4 ms·

Yep, Timely FUD...

Fricken 2y ago
We don't make statistical exemptions for vehicle fatalities just because the driver failed in a way we don't like. Drunk driving fatalities count too. If a 3 year old hit the accelerator and goes straight into a brick wall, that counts. They all count.
- murderfs 2y ago
  From the Department of Transportation's statistics on aviation fatalities at https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/transportation_safety/figure_01 https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/tran...: "NOTES: 2001 figures exclude two events—the September 11th Attacks and the Flight 587 crash." (which is especially weird, because the flight 587 crash was pilot error)
- normalaccess 2y ago
  The guy who killed himself outside of the Trump tower lit the fire himself. It was not a failure of the truck. In-fact the truck protected people by venting the explosion up and containing the blast. It's as wrong as counting gunshot victims as dying of COVID Lighting a truck on fire is fundamentally different than a truck starting on fire. The fact that they are willing to count that shows me they are disingenuous. Link for the COVID reference: https://www.freedomfoundation.com/washington/washington-health-officials-gunshot-victims-counted-as-covid-19-deaths/ https://www.freedomfoundation.com/washington/washington-heal...
- fragmede 2y ago
  If that 3 year old shot himself with a gun inside the truck, which has nothing to do with the vehicle he was in, does it still count? We can, and especially in this small sample size, we can exclude it if we want to. The question is if a cybertruck is a dangerous vehicle, not can I have mental illness and shoot myself inside of my vehicle, which happens to be a cybertruck. That danger is present for any vehicle, there's nothing particular about the design of the cybertruck that helps or hinders self-inflicted gunshot wound, unlike a gas tank at the back of the vehicle that causes fire when it gets into an accident.
  - Veserv 2y ago
    Of course you can. In accordance with proper science and research they made their methodology and used dataset clear and transparent allowing you to run your own analysis. Compensating for dataset bias in your preferred manner, we get 4 fire fatalities over 34,438 vehicles giving a Cybertruck fire fatality rate of ~11.6 per 100,000 units in comparison to a Ford Pinto fire fatality rate of ~0.85 per 100,000 units; ~13.6x the fatal fire rate of the Ford Pinto. Even counting mere incidents we get 2 over 34,438 vehicles which still results in a fire fatality rate of ~5.8 per 100,000 units; ~6.8x the fatal fire rate of the Ford Pinto. Of course, this is all actually a massive underestimate as can be seen from my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43039925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43039925 Where the comparable analysis on vehicle-years, a much better comparable, actually places the fatal fire rate at ~43.5x if we discount the suicide and ~21.7x if we only count incidents. And in comparison to current vehicles would be ~41.4x and ~20.7x, respectively.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      In accordance with proper science and research, we're gonna ignore the fact that we've got 35,000 data points and are extrapolating to 100,000? How about we say early results look really bad but we have to wait for more data before making any conclusions?
      - Veserv 2y ago
        Are you joking? It is a rate. It is cited in per 100,000 because that is the characteristic rate that results in low integer-scale values. Rates are scale-invariant so you could just as well cite it in per 1,000 if you desire, but then you get a fire fatality rate of 0.0085 per 1,000 for the Pinto which is a much more annoying number to understand and compare for regular people. Frankly, it would have been better to just cite the inverse of 1 fire fatality per ~8609.5 Cybertrucks (I already discounted the suicide) versus the 1 fire fatality per ~117,536 Pintos. Does that help you understand the usage and comparison of rates?
        2y ago
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  This is a ridiculous statement, and I'm fairly confident you don't know what you're talking about.
  - Fricken 2y ago
    Mentally unbalanced people tend to go for cybertrucks. It is relevant.

Yep, Timely FUD...

We don't make statistical exemptions for vehicle fatalities just because the driver failed in a way we don't like. Drunk driving fatalities count too. If a 3 year old hit the accelerator and goes straight into a brick wall, that counts. They all count.

murderfs 2y ago
From the Department of Transportation's statistics on aviation fatalities at https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/transportation_safety/figure_01 https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/tran...: "NOTES: 2001 figures exclude two events—the September 11th Attacks and the Flight 587 crash." (which is especially weird, because the flight 587 crash was pilot error)
normalaccess 2y ago
The guy who killed himself outside of the Trump tower lit the fire himself. It was not a failure of the truck. In-fact the truck protected people by venting the explosion up and containing the blast. It's as wrong as counting gunshot victims as dying of COVID Lighting a truck on fire is fundamentally different than a truck starting on fire. The fact that they are willing to count that shows me they are disingenuous. Link for the COVID reference: https://www.freedomfoundation.com/washington/washington-health-officials-gunshot-victims-counted-as-covid-19-deaths/ https://www.freedomfoundation.com/washington/washington-heal...
fragmede 2y ago
If that 3 year old shot himself with a gun inside the truck, which has nothing to do with the vehicle he was in, does it still count? We can, and especially in this small sample size, we can exclude it if we want to. The question is if a cybertruck is a dangerous vehicle, not can I have mental illness and shoot myself inside of my vehicle, which happens to be a cybertruck. That danger is present for any vehicle, there's nothing particular about the design of the cybertruck that helps or hinders self-inflicted gunshot wound, unlike a gas tank at the back of the vehicle that causes fire when it gets into an accident.
- Veserv 2y ago
  Of course you can. In accordance with proper science and research they made their methodology and used dataset clear and transparent allowing you to run your own analysis. Compensating for dataset bias in your preferred manner, we get 4 fire fatalities over 34,438 vehicles giving a Cybertruck fire fatality rate of ~11.6 per 100,000 units in comparison to a Ford Pinto fire fatality rate of ~0.85 per 100,000 units; ~13.6x the fatal fire rate of the Ford Pinto. Even counting mere incidents we get 2 over 34,438 vehicles which still results in a fire fatality rate of ~5.8 per 100,000 units; ~6.8x the fatal fire rate of the Ford Pinto. Of course, this is all actually a massive underestimate as can be seen from my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43039925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43039925 Where the comparable analysis on vehicle-years, a much better comparable, actually places the fatal fire rate at ~43.5x if we discount the suicide and ~21.7x if we only count incidents. And in comparison to current vehicles would be ~41.4x and ~20.7x, respectively.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    In accordance with proper science and research, we're gonna ignore the fact that we've got 35,000 data points and are extrapolating to 100,000? How about we say early results look really bad but we have to wait for more data before making any conclusions?
    - Veserv 2y ago
      Are you joking? It is a rate. It is cited in per 100,000 because that is the characteristic rate that results in low integer-scale values. Rates are scale-invariant so you could just as well cite it in per 1,000 if you desire, but then you get a fire fatality rate of 0.0085 per 1,000 for the Pinto which is a much more annoying number to understand and compare for regular people. Frankly, it would have been better to just cite the inverse of 1 fire fatality per ~8609.5 Cybertrucks (I already discounted the suicide) versus the 1 fire fatality per ~117,536 Pintos. Does that help you understand the usage and comparison of rates?
      - 2y ago
IncreasePosts 2y ago
This is a ridiculous statement, and I'm fairly confident you don't know what you're talking about.
- Fricken 2y ago
  Mentally unbalanced people tend to go for cybertrucks. It is relevant.