4 ms·

Hmm, guess what I just bought..... By itself this data isn't much use though, I suspect. For years Concorde was statistically incredibly safe, then one crash m

Hmm, guess what I just bought..... By itself this data isn't much use though, I suspect. For years Concorde was statistically incredibly safe, then one crash made it statistically incredibly dangerous, simply because there were only 14 flying in the first place - small datasets are rather prone to wild swings. Without knowing at least incidents per car sold, let alone incidents per passenger mile, it's not very useful. There's then the cause of incidents. Without wishing to cast undue aspersions on my fellow owners, I suspect it may be the sort of car more likely to be driven in a manner likely to put it at risk of serious accidents. It is, after all, about the fastest car for the money and almost certainly the fastest 2WD car for the money. I hope I drive relatively sensibly in it, I certainly try not to be an a##e just because I've got a fast car and am seriously considering advanced driver training. Do all owners though? Probably not, and I'm probably not being as good as I think I am either. Point is, none of that directly implies the car itself is dangerous, merely that it tends to be driven in a way that increases the risk of incidents. When did you last complain about some tearaway hooligan in a Toyota Yaris or Kia Rio?

whatchamacallum 15y ago
>By itself this data isn't much use though Yes! Data means nothing until it is explained. It cannot speak for itself; its only use lies in helping us select from competing explanations.
Natsu 15y ago
> By itself this data isn't much use though, I suspect. For years Concorde was statistically incredibly safe, then one crash made it statistically incredibly dangerous, simply because there were only 14 flying in the first place - small datasets are rather prone to wild swings. They don't have the metrics you mentioned, but all of those cars have at least 100k registered vehicles, as is stated in the third paragraph: "The study looked at vehicle models from 2005 to 2008 that had more than 100,000 registered vehicles and examined the driver death rate between 2006 and 2009."
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  Hmm, yes, I'm a twit - they did specifically say this is deaths per vehicle. Still not against per passenger mile or as deviance from the demographic norm for the driver which would be what we'd really need to find how dangerous the car inherently was, but still, this is better than I said.

whatchamacallum 15y ago

>By itself this data isn't much use though Yes! Data means nothing until it is explained. It cannot speak for itself; its only use lies in helping us select from competing explanations.

Natsu 15y ago

> By itself this data isn't much use though, I suspect. For years Concorde was statistically incredibly safe, then one crash made it statistically incredibly dangerous, simply because there were only 14 flying in the first place - small datasets are rather prone to wild swings. They don't have the metrics you mentioned, but all of those cars have at least 100k registered vehicles, as is stated in the third paragraph: "The study looked at vehicle models from 2005 to 2008 that had more than 100,000 registered vehicles and examined the driver death rate between 2006 and 2009."

eftpotrm 15y ago
Hmm, yes, I'm a twit - they did specifically say this is deaths per vehicle. Still not against per passenger mile or as deviance from the demographic norm for the driver which would be what we'd really need to find how dangerous the car inherently was, but still, this is better than I said.