31–40 of 40 posts
That’s the moment this article jumped the shark, for me. No one knows what the trend is, but the author clearly only wants to consider one interpretation.
I’ve flagged it, but maybe someone can vouch for this article as being written by a serious and reputable blogger?
https://www.winknews.com/2020/01/31/state-troopers-respondin...
This database is counting _this_ as a Tesla death.
The source being used in that very database says the Nissan lost control, hit the median and the driver died due to injuries. The Tesla hit the debris of the wreckage but neither driver nor passenger was harmed.
Just wow.
It stands out because this brand is superior to Tesla in every way, including innovation (because safety is valued), yet somehow Tesla has pranced around falsely claiming to be better at safety than Volvo.
You can't compare absolute numbers of deaths in a year vs. number of cars sold in that year. Safety is calculated as injuries per miles driven. For death rate, it is usually shown as deaths per 100k miles driven. Vehicles sold here is also a mis-leading number. It is talking about Volvo's total safety across all models, but then only including sales numbers for it Electric Vehicles. Tesla sells many more EVs than Vol…
I don't have any knowledge of electric cars safety, but I've checked another article on the same site on topic I have a deep understanding of. The recipe the site used is simple: 1. make a strong statement; 2. push it and push it without any regard for truth or logic.
I guess that's just their modus operandi.
"When I post this chart I often hear Tesla believers complain it doesn’t conform to their bias because it obscures sales volumes. Does it? In fact, it is the opposite. First, volume shouldn’t cause more deaths to start with (remember more cars means more data, which means more safety). Second, Tesla doesn’t have higher volume." I don't agree with the first part. Volume does matter doesn't it? However the first part i…
This person is clearly deluded. The correct metric is fatal accident per 100k miles driven and OF COURSE volume matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This person is clearly deluded. The correct metric is fatal accident per 100k miles driven and OF COURSE volume matters.
If volume matters then we are painting a worse situation for Tesla since they sold less than volvo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If volume matters then we are painting a worse situation for Tesla since they sold less than volvo
No we don't, if we compare normalised numbers (per mile driven) rather than unadjusted ones.
You can't compare absolute numbers of deaths in a year vs. number of cars sold in that year. Safety is calculated as injuries per miles driven. For death rate, it is usually shown as deaths per 100k miles driven. Vehicles sold here is also a mis-leading number. It is talking about Volvo's total safety across all models, but then only including sales numbers for it Electric Vehicles. Tesla sells many more EVs than Vol…
Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that the average EV is driven more miles than the average ICE? If anything, using vehicle counts instead of miles favors Tesla.
> only including sales numbers for it Electric Vehicles.
Again, reducing the denominator for Volvo favors Tesla.
> mis-leading and low quality analysis
Agreed. It's far too forgiving of Death Trap Inc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This person is clearly deluded. The correct metric is fatal accident per 100k miles driven and OF COURSE volume matters.
If volume matters then we are painting a worse situation for Tesla since they sold less than volvo
Tesla sold 936222, which is obviously significantly more than Volvo.