[HN Gopher] Tesla has the highest fatal accident rate of all aut...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla has the highest fatal accident rate of all auto brands, study
finds
Author : MBCook
Score : 231 points
Date : 2024-11-15 20:15 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.roadandtrack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.roadandtrack.com)
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > So, why are Teslas -- and many other ostensibly safe cars on
| the list -- involved in so many fatal crashes? "The models on
| this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and
| driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,"
| iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report.
| legitster wrote:
| In a big picture, this makes sense. You can load the cars with
| safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars
| are _very_ heavy, _very_ fast, and loaded with features that
| reward distracted driving. In the US at least, the top killer of
| drivers are trees on the side of the road.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| In a bigger picture, cars are a bad solution to the problem of
| transportation at scale, and really always have been. As safety
| features go up, complacency goes up, and to be blunt that's
| combining _with_ the fact that drivers are getting consistently
| worse overall at the skill anyway.
|
| Between EV's that are much, much heavier than ICE cars and
| SUVs/Trucks that are much larger than they need to be, vehicles
| themselves, despite having more safety features than ever, are
| also better at killing that they've been at a long time too.
|
| We really need to get serious about improving our
| transportation infrastructure.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> We really need to get serious about improving our
| transportation infrastructure._
|
| Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way
| everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No
| need for any extra special transportation at all.
|
| It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural
| lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we
| can actually overcome that pressure.
| ar_lan wrote:
| > It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural
| lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities.
|
| I just want like... to not be stacked like a sardine for
| $3500/mo. I would gladly take a rural lifestyle if I could
| find a job that would support it.
| randomdata wrote:
| Stacked like a sardine for $3,500/mo, yet still have to
| travel long distances to do anything. The curse of the
| wannabe rural city. But, as people want to (or at least
| want to pretend to) live in a rural area, change is
| unlikely.
| oblio wrote:
| This is a colossal failure for humanity, primarily due to
| home ownership as an investment vehicle, plus regulatory
| capture pushed by the car companies and oil and gas
| companies.
|
| There is no technical reason we can't have livable, quiet
| and spacious apartments, where multiple apartment
| buildings share a huge, enclosed backyard (almost park-
| like, even), a setup with tons of small shops,
| pharmacies, easy access to everything, etc.
|
| Plus you can also have access to large parks, in a suburb
| you'd never have access to those, just your limited
| backyard.
|
| But most places will never have that...
| nradov wrote:
| Even nice apartments are pretty miserable places to live
| if you have multiple small children, or engage in hobbies
| or activities that require much equipment. Imagine coming
| home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you
| haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it
| in your shower? It's possible to make it work but living
| in a single-family home (or townhouse with attached
| garage) sure makes regular life a lot easier.
| ghaff wrote:
| Many of us simply don't want to live in expensive urbanized
| environments (especially in more desirable ones)--at least
| at many points in our lives, so yeah no.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean the problem isn't those who don't want to live in
| cities nor is it those who want to live in cities: the
| problem is the suburbs, which is where those two meet.
| People who aren't in and do not desire an _actual_ rural
| lifestyle where one has a standalone home on a large plot
| of land in the middle of nowhere, but also don 't want a
| condo. They want their own little plot of land, with a
| small yard, and a standalone home.
|
| And like, same. That's also me.
|
| But the problem is the _actual costs of that style of
| home_ are incredibly, heavily subsidized by the cities
| they surround and indeed even the rural areas they
| border, because suburbs are just... a bad goddamn way to
| house people. They 're incredibly inefficient, basically
| require your own personal car, require the most
| infrastructure build-out for the smallest population,
| require the largest footprint of services over the
| largest area to serve the smallest number of people, etc.
| etc.
|
| And like, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you
| want to live this way, that's fine, but then you need to
| _actually pay for it._ Your property taxes need to
| reflect how much it actually costs to serve your
| property, to build the huge number of roads needed to
| access it, to maintain those roads, to maintain the
| electrical grids, to maintain the water and sewage
| services, to bus kids to schools, etc. etc. etc.
|
| And yeah that's going to make suburbs WAY less appealing
| because they're going to be fucking expensive but like,
| the alternative is, again, everyone wanting that, and not
| paying for it. The dense urban centers they surround
| absolutely hemorrhage money supporting the suburbs around
| them.
| ghaff wrote:
| Around where I live (greater Boston metro) most of the
| tech jobs are actually out in the suburbs/exurbubs. There
| were basically no tech jobs in the city ~20 years ago any
| longer. (It's mostly only changed with the establishment
| of of satellite offices of some west coast companies.)
