Tesla has the highest fatal accident rate of all auto brands, study finds(roadandtrack.com)
roadandtrack.com
Tesla has the highest fatal accident rate of all auto brands, study finds
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highest-fatal-accident-rate-of-all-auto-brands-study/
459 comments
The Tesla Model Y is a two ton SUV with the performance of a Porsche 911. The base RWD model is fast and the Performance model is stupidly fast. I don't think anyone would be particularly surprised to learn that Porsche drivers get into a lot of fatal accidents.
>I don't think anyone would be particularly surprised to learn that Porsche drivers get into a lot of fatal accidents.
From the actual study:
From the actual study:
Fatal Accident Rate Compared to
Rank| Model |(per 10^9 Miles) | Overall Average
----+---------------------+--------------------+-----------------
1 | Hyundai Venue | 13.9 | 4.9x
2 | Chevrolet Corvette | 13.6 | 4.8x
3 | Mitsubishi Mirage | 13.6 | 4.8x
4 | Porsche 911 | 13.2 | 4.6x
5 | Honda CR-V Hybrid | 13.2 | 4.6x
6 | Tesla Model Y | 10.6 | 3.7xSo the Tesla Model Y has a lower fatal accident rate than sports cars, but they report it as Tesla overall having the highest fatal accident rate? Perhaps that's because _all_ the cars they make are stupid fast and heavy, and they don't offer cars where it's far harder to get into those situations?
I wonder if it’s because there’s more passengers per model Y on average than a two-door sports car!
One fatal model Y accident might cause half a dozen gas fatalities, but a Porsche wrapped around a tree might kill just the lone driver.
One fatal model Y accident might cause half a dozen gas fatalities, but a Porsche wrapped around a tree might kill just the lone driver.
Good point too. Things that the authors should've thought about.
What in the world is the Honda CR-V Hybrid doing so high on this list?! That doesn't seem to fit any of the theories I've seen spun up so far.
Family car, probably lots of accidents due to kids distracting drivers.
If that was the case I'd expect the non-hybrid CR-V to be up there too.
I found a discussion of the 2019 report, which was the year before the CR-V hybrid came out, and the CR-V fatality rate was 2.7.
I found a discussion of the 2019 report, which was the year before the CR-V hybrid came out, and the CR-V fatality rate was 2.7.
Looks like the hybrid version of the CR-V was released in 2020:
https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/relea...
...and the study only covered model years up to 2022. It would be interesting to compare the hybrid to the standard version. If there is a significant difference, I'd be suspicious of data quality.
https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/relea...
...and the study only covered model years up to 2022. It would be interesting to compare the hybrid to the standard version. If there is a significant difference, I'd be suspicious of data quality.
Could it be more average passengers per accident?
The top most model of the Model Y is as fast in a straight line as the lowest base model 911, and the handling isn't even close to the same. Saying the Model Y has the performance of the 911 is not really an accurate statement.
The straight-line performance is exactly what makes it dangerous.
To be more precise, it's probably the disparity between straight-line performance and cornering performance that gets people in real trouble.
> A focused, alert driver
I dislike how tesla kills situational awareness. It is the central touchscreen.
The model 3 and y and cybertruck put everything there - both status and control. You have to look to the side to see the speed of the vehicle, and the gearshift is on the touchscreen.
The S and X both retain a dashboard in front of you, but most of the controls moved to the touchscreen.
And the removal of stalks from all models have moved turn signals to steering wheel buttons, and most of the rest to the touchscreen.
I think the cars are really well designed, it is just that these user interface choices make you worse driver.
I dislike how tesla kills situational awareness. It is the central touchscreen.
The model 3 and y and cybertruck put everything there - both status and control. You have to look to the side to see the speed of the vehicle, and the gearshift is on the touchscreen.
The S and X both retain a dashboard in front of you, but most of the controls moved to the touchscreen.
And the removal of stalks from all models have moved turn signals to steering wheel buttons, and most of the rest to the touchscreen.
I think the cars are really well designed, it is just that these user interface choices make you worse driver.
I dislike how 99% of cars make you look down so far. Looking to the side as well isn't an issue, especially when my gaze is scanning my mirrors.
By comparison, my older Prius has the speedometer at the base of the windshield super close to the road. It's simply better.
I haven't tried a heads-up display, though.
By comparison, my older Prius has the speedometer at the base of the windshield super close to the road. It's simply better.
I haven't tried a heads-up display, though.
My 2024 Mazda CX-5 has a heads-up display and I quite like it. It presents in the windshield right above my hands on the top of the wheel, shows current speed, cruise status, and lane detection. I feel like I don't have to take my eyes off the road to get a speed update, it's nice.
I've had two cars now with head-up display info on the window. It shows speed, adaptive cruise control status, lane keeping, maximum speed, navigation info and warnings. I will definitely get it again on any future cars. It's so much easier than looking at the displays inside the car.
A small but well thought out safety future using the HUD is in the dark, when the car detects a pedestrian or cyclist on or moving into the road using the infrared camera it will show a yellow warning icon. Has shown me people walking in dark clothes on dark rural roads a few times far before I could see them myself. This is a video of the detection, mine doesn't have that spotlight, but shows the warning on the window instead: https://youtu.be/WpB8ZLGq7EE
A small but well thought out safety future using the HUD is in the dark, when the car detects a pedestrian or cyclist on or moving into the road using the infrared camera it will show a yellow warning icon. Has shown me people walking in dark clothes on dark rural roads a few times far before I could see them myself. This is a video of the detection, mine doesn't have that spotlight, but shows the warning on the window instead: https://youtu.be/WpB8ZLGq7EE
childintime(1)
Looking at the results.. it does make you wonder if there is something other underlying problem with the model Y vs the Model X or model 3.
Don't the aerodynamics severely limit the cornering performance of the Model Y? How can it have the same performance? Or is there only one metric of performance that is being measured?
I would suspect that it is the weight of the vehicle that is the primary driver there. There is some additional negative effects of the vehicle being taller (increasing roll), but that is probably mostly mitigated by the battery pack pulling down the (vertical) center of mass. But certainly the aerodynamics creating less down-force would play some role.
My fridge has been repaired twice, the first time within its first year. Both times, each repair guy said the same thing: Avoid LG and Samsung. Avoid counter depth. I have no idea if that's accurate, so I'm curious if your data dive backs up either of those notes?
What is "counter depth"?
It's a shallower style refrigerator, that doesn't "stick out" past the depth of the counters next to it.
I assume the issues with counter depth and reliability are due to them not compromising mich on internal volume (thus reducing the heat dissipation ability around the compressor). Most folks are going to buy purely based on volume inside. Compressor failing was what killed our Samsung but at the end of the day these appliances are cheap enough to let folks choose what they value.
maybe that's why my 12 year old samsung fridge seems fine. no repairs yet, but I've been expecting it to die anyday according to the internets. of course it could also be that samsung is the most popular brand for fridges in the USA
My Samsung fridge (in Europe) died after 12 years, and the tech guy said it actually lasted more than average as they used to have some experimental compressor back then.
But he also said they have since improved that, and indeed, now samsung fridges come with a 20 year warranty on their compressor.
But he also said they have since improved that, and indeed, now samsung fridges come with a 20 year warranty on their compressor.
I mean, even lacking proper scientific data, ask yourself how often your brain “autocompletes” someone based on a brand or object? There’s a reason advertisers spend so much money and effort cultivating a very specific customer image: it works.
In the case of Tesla - and I cannot overstress enough how much lf this is purely subjective conjecture on my part and not a statement of fact - the image cultivated by the company and its Chief Executive is very much one of rejecting norms and expectations, fierce independence, and a hostility towards others (mostly from the Cybertruck unveiling onward). The people who relate to that brand would, I would think, be more likely to flout laws like speed limits, failing to use indicators for turns or merges, and drive more aggressively than a brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience (like Hondas and Toyotas). My purely subjective experiences bear this out, and I’m consistently rewarded giving Teslas a wider berth on the roads.
So as far as branding as an indicator of outcome, yeah, I can totally see that being a reliable indicator. I’d still be darn curious to see more research about it, though.
In the case of Tesla - and I cannot overstress enough how much lf this is purely subjective conjecture on my part and not a statement of fact - the image cultivated by the company and its Chief Executive is very much one of rejecting norms and expectations, fierce independence, and a hostility towards others (mostly from the Cybertruck unveiling onward). The people who relate to that brand would, I would think, be more likely to flout laws like speed limits, failing to use indicators for turns or merges, and drive more aggressively than a brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience (like Hondas and Toyotas). My purely subjective experiences bear this out, and I’m consistently rewarded giving Teslas a wider berth on the roads.
So as far as branding as an indicator of outcome, yeah, I can totally see that being a reliable indicator. I’d still be darn curious to see more research about it, though.
This was my thought as well from looking at the actual list. Of the top 5 models with the worst fatal accident rate, 2 are luxury cars that seem like they'd attract drivers with reckless personalities (the Chevrolet Corvette and the Porsche 911). I don't think the average mile driven in a Corvette is really equivalent to the average mile driven in a Honda Civic.
This data is interesting, but not really useful for decisionmaking if we can't isolate the extent to which the disparities are caused by features of the actual vehicle, as opposed to driver selection factors.
Is anyone making an argument that the Model Y has an actual safety problem in its design? I'd like to hear about which physical aspect of the car people think is making it 4x less safe than the average car? I don't see anything obvious. Its crash test performance is fine. I'd hesitate to blame autopilot, since we know that they crash less often with autopilot enabled than without (even if due to selection factors).
This data is interesting, but not really useful for decisionmaking if we can't isolate the extent to which the disparities are caused by features of the actual vehicle, as opposed to driver selection factors.
Is anyone making an argument that the Model Y has an actual safety problem in its design? I'd like to hear about which physical aspect of the car people think is making it 4x less safe than the average car? I don't see anything obvious. Its crash test performance is fine. I'd hesitate to blame autopilot, since we know that they crash less often with autopilot enabled than without (even if due to selection factors).
You highlighted the correlation.
I bet GoPro users have the highest fatality rate of all camera brands.
You should see the average injuries for mountain bikes over all bikes. Mountain bikes must just be really badly made!
> brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience (like Hondas and Toyotas)
This is plausible on its face, and yet the Honda CR-V Hybrid ended up higher on the list than the Model Y. No idea how to explain that...
This is plausible on its face, and yet the Honda CR-V Hybrid ended up higher on the list than the Model Y. No idea how to explain that...
I guess I wouldn't be surprised if there were issues with data and/or analysis. Should we assume they are basing their miles driven off of used car listings? That is, they see someone puts a 2019 Subaru Impreza up for sale in 2023, with 50,000 miles, and they add that to their data set on how many miles the average Impreza gets driven per year? But maybe people leasing drive differently than those who own or keep vehicles longer? I'd like to see the data on their average number of miles driven per car model per year.
Would also be interesting to see which were the safest cars according to their analysis.
Would also be interesting to see which were the safest cars according to their analysis.
It’s why I was very careful to make it as clear as possible that my own theory is rooted purely in conjecture and speculation based on personal experience, because:
A) I don’t want to get sued
B) I am not a researcher
Though if I had to take a guess on the CR-V: big, cheap SUV, often seen driven by young drivers in my area. Could be lack of experience? I can only speculate, though.
This is quickly becoming fodder for car forums!
Though if I had to take a guess on the CR-V: big, cheap SUV, often seen driven by young drivers in my area. Could be lack of experience? I can only speculate, though.
This is quickly becoming fodder for car forums!
That doesn't explain why it was the hybrid CR-V with the high fatality rate, unless inexperiences drivers prefer the hybrid to the non-hybrid.
> The people who relate to that brand would, I would think, be more likely to flout laws like speed limits, failing to use indicators for turns or merges, and drive more aggressively than a brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience
And BMW owners like German shepherds?
And BMW owners like German shepherds?
Oh heck, we could go down the list car forum style if we’re not careful. So many stereotypes.
While I think that a single variable isn't always very useful, when something is an outlier and people are moving from other luxury brands with much lower rates to a new brand and experiencing high rates, there is definitely something wrong.
I'm guessing that while the total accident rate declines with automation, that the serious accident rate is increasing, because a human driver drives in a risk adjusted way and takes less care to avoid minor accidents and more care to avoid serious accidents, but when a robot find itself unable to drive the errors are more evenly distributed or even more likely to result in a serious accident, because its doing things idiotically with no sense of self preservation.
I'm guessing that while the total accident rate declines with automation, that the serious accident rate is increasing, because a human driver drives in a risk adjusted way and takes less care to avoid minor accidents and more care to avoid serious accidents, but when a robot find itself unable to drive the errors are more evenly distributed or even more likely to result in a serious accident, because its doing things idiotically with no sense of self preservation.
I’d love to read any analysis you’ve done like this, or any reading you might recommend.
Check out the study, it's linked to in the article:
https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
I was thinking for my next fridge to just buy a plain cheap one and then buy a cheap countertop ice cube maker.
Since that’s the thing that always breaks on the fridges. And it adds like $500 to the price.
Since that’s the thing that always breaks on the fridges. And it adds like $500 to the price.
Mine is French door without a front ice maker/water, and I love it. Way more room in the fridge too. Just open the bottom to get ice.
Dedicated Ice Makers can be quite good and fast at what they do too.
It’s also worth noting that sample sizes in this study are low, and without checking I know the results aren’t statistically significant.
> essential controls
Can’t you drive a Tesla without it? I expect the screen was for radio, gps, AC…
I agree those are distracting through.
Can’t you drive a Tesla without it? I expect the screen was for radio, gps, AC…
I agree those are distracting through.
Rent a Tesla and try to adjust the mirrors while driving I dare you.
Less difficult but much more common:
Change the radio station / music.
Change the climate control.
Both of those require taking your eyes off the road and navigating through multiple touch screen-only modal windows. I have owned one for years and it is a distraction factory.
Less difficult but much more common:
Change the radio station / music.
Change the climate control.
Both of those require taking your eyes off the road and navigating through multiple touch screen-only modal windows. I have owned one for years and it is a distraction factory.
All of these things can be done without looking if you use voice commands. They can be done with a scroll wheel/button as well if you spend five minutes, once, to set your preferences for what the wheel controls.
That said, I hate the touch screen only UI of my car. There are times when I can't use voice or the scroll wheel and want (not so much need) to do something with the menus. In most cars, it's trivial to do most things by feel if you know where the buttons are.
Even if you could get really good at only touching the "right" place on the touch screen, one software update can change things enough to where it's now accessed differently.
