Virtue-Signaling vs. Affordable Car Insurance

Today, the following headline at Issues and Insight caught my eye: "Have We Reached Peak Virtue Signaling With EVs?"

That piece focused on the fact that, despite government mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks -- and the left-wing culture machine working overtime to fuel the fad -- inventories of electric vehicles are piling up.

But what really got my attention came from a short listing of deficiencies for these vehicles that nobody seems to want despite their alleged superiority:

That EVs are the Yugo of the 21st century ("a minor accident can cause a total loss, even if the car's been driven only a few miles," because "the cost of repair is exorbitant"). [link in original]

I consider myself better-informed than most about EVs, and hadn't heard about that, but it makes perfect sense.

Following the link, we learn:

Image by Tom Radetzki, via Unsplash, license.

As Reuters reported recently, "For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents," which means the only viable option is to replace the battery, which represents about half the cost of the car.

A replacement battery for a $44,000 Tesla Model 3 can cost up to $20,000.

One expert told Reuters that Tesla's Model Y has "zero repairability" because its battery is built into the structure of the car.

As a result, drivers are finding that even a minor accident ends up with their shiny new EVs being hauled away to the junkyard. [bold added]

This is nuts. Could you imagine how something like this -- but about conventional vehicles -- would play out in the media? We'd never hear the end of it and some publicity-hungry congressman would call for an investigation.

This is the first I've ever heard of this.

But the good people at Issues and Insights aren't done yet. They correctly identify this problem as a result of government intrusion into the economy and offer a guess as to what will likely happen when this becomes such common knowledge it can't be buried anymore:

This won't be a problem just for EV owners. You can bet that the environmentalists pushing electric cars will soon start complaining that insurance companies are "discriminating" against EVs and demanding that they spread those costs around more widely -- forcing owners of conventional cars to subsidize EVs.

That sounds about right.

Returning to the first piece, which ends as follows:

We acknowledge that not every EV owner is a peacock who made their purchase so they could showcase their environmental bona fides to the rubes who still drive the automobiles that burn fossil fuels. Some like the feel of EVs over that of conventional cars. Others are drawn by the technology and infotainment systems.

I was potentially in another category until now: Willing to buy one in the right circumstances, such as for local travel.

I am no rider of the "climate crisis" bandwagon, but I'd heard that EVs didn't require as much maintenance as conventional vehicles, and was open to the idea that buying one could be economical for some use cases.

But now I see that just the higher insurance premiums mean that wouldn't necessarily be the case, and the whole issue raises the question: How long do the batteries last? Forget minor accidents totaling your car: Does the battery problem render your car basically disposable in five years or so?

This isn't just a new technology: It's one being rushed out the door by government coercion. This means that on top of one's own ignorance about that technology, that ignorance is compounded by important information being swept under the rug or discounted by people with an agenda.

In today's political and cultural climate, the best way to apply the maxim caveat emptor to electric vehicles would seem to be to avoid them altogether.

-- CAV