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| With respect, it doesn't matter. Suburbs cost far more
| than they bring in.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Urbanization decreases costs.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Suburbia is this thing like commuting in a car that's great
| as long as everyone isn't also trying to do it.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Even with heavy urbanization you'll need some form of
| transit on top of walking. Have you ever visited any really
| big cities (eg. Tokyo)? Every time I'm in one, I get the
| impression they would grind to a standstill without their
| mass transit systems.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg.
| Tokyo)_
|
| Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak.
| Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck
| travelling long distances to do anything, just like those
| who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that
| transportation is necessary in a rural area.
|
| A proper urban environment, however, puts everything
| right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel
| beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole
| reason for living so close to other people.
|
| But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to
| live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As
| such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way
| things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better
| transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead
| of actually embracing urbanity.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I would say that's better characterized as an opposition
| to urbanization _that 's designed for and presumes the
| ownership of cars_ by those who live there, and to that I
| heartily agree! Gridlock-bound US cities are a nightmare
| to navigate, but again, that is not the fault of the
| city, that is _also_ the fault of the car and how
| inefficient it is as a transport solution.
|
| If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could
| never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> If cars simply didn 't exist, our cities would not,
| could never have, been designed the way they are, in any
| way._
|
| Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely
| were designed in the same way they are still found now,
| aside from what are now roads were squares for people to
| walk in. Return the road back to being a square and
| nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car
| era. But, so long as the people _want_ to live a rural
| lifestyle, good luck...
| CalRobert wrote:
| Even a decent town puts most things within a walk or bike
| ride. San Luis Obispo comes to mind as an example.
| oblio wrote:
| I've never understood the argument about small towns
| being worse for urbanism.
|
| Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything
| had to be close by.
|
| You don't even have to sacrifice the backyard for that,
| you can have a city layout that puts the houses
| themselves fairly close to each other, and the yards can
| radiate outwards. Then you connect each cluster's main
| street with the other ones, but unlike suburbs, you make
| each "subdivision" mixed-use and you allow public transit
| , pedestrians and cyclists to cut across subdivisions for
| easy access everywhere.
|
| If anything, small towns should be urbanism done right,
| because they don't (shouldn't?) have the money for sprawl
| and they don't have all the pressures for increasing
| density a lot, that big cities have.
| heywire wrote:
| I would wager that most people don't want to use public
| transit regularly. I know I certainly don't.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Your desire to not be inconvenienced is not as important as
| the lives of other people who are being killed
| unnecessarily for it.
|
| That being said, to be clear, I don't think we need to make
| driving illegal or whatever. I think a TON of people would
| happily not be saddled with the expense of owning a car or
| the task of driving if there were reasonable alternatives
| on offer, which in the few pockets of the US that actually
| have decent mass transit, is broadly the case.
| ghaff wrote:
| That said, I drove into a nearby city after dark which is
| increasingly early last night. There are no reasonable
| alternatives--I will for a 9-5 event but just doesn't
| work for the evening. There's a decent mass transit
| system including commuter rail but it it's just not
| organized around coming in at 5pm. It's chaos with
| cars/cycles/escooters/pedestrians often randomly crossing
| streets, poor visibility, etc. I mostly just don't go in
| any longer.
| gorbachev wrote:
| That's because most Americans haven't seen a public
| transport service that works well.
|
| Visit or live in a major European city for a while and you
| are likely change your tune.
| afavour wrote:
| I think a lot of people would be happy to use it if it was
| convenient and reliable. I live in NYC and haven't had to
| drive to/from work in over a decade. I consider the subway
| ride a vast, vast improvement over driving... but only when
| the subway works right.
| nomel wrote:
| The vast majority of people I talk to, including myself,
| don't use public transportation for:
|
| 1. Time. For example, my commute is 25 minutes, but 2
| hours ride and three mile walk by public transport.
|
| 2. Safety, intimately tied to the homeless problem.
|
| 3. Cleanliness. In my experience, related to #2, and the
| fact that government institutions are incapable of caring
| about user experience, because they get funding
| regardless. Matted, stained fabric seat cushions, and
| dried whatever caked on the floor.
|
| There's _nothing_ better or remotely alluring about
| public transportation for the vast majority of people (as
| shown by gridlock traffic).
| afavour wrote:
| Like I said, when it works right. A 2 hour ride and three
| mile walk is very obviously not a viable commute.
|
| As for safety, you're orders of magnitude more likely to
| get into a car crash than have anything happen to you on
| the NYC subway. Yes, incidents happen but they're
| dramatically inflated in the public consciousness.
|
| Your objection (and most of the others I see) aren't
| objections to the fundamental nature of public transit,
| rather they're objections to shit public transit or to
| urban life in general (whole lotta city car parks that
| aren't clean!). Which is entirely understandable. But
| there are plenty of examples of functional public transit
| serving millions of people in cities across the world.
| Those people aren't all secretly wishing they were in a
| car.
