5 ms·

Doesn't automobile crash data exist somewhere in the public record? Couldn't someone ostensibly run statistical significance tests to measure the success/failur

by kosei 13y ago

Doesn't automobile crash data exist somewhere in the public record? Couldn't someone ostensibly run statistical significance tests to measure the success/failure rates? I haven't seen any real analysis on the subject based on available data, but I imagine that with 19K+ cars having driven tens or hundreds of millions of miles, that we do have a good amount of data to make it worth it to investigate. Right?

threeseed 13y ago
Automobile crash data is irrelevant. What we are talking about is whether the location of the battery pack on Tesla's cars are uniquely dangerous. Which requires an investigation. And which has absolutely nothing to do with the apparent safety of other cars. We are talking about people's lives here.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  The only place you can realistically put battery packs on an electric car is beneath the floor. They're too heavy, so they need to be kept low or the car will have terrible (and unsafe) handling characteristics. And crash data is most definitely relevant - how gas cars react to striking similar objects at high speed is a valid comparison.
  - warble 13y ago
    Not true, the Mini-E has them in the back seat, and it handles pretty well. Batteries are heavy, and lower is better like you say as a rule, but it's not the only realistic solution by far. Also the Tesla battery pack isn't as well compartmentalized as it could be. There are things to be done to the battery pack to cause fire to be less damaging, so between the onboard warning systems, and firewalls, it's not a big deal when the battery does catch fire.
- loganu 13y ago
  How is crash data not relevant? Why would the regulators not be able to identify and go for the lowest-hanging fruit, regardless of manufacturing origin? Obviously there are fewer data points for the Teslas, but they've outshone other manufacturers in all other safety tests (if I'm not mistaken). We're talking about people's lives here.
- kosei 13y ago
  Seems like a good deal of sensationalism here. We are talking about people's lives, but the crash data so far doesn't support the hand-wringing we're seeing from the NHTSA and journalists. If anything, the crash data so far suggests the opposite. And comparison to safety of other cars is absolutely relevant to whether the safety of Tesla automobiles is an issue or within statistical industry norms.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  >Automobile crash data is irrelevant >We are talking about people's lives here. These two statements do not belong together.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  Safety data is relevant. There are dozens of new car models on the road right now that are more dangerous to drive than a Tesla. It is demonstrably true that if you crash one of those cars you are more likely to be killed than if you were driving a Tesla. This is a somewhat silly attack on a new technology. Tesla is, and has, responded appropriately to every one of the safety issues they've encountered. I'm not necessarily a "let the market decide" kinda guy on this issue, given the way corporations have behaved in the past and given the nature of the corporate veil protecting the manufacturers from liability (often even in cases of gross negligence), but when it's clear the company is doing right on a scale much larger than most other auto companies (I can't actually think of any companies that have been more careful about the safety of their cars; maybe Volvo and Volkswagen). "We are talking about people's lives here." This is one of those "Think of the children!" kind of statements. When it comes to cars, we're always talking about peoples lives. Driving cars is the most dangerous thing most people do every day, by far. If you want to think of saving peoples lives, start campaigning for more mass transit and fewer cars. Campaign for self-driving cars. Campaign for dedicated cycling lanes so that more people will stop driving and start biking (without the risk of cars bringing their deadly influence into the picture). That's not to say Tesla shouldn't always improve the safety of their cars, but past behavior indicates they have that built into their values as a company. I'm just saying that if there's going to be investigations, why not start with the Dodge 1500 pickup truck (one of the longest running, most dangerous, vehicles on the road)? Or the Cheverolet Colorado pickup? Or the Mazda CX-9 or Jeep Wrangler? These are all dangerous vehicles to drive; they crash poorly and are involved in more vehicle accidents where someone is killed or injured than average (and a helluva a lot more than Tesla). Statistics give us the ability to make rational choices in the face of something horrible like car accidents and death. Sure, Tesla should mitigate or solve the fire problem...but, when there are millions of more dangerous cars on the road, why pick on Tesla?
  - rimantas 13y ago
    > why not start with the Dodge 1500 pickup truck Why not start with premium cars released at the same time as Tesla?
smackfu 13y ago
The trick is finding an unbiased person to look at the statistics.

by kosei 13y ago

threeseed 13y ago

Automobile crash data is irrelevant. What we are talking about is whether the location of the battery pack on Tesla's cars are uniquely dangerous. Which requires an investigation. And which has absolutely nothing to do with the apparent safety of other cars. We are talking about people's lives here.

