7 ms·

Tesla’s Driver Fatality Rate is more than Triple that of Luxury Cars

37 points by cs702 8y ago

dd36 8y ago
So much FUD.
- arbie 8y ago
  Why? Seems fairly rigorous, with vested interests clearly declared.
  - et2o 8y ago
    It's statistically illiterate on multiple levels
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Rigorous? lol. I'm usually slightly critical of tesla.. but this article is terrible. It's so long because the author needs to jump through too many hoops to end up where he wants to go. Audi A6 has 0 causalities? Cool. Tesla has 0 in one year? Extremely suspicious. Not enough Tesla accidents in the database? Include China. Should he include China for the other cars? Nah. This article is a joke.
    - dahdum 8y ago
      The firm is short Tesla, but I’d still like to see a data driven Tesla rebuttal before believing it’s all smoke and no fire.
      - rgbrenner 8y ago
        The data is in the article. They didn't like the conclusion, so then they included China, did a google search for tesla accidents, and made adjustments--only to tesla--until they got what they wanted. They aren't even comparing like with like... all of the conclusions are invalid. I don't think this article was written in good faith.
        dahdum 8y ago
        They found clear Tesla fatalities that were missing from the published data, apparently a significant number of them due to miscategorization. Now maybe all the brands have the same problem with missing data, but that would mean fatalities across the board are much higher than reported by the insurance agency funded research firm. That doesn’t seem as likely to me, but I do believe more research needs to be done.
        rgbrenner 8y ago
        And then they still didn't like the numbers for the US, so they included China--for tesla only. Do you know how much that changes the numbers? The US had 12.9 fatalities per 100k cars. China? 104.5 -- 8 times higher. Come on. This is a joke.
        dahdum 8y ago
        I'm only seeing 1 fatality from China, does that move the needle substantially in this analysis? > To have the largest sample size and best confidence intervals possible, we also included international accidents (three total, from Canada, Holland, and China). Given the higher incidence of fatal accidents per vehicle-year in China compared to the United States, and the lower incidence of fatal accidents in Holland and Canada, these three deaths should adjust to 3.63 deaths. However, for the sake of conservatism and to avoid a large debate about a rather small difference, we use 3.00 deaths in our analysis.
        ajross 8y ago
        > They found clear Tesla fatalities that were missing from the published data They looked for Tesla fatalities because they needed more to make the argument they wanted. You understand the distinction, right?
        dahdum 8y ago
        Yes, they are obviously biased and openly so, but they've raised what appear to be valid points that Tesla should answer. Elon made the claim publicly, and Tesla is no stranger to writing snatching rebuttals. As disclosure, I'm long TSLA, both index and individual shares.
exabrial 8y ago
Why do these keep getting submitted to hn? Ffs
et2o 8y ago
Is this really what passes for statistical analysis in the investment community? From a biomedical statistics background, this analysis so atrocious that I don't know where to start.
- sdrothrock 8y ago
  > From a biomedical statistics background, this analysis so atrocious that I don't know where to start. This sounds like a good basis of a line-by-line refutation or counterargument on Medium. :)
- wjnc 8y ago
  So please explain. It's quite a long story but with some good finds (data quality problems, obfuscated reporting, probability of much higher casualty rate). I wonder what your statistical rigour makes of this.
  - google_censors 8y ago
    Well, including data from China for only Tesla is a joke. That would be like saying "we couldn't find any deaths from Ebola in the United States, so we took the ones in Africa and added them in. Wow, look at how many deaths per year from Ebola occurred in the US compared to deaths from the plague in the US!". It makes absolutely no sense.
    - wjnc 8y ago
      Well it might be. They also include a casualty from NL at face value, while casualties are MUCH rarer here. I agree with the need for discounting of a Chinese casualty, but it's quite common practice to try to get more data points. That is good practice, not bad, and we only seem to disagree with the execution (is a China casualty 1 or .8?) In this case it wouldn't matter the base take-away much.
      - AstralStorm 8y ago
        You have to at least account for differences in base rate of accidents. The typical normalisation would take at least published accident total to synthesise data for the other cars. (By using sales numbers of cars.) What he did there is statistically unacceptable. The medical equivalent would be to compare side effect profile of current best of line treatment done in general populace to results to your new treatment's phase 1 trial results which is done in healthy people only. Then advertise that. Regardless, can we have the raw data please? Are the rates even meaningful when the incident counts are low? Vehicle years are not the right unit as this counts cars that are not being driven. Actual range driven is the right unit.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tzm 8y ago
Written by a L/S HF analyst with a current position on TSLA: "Following this publication, we intend to continue transacting in the securities covered herein [...]"
google_censors 8y ago
The author of this article claims to have received an award for at least one published medical study, and I think someone should take a serious look at it. If he thinks that this methodology is okay in a study, I can't imagine what would happen if someone used his medical study for anything but laughs.
cs702 8y ago
I submitted the OP, and am a bit surprised to see it flagged. The OP looks to me like a sincere attempt to analyze fatality data. Yes, the authors are short Tesla, but they disclose it. Yes, the analysis is naive, but that doesn't necessarily mean its conclusions are off. Yes, the inclusion of data from China is... questionable, but the authors address it upfront: "To have the largest sample size and best confidence intervals possible, we also included international accidents (three total, from Canada, Holland, and China). Given the higher incidence of fatal accidents per vehicle-year in China compared to the United States, and the lower incidence of fatal accidents in Holland and Canada, these three deaths should adjust to 3.63 deaths. However, for the sake of conservatism and to avoid a large debate about a rather small difference, we use 3.00 deaths in our analysis."
- dahdum 8y ago
  Doesn't deserve the flag IMO, Tesla is an emotional topic for many people. While there certainly have been hit pieces and hack journalism throughout the companies existence, I think this one has enough meat to be worth discussing. Like most investors, I'm long TSLA. Both index and individual shares.
  - cs702 8y ago
    Yes, exactly my thoughts. I would have liked to see the HN community rationally debate what to me looks like an earnest but naive analysis of fatality rates -- based on its merits or lack thereof. Instead, at least some in the HN community have resorted to ad hominem attacks ("Tesla short!") and flagging. For the record, I'm a huge fan of Musk and the company, but other than minimal long exposure through passive funds, I have no position in Tesla.
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  I must be stupid, but what does "Short Tesla" mean?
  - idrae 8y ago
    Means that they have short-selled Tesla stock. Simply put, they are betting on the Tesla share price to fall. Edit: Together with the highly dubious "statistical" analysis they did, this COULD suggest that the article is intended to create doubts about Tesla and thus drive the stock price down. However, this is of course speculation.