That said, I hate the touch screen only UI of my car. There are times when I can't use voice or the scroll wheel and want (not so much need) to do something with the menus. In most cars, it's trivial to do most things by feel if you know where the buttons are.
Even if you could get really good at only touching the "right" place on the touch screen, one software update can change things enough to where it's now accessed differently.
I get it but Climate and Music can wait right? It’s a vehicle not an entertainment room. And adjusting mirors while driving seems crazy and dangerous!! changing something that supposed to be set before departure?
At least that’s what taught at driving school and written in texts I guess… too sad the distraction factory is so dangerous. I wouldn’t drive that.
At least that’s what taught at driving school and written in texts I guess… too sad the distraction factory is so dangerous. I wouldn’t drive that.
Engineers should not ask reality to adapt to their designs; they should adapt their designs to reality.
I dunno, I adjust climate and music frequently while driving. I have a Volvo now which requires touchscreen for those things, and I can't stand it. Otherwise a great car though.
After a while you "learn" to do it without looking at the screen too much. Nonetheless, it's far inferior to having tactile controls.
After a while you "learn" to do it without looking at the screen too much. Nonetheless, it's far inferior to having tactile controls.
The mirror's angle can change, while driving, in such a way that pulling over to stop and fix it isn't the safest option. With dedicated tactile controls you can adjust mirrors without taking your eyes off the road, while also verifying that the mirrors are adjusted correctly.
I think the number of people who can say that they have never needed to adjust mirrors while moving, even after having spent a few minutes adjusting them in the driveway, is very much next to zero.
I think the number of people who can say that they have never needed to adjust mirrors while moving, even after having spent a few minutes adjusting them in the driveway, is very much next to zero.
13 years driving so far. Only time I've had to adjust mirrors while driving is if I am in a car I haven't driven before and I didn't adjust them before departing.
You are complaining about having to look over at a screen however taking several seconds to look evem further from the front of the car while adjusting a mirror isn't an issue regardless of the controls?
You are complaining about having to look over at a screen however taking several seconds to look evem further from the front of the car while adjusting a mirror isn't an issue regardless of the controls?
> you can adjust mirrors without taking your eyes off the road
Now I imagine one eye looking at the road, the other one doing active strabismus to check the mirror, one hand on the wheel and the other using muscle memory to operate the settings on a flat surface.
> The mirror's angle can change, while driving
Maybe a loose screw somewhere in the mirror or a manufacturing defect? It would be surprising QA and legal security standards don’t require mirrors to stay in the position set for a reasonable mileage…
Now I imagine one eye looking at the road, the other one doing active strabismus to check the mirror, one hand on the wheel and the other using muscle memory to operate the settings on a flat surface.
> The mirror's angle can change, while driving
Maybe a loose screw somewhere in the mirror or a manufacturing defect? It would be surprising QA and legal security standards don’t require mirrors to stay in the position set for a reasonable mileage…
Gear selection is done via the screen on a Model 3 [1]. Technically, there is a touchscreen button on the rearview mirror unit, but I doubt anybody actually uses that.
Alternatively, you can use the AI gear selector from park which guesses what direction you want to go.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_eu/GUID-E9B387D...
Alternatively, you can use the AI gear selector from park which guesses what direction you want to go.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_eu/GUID-E9B387D...
Not used to US gears, aren’t they only used when you park? Not sure if that’s the dangerous part of the commute.
It's an interesting perspective. I was recently shopping for shoes, and a fully closed shoe had more places where it could break compared to my flip flops. That's why whenever you are doing a dangerous activity, flip flops are recommended.
I'm not entirely sure an anecdote about the dangers of singling out just one variable is a great counterpoint to a criticism of the practice of singling out just one variable.
Nick Mullen may disagree
I thoroughyl expect the Deparment of Government Efficiency to recommend U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) be shut down to save previous taxpayer dollars.
Am I the only one that is not excited about the next four years being constant banter of this nature? I loathe it. Nothing personal against your comment but the new administration hasn't even gone into office and I cannot get away from this.
We’ve had them in office before, plus plenty of public statements over the last 10 years.
It’s not exactly baseless speculation. People have things to base their guesses on.
It’s not exactly baseless speculation. People have things to base their guesses on.
Let's not pretend everyone is aghast at the goals of this administration. We just had an election and these viewpoints resoundingly won the day.
A non-trivial component to this election was this constant, smug nagging. "We know better, you're all so stupid".
If you turn out to be right, enjoy your smug "I told you so", but until then - these views are a minority and are very tiring to constantly see/hear/read.
A non-trivial component to this election was this constant, smug nagging. "We know better, you're all so stupid".
If you turn out to be right, enjoy your smug "I told you so", but until then - these views are a minority and are very tiring to constantly see/hear/read.
That's a pretty simplistic analysis. People largely voted on immigration and inflation. You can't infer anything about what they thought on other issues.
Inflation was caused by increased government spending, no?
The last COVID stimulus package added from 1 to 4% to inflation, but that was transitory. The wider rise was largely due to other factors such as supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The latter significantly raised oil prices worldwide which in turn raised costs for all kinds of things.
Here's an article that covers a lot of the factors [1].
[1] https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/joe-biden-kamala-...
Here's an article that covers a lot of the factors [1].
[1] https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/joe-biden-kamala-...
A source with less partisan politics involved:
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spendi...
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spendi...
I trust a survey of economists over a random study. That study might be right, but it also might be wrong, and I don't have the expertise to say which.
Why is tiring to hear a minority especially in this forum?
It wouldn't be of it was not just different variations of "Hitler Hitler Hitler, Russia Russia Russia!"
We've been hearing how doomed democracy is for the better part of 10 years now. It's really old...
We've been hearing how doomed democracy is for the better part of 10 years now. It's really old...
Wait, when you see someone say "department of government efficiency" and mention corruption you hear "hitler hitler hitler"?
Maybe you're just really tired of hearing any criticism of blatant corruption and I'm sorry you're feeling that way. I bet that feels really discouraging and tedious and adversarial.
To me this comment reads as a callout of corruption, not fascism. The hitler criticisms you mentioned, in my experience, have been for things like the maga hats with the nazi font, the republican convention stage in the shape of the SS glyph, and the claim that immigrants are watering down the proper American bloodlines.
To your other request that people stop sharing their concerns: just because a lot of people vote for something doesn't mean it's inherently ethical nor does it mean people should be silenced. My assumption is most people don't want corruption or abuse or racism or fascism; if you think that too then you might have better success helping people understand why they are mistaken about what looks like corruption instead of telling people to just stop sharing opinions you're personally tired of reading.
Maybe you're just really tired of hearing any criticism of blatant corruption and I'm sorry you're feeling that way. I bet that feels really discouraging and tedious and adversarial.
To me this comment reads as a callout of corruption, not fascism. The hitler criticisms you mentioned, in my experience, have been for things like the maga hats with the nazi font, the republican convention stage in the shape of the SS glyph, and the claim that immigrants are watering down the proper American bloodlines.
To your other request that people stop sharing their concerns: just because a lot of people vote for something doesn't mean it's inherently ethical nor does it mean people should be silenced. My assumption is most people don't want corruption or abuse or racism or fascism; if you think that too then you might have better success helping people understand why they are mistaken about what looks like corruption instead of telling people to just stop sharing opinions you're personally tired of reading.
Ah great, he doubles down on it. Good stuff.
Oh, you’ll be hearing it for much longer.
Greetings from Germany.
You just have to hear it and I can't visit the city I was born in, so you will keep hearing it.
only some special minorities can be heard while others are shut down
Because you are sharing legacy media's views. We can turn on a tv for that.
> legacy media
Doesn't Fox News have the highest viewer numbers of any of the news stations? What fraction of local news stations are owned by Sinclair? I don't think you get to call "legacy media" out for being liberal when such a large part is not.
Doesn't Fox News have the highest viewer numbers of any of the news stations? What fraction of local news stations are owned by Sinclair? I don't think you get to call "legacy media" out for being liberal when such a large part is not.
No, fox News isn't the highest. ABC,CBS and NBC News have more viewers.
Combined? Fox takes all of the top 10 positions in overall/demo group. Top among the youth / all / daytime / nighttime.
In fairness, we can turn on a tv for any view. There's like a gazillion channels. Just pick your poison.
Doesn’t Fox News routinely get the highest ratings too?
I'm not Nielsen Ratings or anything, but that would be consistent with what I would think. Fox viewers being older, and older being consistent with tv viewers. Younger being consistent with TikTok, YouTube, InstaFaceTwit intake.
Fox has the youngest demo (500,000 for Jessie Watters) and most viewers. At night or during the day. Interesting cnbc has the oldest audience and least. Gutfeld crushes all late night shows (Tonight show, Late Show, Kimmel).
https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-network-ratings-2024-el...
https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-network-ratings-2024-el...
“Young” among tv viewers is different from “young” among social media tiktok’ers. The article you linked actually says that exact thing:
> “suggesting younger voters were either less engaged, or getting their election night information from other sources such as social media and at-home streaming, which are not tracked by Nielsen.”
Young people won’t watch tv unless there’s a game or tv series on they’re interested in. Even then, a lot of them will DVR it on Hulu or something. If you want those eyeballs, you’re going to need to be creative. And tv networks can’t be as creative as instaFaceSnap, Netflix and TikTwitGram.
> “suggesting younger voters were either less engaged, or getting their election night information from other sources such as social media and at-home streaming, which are not tracked by Nielsen.”
Young people won’t watch tv unless there’s a game or tv series on they’re interested in. Even then, a lot of them will DVR it on Hulu or something. If you want those eyeballs, you’re going to need to be creative. And tv networks can’t be as creative as instaFaceSnap, Netflix and TikTwitGram.
Your browser has an X button (I suspect)
I don't know man?
The vote was like 50.1 to 48.2 at latest (accurate) count. Which is terrible news to everyone. Because, unless my math is wrong, that means there were more people who were so unmoved by either party that they couldn't be arsed to go out and vote, than there were voters for either party.
And all those people are pissed off.
Personally, I think stuff like comments on HN and Twitter are gonna be a good pressure valve over the next few years. Maybe even some Onion, Saturday Night Live and Daily Show for those masses. Because if those people ever get what they perceive to be a reason? I mean, they've already shown fairly consistently that they're no longer interested in the whole non-violent democratic norm of voting thing. And if a guy like Trump can't even bring them out, that means they're not at all interested in anything either side is selling.
After looking at those numbers, I guess I just wouldn't be so sure that the people making these comments are liberals. Or even independents for that matter. Independents on the sidelines are, at least, reasonable and vote. What we have boiling outside the stadium, so to speak, is something different entirely. And if they'll satisfy themselves yelling insults at the people inside the stadium then we should all probably let them. Don't make the mistake of thinking it's a bad thing.
If a lion starts chewing on your football, let it have the football. Don't be foolish. Just back away and go get another ball to continue your game with the opposing team.
The vote was like 50.1 to 48.2 at latest (accurate) count. Which is terrible news to everyone. Because, unless my math is wrong, that means there were more people who were so unmoved by either party that they couldn't be arsed to go out and vote, than there were voters for either party.
And all those people are pissed off.
Personally, I think stuff like comments on HN and Twitter are gonna be a good pressure valve over the next few years. Maybe even some Onion, Saturday Night Live and Daily Show for those masses. Because if those people ever get what they perceive to be a reason? I mean, they've already shown fairly consistently that they're no longer interested in the whole non-violent democratic norm of voting thing. And if a guy like Trump can't even bring them out, that means they're not at all interested in anything either side is selling.
After looking at those numbers, I guess I just wouldn't be so sure that the people making these comments are liberals. Or even independents for that matter. Independents on the sidelines are, at least, reasonable and vote. What we have boiling outside the stadium, so to speak, is something different entirely. And if they'll satisfy themselves yelling insults at the people inside the stadium then we should all probably let them. Don't make the mistake of thinking it's a bad thing.
If a lion starts chewing on your football, let it have the football. Don't be foolish. Just back away and go get another ball to continue your game with the opposing team.
Being right or wrong is often irrelevant to the question of “does it belong on HN?”
Not only do other HN commenters largely agree that it belongs to HN, they decided that it deserves to be the top comment on this discussion, at the time I authored this comment
Which is sad for someone who has been here for well over a decade. I never came here for political banter, I came for technical discussion. Facts, truths and subject matter experts. HN is slowly becoming less concentrated version of that.
"I don't want to discuss politics" when it's directly related to the topic at hand, is a complaint from the decadent class. It affects peoples lives, it's relevant, it's entirely plausible given the situation.
People are going to have to deal with the presence of politics in regular life for the unforeseen future, because the luxury of avoiding politics is generally the sign of having good governance.
People are going to have to deal with the presence of politics in regular life for the unforeseen future, because the luxury of avoiding politics is generally the sign of having good governance.
Pretending that “politics” exists as something separate or invasive is not only ignorant, it’s dangerous.
If this were a thread about IBM machines of the 1930s, would it be playing “politics” to note that those machines were sold to Nazis and supported by IBM through sub-contractors even while we were at war with them? Is it crossing a line to mention they were used to facilitate the Holocaust?
If this were a thread about IBM machines of the 1930s, would it be playing “politics” to note that those machines were sold to Nazis and supported by IBM through sub-contractors even while we were at war with them? Is it crossing a line to mention they were used to facilitate the Holocaust?
You are not alone in this sentiment. It is beyond the pale that the denizens of a 'hacker forum' are often so narrow-minded when it comes to engaging those who think outside of the personal zone of ideological preference. The same people who have been yammering about the importance of 'diversity' are dead set against diversity of opinion. Grow up, folks, get outside your comfort zone and engage some of those deplorables, irredeemables, garbage, rednecks, hillbillies and bible thumpers instead of howling along with the masses. Go ahead and try, you may find they are more like you than you've been told by the chattering classes. Sure you'll have disagreements over certain things but that does not make them the evil monsters your moral mentors have been claiming they are. Just... grow up.
I’ve engaged with these people a good bit actually. They’re very normal people, in that they largely don’t know much about politics but have strong opinions.
Hacker News' eventual death started the moment it joined the hysteria over the Lab Leak Theory. Since then it has trended more and more to be like Reddit, with ideological tribal concerns occupying an increasingly large mindshare. This drives away people who want to have earnest conversations in good faith, giving even more power to the ideologues. It will be a long death spiral but you can see it happening day by day.