Mikeb85 13y ago
The only place you can realistically put battery packs on an electric car is beneath the floor. They're too heavy, so they need to be kept low or the car will have terrible (and unsafe) handling characteristics. And crash data is most definitely relevant - how gas cars react to striking similar objects at high speed is a valid comparison.
- warble 13y ago
  Not true, the Mini-E has them in the back seat, and it handles pretty well. Batteries are heavy, and lower is better like you say as a rule, but it's not the only realistic solution by far. Also the Tesla battery pack isn't as well compartmentalized as it could be. There are things to be done to the battery pack to cause fire to be less damaging, so between the onboard warning systems, and firewalls, it's not a big deal when the battery does catch fire.
loganu 13y ago
How is crash data not relevant? Why would the regulators not be able to identify and go for the lowest-hanging fruit, regardless of manufacturing origin? Obviously there are fewer data points for the Teslas, but they've outshone other manufacturers in all other safety tests (if I'm not mistaken). We're talking about people's lives here.
kosei 13y ago
Seems like a good deal of sensationalism here. We are talking about people's lives, but the crash data so far doesn't support the hand-wringing we're seeing from the NHTSA and journalists. If anything, the crash data so far suggests the opposite. And comparison to safety of other cars is absolutely relevant to whether the safety of Tesla automobiles is an issue or within statistical industry norms.
vdaniuk 13y ago
>Automobile crash data is irrelevant >We are talking about people's lives here. These two statements do not belong together.
SwellJoe 13y ago
Safety data is relevant. There are dozens of new car models on the road right now that are more dangerous to drive than a Tesla. It is demonstrably true that if you crash one of those cars you are more likely to be killed than if you were driving a Tesla. This is a somewhat silly attack on a new technology. Tesla is, and has, responded appropriately to every one of the safety issues they've encountered. I'm not necessarily a "let the market decide" kinda guy on this issue, given the way corporations have behaved in the past and given the nature of the corporate veil protecting the manufacturers from liability (often even in cases of gross negligence), but when it's clear the company is doing right on a scale much larger than most other auto companies (I can't actually think of any companies that have been more careful about the safety of their cars; maybe Volvo and Volkswagen). "We are talking about people's lives here." This is one of those "Think of the children!" kind of statements. When it comes to cars, we're always talking about peoples lives. Driving cars is the most dangerous thing most people do every day, by far. If you want to think of saving peoples lives, start campaigning for more mass transit and fewer cars. Campaign for self-driving cars. Campaign for dedicated cycling lanes so that more people will stop driving and start biking (without the risk of cars bringing their deadly influence into the picture). That's not to say Tesla shouldn't always improve the safety of their cars, but past behavior indicates they have that built into their values as a company. I'm just saying that if there's going to be investigations, why not start with the Dodge 1500 pickup truck (one of the longest running, most dangerous, vehicles on the road)? Or the Cheverolet Colorado pickup? Or the Mazda CX-9 or Jeep Wrangler? These are all dangerous vehicles to drive; they crash poorly and are involved in more vehicle accidents where someone is killed or injured than average (and a helluva a lot more than Tesla). Statistics give us the ability to make rational choices in the face of something horrible like car accidents and death. Sure, Tesla should mitigate or solve the fire problem...but, when there are millions of more dangerous cars on the road, why pick on Tesla?
- rimantas 13y ago
  > why not start with the Dodge 1500 pickup truck Why not start with premium cars released at the same time as Tesla?

smackfu 13y ago

The trick is finding an unbiased person to look at the statistics.