37 points by cs702 8y ago

dd36 8y ago

So much FUD.

arbie 8y ago
Why? Seems fairly rigorous, with vested interests clearly declared.
- et2o 8y ago
  It's statistically illiterate on multiple levels
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  Rigorous? lol. I'm usually slightly critical of tesla.. but this article is terrible. It's so long because the author needs to jump through too many hoops to end up where he wants to go. Audi A6 has 0 causalities? Cool. Tesla has 0 in one year? Extremely suspicious. Not enough Tesla accidents in the database? Include China. Should he include China for the other cars? Nah. This article is a joke.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    The firm is short Tesla, but I’d still like to see a data driven Tesla rebuttal before believing it’s all smoke and no fire.
    - rgbrenner 8y ago
      The data is in the article. They didn't like the conclusion, so then they included China, did a google search for tesla accidents, and made adjustments--only to tesla--until they got what they wanted. They aren't even comparing like with like... all of the conclusions are invalid. I don't think this article was written in good faith.
      - dahdum 8y ago
        They found clear Tesla fatalities that were missing from the published data, apparently a significant number of them due to miscategorization. Now maybe all the brands have the same problem with missing data, but that would mean fatalities across the board are much higher than reported by the insurance agency funded research firm. That doesn’t seem as likely to me, but I do believe more research needs to be done.
        rgbrenner 8y ago
        And then they still didn't like the numbers for the US, so they included China--for tesla only. Do you know how much that changes the numbers? The US had 12.9 fatalities per 100k cars. China? 104.5 -- 8 times higher. Come on. This is a joke.
        dahdum 8y ago
        I'm only seeing 1 fatality from China, does that move the needle substantially in this analysis? > To have the largest sample size and best confidence intervals possible, we also included international accidents (three total, from Canada, Holland, and China). Given the higher incidence of fatal accidents per vehicle-year in China compared to the United States, and the lower incidence of fatal accidents in Holland and Canada, these three deaths should adjust to 3.63 deaths. However, for the sake of conservatism and to avoid a large debate about a rather small difference, we use 3.00 deaths in our analysis.
        ajross 8y ago
        > They found clear Tesla fatalities that were missing from the published data They looked for Tesla fatalities because they needed more to make the argument they wanted. You understand the distinction, right?
        dahdum 8y ago
        Yes, they are obviously biased and openly so, but they've raised what appear to be valid points that Tesla should answer. Elon made the claim publicly, and Tesla is no stranger to writing snatching rebuttals. As disclosure, I'm long TSLA, both index and individual shares.