I'm not sure what hysteria about lab leaks? I mean maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
I've genuinely never seen "hysteria" from the people talking about the lab leak theory. The closest I've seen is from people who were extremely keen for no one to mention the theory. Not because of some cover-up, but I think just because that was what everyone was telling everyone else to do, hysteria-style.
The idea that the novel coronavirus didn't escape from the local coronavirus R&D laboratory never had anywhere near enough evidence to be credible.
It was pretty much the WHO simply repeating the claims of the Chinese government, who had already tried to cover up the outbreak (with any warnings sent to the WHO coming from Taiwan instead).
It was about as believable as the completely baseless claims that the emergency use authorised vaccine was safe and effective.
It was pretty much the WHO simply repeating the claims of the Chinese government, who had already tried to cover up the outbreak (with any warnings sent to the WHO coming from Taiwan instead).
It was about as believable as the completely baseless claims that the emergency use authorised vaccine was safe and effective.
> engage some of those deplorables, irredeemables, garbage, rednecks, hillbillies and bible thumpers instead of howling along with the masses
You are aware that no one in this thread has called anyone deplorable, irredeemable, garbage, a redneck, a hillbilly, or a bible thumper, right?
Your aggrievement and imagined slights is precisely how people like Trump and Musk manipulate you. And apparently the manipulation works really well.
Trump is not your retribution. Trump doesn't care about America. Trump doesn't care about Americans. Trump only cares about himself.
You are aware that no one in this thread has called anyone deplorable, irredeemable, garbage, a redneck, a hillbilly, or a bible thumper, right?
Your aggrievement and imagined slights is precisely how people like Trump and Musk manipulate you. And apparently the manipulation works really well.
Trump is not your retribution. Trump doesn't care about America. Trump doesn't care about Americans. Trump only cares about himself.
I don't think GP was talking about ordinary people, they were making a comment about a politician's declared plans.
In this context, diversity refers to characteristics, not to differences of opinion. That said, diverse thinking can be valuable when used for prosocial purposes.
>> but the new administration hasn't even gone into office and I cannot get away from this.
Well, it cuts both ways. New administration should not be talking till they are in office.
Well, it cuts both ways. New administration should not be talking till they are in office.
Respectfully, why not?
That's the whole point of campaigning. I seriously hope an incoming administration has a plan before they get to office. "I wouldn't change anything" fortunately doesn't seem to win elections when everything's sideways.
Campaigning is customarily done before elections, not after.
Campaigning is done right happens between elections. In most countries you only have 4/6 weeks. As Kim Campbell of Canada famously said an election is not the time to debate issues. Now the US has a much longer campaign period.. and elections every 2 years. They are always campaigning.
I hope that the incoming President is not campaigning at this time, nor at any time in the future.
Every US President is constantly campaigning. Not necessarily for his own re-election but to create public pressure on Congress to support his agenda, and then to get votes for his endorsed successor.
That makes no sense
Many other countries have that. It’s like not giving you admin credentials before you contract start. But there’s no credential, the admin power comes from talking. And as a manager of managers, they has to restrain themselfes.
A certain faction always think the rule on keeping politics out of forums doesn't apply to them, because their politics are too correct and important. I experience this problem in groupchats where the very people who furiously demanded people not bring politics into the group and to make the group politics-free routinely push their own politics. They say their politics are too important to not bring up.
These same people LEFT other groups dedicated to politics so presumably if others respond in kind by discussing their own politics, they will leave the last groupchats too. This is why a certain faction is such an echo chamber. Incidentally, I was just banned from r/Archaeology for arguing that a post arguing that archeologists should prepare to fight the fascist takeover was too political.
These same people LEFT other groups dedicated to politics so presumably if others respond in kind by discussing their own politics, they will leave the last groupchats too. This is why a certain faction is such an echo chamber. Incidentally, I was just banned from r/Archaeology for arguing that a post arguing that archeologists should prepare to fight the fascist takeover was too political.
Yes, it will be annoying to have people make jokes about the people in overwhelming position of power.
Who knows ? Maybe it won't even be possible for the whole four years ?
Who knows ? Maybe it won't even be possible for the whole four years ?
It sucks for everyone. What you want us to do? Pretend it ain't so?
It doesn’t suck for the majority of people in the country. For them, it’s what they’d love to see.
Funnily enough, comments like yours are also what they’d love to see. Seeing leftists in tears over the policy changes we’re going to see is a great form of entertainment for many people.
Funnily enough, comments like yours are also what they’d love to see. Seeing leftists in tears over the policy changes we’re going to see is a great form of entertainment for many people.
> For them, it’s what they’d love to see.
Apparently not: https://www.axios.com/2024/11/15/trump-elon-musk-focus-group...
Apparently not: https://www.axios.com/2024/11/15/trump-elon-musk-focus-group...
Any other left wing propaganda you’d want me to know of?
I'm actually not bantering.
> I loathe it
They are planning to appoint a nutjob who has publicly that he admitted cutting off the heads of whale carcasses with a chainsaw and dumping dead bears in the Central Park for "fun". Presumably he is also consuming those rotting animals carcasses that he keeps finding somehow (how else do you get brain worms?) to be the new US health secretary.
Seriously... what else do you need to know?
They are planning to appoint a nutjob who has publicly that he admitted cutting off the heads of whale carcasses with a chainsaw and dumping dead bears in the Central Park for "fun". Presumably he is also consuming those rotting animals carcasses that he keeps finding somehow (how else do you get brain worms?) to be the new US health secretary.
Seriously... what else do you need to know?
What do I need to know? Tech oriented, factually grounded discussion. The thing I come here for that allows me to partially escape reality and enjoy the finer things in life. I can tune into Fox, CNN, Facebook, or a myriad of places for political banter.
I'm also jaded by the constant snark I/we have to resort to to cope and disconnect from the insanity that is today's world
I’m glad you used the word snark since that exact word in the HN guidelines
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
[deleted]
Can't be much more worse than an off topic comment.
These people have been inundated with the drivel of a billion dollar propaganda machine run by the most expensive campaign in history.
It's gonna take a while before they're back to normal again. I've heard so many "office of government efficiency" jokes in the last week I am tired of it too. But, in their defense if all you hear is how this administration is going to be the fourth reich (lol), destroy the country (lol), introduce fascism (lol), kill people (lol), etc you're going to react in a sarcastic way to anything you can grasp onto.
Though tbf, again, "office of government efficiency" seems like an oxymoron.
It's gonna take a while before they're back to normal again. I've heard so many "office of government efficiency" jokes in the last week I am tired of it too. But, in their defense if all you hear is how this administration is going to be the fourth reich (lol), destroy the country (lol), introduce fascism (lol), kill people (lol), etc you're going to react in a sarcastic way to anything you can grasp onto.
Though tbf, again, "office of government efficiency" seems like an oxymoron.
Elon chose the name to be a joke.
You’re accusing the wrong side for making a mockery of government institutions.
You’re accusing the wrong side for making a mockery of government institutions.
It is a Doge coin joke, right?
edit: But then again P.A.T.R.I.O.T act etc is a thing so hard to tell if actual joke or just going with how US politicians like to be witty while naming stuff.
edit: But then again P.A.T.R.I.O.T act etc is a thing so hard to tell if actual joke or just going with how US politicians like to be witty while naming stuff.
What if we use Trump's actual words?
No, we need more SNL trump impressions, Trump pundits, and corny jokes
Can you mention one thing that Trump or Musk ever did out of altruism?
Just adding that Mudk has shown that he is willing to completely ignore ethics and many times (almost?) cross the line of legality too.
Paying people to vote for Trump
Manipulating the stock market
Manipulated the crypto market multiple times
Tried to force Tesla employees to go to work during Covid
Paying people to vote for Trump
Manipulating the stock market
Manipulated the crypto market multiple times
Tried to force Tesla employees to go to work during Covid
Sorry, how does your question relate to my comment?
Trump set up a whole university!
And he ran a charity!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-don...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-don...
Musk seems quite well meaning. Neuralink, the early Starlink donated to Ukraine, trying to move the world to Solar/electric etc.
Trump... dunno.
Trump... dunno.
> trying to move the world to Solar/electric etc.
Is he, really? He recently announced that he supports Trump's position of getting rid on EV subsidies, stating that it hurts Tesla's competition more.
Is he, really? He recently announced that he supports Trump's position of getting rid on EV subsidies, stating that it hurts Tesla's competition more.
I love the argument you’re making. If you’re against socialist policies, it serves as indication you don’t like the things I find good.
Please don’t ask me to fund anyone else’s EV purchase. It doesn’t matter to me one bit who’s in office to get rid of that evil policy, I’d still love it.
Please don’t ask me to fund anyone else’s EV purchase. It doesn’t matter to me one bit who’s in office to get rid of that evil policy, I’d still love it.
[deleted]
They have already announced what they are going to do, with the pro-Trump side saying he's not serious or will mellow out the plan before he takes office, and the anti-Trump side saying he will do exactly what he says he's going to do.
Basically a repeat of 2016.
Basically a repeat of 2016.
not a repeat of 2016 at all. he's got every lever of the government at his disposal. stacked supreme court, three branches of government on his side. hiring the worst people for every job possible and hiring only for fealty to him.
this will be much worse than 2016.
this will be much worse than 2016.
He had both chambers in 2016 too, on similarly narrow majorities. The hiring has consistently been for allegiance. The court has changed a little. One thing you don't mention that is perhaps the biggest thing is temperance for reelection. But overall, I don't see much reason that it will be that much different from last time. Talking about things being much worse seems like an emotional statement.
stetrain(1)
zer8k(4)
It always falls in the middle. There's a reason politicians are known as liars. Of course they won't do everything they claim on the campaign trail.
Politicians bend the truth or promise what they are later unable to deliver (and often had no chance of delivering). But I think Trump usually tries to deliver on whatever he said in the campaign (like in 2016), like you can expect wide reaching tariffs in January or February (especially since half-way competent advisors, congress, and the courts are probably not going to moderate him as much this time).
Maybe make any computer purchases in December just to be safe.
Maybe make any computer purchases in December just to be safe.
That would be pretty ironic if Trump is able to deliver more on his promises than other politicians.
Why would it be ironic? He has less regard for the political group and general stability than a more run of the mill politician and now there is explicit immunity for anything he wants to do, like when he sold classified documents but "declassified them in his mind" right before once he got caught.
We watched four years of this already, including a rally with gallows being built in the crowd being told to march on the Capitol (he claims figuratively, and everyone just misunderstood, despite all the posts and planning and travel and tour groups). Last time it was absurd news headline after headline just to distract from the other things going on. We saw some bonkers stuff that would have disqualified other candidates in the past (or at least most candidates probably thought it would).
At this point I think his promises are easier to deliver on and he doesn't care about (and has been made immune from) the consequences that usually temper a politician's ability to deliver. Tariffs, no health plan, another wall (remember when he pardoned bannon for stealing the money they raised for the wall?), "stopping the war in Ukraine" but without a free Ukraine at the end, and decimating government regulatory agencies.
The weirdest part of this narrative for me is how the supporters say he wont do what he promises and the detractors fear he will. I don't know enough history to know if that is common but it sure feels backwards to me.
We watched four years of this already, including a rally with gallows being built in the crowd being told to march on the Capitol (he claims figuratively, and everyone just misunderstood, despite all the posts and planning and travel and tour groups). Last time it was absurd news headline after headline just to distract from the other things going on. We saw some bonkers stuff that would have disqualified other candidates in the past (or at least most candidates probably thought it would).
At this point I think his promises are easier to deliver on and he doesn't care about (and has been made immune from) the consequences that usually temper a politician's ability to deliver. Tariffs, no health plan, another wall (remember when he pardoned bannon for stealing the money they raised for the wall?), "stopping the war in Ukraine" but without a free Ukraine at the end, and decimating government regulatory agencies.
The weirdest part of this narrative for me is how the supporters say he wont do what he promises and the detractors fear he will. I don't know enough history to know if that is common but it sure feels backwards to me.
"The weirdest part of this narrative for me is how the supporters say he wont do what he promises and the detractors fear he will. I don't know enough history to know if that is common but it sure feels backwards to me."
That's pretty common on all highly polarized topics. Happens all the time with stuff like democrat candidates and firearms seizures - supporters walking it back and detractors believing ever word.
That's pretty common on all highly polarized topics. Happens all the time with stuff like democrat candidates and firearms seizures - supporters walking it back and detractors believing ever word.
Trump is probably the first politician in history where supporters claim he isn’t going to do what he says he is going to do (“take Trump seriously, not literally!”) while his detractors claim that he is. It’s already a weird spot in history.
Spooky23(1)
zzzeek(2)
They are like this literally any time a Republican is in the White House. They were like this when Dubya was President too, even though today they act like he's some sort of elder statesman just because he hates Trump.
What? Dubya was selected by the Supreme Court. He started a war after peddling bullshit evidence in front of the whole world. Dubya was and is a piece of shit.
Two wars, but who’s counting?
There were some people (former staff of his) openly asking him, before the election, to denounce Trump. He didn't do that. November 6, he issued a congratulations to Trump. A piece of shit and a coward .
As a non-american watching the election, this was one of the reasons I didn't want the result to be the way it went. Just for having to hear about it constantly from everywhere.
Not even remotely farce. I hope the rest of the world is taking notes...
This is why we need the Department of Department of Government Efficiency Efficiency so we can ensure the governmental efficiency of the Department of Government Efficiency.
Nobody needs to take notes, we’ve known what this is for a hundred years. We spent most of the last century trying to get rid of autocracy in various places, there’s entire libraries worth of books detailing this playbook at this point.
Unfortunately, they are. They have discovered that this kind of behavior gets people into office.
Expect to see more of it.
Expect to see more of it.
Doesn't each major government do independent safety testing/has independent safety requirements, anyway?
VW diesel-gate
How many of the independents caught that?
How many of the independents caught that?
Diesel gate involved also many others manufacturers
> Opel (General Motors) publicly demonstrated (while representatives from the TÜV Hessen were present) a Zafira that met the NOx emission limits. At the same time, Opel started clandestinely pushing an engine software update that limited NOx emissions in Zafiras that were already on the road.
> German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported that US authorities investigating Mercedes have discovered that its vehicles are equipped with illegal software to help them pass United States' stringent emission tests. The claimed defeat devices include a Bit 15 mode to switch off emissions control after 16 miles of driving (the length of an official U.S. emissions test), and Slipguard which tries to directly determine if the car is being tested based on speed and acceleration profiles
> Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee trucks, had software that allowed them to exceed NOx pollution limits, undetected by the usual testing methods.
