But put a battery in it suddenly they need new tech before you'll be comfortable?
That's not to say that it's a stopper for them; it's just part of the cost/benefits analysis. The idea of technologies that are better on all parts of the cost/benefit analysis at once is a science fiction or video game concept. In the real world there's always a mixture of positives and negatives between two different technologies.
I give up. This is a proxy war for something else. No one seriously is scared of batteries in the way people here keep trying to justify.
The presence of a different failure mode isn't the question at issue. Yes, they're new tech and require new techniques. Duh, as it were.
It's your abject and frankly irrational paranoia that I'm calling out. Chill the fuck out, as it were. Moving things have always been dangerous, and if you believe this represents a change in aggregate risk you are simply wrong.
Many rightly are.
Gasoline car fires are quite rarer in modern cars (don't know about the 1950s), and easier to put off than battery car fires.
And people are already afraid of high speed collisions, plus they are orthogonal of the energy technology used.
>Personal vehicles are by far the most dangerous apparatus with which we interact, already.
And under what framing does it make sense to use the above to argue in favor of adding a dangerous battery tech to them is thus not problematic?