4 ms·

So where are the data for gasoline car fires on public highways? You're accusing someone of not being supported by their data, and offering absolutely no data i

So where are the data for gasoline car fires on public highways? You're accusing someone of not being supported by their data, and offering absolutely no data in counterpoint.

001sky 13y ago
see, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541
- gjm11 13y ago
  You have pointed to another HN comment in which you make assertions about car fires without providing any actual evidence. I've had a look and entirely failed to find any evidence supporting your claim that 80% of car fires occur while the car is not being driven on roads. It does appear that most car fires are not the result of crashes or collisions. I don't see that that's relevant. If I were deciding between two cars on the basis of fire risk, the question I'd care about is "how likely is this car to catch fire and injure me?", not "how likely is this car to catch fire and injure me as a result of a collision?". What does look fishy to me about Musk's argument here is that most vehicle fires seem to be the result of mechanical or electrical faults, which become more likely with age as things wear out and break and corrode. All Tesla cars currently on the roads are rather new, so comparing them against the population of cars at large could be quite misleading. [EDITED to add: aha, following a longer chain of links from your earlier comment I found some statistics. The terms used in the NFPA report in question are ambiguous, but what's clear is that the statistics you yourself cited plainly refute your 80% figure. Here are the figures: 22% "residential street, road, or residential driveway"; 18% "vehicle parking area"; 17% "highway or divided highway"; 8% "unclassified street"; 6% "street or road in commercial area"; 5% "mercantile or office"; 4% "open land, beach or campsite". So, at a bare minimum, the lowest fraction of fires that could be on roads would be 17% + 8% +% 6% = 31%, and that assumes that none of the "residential street, road, or residential highway" and "mercantile or office" figures are for cars being driven on the road -- which seems monstrously improbable.]
  - 001sky 13y ago
    The data comes from Figure 1 of the Report that Tesla cited in October. I provided the above merely as an example of another way to read the report, but feel free to do your own analysis. Clearly, Telsa fires were 100% on public highways (by any definition). To which the report reads: Where do automobile fires occur? Roughly three-quarters (71%) of automobile fires and associated deaths (76%) occurred on highways, streets or parking areas. While only 17% of the fires occurred on highways or divided highways... So, taken strictly the analyis seems apples to apples. In any event there is clearly some adjustment that needs to occur rather than a blind-usage, IMHO. Whether the haircut is 33% at a minimum or a higher amount. [PS I prvly addressed the :Edit: points in another comment below> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6760562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6760562]

So where are the data for gasoline car fires on public highways? You're accusing someone of not being supported by their data, and offering absolutely no data in counterpoint.

001sky 13y ago

see, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691541

gjm11 13y ago
You have pointed to another HN comment in which you make assertions about car fires without providing any actual evidence. I've had a look and entirely failed to find any evidence supporting your claim that 80% of car fires occur while the car is not being driven on roads. It does appear that most car fires are not the result of crashes or collisions. I don't see that that's relevant. If I were deciding between two cars on the basis of fire risk, the question I'd care about is "how likely is this car to catch fire and injure me?", not "how likely is this car to catch fire and injure me as a result of a collision?". What does look fishy to me about Musk's argument here is that most vehicle fires seem to be the result of mechanical or electrical faults, which become more likely with age as things wear out and break and corrode. All Tesla cars currently on the roads are rather new, so comparing them against the population of cars at large could be quite misleading. [EDITED to add: aha, following a longer chain of links from your earlier comment I found some statistics. The terms used in the NFPA report in question are ambiguous, but what's clear is that the statistics you yourself cited plainly refute your 80% figure. Here are the figures: 22% "residential street, road, or residential driveway"; 18% "vehicle parking area"; 17% "highway or divided highway"; 8% "unclassified street"; 6% "street or road in commercial area"; 5% "mercantile or office"; 4% "open land, beach or campsite". So, at a bare minimum, the lowest fraction of fires that could be on roads would be 17% + 8% +% 6% = 31%, and that assumes that none of the "residential street, road, or residential highway" and "mercantile or office" figures are for cars being driven on the road -- which seems monstrously improbable.]
- 001sky 13y ago
  The data comes from Figure 1 of the Report that Tesla cited in October. I provided the above merely as an example of another way to read the report, but feel free to do your own analysis. Clearly, Telsa fires were 100% on public highways (by any definition). To which the report reads: Where do automobile fires occur? Roughly three-quarters (71%) of automobile fires and associated deaths (76%) occurred on highways, streets or parking areas. While only 17% of the fires occurred on highways or divided highways... So, taken strictly the analyis seems apples to apples. In any event there is clearly some adjustment that needs to occur rather than a blind-usage, IMHO. Whether the haircut is 33% at a minimum or a higher amount. [PS I prvly addressed the :Edit: points in another comment below> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6760562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6760562]