> BMW was sued in 2018 when certain models were named as producing several times more nitrogen oxide emissions than laboratory tests indicated
> Opel (General Motors) publicly demonstrated (while representatives from the TÜV Hessen were present) a Zafira that met the NOx emission limits. At the same time, Opel started clandestinely pushing an engine software update that limited NOx emissions in Zafiras that were already on the road.
> German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported that US authorities investigating Mercedes have discovered that its vehicles are equipped with illegal software to help them pass United States' stringent emission tests. The claimed defeat devices include a Bit 15 mode to switch off emissions control after 16 miles of driving (the length of an official U.S. emissions test), and Slipguard which tries to directly determine if the car is being tested based on speed and acceleration profiles
> Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee trucks, had software that allowed them to exceed NOx pollution limits, undetected by the usual testing methods.
> BMW was sued in 2018 when certain models were named as producing several times more nitrogen oxide emissions than laboratory tests indicated
UK, French and German government agencies lobbied for weaker testing. Probably because of car industry lobbyists, and all the blah blah about "we sell cars, people stay employed, economy keeps going, you get reelected.". Ah, isn't democracy beautiful...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/uk-franc...
> Ah, isn't democracy beautiful...
With a dictator they'd just bribe him. Not like that's a solution, either.
With a dictator they'd just bribe him. Not like that's a solution, either.
Interestingly, it was a study commissioned by a non-profit, and performed by a university: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
oh, great, so none.
um, that can be read both ways. they very well could be taking notes on how to move in the same direction, not the opposite
The authority and requirement to operate FARS extends from US Title Code.
Aside from that misuse and intentional misunderstanding of the FARS statistics is readily used by Tesla as a justification for their FSD system.
Aside from that misuse and intentional misunderstanding of the FARS statistics is readily used by Tesla as a justification for their FSD system.
Agreed. This seems like just the sort of government waste that department has been created to eliminate.
If that happens, that would be the most efficient form of regulatory capture yet!
That’s not what regulatory capture is
These next 4 years will be a hoot and holler...
He had been "joking" about a third term already: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/us/politics/congress-reso...
So let's see if a Trump with total immunity will really leave gracefully this time.
So let's see if a Trump with total immunity will really leave gracefully this time.
A president can't pardon himself. He can still be held responsible for this crimes that he's already done. they'll just be shelved for a time. With any justice we'll come back to his crimes after this presidency proves to be a complete failure. I personally don't believe that Americans will allow anyone to become dictator.
He does not need to pardon himself if he has presidental immunity for offical acts for the rest of his life. That just hinges on the definition of offical acts, which will be made by a partisan and corrupt supreme court.
Well, they have certainly allowed a convicted felon to become president, so I’m not as convinced of their ability to defend themselves. Any Netflix showrunner designing Trump as a character would have been called of for such a flat caricature of a narcissistic villain, but somehow people thought that would be a good leader.
Even if Trump does not ruin the USA, I have forever lost my respect for its citizens.
Even if Trump does not ruin the USA, I have forever lost my respect for its citizens.
I'm looking forward to the military coup! it seems that America is turning into a new Turkey. you can either have freedom or democracy, but not both.
In a big picture, this makes sense. You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy, very fast, and loaded with features that reward distracted driving. In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
What makes sense to me is the top 3 cars:
Tesla - autopilot that really isn't, gets fooled in many situations, driver lulled into not paying attention, can't react quickly enough when the computer bails, and ends up driving into a bridge abutment at 75mph.
Kia - cheap cars built to minimum safety standards driven by young people who aren't very experienced drivers.
Buick - cars driven by geriatrics whose declines in vision and reaction speed probably should have resulted in their licenses being revoked five years ago but who still insist on driving themselves.
Tesla - autopilot that really isn't, gets fooled in many situations, driver lulled into not paying attention, can't react quickly enough when the computer bails, and ends up driving into a bridge abutment at 75mph.
Kia - cheap cars built to minimum safety standards driven by young people who aren't very experienced drivers.
Buick - cars driven by geriatrics whose declines in vision and reaction speed probably should have resulted in their licenses being revoked five years ago but who still insist on driving themselves.
> Buick - cars driven by geriatrics whose declines in vision and reaction speed probably should have resulted in their licenses being revoked five years ago but who still insist on driving themselves.
It takes until 85+ years old to match the accident frequency of the 16-25 years old cohort. Should we ban young adults from driving?
The reality is that the drivers tests should be MUCH more stringent for all cohorts. The reality is also that not having a car in the US is a horrible handicap.
So, we are stuck in a very suboptimal spot until self-driving cars come online.
It takes until 85+ years old to match the accident frequency of the 16-25 years old cohort. Should we ban young adults from driving?
The reality is that the drivers tests should be MUCH more stringent for all cohorts. The reality is also that not having a car in the US is a horrible handicap.
So, we are stuck in a very suboptimal spot until self-driving cars come online.
I'd also venture that the profile of Tesla drivers is also a factor along with those other two brands. I'd be pretty sure that Tesla owners collectively drive more aggressively than the average car on the road. Teslas aren't being driven by soccer moms and careful grandmas.
Where I live, I'd estimate that a third of the passenger cars are Teslas. No data to back that up, but that's what I tend to see day to day. The diversity of drivers is significant enough to suggest that "all kinds of people" drive Teslas.
A third? Wow. Where I am they are not exactly rare but uncommon enough that I still notice them when I see them. I see a few a week I'd guess. Pre-pandemic I knew one person who owned a Tesla. And now... I know two people who own a Tesla, but one of them lives in another country.
Lots of soccer moms driving Teslas in the Bay Area. Know several myself.
This runs completely opposite of my observations. Especially with Model Ys, which seem to be driven exclusively by parents. (Call them "soccer moms" if you want.)
Soccer moms are aggressive man. Don’t know where you are. One wrapped hers around a tree here tho
Does the insurance cost vary between two cars almost identical in every relevant points but the brand? Not a rhetorical question.
Model Y are driven by tons and tons of “soccer moms” and dads. Probably the most common car now per capita, at least in my area.
> and loaded with features
"Ludicrous mode."
> the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
It's actually alcohol and drugs. Which is the reason those drivers find themselves in the trees.
"Ludicrous mode."
> the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
It's actually alcohol and drugs. Which is the reason those drivers find themselves in the trees.
If you have driven around rural roads in the US, you realize it does not take alcohol to leave the road. A moment of distraction is all it takes to get into a ditch.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD
>A moment of distraction
Indeed, people really under(over?)estimate how small a loss of attention has to be to become catastrophic.
I once wanted to know the name of a track that was playing while driving on the highway. I looked right to the stereo display and read it, that probably took a tenth of a second, but it happened right at the moment when something came into my lane and I had to veer off not to hit it, I did not hit it but also almost drove the car out of the road.
When you're distracted, even if you're looking straight ahead, coming back to reality, assessing the situation, reacting, ... takes at least a couple seconds and that's a lot of time in these scenarios.
Indeed, people really under(over?)estimate how small a loss of attention has to be to become catastrophic.
I once wanted to know the name of a track that was playing while driving on the highway. I looked right to the stereo display and read it, that probably took a tenth of a second, but it happened right at the moment when something came into my lane and I had to veer off not to hit it, I did not hit it but also almost drove the car out of the road.
When you're distracted, even if you're looking straight ahead, coming back to reality, assessing the situation, reacting, ... takes at least a couple seconds and that's a lot of time in these scenarios.
In a bigger picture, cars are a bad solution to the problem of transportation at scale, and really always have been. As safety features go up, complacency goes up, and to be blunt that's combining with the fact that drivers are getting consistently worse overall at the skill anyway.
Between EV's that are much, much heavier than ICE cars and SUVs/Trucks that are much larger than they need to be, vehicles themselves, despite having more safety features than ever, are also better at killing that they've been at a long time too.
We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.
Between EV's that are much, much heavier than ICE cars and SUVs/Trucks that are much larger than they need to be, vehicles themselves, despite having more safety features than ever, are also better at killing that they've been at a long time too.
We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.
> We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.
Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.
It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.
Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.
It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.
Even with heavy urbanization you'll need some form of transit on top of walking. Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)? Every time I'm in one, I get the impression they would grind to a standstill without their mass transit systems.
Even a decent town puts most things within a walk or bike ride. San Luis Obispo comes to mind as an example.
I've never understood the argument about small towns being worse for urbanism.
Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.
You don't even have to sacrifice the backyard for that, you can have a city layout that puts the houses themselves fairly close to each other, and the yards can radiate outwards. Then you connect each cluster's main street with the other ones, but unlike suburbs, you make each "subdivision" mixed-use and you allow public transit , pedestrians and cyclists to cut across subdivisions for easy access everywhere.
If anything, small towns should be urbanism done right, because they don't (shouldn't?) have the money for sprawl and they don't have all the pressures for increasing density a lot, that big cities have.
Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.
You don't even have to sacrifice the backyard for that, you can have a city layout that puts the houses themselves fairly close to each other, and the yards can radiate outwards. Then you connect each cluster's main street with the other ones, but unlike suburbs, you make each "subdivision" mixed-use and you allow public transit , pedestrians and cyclists to cut across subdivisions for easy access everywhere.
If anything, small towns should be urbanism done right, because they don't (shouldn't?) have the money for sprawl and they don't have all the pressures for increasing density a lot, that big cities have.
>> Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.
My grandparents, and their parents and grandparents before them, all grew up on farms (as did the majority of Americans during that time).
No, everything did not have to be close by.
They certainly did appreciate cars when they became affordable though.
My grandparents, and their parents and grandparents before them, all grew up on farms (as did the majority of Americans during that time).
No, everything did not have to be close by.
They certainly did appreciate cars when they became affordable though.
You're most likely talking about homesteads, which are a minority of rural housing around the world in my experience.
In most of the world villages have at least a cluster of homes nearby, since having other humans close is super handy when shit hits the fan.
In most of the world villages have at least a cluster of homes nearby, since having other humans close is super handy when shit hits the fan.
Indeed, and there are small businesses mixed in with the houses. But the problem is cars (it's always cars). A coffee shop next to your house is fine - a delight even - when 20 people arrive by walking or biking. When it's 20 cars though it's misery.
> Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)
Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak. Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck travelling long distances to do anything, just like those who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that transportation is necessary in a rural area.
A proper urban environment, however, puts everything right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole reason for living so close to other people.
But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead of actually embracing urbanity.
Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak. Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck travelling long distances to do anything, just like those who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that transportation is necessary in a rural area.
A proper urban environment, however, puts everything right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole reason for living so close to other people.
But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead of actually embracing urbanity.
I would say that's better characterized as an opposition to urbanization that's designed for and presumes the ownership of cars by those who live there, and to that I heartily agree! Gridlock-bound US cities are a nightmare to navigate, but again, that is not the fault of the city, that is also the fault of the car and how inefficient it is as a transport solution.
If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.
If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.
> If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.
Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely were designed in the same way they are still found now, aside from what are now roads were squares for people to walk in. Return the road back to being a square and nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car era. But, so long as the people want to live a rural lifestyle, good luck…
Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely were designed in the same way they are still found now, aside from what are now roads were squares for people to walk in. Return the road back to being a square and nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car era. But, so long as the people want to live a rural lifestyle, good luck…
> It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities.
I just want like... to not be stacked like a sardine for $3500/mo. I would gladly take a rural lifestyle if I could find a job that would support it.
I just want like... to not be stacked like a sardine for $3500/mo. I would gladly take a rural lifestyle if I could find a job that would support it.
This is a colossal failure for humanity, primarily due to home ownership as an investment vehicle, plus regulatory capture pushed by the car companies and oil and gas companies.
There is no technical reason we can't have livable, quiet and spacious apartments, where multiple apartment buildings share a huge, enclosed backyard (almost park-like, even), a setup with tons of small shops, pharmacies, easy access to everything, etc.
Plus you can also have access to large parks, in a suburb you'd never have access to those, just your limited backyard.
But most places will never have that...
There is no technical reason we can't have livable, quiet and spacious apartments, where multiple apartment buildings share a huge, enclosed backyard (almost park-like, even), a setup with tons of small shops, pharmacies, easy access to everything, etc.
Plus you can also have access to large parks, in a suburb you'd never have access to those, just your limited backyard.
But most places will never have that...
Even nice apartments are pretty miserable places to live if you have multiple small children, or engage in hobbies or activities that require much equipment. Imagine coming home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it in your shower? It's possible to make it work but living in a single-family home (or townhouse with attached garage) sure makes regular life a lot easier.
> Imagine coming home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it in your shower?
We have the tech for this, we could have literal multi-bike sheds/parking garages and all that's needed is 1 (ONE) water source with a hose inside. As I said, failure on the part of our species :-)
In my city there are actually a few public bike washing stations, so the game plan in this case would be just to bike that way before coming home.
We have the tech for this, we could have literal multi-bike sheds/parking garages and all that's needed is 1 (ONE) water source with a hose inside. As I said, failure on the part of our species :-)
In my city there are actually a few public bike washing stations, so the game plan in this case would be just to bike that way before coming home.
Stacked like a sardine for $3,500/mo, yet still have to travel long distances to do anything. The curse of the wannabe rural city. But, as people want to (or at least want to pretend to) live in a rural area, change is unlikely.
Suburbia is this thing like commuting in a car that's great as long as everyone isn't also trying to do it.
Many of us simply don't want to live in expensive urbanized environments (especially in more desirable ones)--at least at many points in our lives, so yeah no.
I mean the problem isn't those who don't want to live in cities nor is it those who want to live in cities: the problem is the suburbs, which is where those two meet. People who aren't in and do not desire an actual rural lifestyle where one has a standalone home on a large plot of land in the middle of nowhere, but also don't want a condo. They want their own little plot of land, with a small yard, and a standalone home.
And like, same. That's also me.
But the problem is the actual costs of that style of home are incredibly, heavily subsidized by the cities they surround and indeed even the rural areas they border, because suburbs are just... a bad goddamn way to house people. They're incredibly inefficient, basically require your own personal car, require the most infrastructure build-out for the smallest population, require the largest footprint of services over the largest area to serve the smallest number of people, etc. etc.
And like, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you want to live this way, that's fine, but then you need to actually pay for it. Your property taxes need to reflect how much it actually costs to serve your property, to build the huge number of roads needed to access it, to maintain those roads, to maintain the electrical grids, to maintain the water and sewage services, to bus kids to schools, etc. etc. etc.
And yeah that's going to make suburbs WAY less appealing because they're going to be fucking expensive but like, the alternative is, again, everyone wanting that, and not paying for it. The dense urban centers they surround absolutely hemorrhage money supporting the suburbs around them.
