3 ms·

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.
      • dpkonofa 8y ago
        Yeah... even basic algebra requires that what you do to 1 side of the equation, you do for both and that definitely didn't happen here. There's no control at all in this analysis.