Recently, I watched a central media's "Ten Questions on the Safety Hazards of Electric Bicycles", and after reading it, I couldn't help but feel a very subtle feeling. To be honest, the original intention of this article is very good, and it is viewed from the starting point of solving potential safety hazards and reducing social contradictions, but I always feel that something is wrong. I remember a saying that once suspicion arises, then the person's guilt is actually predestined. This is a premise, if once some premises are predetermined, then no matter how you interpret it, the final result has no value to discuss, let's take a look at the ten questions in this article first.
Q1: Why are electric bicycle fires frequent? Second question: Which link is the most important in the whole chain rectification of electric bicycle safety hazards? Three questions: What is the most fundamental problem of frequent fires of electric bicycles? Q4: What is the problem with the battery of the electric bicycle? Q5: How to improve the battery of an electric bicycle? Q6: Why is it difficult to eliminate illegal modification of electric bicycles? Seven questions: What is the role of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in revising the electrical safety requirements for electric bicycles? Eight questions: How to solve the problem of "difficult parking and charging" of electric bicycles? Nine questions: How to avoid "battery upstairs" for electric bicycles? Ten questions: How to do a good job in the long-term management of electric bicycle safety hazards?
I don't know if you have seen anything wrong from these ten questions, so I will talk about it based on what I have learned in my daily life and what many friends have reported. It can be said that no matter how many questions or ten questions, one of the core points of the central media is that there are huge safety hazards in electric vehicles, and on this basis, ten questions are generated. That is to say, no matter what the final result is, the safety hazards of electric vehicles are one of the most important factors, and on this basis, it is normal for some of the people in society to shout and kill electric vehicles. But is that really the case? I don't think so.
As we can see from the figure above, according to data from the State Administration of Fire and Rescue, among the spontaneously combusted vehicles in the first quarter of 2023, there were 18,360 fuel vehicles and 640 new energy vehicles. Compared with the information reported by the central media above, there will be 25,000 electric vehicle fires in 2023, in fact, we can clearly see that the data of spontaneous combustion of automobiles in the first quarter has almost caught up with the data of electric vehicles in one year. And there is also a data in the figure above, the number of fuel vehicles is about 395.4 million, and according to statistics, the number of electric two-wheeled vehicles (excluding three-wheelers) in the mainland has exceeded 400 million. What does that mean? In other words, the same number of electric vehicles and fuel vehicles have about 4 times more car fires than electric vehicles (non-new energy vehicles). So the question is, I believe that the relevant departments of these data must be well aware, but why is there no department that attaches great importance to the safety of cars, but all of them shout and kill electric vehicles? This situation is completely unreasonable.
Therefore, in fact, in my opinion, the reason why many departments often use electric vehicles to talk about things, and often shout and kill electric vehicles, in fact, the fundamental reason is not in terms of potential safety hazards, I don't know if there is a problem with my understanding of this. Because of this, some netizens pointed out the problems in the "Ten Questions on the Safety Hazards of Electric Vehicles by the Central Media", reminding the central media that it seems to ignore a core question, that is: Is there a problem with the new national standard for electric vehicles today? It can be said that if according to the previous standard, many electric vehicles on the market are not violated, not only do they not violate the law, but also have a low accident rate. It is precisely because of the unreasonable new national standard that many electric vehicles can only take some relatively unsafe lithium batteries and give up relatively safe lead-acid batteries on the basis of increasing mileage and reducing weight, which is an important factor leading to potential safety hazards.
So some netizens said, even if the lead-acid battery is replaced, even if the probability of spontaneous combustion of the electric vehicle becomes smaller, can the electric vehicle be used normally and survive? In fact, this question is the key. It is no exaggeration to say that under the current circumstances, even if there is no case of spontaneous combustion of electric vehicles, the relevant departments will chase and block electric vehicles for other reasons, such as traffic safety hazards and other issues. Why? I believe that many people have understood that the ban or restriction of electric vehicles is not actually a problem with electric vehicles, but that electric vehicles have moved some people's cheese and touched the interests of some other related capital, so they will encounter a series of suppressions. Let's imagine, compared with cars, electric vehicles are not only convenient and fast, but also small in cost, and the cost of use and maintenance is not high. What about shared bikes? Especially the bike-sharing, I guess no one wants to use it, right?
In terms of economic development, an electric car is about 2,000 yuan, the profit is not high, and the tax is naturally not high; A car is less than 100,000 yuan, more than millions, the profit is naturally needless to say, the tax must be dozens or hundreds of times that of electric vehicles, if you are engaged in finance, do you want everyone to buy a car or an electric car? The results speak for themselves. In addition, other business activities derived from automobiles can also provide a large amount of taxes for many places, such as cars need to be refueled, a car adds 1,000 yuan of fuel a month, which has nearly 300 yuan of taxes; Automobile insurance is also a major source of financial revenue, such as compulsory traffic insurance; In addition, automobile-derived maintenance, auto beauty, and auto supplies are able to support a large number of businesses. Correspondingly, if everyone buys an electric car, except for a small amount of electricity, the rest will hardly have to be spent on anything, and it will not increase fiscal revenue.
Therefore, in my opinion, perhaps this is the core reason why the relevant departments are shouting and killing electric vehicles. If electric vehicles are banned and restricted, it will not only greatly increase local fiscal revenue, but also indirectly increase jobs and feed many automobile-related enterprises. But the question arises again, what is the purpose of our economic development? Isn't it just to reduce social costs, improve social efficiency, facilitate people's lives, and continuously improve people's sense of happiness and gain? If it is simply for the sake of increasing fiscal revenue, increasing social employment, and supporting some enterprises, thus bringing a huge burden to the lives of the common people and creating a large number of contradictions for the whole society, then what is the significance of this kind of development?
Therefore, from a fundamental point of view, I personally think that the main problem of electric vehicles may be that they are too cheap, and there are no other derivative commercialization behaviors, which is not conducive to economic and social development. The prohibition and restriction of electric vehicles are not directly related to their own safety hazards, because we have made it very clear above that the safety hazards of fuel vehicles are greater, but no department has ever ordered various restrictions on fuel vehicles. If the electric vehicle is simply suppressed, this is a typical double-standard behavior, which not only does not get the understanding and support of the masses, but also easily leads to a heavier burden on the masses' lives, further causing social contradictions, so that the gains outweigh the losses. In my opinion, the relevant departments should not put the cart before the horse, but should fully take into account the needs and current situation of the broad masses of the people, and really come up with some useful measures to promote the healthy development of the economy, but not stimulate the economy by squeezing the living space of the people.