And like, same. That's also me.
But the problem is the actual costs of that style of home are incredibly, heavily subsidized by the cities they surround and indeed even the rural areas they border, because suburbs are just... a bad goddamn way to house people. They're incredibly inefficient, basically require your own personal car, require the most infrastructure build-out for the smallest population, require the largest footprint of services over the largest area to serve the smallest number of people, etc. etc.
And like, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you want to live this way, that's fine, but then you need to actually pay for it. Your property taxes need to reflect how much it actually costs to serve your property, to build the huge number of roads needed to access it, to maintain those roads, to maintain the electrical grids, to maintain the water and sewage services, to bus kids to schools, etc. etc. etc.
And yeah that's going to make suburbs WAY less appealing because they're going to be fucking expensive but like, the alternative is, again, everyone wanting that, and not paying for it. The dense urban centers they surround absolutely hemorrhage money supporting the suburbs around them.
Around where I live (greater Boston metro) most of the tech jobs are actually out in the suburbs/exurbubs. There were basically no tech jobs in the city ~20 years ago any longer. (It's mostly only changed with the establishment of of satellite offices of some west coast companies.)
With respect, it doesn't matter. Suburbs cost far more than they bring in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
I don't know. My town has a budget. We argue over property taxes at town meetings. We argue over enterprise zones like distribution centers that certainly aren't going in the middle of large cities. We argue over school spending that tends to be lower than in large cities. No one is wiping out highways that connect large cities to other places.
Urbanization decreases costs.
How much does 160 acres of land cost in rural Kansas? Maybe $500,000? How much does 160 acres of land cost in Manhattan? Maybe $800,000,000?
Urbanization decreases some costs and increases others.
Urbanization decreases some costs and increases others.
> In a bigger picture, cars are a bad solution to the problem of transportation at scale
They're not a great solution to transportation at scale, but they're pretty good at small volume point to point traffic.
There's not enough people going my way on most of my trips to make transportation at scale worthwhile. Ferries work well for part of many of my trips, but I can take a car on the ferry to deal with the lack of scale on either side.
I could sometimes take a bus to the ferry, walk to light rail and take light rail to the airport. But the bus only runs during commute times, so that impacts viable flight times, and the walk to the light rail got pretty sketchy in the past several years and light rail itself can be sketchy too.
Most of my cars run fine any time of day, although peak traffic is annoying, and I'm dealing with lighting issues on one so I can't take it out unless I know I'll be home before dusk.
They're not a great solution to transportation at scale, but they're pretty good at small volume point to point traffic.
There's not enough people going my way on most of my trips to make transportation at scale worthwhile. Ferries work well for part of many of my trips, but I can take a car on the ferry to deal with the lack of scale on either side.
I could sometimes take a bus to the ferry, walk to light rail and take light rail to the airport. But the bus only runs during commute times, so that impacts viable flight times, and the walk to the light rail got pretty sketchy in the past several years and light rail itself can be sketchy too.
Most of my cars run fine any time of day, although peak traffic is annoying, and I'm dealing with lighting issues on one so I can't take it out unless I know I'll be home before dusk.
> much, much heavier
https://thedriven.io/2024/05/03/are-evs-really-much-heavier-...
> full electric versions are only around 10% to 15% heavier than their direct ICE equivalent
I don’t think “much, much” should be used when we are talking 10-15%. This will mislead people. There are outliers of course.
https://thedriven.io/2024/05/03/are-evs-really-much-heavier-...
> full electric versions are only around 10% to 15% heavier than their direct ICE equivalent
I don’t think “much, much” should be used when we are talking 10-15%. This will mislead people. There are outliers of course.
I would wager that most people don’t want to use public transit regularly. I know I certainly don’t.
I think a lot of people would be happy to use it if it was convenient and reliable. I live in NYC and haven’t had to drive to/from work in over a decade. I consider the subway ride a vast, vast improvement over driving… but only when the subway works right.
The vast majority of people I talk to, including myself, don't use public transportation for:
1. Time. For example, my commute is 25 minutes, but 2 hours ride and three mile walk by public transport.
2. Safety, intimately tied to the homeless problem.
3. Cleanliness. In my experience, related to #2, and the fact that government institutions are incapable of caring about user experience, because they get funding regardless. Matted, stained fabric seat cushions, and dried whatever caked on the floor.
There's nothing better or remotely alluring about public transportation for the vast majority of people (as shown by gridlock traffic).
1. Time. For example, my commute is 25 minutes, but 2 hours ride and three mile walk by public transport.
2. Safety, intimately tied to the homeless problem.
3. Cleanliness. In my experience, related to #2, and the fact that government institutions are incapable of caring about user experience, because they get funding regardless. Matted, stained fabric seat cushions, and dried whatever caked on the floor.
There's nothing better or remotely alluring about public transportation for the vast majority of people (as shown by gridlock traffic).
Like I said, when it works right. A 2 hour ride and three mile walk is very obviously not a viable commute.
As for safety, you’re orders of magnitude more likely to get into a car crash than have anything happen to you on the NYC subway. Yes, incidents happen but they’re dramatically inflated in the public consciousness.
Your objection (and most of the others I see) aren’t objections to the fundamental nature of public transit, rather they’re objections to shit public transit or to urban life in general (whole lotta city car parks that aren’t clean!). Which is entirely understandable. But there are plenty of examples of functional public transit serving millions of people in cities across the world. Those people aren’t all secretly wishing they were in a car.
As for safety, you’re orders of magnitude more likely to get into a car crash than have anything happen to you on the NYC subway. Yes, incidents happen but they’re dramatically inflated in the public consciousness.
Your objection (and most of the others I see) aren’t objections to the fundamental nature of public transit, rather they’re objections to shit public transit or to urban life in general (whole lotta city car parks that aren’t clean!). Which is entirely understandable. But there are plenty of examples of functional public transit serving millions of people in cities across the world. Those people aren’t all secretly wishing they were in a car.
I just think you have shite public transport, mate. I can’t imagine anywhere in nyc you’d have to walk 3 mi to get anywhere??
Sure if I said public transport is strictly superior because I drive a car that breaks down constantly, you’d see the problems not cars, yeah?
Sure if I said public transport is strictly superior because I drive a car that breaks down constantly, you’d see the problems not cars, yeah?
It's kind of boring to respond to a comment about public transit needing to work well by complaining about how it doesn't. Especially when limiting investment has often been an explicit choice in whatever given area.
Yes, I was just listing specifically how it doesn't work well, for me and most people. I'm not arguing against the concept or something. It's an extreme chicken and egg problem, with almost certainly no solution that would work outside of SF and NY type densities.
That's because most Americans haven't seen a public transport service that works well.
Visit or live in a major European city for a while and you are likely change your tune.
Visit or live in a major European city for a while and you are likely change your tune.
Your desire to not be inconvenienced is not as important as the lives of other people who are being killed unnecessarily for it.
That being said, to be clear, I don't think we need to make driving illegal or whatever. I think a TON of people would happily not be saddled with the expense of owning a car or the task of driving if there were reasonable alternatives on offer, which in the few pockets of the US that actually have decent mass transit, is broadly the case.
That being said, to be clear, I don't think we need to make driving illegal or whatever. I think a TON of people would happily not be saddled with the expense of owning a car or the task of driving if there were reasonable alternatives on offer, which in the few pockets of the US that actually have decent mass transit, is broadly the case.
That said, I drove into a nearby city after dark which is increasingly early last night. There are no reasonable alternatives--I will for a 9-5 event but just doesn't work for the evening. There's a decent mass transit system including commuter rail but it it's just not organized around coming in at 5pm. It's chaos with cars/cycles/escooters/pedestrians often randomly crossing streets, poor visibility, etc. I mostly just don't go in any longer.
In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
This is false. Your cited link (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD) clearly demonstrates that head-on collisions cause more fatalities than tree+utility pole collisions combined.
This is false. Your cited link (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD) clearly demonstrates that head-on collisions cause more fatalities than tree+utility pole collisions combined.
Aside from the distracted driving part, which is real, there are two physical aspects of the model 3 that I find to be safety issues as well-- the two front windshield beams are thick and add a sort of blind spot, and the side mirrors don't give you great field of view.
Same with my older Toyota. They stuffed airbags in them, which is nice, but I've had several times where an adult on a bike is completely obscured, with my passenger having to scream "stop!". After the second time, I now bob my head like a maniac to look around them.
Can't wait for displays on pillars, to make them appear transparent.
Can't wait for displays on pillars, to make them appear transparent.
The pillars on my 2006 CR-V haven't been a problem. Did pillars get bigger on newer cars, or did Honda use smaller pillars, or what?
They are wide enough that their horizontal angular width could be larger than the horizontal angular width of a pedestrian more than a couple or so meters away but due to their angle there is plenty of the pedestrian still visible.
I spent a while just sitting in a busy parking lot watching people go by and seeing how their visibility changed and I couldn't find any situation where I'd have trouble seeing a pedestrian unless they were far enough away that there was no chance I'd hit them even if I never saw them.
They are wide enough that their horizontal angular width could be larger than the horizontal angular width of a pedestrian more than a couple or so meters away but due to their angle there is plenty of the pedestrian still visible.
I spent a while just sitting in a busy parking lot watching people go by and seeing how their visibility changed and I couldn't find any situation where I'd have trouble seeing a pedestrian unless they were far enough away that there was no chance I'd hit them even if I never saw them.
yeah I've had a similar experience with a bike and do the head bob thing now too. glad to know it's not just me
I've never been in a Tesla so don't know if this would work, but you might try getting a small convex mirror (often called a "blind spot mirror") like these [1] at Amazon. I linked Amazon for convenience. They should also be easy to find locally at anyplace that has an auto section like Walmart, or auto parts stores like NAPA, O'Reilly, and AutoZone.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=blind+spot+mirror
[1] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=blind+spot+mirror
good tip, thank you!
It is a problem with most modern cars, and it is actually for safety reasons. These beams have to support the entire weight of the car in case it flips over in order to protect the occupants.
A rule we have due to giant high center of gravity SUVs. Rollovers weren’t as big a problem when everyone had sedans.
A car should survive a rollover. But when you make them big & heavy, those pillars have to be big and thick and you get large blind spots.
A car should survive a rollover. But when you make them big & heavy, those pillars have to be big and thick and you get large blind spots.
ah interesting, that makes sense witas an explanation given the heavy Tesla base
Same with both of my Mitsubishis. There's a roundabout near where I live that, when approaching it from one angle, the "beam" on the right hand side of the windshield totally obscures the whole road leading to the roundabout from another angle.
I have to shift in my seat to crane around to see if there is oncoming traffic I have to give way to.
They're both 10+ year old cars.
I have to shift in my seat to crane around to see if there is oncoming traffic I have to give way to.
They're both 10+ year old cars.
Also, the instrument cluster is located in the center, outside of the driver's direct view. And most of the important controls for the driver do not have tactile buttons.
Which are those controls?
I drive a Tesla since 2019 and have never needed a touchscreen control for the driving itself.
I drive a Tesla since 2019 and have never needed a touchscreen control for the driving itself.
> In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
Do you have a source on that?
Do you have a source on that?
> From 2016 to 2018 an average of 19,158 fatalities resulted from roadway departures, which is 51 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD
FTL: "FHWA defines a roadway departure (RwD) crash as a crash which occurs after a vehicle crosses an edge line or a center line, or otherwise leaves the traveled way. Another term our partners often use is lane departure, which is synonymous with RwD, since both include head-on collisions when a vehicle enters an opposing lane of traffic."
Road departure fatalities are high because of head-on collisions, not because there is an epidemic of people crashing into trees along the side of the road. If you follow the links on the cited page, they clearly show that head-on crashes result in more fatalities than tree+utility pole crashes.
Road departure fatalities are high because of head-on collisions, not because there is an epidemic of people crashing into trees along the side of the road. If you follow the links on the cited page, they clearly show that head-on crashes result in more fatalities than tree+utility pole crashes.
>In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
A decade or so ago the Georgia Department of Transportation tried to do away with the trees between streets and sidewalks because of so many fatalities coming from collisions with trees. Clearing out an "automative recovery zone" as they called it likely would have saved lives of some people in vehicles but of course it would increase the danger to pedestrians, who might or might not be present at that moment. Lots of trade offs in these types of analysis and not all of them are always immediately obvious.
A decade or so ago the Georgia Department of Transportation tried to do away with the trees between streets and sidewalks because of so many fatalities coming from collisions with trees. Clearing out an "automative recovery zone" as they called it likely would have saved lives of some people in vehicles but of course it would increase the danger to pedestrians, who might or might not be present at that moment. Lots of trade offs in these types of analysis and not all of them are always immediately obvious.
> You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy
Being heavy is actually a safety feature of sort (but just for the people inside the car, it increases overall fatality).
Being heavy is actually a safety feature of sort (but just for the people inside the car, it increases overall fatality).
Trees are anchored to the ground. Being heavier just reduces your ability to stop.
Decreases your tendency to flip over. I'm astonished by all the dashcam videos out there showing collisions, usually the first thing an ice car does is flip over. Not EVs though.
That's more a factor of weight distribution rather than weight itself.
EVs carry their weight lower to the ground. SUVs and pickup trucks are more top heavy. Passenger cars have a higher probability to rollover, but not that much greater than an EV.
EVs carry their weight lower to the ground. SUVs and pickup trucks are more top heavy. Passenger cars have a higher probability to rollover, but not that much greater than an EV.
Ice cars have a much higher rollover risk compared to EVs. All the data supports that along with physics. Absolutely weight distribution. Compare the heavy battery in an EV vs the heavy motor that's up a bit higher in an ice car. Pretty much any hit over around 20mph to the front quarter panel of an ice car, truck, or SUV will flip it over.
Maybe that's good when hitting a tree? Slower deceleration, less force.
I think they meant that it's more difficult to stop before beginning to impact the tree.
Still. If I'm going to hit a tree, I'd rather drive a tank than a motorbike.
Cars have crumple zones which a motorbike does not.
A lighter car requires less work from the crumple zone to decelerate the car into non-fatal territory than a heavy car.
A lighter car requires less work from the crumple zone to decelerate the car into non-fatal territory than a heavy car.
It ain't working then because these heavy cars tend to have more fatalities.
The study seems to contradict this: "When broken out by size, small cars have the highest fatal accident rate while midsize and full-size cars are both below average."
