101–110 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hilarious to me, how this site is so badly laid out and has so many rendering bugs.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. Prepending 4 spaces is intended to be used for posting source code, where automatic line wrapping is undesirable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most collisions don’t happen at highway speeds and the crash tests are designed accordingly.
Yes, but collisions below 60km/h got quite survivable back in nineties. Airbag, seatbelt with pretensioner, rigid cabin, and some crumple zone is all it takes to survive a crash below that speed. For a healthy, non overweight person, below 40, survival rates already close to 85%-90%. The reason I'm ringing an alarm here is that survival rates began to slide back since mid naughties exactly because of the trend for mo…
interestingly the larger vehicles represent a tragedy of the commons, where individuals feel safer in heavier SUVs but overall society is much worse off. If all SUVs were traded for sedans crash survivability would improve about 35% on average.
I get why Tesla gets the flak from analysts, it being a public company; But I rarely see an analyst speak about Tesla's impressive record in building safe cars. Especially when there are car manufacturers who try to hide flaws which can lead to catastrophic malfunction or had been caught with cheat devices for emissions test. Also one more thing which is less talked about is Tesla's autopilot being useful for people…
That's pronbably because Tesla has an impressive record of overstating how safe their cars are. Notice how this is the first Tesla car to qualify for Top Safety Pick+? That's not because the Model S wasn't tested, it's because it didn't qualify - and Tesla went ahead and claimed it was the safest car on the market based on a dubious interpretation of the much more limited NHTSA tests which was rejected by the NHTSA t…
Other cars like Chevrolet Volt and Toyota Prius scored better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well when I looked at it a bit later, I was unable to edit the original comment. Kind of makes the point moot don't you think?
You didn't see/care how the post looked for several hours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s with the attitude? He said he was wrong and the child comment fixed the issue. No need to castigate him.
Just surprised how people are able to miss this. SEJeff in particular has been a member since 2012 and has 7500 karma, and somehow never saw a post that looked unreadable because of blockquote, including his own.
I don't mean this in jest, I really do hope that you find some peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Static load is a nice number, but that's not what car safety test should be about - car crash is a rather violent dynamic event. I guess most common situation is rolling of the car, with possible stop at some wall with roof absorbing most of the impact. I am not sure tests of such an event would be still so favorable. Or to put it differently - that's an impressive achievement of a situation that will never happen to…
Ask literally anyone who's been in a horrific wreck in a tesla and walked away. They're incredibly safe vehicles. There have been some pretty insane examples of this, such as this one: https://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/06/tesla-model-s-crash-germ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet comments are usually fire-and-forget.
Especially on HN, which does a poor job of letting you know that someone has replied to your comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever you see someone showing a brief and incomplete window of data, you have to take a step back and ask yourself "why?". There is seldomly a case for you to just disregard newer data when trying to predict into the future. That being said, this is simply a Tesla short that used incomplete (but true in the past) statistics to try and make Tesla look bad. They time boxed their statistics to 2016 and despite the po…
Just to approach this from another angle: Teslas currently make up about 0.1% (very very roughly) of all cars in the US. From that, you’d expect around 40 fatalities per year, and increasing fast.
> "Vehicles with alternative powertrains have come into their own," IIHS Chief Research Officer David Zuby says. "There's no need to trade away safety for a lower carbon footprint when choosing a vehicle." I would guess this is not the real reason. EV's have a much bigger crumple zone and can therefor absorb more energy. Since "nobody" wants to hear that EV's are saver than combustion engine cars, lets put them into…