exabrial 8y ago

Why do these keep getting submitted to hn? Ffs

et2o 8y ago

Is this really what passes for statistical analysis in the investment community? From a biomedical statistics background, this analysis so atrocious that I don't know where to start.

sdrothrock 8y ago
> From a biomedical statistics background, this analysis so atrocious that I don't know where to start. This sounds like a good basis of a line-by-line refutation or counterargument on Medium. :)
wjnc 8y ago
So please explain. It's quite a long story but with some good finds (data quality problems, obfuscated reporting, probability of much higher casualty rate). I wonder what your statistical rigour makes of this.
- google_censors 8y ago
  Well, including data from China for only Tesla is a joke. That would be like saying "we couldn't find any deaths from Ebola in the United States, so we took the ones in Africa and added them in. Wow, look at how many deaths per year from Ebola occurred in the US compared to deaths from the plague in the US!". It makes absolutely no sense.
  - wjnc 8y ago
    Well it might be. They also include a casualty from NL at face value, while casualties are MUCH rarer here. I agree with the need for discounting of a Chinese casualty, but it's quite common practice to try to get more data points. That is good practice, not bad, and we only seem to disagree with the execution (is a China casualty 1 or .8?) In this case it wouldn't matter the base take-away much.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      You have to at least account for differences in base rate of accidents. The typical normalisation would take at least published accident total to synthesise data for the other cars. (By using sales numbers of cars.) What he did there is statistically unacceptable. The medical equivalent would be to compare side effect profile of current best of line treatment done in general populace to results to your new treatment's phase 1 trial results which is done in healthy people only. Then advertise that. Regardless, can we have the raw data please? Are the rates even meaningful when the incident counts are low? Vehicle years are not the right unit as this counts cars that are not being driven. Actual range driven is the right unit.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tzm 8y ago

Written by a L/S HF analyst with a current position on TSLA: "Following this publication, we intend to continue transacting in the securities covered herein [...]"

google_censors 8y ago

The author of this article claims to have received an award for at least one published medical study, and I think someone should take a serious look at it. If he thinks that this methodology is okay in a study, I can't imagine what would happen if someone used his medical study for anything but laughs.

cs702 8y ago

I submitted the OP, and am a bit surprised to see it flagged. The OP looks to me like a sincere attempt to analyze fatality data. Yes, the authors are short Tesla, but they disclose it. Yes, the analysis is naive, but that doesn't necessarily mean its conclusions are off. Yes, the inclusion of data from China is... questionable, but the authors address it upfront: "To have the largest sample size and best confidence intervals possible, we also included international accidents (three total, from Canada, Holland, and China). Given the higher incidence of fatal accidents per vehicle-year in China compared to the United States, and the lower incidence of fatal accidents in Holland and Canada, these three deaths should adjust to 3.63 deaths. However, for the sake of conservatism and to avoid a large debate about a rather small difference, we use 3.00 deaths in our analysis."

dahdum 8y ago
Doesn't deserve the flag IMO, Tesla is an emotional topic for many people. While there certainly have been hit pieces and hack journalism throughout the companies existence, I think this one has enough meat to be worth discussing. Like most investors, I'm long TSLA. Both index and individual shares.
- cs702 8y ago
  Yes, exactly my thoughts. I would have liked to see the HN community rationally debate what to me looks like an earnest but naive analysis of fatality rates -- based on its merits or lack thereof. Instead, at least some in the HN community have resorted to ad hominem attacks ("Tesla short!") and flagging. For the record, I'm a huge fan of Musk and the company, but other than minimal long exposure through passive funds, I have no position in Tesla.
philliphaydon 8y ago
I must be stupid, but what does "Short Tesla" mean?
- idrae 8y ago
  Means that they have short-selled Tesla stock. Simply put, they are betting on the Tesla share price to fall. Edit: Together with the highly dubious "statistical" analysis they did, this COULD suggest that the article is intended to create doubts about Tesla and thus drive the stock price down. However, this is of course speculation.