3 ms·
“Accident rates per 1000 drivers” is not a particularly meaningful metric, though. If you look at the per-state breakdown, or the incident rates, the states wit
by zamfi 3y ago
“Accident rates per 1000 drivers” is not a particularly meaningful metric, though. If you look at the per-state breakdown, or the incident rates, the states with the most Teslas (CA, e.g.) don’t have Tesla in first place.
More interesting would be accidents per million miles (a standard metric here) and similar. These are less biased by “who owns what kind of car” and include “who drives a bunch with them”. But of course there are many reasons to want one metric over another, and none is perfect.
- HarryHirsch 3y agoAccidents per driver is the only metric that matters, because the one tells you how risky a certain class of drivers is. Accidents per passenger mile is not even meaningful, because you do not decrease the risk by by making more miles.
- zamfi 3y agoAh, except it does not tell you that. Consider this extreme example: if Honda drivers on average drive 200 miles a week and 10% of them get into an accident each year, while Lamborghini drivers on average only take their cars out for a single 10-mile spin once a year but also 10% of them get into an accident each year, it would a poor conclusion to say that these are equivalently risky driver classes. > Accidents per passenger mile is not even meaningful, because you do not decrease the risk by by making more miles. Er, right, it is meaningful because you obviously increase the risk by driving more miles. Very easy to own a car and have 0 accident risk: never drive it.