And later in the study, “When two small cars collide the forces are equalized and both vehicles tend to hold up well. But if a compact hatchback and a full-size pickup truck try to occupy the same space at the same time, the smaller car always loses.”
And later in the study, “When two small cars collide the forces are equalized and both vehicles tend to hold up well. But if a compact hatchback and a full-size pickup truck try to occupy the same space at the same time, the smaller car always loses.”
In insurance they call it the "law of lugnuts" - bigger cars have better survivability in direct collisions.
However, most traffic fatalities do not come from direct collisions. They come from driver hitting immobile objects.
Smaller, lighter cars take less kinetic energy with them around corners, are easier to steer and avoid obstacles, and are more likely to stay upright when leaving the road.
However, most traffic fatalities do not come from direct collisions. They come from driver hitting immobile objects.
Smaller, lighter cars take less kinetic energy with them around corners, are easier to steer and avoid obstacles, and are more likely to stay upright when leaving the road.
Simple solution. Cut down all the trees on the side of the road.
You’re welcome.
You’re welcome.
> The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024 Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report. “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
Ok so Tesla's aren't less safe than any other vehicle in this lineup. It's just that Tesla drivers are more likely to be careless.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report. “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
Ok so Tesla's aren't less safe than any other vehicle in this lineup. It's just that Tesla drivers are more likely to be careless.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list
Interesting, my initial mental concern was: "So, why IIHS ranked cars highly involved in crash with Top Safety+?" Didn’t they though using statistics could help prevent accidents in praxi?
Interesting, my initial mental concern was: "So, why IIHS ranked cars highly involved in crash with Top Safety+?" Didn’t they though using statistics could help prevent accidents in praxi?
My first thought was if mass got factored into it, but it looks like mass has already crept up pretty high for other cars. A Toyota Prius is about 3200 lbs and a Model 3 is about 4000 lbs or 3800 lbs for their lightest variant. My mental models were outdated and still imagined sedans as about one ton and change. While bigger not as significant a factor as I initially thought.
How does iSeeCars (who did the study) know how many miles were driven by each brand's cars? It says they have a database of cars, but do we know whether it's an unbiased sample?
exactly, we should ask Karl Brauer to cite his sources and explain his methodology
I remember some car collision data that showed that men were more likely to get into any collision and women were more likely to get into a fatal collision. A comment I read about the study suggested the conclusion that men take more risks while women take bigger risks.
It's interesting to think in that context about this. Could Tesla drivers be taking bigger risks because they think the car's software will save them from the negative consequences of their risky decisions? (As an extreme example, one such driver opted to drive in the back seat instead of the driver's seat. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-highway-patr...)
It's interesting to think in that context about this. Could Tesla drivers be taking bigger risks because they think the car's software will save them from the negative consequences of their risky decisions? (As an extreme example, one such driver opted to drive in the back seat instead of the driver's seat. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-highway-patr...)
> A comment I read about the study suggested the conclusion that men take more risks while women take bigger risks.
Or women's weaker musculoskeletal systems provide less protection against blunt force trauma?
Or women's weaker musculoskeletal systems provide less protection against blunt force trauma?
Or, like medicine and a whole variety of other fields, “male” is assumed default and anyone who isn’t the default has worse outcomes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/business/car-safety-women...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/business/car-safety-women...
Guess what year the NHTSA started using female crash dummies?
2003, thirty years after they started using male crash dummies. And the NHTSA's female dummies were essentially male dummies shrunk to 4'11" and lightened to 97/108lbs.
What year do you think they mandated a crash dummy that was actually based on the female body?
Just guess. I think you might be surprised that they haven't done this yet. It's in the works (see THOR-5F), but it's crazy it's taken so long.
Now guess when they first put the 2003 female crash dummy in the drivers seat for the frontal collision crash test. They still haven't!
2003, thirty years after they started using male crash dummies. And the NHTSA's female dummies were essentially male dummies shrunk to 4'11" and lightened to 97/108lbs.
What year do you think they mandated a crash dummy that was actually based on the female body?
Just guess. I think you might be surprised that they haven't done this yet. It's in the works (see THOR-5F), but it's crazy it's taken so long.
Now guess when they first put the 2003 female crash dummy in the drivers seat for the frontal collision crash test. They still haven't!
>And the NHTSA's female dummies were essentially male dummies shrunk to 4'11" and lightened to 97/108lbs.
Lol. Lmao even: "According to a 2021 report from the National Center for Health Statistics, the average weight of women in the U.S. over the age of 20 was 170.8 pounds."
https://www.forbes.com/health/womens-health/average-weight-f...
Lol. Lmao even: "According to a 2021 report from the National Center for Health Statistics, the average weight of women in the U.S. over the age of 20 was 170.8 pounds."
https://www.forbes.com/health/womens-health/average-weight-f...
If you look into car safety testing and design, they haven't used "Woman sized" crash test dummies until very very recently.
Cars were less safe for women because they were not designed to be safe for women.
Cars were less safe for women because they were not designed to be safe for women.
[deleted]
I suspect the biggest factor is speed. After getting used to EV for over a year, every ICE vehicle feels painfully sluggish and slow. If that's the case I'm curious to see how the numbers compare to other EVs.
The worst 23 models according to the study are here: https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
I'm not sure which of them are evs, but you could work it out fairly easily. Even if many of them are, it still looks to me like tesla is doing poorly by this metric.
I'm not sure which of them are evs, but you could work it out fairly easily. Even if many of them are, it still looks to me like tesla is doing poorly by this metric.
None of the others are EVs, except maybe a small % of Kia Souls
Mostly non-EVs. In fact the only EVs are both Tesla.
Torque and touchscreens.
I find the touchscreen actually less distracting and easier to use than the cell phone I had to use in a Honda civic. Also no critical functions need to be done on the touchscreen, they can all be done via physical buttons on the wheel or stocks.
I heard EVs are very heavy, how can they be faster?
EVs have full torque at 0 RPM so they are capable of accelerating much faster than an average ICE.
The manufacturer can alter based on software, how much current the electrical system is capable of supplying, how powerful the motors are, etc.
But even “normal non-performance” EVs that aren’t designed for performance like a Chevy Bolt come off the line way quicker than an equivalent normal car, even if they’re full 0 to 60 time isn’t that much faster.
The manufacturer can alter based on software, how much current the electrical system is capable of supplying, how powerful the motors are, etc.
But even “normal non-performance” EVs that aren’t designed for performance like a Chevy Bolt come off the line way quicker than an equivalent normal car, even if they’re full 0 to 60 time isn’t that much faster.
I recently drove a 2014 Nissan Leaf. Not exactly a performance oriented EV, and the acceleration it's capable of is 'nice'. Not crazy, but was unexpectedly good given it's 10 years old and only trying to be an EV rather than a "hey look I'm an EV!!!".
People love to say that EVs are very heavy, or are much, much heavier, massively heavier and so on. This paints the wrong picture in people’s heads. The same people will use the Hummer EV as an example, but most people aren’t driving that.
https://thedriven.io/2024/05/03/are-evs-really-much-heavier-...
> full electric versions are only around 10% to 15% heavier than their direct ICE equivalent
To put it into perspective, from the table, you could load an ICE with passengers and some luggage and it would weigh the same as the EV equivalent with just the driver.
https://thedriven.io/2024/05/03/are-evs-really-much-heavier-...
> full electric versions are only around 10% to 15% heavier than their direct ICE equivalent
To put it into perspective, from the table, you could load an ICE with passengers and some luggage and it would weigh the same as the EV equivalent with just the driver.
I assume the misconception is because EVs are massively heavier if they had comparable range, as the reason is the poor energy density of batteries. If an EV had the same range as the ICE then it would be massively heavier, but with significantly reduced range it is only slightly heavier.
I don’t think people talk about hypothetical EV weight when they make such claims, the claims tend to revolve around EVs currently on the road.
We should also try to discuss “waiting time” rather than range so that people start to think in these terms.
My overall waiting time is much lower for my EV than my old diesel, despite the range of the EV being lower. Less time waiting to fill up on a weekly basis (0 mins while I sleep vs 5 mins filling up + journey time to the petrol station), less time defrosting in the winter (0 mins remote pre-heat vs 5+ scraping), less time waiting to fill up on long journeys (0 extra mins while I eat vs 5 extra mins filling up).
These are all situation dependent of course, but making people adjust their thinking will help them get a more accurate picture of EV ownership.
We should also try to discuss “waiting time” rather than range so that people start to think in these terms.
My overall waiting time is much lower for my EV than my old diesel, despite the range of the EV being lower. Less time waiting to fill up on a weekly basis (0 mins while I sleep vs 5 mins filling up + journey time to the petrol station), less time defrosting in the winter (0 mins remote pre-heat vs 5+ scraping), less time waiting to fill up on long journeys (0 extra mins while I eat vs 5 extra mins filling up).
These are all situation dependent of course, but making people adjust their thinking will help them get a more accurate picture of EV ownership.
Eh, my neighbors Honda Pilots and other friends Toyota Siennas are heavier than my Y.
> every ICE vehicle feels painfully sluggish and slow.
You don't do much towing, do you?
You don't do much towing, do you?
99.9% of drivers will never tow anything in their life.
Not that one could tell by their vehicle choice, of course.
That might be a little high given how many small boats exist in this country, but definitely agree the vast majority will never tow.
> 99.9% of drivers
I think you've just made that up; however, I am willing to stipulate that 99.9% of Hacker News posters will never tow anything. I always forget how out of touch the audience here is.
I think you've just made that up; however, I am willing to stipulate that 99.9% of Hacker News posters will never tow anything. I always forget how out of touch the audience here is.
Are you my in-laws?
We had to stop talking to them about the possibility of buying an EV because they kept bringing up irrational arguments like this one.
No matter how many times we reminded them that, in the two-plus decades we've been driving, we may have towed something maybe twice. Maybe.
One of our existing cars doesn't even have a towbar. The horror!
The irrational hatred / fear is real.
We had to stop talking to them about the possibility of buying an EV because they kept bringing up irrational arguments like this one.
No matter how many times we reminded them that, in the two-plus decades we've been driving, we may have towed something maybe twice. Maybe.
One of our existing cars doesn't even have a towbar. The horror!
The irrational hatred / fear is real.
The linked study is better: https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
> “Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue,” said Brauer. “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.”
Quoting what's easily the most important passage in that study.
The two Teslas on the list are the Model Y, right beneath the Porsche 911, and the Model S, right beneath the... Toyota Prius.
So yeah. No surprises here. It's a study where the lesson should be "a car is as dangerous as its driver" and everyone is going to read it as "Teslas are deathtraps". What else is new.
Quoting what's easily the most important passage in that study.
The two Teslas on the list are the Model Y, right beneath the Porsche 911, and the Model S, right beneath the... Toyota Prius.
So yeah. No surprises here. It's a study where the lesson should be "a car is as dangerous as its driver" and everyone is going to read it as "Teslas are deathtraps". What else is new.
That just assumes that the crash tests are good indicators of actual safety. My understanding is that car manufacturers could go much further in the name of safety, but do just enough to scrape by on those crash tests. So there could definitely be differentials in terms of safety even among cars that have perfect safety measures from IIHS/NHTSA.
It’s hard to to be cynical about the intentions of the authors of the original article after seeing this…
It is better. But in the year 2024, why should I believe the data from a random source, with unknown data analysis? When will they be releasing their data package for independent analysis? Why isn't this the expected norm? And how can we make it so?
Did you email them to ask for it? What sort of meta-analysis do you intend to do with their data? Have you released other interesting work in this field that would benefit the post? Why weren’t your intentions for their model published in your comment? What can we do to denormalize rhetoric in forum discussions?
From the website:"the number of cars involved in a fatal crash were normalized by the total number of vehicle miles driven"
They assume every car drives the average number of miles. Of course a CR-V is going to score high, since they likely drive more than an average number of miles.
A 911 on the other hand probably drives a small fraction of the average.
This study is fairly low quality. The IHHS list 13.3 fatalities per billion miles as the actual number.
They assume every car drives the average number of miles. Of course a CR-V is going to score high, since they likely drive more than an average number of miles.
A 911 on the other hand probably drives a small fraction of the average.
This study is fairly low quality. The IHHS list 13.3 fatalities per billion miles as the actual number.
Isn't that the other way around?
This is fatalities per 10**X miles.
This is fatalities per 10**X miles.
How much data does Tesla have on the details of crashes? Probably depends on whether enough electronics survived to phone home.
It's possible to dig the airbag controller out of the wreckage and read out the last 30 seconds or so. Airbag controllers have a short but nonvolatile memory and usually survive crashes. That gets you speed, acceleration in several axes, plus steering, brake, and power inputs, and detailed info about what the airbag system did.[1] Those were originally created to tune the airbag algorithm, and, over the years, false airbag deployments have dropped almost to zero.
That's the basic info needed to analyze fatal crashes. Speed at collision? Speed 10 secs before collision? Accelerator and brake inputs? Maneuvering (side accel) before crash? That, plus the crash scene, tells most of what you need to know.
Law enforcement will sometimes read out those units, when it's not clear what happened. It's not done routinely.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/fmvss/EDR_QAs_11...
It's possible to dig the airbag controller out of the wreckage and read out the last 30 seconds or so. Airbag controllers have a short but nonvolatile memory and usually survive crashes. That gets you speed, acceleration in several axes, plus steering, brake, and power inputs, and detailed info about what the airbag system did.[1] Those were originally created to tune the airbag algorithm, and, over the years, false airbag deployments have dropped almost to zero.
That's the basic info needed to analyze fatal crashes. Speed at collision? Speed 10 secs before collision? Accelerator and brake inputs? Maneuvering (side accel) before crash? That, plus the crash scene, tells most of what you need to know.
Law enforcement will sometimes read out those units, when it's not clear what happened. It's not done routinely.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/fmvss/EDR_QAs_11...
"Fun" fact... Tesla doesn't count fatalities in their accident stats!
Nor does it count accidents where there was no airbag deployment because as you point out, modern airbag systems use a wide variety of parameters, not just "if speed > x and collision = true; deploy".
So you can hit someone obliquely at 30mph, and due to factors, airbags don't deploy, and Tesla says "great, not an accident".
Or you can be in such a serious collision or similar where the airbags CAN'T deploy, and Tesla? "Not an accident".
Nor does it count accidents where there was no airbag deployment because as you point out, modern airbag systems use a wide variety of parameters, not just "if speed > x and collision = true; deploy".
So you can hit someone obliquely at 30mph, and due to factors, airbags don't deploy, and Tesla says "great, not an accident".
