My point is that some people need to do that regularly, such as myself, as an environmental/water quality engineer in a rural area.
OP indicated they couldn't see why anybody wouldn't want an EV.
In reality, there simply IS no feasible recharging plan in that scenario.
The reason I made the point is this: I have regular need for my 4WD truck, and I carry a lot of self-rescue equipment: a 2-stroke gas chainsaw, winch, extra fuel, a satellite text communication device (this is less helpful than you'd think in a deep forest), food, water, clothes, shelter, hygiene products, a trauma kit and a firearm.
On this website loaded with urbanites, many people regularly attack those things as being "totally unnecessary" and would have no problem banning them without any consideration for edge cases.
Obviously I don't wholeheartedly mean that. Everyone, even owners of EVs and urbanites, understands that people have a different set of requirements and needs. If you see everything as an attack, then perhaps you're just the one looking at it the wrong way.
Because anyone who brings this topic up is regularly attacked. I've had it happen too when I mention driving to locations not on a supercharger route. "Why would you ever want to do that?" is the response de'jour.
It's easy to be defensive when the normal response is an attack.
As someone that has been trying to get a trackpad on a laptop work as well in Linux as those on MacBooks, I can resonate with that feeling.
Language is hard, and becomes very tame if you have to always add asterix everywhere. But fair point. It might not have been clear from my original post, but I was hinting that my current "cannot understand" would likely be challenged in the future, by autonomous vehicles. Rinse and repeat.
Because it’s how people have driven cars for 70 years. Why would anyone drive a car _with_ a plan for refueling? Gas stations are generally everywhere, and you just to pay attention to how far the closest one is in the most remote and deserted of regions (of the US).
