3 ms·

They found clear Tesla fatalities that were missing from the published data, apparently a significant number of them due to miscategorization. Now maybe all th

by 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.

3 ms·

They found clear Tesla fatalities that were missing from the published data, apparently a significant number of them due to miscategorization. Now maybe all th

by dahdum 8y ago

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.