Or you can be in such a serious collision or similar where the airbags CAN'T deploy, and Tesla? "Not an accident".
Buried at the very end of the article:
> The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report.
> “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.
> The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report.
> “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.
I spend a lot of time driving around Irvine, CA and it feels like the Tesla (especially Model Y) capital of the world. And I am not at all surprised to see these sorts of fatality statistics about these vehicles because their drivers are, far and away, the most distracted and oblivious drivers I have ever encountered on the road in 28 years of driving.
On my monthly drive to the office this week I passed 7 accidents on the morning commute to Irvine. Every single accident involved a Tesla. One of the accidents even involved two Teslas: one crashed into the other, and based on what one of the drivers was yelling into his phone as I slowly inched passed them, both Teslas were using FSD.
On a more somber note, in one of the accidents an AP/FSD-driven Tesla crashed into a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist survived (or at least, the news did not report a fatality on the 405 that day), but there was a lot of blood on the road and the Tesla that crashed into him.
On a more somber note, in one of the accidents an AP/FSD-driven Tesla crashed into a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist survived (or at least, the news did not report a fatality on the 405 that day), but there was a lot of blood on the road and the Tesla that crashed into him.
I'd like to add my perspective here. I drove 50 miles to and from work every day for 5 years, around Stockholm, Sweden. 80 % highway traffic.
The only driving aid I use (rely on) on is ACC (Automatic Cruise Control), to keep my speed and distance (maximum) to the car in front of me. I almost always stay in the rightmost lane doing the speed limit.
Without a doubt Tesla drivers consistently stood out as the most "strange". Drivers of all brands can be stressed and drive too fast, but Tesla drivers were janky, couldn't stay in their lanes, and very often didn't keep a safe distance to the car in front of them.
Worst part, they didn't seem aware of their surroundings. They would merge in the most insane situations/positions or dangerously try to pass other drivers.
I don't know if they relied on their hardware to guide them, this autopilot thing, or whatever else they have, but it puckered me up good.
The only driving aid I use (rely on) on is ACC (Automatic Cruise Control), to keep my speed and distance (maximum) to the car in front of me. I almost always stay in the rightmost lane doing the speed limit.
Without a doubt Tesla drivers consistently stood out as the most "strange". Drivers of all brands can be stressed and drive too fast, but Tesla drivers were janky, couldn't stay in their lanes, and very often didn't keep a safe distance to the car in front of them.
Worst part, they didn't seem aware of their surroundings. They would merge in the most insane situations/positions or dangerously try to pass other drivers.
I don't know if they relied on their hardware to guide them, this autopilot thing, or whatever else they have, but it puckered me up good.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report.
> Tesla vehicles have a fatal crash rate of 5.6 per billion miles driven, according to the study;
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,”
What is the nature of those miles driven by each brand? I've got to imagine that pure-EV companies like Tesla are predominantly driven in urban/city driving (shorter daily distances, more traffic, etc). In contrast to ICE cars which can rack up lots of miles on long trips.
1 billion Tesla miles I suspect looks different than 1 billion Ford miles.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,”
What is the nature of those miles driven by each brand? I've got to imagine that pure-EV companies like Tesla are predominantly driven in urban/city driving (shorter daily distances, more traffic, etc). In contrast to ICE cars which can rack up lots of miles on long trips.
1 billion Tesla miles I suspect looks different than 1 billion Ford miles.
> In 2022, the rate of crash deaths per 100 million miles traveled was much higher in rural areas than in urban areas (1.68 in rural areas compared with 1.15 in urban areas). From 1977 to 2022, the rates decreased by 61% in rural areas (from 4.35 to 1.68) and 51% in urban areas (from 2.35 to 1.15).
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...
The ranking is still strange to me though. The model S is lower than the model Y even though it is smaller and faster, both of which should make it less safe, and the model 3 didn't even make the list.
As expected – It’s not a vehicle design issue. It’s the driver behaviour and driving conditions.
–––
“Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue” [1]
“The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.” [1]
- Karl Brauer, iSeeCars Executive Analyst
[1] The 23 Most Dangerous Cars On The Road
https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
–––
“Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue” [1]
“The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.” [1]
- Karl Brauer, iSeeCars Executive Analyst
[1] The 23 Most Dangerous Cars On The Road
https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
> The study was conducted on model year 2018–2022 vehicles, and focused on crashes between 2017 and 2022 that resulted in occupant fatalities.
Teslas can go fast real fast, so naively this is the result I would expect given how they have filtered the data. In other words, unless they controlled for this, this would be biased by natural selection playing out.
Having said that, as someone who had a couple of close calls with the autopilot. I would love to know what percent of those crashes was with autopilot enabled.
Teslas can go fast real fast, so naively this is the result I would expect given how they have filtered the data. In other words, unless they controlled for this, this would be biased by natural selection playing out.
Having said that, as someone who had a couple of close calls with the autopilot. I would love to know what percent of those crashes was with autopilot enabled.
> Teslas can go fast real fast, so naively this is the result I would expect given how they have filtered the data. In other words, unless they controlled for this…
Explain to me why you would want to filter out fatalities caused by going “real fast”?
Explain to me why you would want to filter out fatalities caused by going “real fast”?
If a bunch of lunatics buy the car because it is fast, and kill themselves, that doesn't necessarily affect my safety in the car if I'm buying it for some other feature and don't intend to drive it dangerously.
I think gathering the data to judge who's a lunatic is quite hard and fragile. Finding proxies like past infractions record would be already hard enough to compile at scale, I can't really derive a passable methodology that could tell you what you're asking for.
At least the data informs others that perhaps it's good to be cautious around Teslas, not very much if it's a safe purchase, and they state that it's a safe car so I don't see the hangup you had about it on position of a buyer.
At least the data informs others that perhaps it's good to be cautious around Teslas, not very much if it's a safe purchase, and they state that it's a safe car so I don't see the hangup you had about it on position of a buyer.
Because comparing the fatality rate of a Corolla going 50mph and a Tesla going 90mph is useless to a person who wants a car that is safe when driven responsibly.
Unless the Tesla induces unsafe behavior, of course. Does the car make it easier to break the speed limit, drive distracted, or drive under the influence? I don’t know.
Quite literally selling points
It seems fair to say that it's difficult to control for variation due to the drivers being different. But I don't think giving faster cars a better rating is a good way to control for that. Faster seems more dangerous for other reasons.
[deleted]
Corollas can easily go 90mph, so can a Prius, so can a dodge neon.
Even eco-shitboxes in the US have 160 hp. Sure, they get 0-60 times of 10 seconds, but I don't think there's been a car model in the US that cannot reach 100mph in decades
Even eco-shitboxes in the US have 160 hp. Sure, they get 0-60 times of 10 seconds, but I don't think there's been a car model in the US that cannot reach 100mph in decades
> In other words, unless they controlled for this, this would be biased by natural selection playing out.
Why should they control for it? It’s a natural consequence of Tesla’s design choices, not a total coincidence that Tesla had no control over.
Why should they control for it? It’s a natural consequence of Tesla’s design choices, not a total coincidence that Tesla had no control over.
Misleading/clickbait “journalism”:
* The FARS data is “normalized” by unpublished internal iSeeCars estimates of miles driven; the underlying “study” is a marketing blog post for their company.
* FARS data distinguishes between driver and occupant fatalities - the “study” looks only at occupant fatalities, which is not what most people would reasonably expect given the headline.
* One might reasonably suspect Tesla’s long history of touting 5-star safety ratings and advanced safety tech could lead to passengers being lulled into a false sense of security, and being less likely to use seatbelts.
Driver fatalities and seatbelt use are right there in the FARS data - one wonders why these weren’t considered and incorporated in the “study”.
Anyhow, a note to the HN user: don’t upvote FUD-sowing headlines based on blog posts about unscientific “studies” that are really just submarine PR; they carry none of the credibility of the underlying studies, and are a disservice to the scientists and public servants who rigorously and faithfully collect and analyze this data.
HN used to be better than this…
* The FARS data is “normalized” by unpublished internal iSeeCars estimates of miles driven; the underlying “study” is a marketing blog post for their company.
* FARS data distinguishes between driver and occupant fatalities - the “study” looks only at occupant fatalities, which is not what most people would reasonably expect given the headline.
* One might reasonably suspect Tesla’s long history of touting 5-star safety ratings and advanced safety tech could lead to passengers being lulled into a false sense of security, and being less likely to use seatbelts.
Driver fatalities and seatbelt use are right there in the FARS data - one wonders why these weren’t considered and incorporated in the “study”.
Anyhow, a note to the HN user: don’t upvote FUD-sowing headlines based on blog posts about unscientific “studies” that are really just submarine PR; they carry none of the credibility of the underlying studies, and are a disservice to the scientists and public servants who rigorously and faithfully collect and analyze this data.
HN used to be better than this…
Per page 234 of FARS, drivers are classified as occupants https://www.ire.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/USERGUIDE-201...
I wonder how much of this is because (IME anyway) Tesla drivers are not very good. With all that tech it's easy to get distracted (there's literally a giant tablet looking thing for a console). It's also easy to think all the bells and whistles will do things for you so drivers are paying less attention because the car will beep and holler at them if things are going awry (except by that point it's too late).
There's a saying: BMWs are for folks that like to drive, Teslas are for folks that hate to drive.
My own add-on is: Toyotas are for folks that have to drive.
My own add-on is: Toyotas are for folks that have to drive.
You can add more parameters.
Whats the temperament of the driver. Certain brands attract hot heads who will drive recklessly. I was kind of expecting more sports cars in the top 5. 2/5 is still a good score.
Given the amount of SUVs as well, no matter how safe you make a small car, if an SUV rams you, it is just not going to end well for the smaller.
Whats the temperament of the driver. Certain brands attract hot heads who will drive recklessly. I was kind of expecting more sports cars in the top 5. 2/5 is still a good score.
Given the amount of SUVs as well, no matter how safe you make a small car, if an SUV rams you, it is just not going to end well for the smaller.
Tesla drivers are young men with big wallets, stereotypically. That demographic is not known for their carefulness in traffic, or in any other matter. I'm sure that simple confounding factor is enough to explain the excessive fatality rate of Tesla cars.
Tesla drivers demographic was that maybe in 2015. Today, it's the California camry.
And the same boring colors, year after year
I wonder what percentage are autopilot driving into things?
I would also like to know this. How many fatal crashes happened where autopilot was engaged in the 30 seconds prior to a fatal accident?
By definition, if the autopilot has disengaged it’s a more dangerous situation, so it is fair to place the blame on it. A relief pitcher doesn’t get charged with earned runs he inherits.
By definition, if the autopilot has disengaged it’s a more dangerous situation, so it is fair to place the blame on it. A relief pitcher doesn’t get charged with earned runs he inherits.
Very low.
Technically the driver drove into those things, since autopilot disengaged .4 seconds before impact.
Autopilot was just there to ensure the trip to that last .4 seconds wasn't too draining.
Technically the driver drove into those things, since autopilot disengaged .4 seconds before impact.
Autopilot was just there to ensure the trip to that last .4 seconds wasn't too draining.
Most commenters here focus on how fast and heavy Teslas are, while for me the overwhelmingly most likely explanation is Tesla's long-promised and still half-baked autopilot - either by directly getting drivers into sticky situations or just training them not to pay due attention to the road. Except for this one factor, Teslas ought to be better than average due to premium segment, modern construction techniques and a full array of active safety gear.
What is the Horsepower equivalent of the Tesla power trains? Is this just because they are the new luxury sportscar and many of these drivers haven't been trough major car repairs, ever? The zero to sixty of even a basic Tesla is very quick and even with strong breaking other physical limits with turning and maneuvering can arise if some one is zooming around weaving in traffic. These stats need to be studied by age and other demographics like age, income and alcohol consumption.
It’s not just the horsepower, a big thing is the torque. There is so much and it’s available basically from zero. So even if you can compare it to a combustion engine with the same amount of horsepower it may take off the line a lot faster.
How common are the vehicles on the top of the list?
I assume there are not too many Porsche 911 on the roads, so a couple of bad drivers could make an impact on this score
I assume there are not too many Porsche 911 on the roads, so a couple of bad drivers could make an impact on this score
How can any reasonable person know if any story about Tesla (good or bad) is actually factual and useful, or is just a story told from a particular angle to manipulate the stock price for gain?
While many says it's the ultimate meme stock, I also can't help thinking it's the ultimate manipulation stock - it seems some people desperately want it to go down while others desperately want it to go up.
While many says it's the ultimate meme stock, I also can't help thinking it's the ultimate manipulation stock - it seems some people desperately want it to go down while others desperately want it to go up.
> analyzed data from the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Maybe not for the "reasonable person" but government data is available and if you are here you likely know some statistics, so go nuts:
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
and
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...
Maybe not for the "reasonable person" but government data is available and if you are here you likely know some statistics, so go nuts:
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
and
https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...
Follow the link to the underlying study https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
While the linked article is playing up the tesla angle (and so may be thought to be manipulative) the underlying study does not seem to be unusually focused on tesla, it's simply listing the results of a fairly straightforward analysis. I also have no reason to doubt it as I more or less expected tesla to have bad fatality rates compared to class (although I guess I wouldn't have expected them to be quite this bad - I thought they'd be bad compared to other luxury vehicles of similar weight size and price, not absolutely bad compared to most cars).
But you can find the underlying numbers and critique them if you have reason to think they might be wrong. E.g. if you believed the claims that autopilot was safer than human drivers and was saving lives, you might have expected to see a sign of that in this data (I didn't).
While the linked article is playing up the tesla angle (and so may be thought to be manipulative) the underlying study does not seem to be unusually focused on tesla, it's simply listing the results of a fairly straightforward analysis. I also have no reason to doubt it as I more or less expected tesla to have bad fatality rates compared to class (although I guess I wouldn't have expected them to be quite this bad - I thought they'd be bad compared to other luxury vehicles of similar weight size and price, not absolutely bad compared to most cars).
But you can find the underlying numbers and critique them if you have reason to think they might be wrong. E.g. if you believed the claims that autopilot was safer than human drivers and was saving lives, you might have expected to see a sign of that in this data (I didn't).
>How can any reasonable person know if any story about Tesla (good or bad) is actually factual and useful, or is just a story told from a particular angle to manipulate the stock price for gain?
This is a data-based story. Follow the link(s) to review the data if one is unsure whether or not the reporting piece can be trusted.
This is a data-based story. Follow the link(s) to review the data if one is unsure whether or not the reporting piece can be trusted.
