been estimated that more than half the U.S. population has a parking spot dedicated in a way that would allow for a Plugin.

        More importantly, it isn’t about young people at all.
        It is about wealth. It takes money to buy a new car, regardless of the buyer’s age. Younger drivers don’t buy new cars as much, and if they do, their parents help.
        Right now, EVs are being purchased by above average income, multi car families.

        It will take time for the Plugins to get cheaper, and the charging infrastructure to grow. Just like we telll pickup truck drivers… wait, the 1st and 2nd generation plugins are not for them. 3rd and 4th generations will involve new markets.

        The price is coming down… and THAT will bring Plugins for that younger generation.

        • Allan Theobald

          If it’s about economics then EV’s lose big time every time.

          • Joe Viocoe

            Haha… someone hasn’t been paying attention to reality for the past couple of years.

  • Ed

    There is a thread somewhere in which someone argued that “EV’s aren’t for everyone.” Instead, this person argued hybrids are the answer. I agree with the first point, but would restate – as others have – that EV’s work for about 90% of car users, not all.

    The same thread pointed out that the technology coming from today’s EVs will help make better hybrids. True and good! Hybrids will have an important place in the market.

    I think a major driver in all of this is that, ultimately, the lowest cost vehicle will be a Battery EV. It is just so simple. And as individuals find ways to fit BEVs into their lives – more charging options – BEVs will find a substantial role in the market. Overcoming 130 years of ICE development and the related infrastructure in creating a clean fun future is not easy!