This is a good example of a development where 'common-sense' has little to offer! What's needed is careful analysis of the risks and application of necessary mitigations.
Almost a no-brainer if a new technology is safer than what it replaces. The benefit outweighs the hazards. In this case there are serious problems with fossil fuel technology up to and including a climate catastrophe. Common sense fails miserably because climate change is big beyond comprehension, whilst most of us can grasp what happens when a car catches fire. Cars catching fire are exciting on a personal level, but don't make much difference to the world. Climate change does everyone in. Fossil fuels have a second serious global problem which is they don't last forever! Prices are going to rise sharply, and as we've seen this week petrol at £2 a litre is causing significant difficulty on top of rapidly rising gas and electricity prices. EV's offer an alternative, not least they run on clean renewable energy that doesn't depend on foreign imports.
It's not a no-brainer though, because batteries come with new problems. The risks have to be identified, their likelihood established, perhaps by experience, and then mitigated. Again 'common sense' fails, because it's based on experience with internal combustion vehicles. These have been developed over a 140 years and it's natural to assume that what comes next is a petrol car fitted with a battery. Not that simple: EVs eliminate old problems, like a petrol tanker delivering fuel catching fire, but bring new ones requiring fresh analysis and innovative thinking. Nothing new here – all technologies go through the process: early aircraft were the most dangerous form of transportation on the planet, now commercial air-travel is the safest.
Politics intrude into this space, which is a pity because it's really an engineering problem. A big C Conservative believes the best way forward is to minimise government interference and let the market sort out the details. He will only legislate after 'accidents', so the public pays in blood! A socialist might believe EVs should be managed for the public good and heavily regulated from the start, with everything nailed down beforehand. This is liable to cause serious delays and strangle development, ending up with an expensive EV that doesn't work well and is still dangerous. Most customers are small C conservatives: they fear change and would rather everything was left as it is despite clear evidence that change is needed urgently. All these folk are liable to make a mess of technical problems because they let emotion, beliefs and prejudice override the evidence.
Engineers, who are far from perfect when it comes to controlling gut feel, should coldly analyse the ways in which a battery could catch fire and design to mitigate them. Mitigate, not prevent. To benefit from technology humanity has to manage the risks, and risk management is a disciplined skill, not common sense.
Anyone reading this happy to blast allegedly weakling woke snowflakes whilst themselves being terrified of change? The two often go together…
Dave
PS. I hate change: it means something is wrong, and people always suffer as a result. The future always ends badly for individuals, we exist to propagate our genes, so should be careful not make life impossible for our off-spring. The sins of the fathers…