I've had one since 2015 and so many issues. When I share them on Reddit I'm downvoted into oblivion for going against the cult
It's gotten better in the last few years, now that millions of people share the issues, it's harder to drown them out
Doesn't seem to matter whatsoever for their stock, so that doesn't seems to be too relevant
It's gotten better in the last few years, now that millions of people share the issues, it's harder to drown them out
Doesn't seem to matter whatsoever for their stock, so that doesn't seems to be too relevant
Some context for others - 2015 is fairly early in Tesla's history. The model 3 didn't even exist until 2017. The overwhelming majority of Teslas on the road today are Y's and 3's.
FWIW, I've personally owned three Teslas with zero problems, but none older than 2019. YMMV.
FWIW, I've personally owned three Teslas with zero problems, but none older than 2019. YMMV.
Early or not, it sure stings when you get hit with a $15k battery replacement cost -- for a refurbished pack! -- literally the day after the warranty dies. And that's only because my parents hadn't driven for a week. All because of an a corroded interior wire they refused to repair? Yet they had refurbished packs to sell.. at $15k.....
I also have a 2017 and 2023. It's a little early to declare success if your oldest car is 5yo
I also have a 2017 and 2023. It's a little early to declare success if your oldest car is 5yo
Tesla is a memestock. There's no reason it should be as high as it is; the fundamentals aren't that great and Musk is a danger to the company whether he's in or out of government.
The list of deadliest cars is a mixture of compact cars and sports cars. Compact cars are less safe because they get obliterated in collisions with bigger vehicles. Sports cars are unsafe because drivers tend to drive them at high speeds and attempt dangerous cornering maneuvers, eg driving the Pacific Coastal Highway at high speeds.
Teslas are faster than many sports cars, but in the case of the Model Y and Model X lack the preferred low profile of a true sports car. In the case of the Model S, the acceleration is so great that it is frankly surprising it doesn’t rank higher. I wonder how many new Model S owners have gotten themselves killed within a few days of owning the car?
I myself purchased a Model 3 last year and drove it quite foolishly for the first few months I had it. The acceleration was so amazing to me coming from a Honda Accord that it was hard to resist the temptation to weave and corner like a mad man. Model S would have been even worse. The Model S also has a long body like a full size sedan, not ideal for sports performance either, compared to the Model 3’s short length, more comparable to a Corrola or Toyota BRZ.
So I suspect that speculations about “Tesla drivers being morons” and “distracted by the screen” (almost all new cars have shiny screens!) are nonsense.
Another frequent remark is that Teslas’ high weight is a disadvantage. This is not as straightforward as they assume, because weight actually has benefits for traction. Light cars are much more likely to lose grip and slide around. On the other hand, a heavy car with worn out tires or brakes is much more difficult to stop than a light car with worn out tires or brakes. So weight is probably a wash.
But I do agree with some commenters that the autonomous features, and particular misuse of those features, are probably a contributor to these statistics as well. If you’re new to them you assume they are safer than they really are. With more experience you realize you still need to be watching the road the whole time.
Teslas are faster than many sports cars, but in the case of the Model Y and Model X lack the preferred low profile of a true sports car. In the case of the Model S, the acceleration is so great that it is frankly surprising it doesn’t rank higher. I wonder how many new Model S owners have gotten themselves killed within a few days of owning the car?
I myself purchased a Model 3 last year and drove it quite foolishly for the first few months I had it. The acceleration was so amazing to me coming from a Honda Accord that it was hard to resist the temptation to weave and corner like a mad man. Model S would have been even worse. The Model S also has a long body like a full size sedan, not ideal for sports performance either, compared to the Model 3’s short length, more comparable to a Corrola or Toyota BRZ.
So I suspect that speculations about “Tesla drivers being morons” and “distracted by the screen” (almost all new cars have shiny screens!) are nonsense.
Another frequent remark is that Teslas’ high weight is a disadvantage. This is not as straightforward as they assume, because weight actually has benefits for traction. Light cars are much more likely to lose grip and slide around. On the other hand, a heavy car with worn out tires or brakes is much more difficult to stop than a light car with worn out tires or brakes. So weight is probably a wash.
But I do agree with some commenters that the autonomous features, and particular misuse of those features, are probably a contributor to these statistics as well. If you’re new to them you assume they are safer than they really are. With more experience you realize you still need to be watching the road the whole time.
Not true at all - cars with more weight theoretically have a little more traction but also way more momentum.
Also your model 3 is much more comparable in weight to a normal car so it handles of course much better
Also your model 3 is much more comparable in weight to a normal car so it handles of course much better
> “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,”
I’m assuming the driver behavior also includes relying on the half baked auto pilot/FSD features.
I’m assuming the driver behavior also includes relying on the half baked auto pilot/FSD features.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior
So people who drive Tesla are arse, got it.
So people who drive Tesla are arse, got it.
Many people underestimate how fast an e car can accelerate... Would like to know how many accelerated to their death, cause it's their first e car...
I wish this would break down driver and passenger deaths in the tesla vs outside the tesla.
if other people are more likely to hit a tesla or are tesla drivers usually at fault?
if other people are more likely to hit a tesla or are tesla drivers usually at fault?
I wonder how this breaks down by region. I imagine a heavy car is probably bad in the snow.
Teslas sell quite well in Norway and are driven in the snow while Norway has one of the safest traffic in Western societies.
I’m really confused. A major reason I bought one was because I heard they were so safe.
I think they probably are when not using "autopilot" as others are commenting, this isn't cause. It's likely that the brand attracts a kind of driver that likes to speed or that wants to over rely on assisted driving tech that isn't there yet.
That said, I suspect they're regressing, like how they removed ultrasonic sensors which are a dime a dozen to only rely on computer vision. That's just plain stupid, IMHO.
For the money, I think you can do much better than a Tesla in many regards, but I'm not about to shame you for reading marketing and believing it either, especially if it was pre the current Musk hell and the general knowledge that he's essentially a fraudster given the perpetual 1 year away for autopilot and what not.
That said, I suspect they're regressing, like how they removed ultrasonic sensors which are a dime a dozen to only rely on computer vision. That's just plain stupid, IMHO.
For the money, I think you can do much better than a Tesla in many regards, but I'm not about to shame you for reading marketing and believing it either, especially if it was pre the current Musk hell and the general knowledge that he's essentially a fraudster given the perpetual 1 year away for autopilot and what not.
If you read the end of the article they basically say that Teslas are safe.
It really appears to be an issue of average Tesla driver behavior compared to overall average driver behavior.
It really appears to be an issue of average Tesla driver behavior compared to overall average driver behavior.
Have the demographics of typical Tesla driver changed in last 5-10 years? I think it was at first wealthy environmentalists, but it shifted to be a new Yuppie mobile, and most recently probably skews to a young male crowd?
I would be interested in:
* having the ratio of fatalities organised by sized and power of cars. My understanding is that Teslas have a bit more horsepower than other cars, so maybe an apple-to-apple comparison needs to compare them to a slighly smaller share of the overal pool
* having the ratio of fatalities involving the so called "autopilot" feature. I'm not necessarily going to blame Tesla for making fast cars that reckless people use to get into accidents when running too fast.
However, if it's your average joe getting an accident because of a software glitch in the driving assistance system, because they assumed something called "autopilot" was able, to, you know, pilot on its own...
* having the ratio of fatalities organised by sized and power of cars. My understanding is that Teslas have a bit more horsepower than other cars, so maybe an apple-to-apple comparison needs to compare them to a slighly smaller share of the overal pool
* having the ratio of fatalities involving the so called "autopilot" feature. I'm not necessarily going to blame Tesla for making fast cars that reckless people use to get into accidents when running too fast.
However, if it's your average joe getting an accident because of a software glitch in the driving assistance system, because they assumed something called "autopilot" was able, to, you know, pilot on its own...
I paid $10K for FSD when I was drinking the Kool Aid but haven't used it in over a year due to it being a steaming pile of garbage. But hey, it's a great party gag and the stock price is still soaring so keep the pedal to the metal and take us all to RICH town Elon! What could possibly go wron...
In any lineup by height someone is tallest and someone is shortest, so what's significant about Tesla in this spread? If not them then another.
A significant aspect is that Telsa, as a harbinger of "progress", by this measure is making cars less safe. That's a surprising development as it's contrary to the promises and prognostications for the devices.
It's expected that the distribution of harm from cars would change with increasing automation, but the promise of the automation is to make the devices safer overall. So is this a key metric by which we find that the progress is actually a hazard, or is the changing distribution part of an overall trend of improvement with some hazardous edge cases?
All we have with this article is yet another headline with no useful information.
> “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
What does "focused and alert" mean for a robot? Does arriving safely allow a wake of carnage?
The Trump administration figures as a harbinger for such questions in that he is a well-known champion of disinformation in favor of his self interest, as are all of his cabinet picks and advisors. But this is in keeping with the modern history of the GOP.
A significant aspect is that Telsa, as a harbinger of "progress", by this measure is making cars less safe. That's a surprising development as it's contrary to the promises and prognostications for the devices.
It's expected that the distribution of harm from cars would change with increasing automation, but the promise of the automation is to make the devices safer overall. So is this a key metric by which we find that the progress is actually a hazard, or is the changing distribution part of an overall trend of improvement with some hazardous edge cases?
All we have with this article is yet another headline with no useful information.
> “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
What does "focused and alert" mean for a robot? Does arriving safely allow a wake of carnage?
The Trump administration figures as a harbinger for such questions in that he is a well-known champion of disinformation in favor of his self interest, as are all of his cabinet picks and advisors. But this is in keeping with the modern history of the GOP.
danslacker(1)
shadowtree(3)
> Karl Brauer said in the report. “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
... implication being that Tesla drivers are more likely to be driving like pricks and/or under the influence?
I wonder what the rates are like for specific models from other brands that are associated with morons. G-wagons, M3s etc etc
... implication being that Tesla drivers are more likely to be driving like pricks and/or under the influence?
I wonder what the rates are like for specific models from other brands that are associated with morons. G-wagons, M3s etc etc
> ... implication being that Tesla drivers are more likely to be driving like pricks and/or under the influence?
Or perhaps the large amount of power available instantly makes it easier to get into dangerous situations than an equivalent to combustion engine car. And as the largest EV brand with the most data available… they really stand out.
Or perhaps the large amount of power available instantly makes it easier to get into dangerous situations than an equivalent to combustion engine car. And as the largest EV brand with the most data available… they really stand out.
Or it's the drivers are not "focused, alert", because of the auto-pilot.
Or that its very difficult to be alert when using Teslas FSD?
Seems flawed. Tesla Model Y was the best selling model worldwide for 2023. (I think #3 if limited to US.) The study only covers 2017-2022, but we can infer that for the entire Brand, Teslas sold quite well over at least that latter part of that period.
Now if there are more Teslas on the road vs other vehicles (note they excluded car model years earlier than 2017, another fatal (heh) flaw in the study), it makes sense they would have more fatalities.
So this should be normalized "per capita" to vehicle counts if we want to extract any brand-related causality, in the same way as the data is already normalized to miles driven.
I enjoy hating on Tesla as much as the next person, but come on.
Now if there are more Teslas on the road vs other vehicles (note they excluded car model years earlier than 2017, another fatal (heh) flaw in the study), it makes sense they would have more fatalities.
So this should be normalized "per capita" to vehicle counts if we want to extract any brand-related causality, in the same way as the data is already normalized to miles driven.
I enjoy hating on Tesla as much as the next person, but come on.
If you had clicked through to the article before writing your comment, you would know that the stat being compared is "fatal crash rate per billion miles driven", and that the fatal crash rate for Teslas is 2.0x the national average
If you had read my comment before replying, you would know that I recognized and even stipulated that the report was already normalized to miles driven.
I am suggesting that per mile driven and per vehicle brand on the road are not the same thing. Now that I think about it, miles driven per brand would be an interesting data point.
Just as an example of why per-brand might be useful, let's imagine that teslas are driven half the miles of the average for all other brands. so if that were the case and if the number of fatalities were equal, then that would result in tesla having 2x the fatality rate per mile. but at the same time, this doesn't let us appreciate the amount of time tesla spends on the road vs other brands. so miles might be half but time spent might be closer to 1 (equal time). and maybe that is because teslas are concentrated in urban-suburban interface environments in high congestion areas, whereas other brands are spread out across the country where for the same amount of time spent, twice as many miles are covered and congestion is less.
Data like that is needed to properly evaluate this result. And while I asked for per-vehicle-on-the-road, and my example didn't match that, you can still see how the simple per-mile-driven is insufficient.
They also could have noted the demographics of the drivers -- male/female and years of driving experience, things like that.
So again, I find the implications of this article to be very unfair.
I am suggesting that per mile driven and per vehicle brand on the road are not the same thing. Now that I think about it, miles driven per brand would be an interesting data point.
Just as an example of why per-brand might be useful, let's imagine that teslas are driven half the miles of the average for all other brands. so if that were the case and if the number of fatalities were equal, then that would result in tesla having 2x the fatality rate per mile. but at the same time, this doesn't let us appreciate the amount of time tesla spends on the road vs other brands. so miles might be half but time spent might be closer to 1 (equal time). and maybe that is because teslas are concentrated in urban-suburban interface environments in high congestion areas, whereas other brands are spread out across the country where for the same amount of time spent, twice as many miles are covered and congestion is less.
Data like that is needed to properly evaluate this result. And while I asked for per-vehicle-on-the-road, and my example didn't match that, you can still see how the simple per-mile-driven is insufficient.
They also could have noted the demographics of the drivers -- male/female and years of driving experience, things like that.
So again, I find the implications of this article to be very unfair.
It’s on a “per billion miles driven” basis so it is normalized.
Something something Lex Fridman something.
Let's put that guy in charge of government efficiency, what's the worst that could happen
(Like, say, maximizing driver distraction by consolidating a bunch of essential controls and information displays into a touchscreen display that's really difficult to operate when it's sunny outside. Just to pick something at random, of course.)
Somewhat related, I was recently shopping for refrigerators, and fell down a data rabbit hole. If you just look at the overall style of fridge, French doors look like a terrible option from a reliability perspective. But then, digging in a bit more, it turns out that's kind of a spurious correlation. Actually it's the presence of bells and whistles like through-door ice dispensers that kill a refrigerator's reliability. And then perhaps on top of that the amount of extra Rube Goldberg machine you need to make a chest height ice dispenser work in a bottom-freezer French door refrigerator creates even more moving parts to break. But a those problems don't apply to a model that doesn't have that feature.