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's kind of boring to respond to a comment about public
| transit needing to work well by complaining about how it
| doesn't. Especially when limiting investment has often
| been an explicit choice in whatever given area.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| I just think you have shite public transport, mate. I
| can't imagine anywhere in nyc you'd have to walk 3 mi to
| get anywhere??
|
| Sure if I said public transport is strictly superior
| because I drive a car that breaks down constantly, you'd
| see the problems not cars, yeah?
| toast0 wrote:
| > In a bigger picture, cars are a bad solution to the problem
| of transportation at scale
|
| They're not a great solution to transportation at scale, but
| they're pretty good at small volume point to point traffic.
|
| There's not enough people going my way on most of my trips to
| make transportation at scale worthwhile. Ferries work well
| for part of many of my trips, but I can take a car on the
| ferry to deal with the lack of scale on either side.
|
| I could sometimes take a bus to the ferry, walk to light rail
| and take light rail to the airport. But the bus only runs
| during commute times, so that impacts viable flight times,
| and the walk to the light rail got pretty sketchy in the past
| several years and light rail itself can be sketchy too.
|
| Most of my cars run fine any time of day, although peak
| traffic is annoying, and I'm dealing with lighting issues on
| one so I can't take it out unless I know I'll be home before
| dusk.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't
| change the fact that these cars are very heavy
|
| Being heavy is actually a safety feature of sort (but just for
| the people inside the car, it increases overall fatality).
| Gigachad wrote:
| Trees are anchored to the ground. Being heavier just reduces
| your ability to stop.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Maybe that's good when hitting a tree? Slower deceleration,
| less force.
| jkaptur wrote:
| I think they meant that it's more difficult to stop
| _before_ beginning to impact the tree.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Still. If I'm going to hit a tree, I'd rather drive a
| tank than a motorbike.
| JasonSage wrote:
| Cars have crumple zones which a motorbike does not.
|
| A lighter car requires less work from the crumple zone to
| decelerate the car into non-fatal territory than a heavy
| car.
| bastloing wrote:
| Decreases your tendency to flip over. I'm astonished by all
| the dashcam videos out there showing collisions, usually
| the first thing an ice car does is flip over. Not EVs
| though.
| bena wrote:
| That's more a factor of weight distribution rather than
| weight itself.
|
| EVs carry their weight lower to the ground. SUVs and
| pickup trucks are more top heavy. Passenger cars have a
| higher probability to rollover, but not that much greater
| than an EV.
| bastloing wrote:
| Ice cars have a much higher rollover risk compared to
| EVs. All the data supports that along with physics.
| Absolutely weight distribution. Compare the heavy battery
| in an EV vs the heavy motor that's up a bit higher in an
| ice car. Pretty much any hit over around 20mph to the
| front quarter panel of an ice car, truck, or SUV will
| flip it over.
| postalrat wrote:
| It ain't working then because these heavy cars tend to have
| more fatalities.
| almatabata wrote:
| The study seems to contradict this: "When broken out by
| size, small cars have the highest fatal accident rate while
| midsize and full-size cars are both below average."
|
| And later in the study, "When two small cars collide the
| forces are equalized and both vehicles tend to hold up
| well. But if a compact hatchback and a full-size pickup
| truck try to occupy the same space at the same time, the
| smaller car always loses."
| legitster wrote:
| In insurance they call it the "law of lugnuts" - bigger cars
| have better survivability in _direct collisions_.
|
| However, most traffic fatalities do not come from direct
| collisions. They come from driver hitting immobile objects.
|
| Smaller, lighter cars take less kinetic energy with them
| around corners, are easier to steer and avoid obstacles, and
| are more likely to stay upright when leaving the road.
| dpats wrote:
| > In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on
| the side of the road.
|
| Do you have a source on that?
| legitster wrote:
| > From 2016 to 2018 an average of 19,158 fatalities resulted
| from roadway departures, which is 51 percent of all traffic
| fatalities in the United States.
|
| https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD
| kevinqi wrote:
| Aside from the distracted driving part, which is real, there
| are two physical aspects of the model 3 that I find to be
| safety issues as well-- the two front windshield beams are
| thick and add a sort of blind spot, and the side mirrors don't
| give you great field of view.
| nomel wrote:
| Same with my older Toyota. They stuffed airbags in them,
| which is nice, but I've had several times where an adult on a
| bike is _completely_ obscured, with my passenger having to
| scream "stop!". After the second time, I now bob my head
| like a maniac to look around them.
|
| Can't wait for displays on pillars, to make them appear
| transparent.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It is a problem with most modern cars, and it is actually for
| safety reasons. These beams have to support the entire weight
| of the car in case it flips over in order to protect the
| occupants.
| MBCook wrote:
| A rule we have due to giant high center of gravity SUVs.
| Rollovers weren't as big a problem when everyone had
| sedans.
|
| A car should survive a rollover. But when you make them big
| & heavy, those pillars have to be big and thick and you get
| large blind spots.
| legitster wrote:
| Also, the instrument cluster is located in the center,
| outside of the driver's direct view. And most of the
| important controls for the driver do not have tactile
| buttons.
| Rygian wrote:
| Which are those controls?
|
| I drive a Tesla since 2019 and have never needed a
| touchscreen control for the driving itself.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > and loaded with features
|
| "Ludicrous mode."
|
| > the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
|
| It's actually alcohol and drugs. Which is the reason those
| drivers find themselves in the trees.
| legitster wrote:
| If you have driven around rural roads in the US, you realize
| it does not take alcohol to leave the road. A moment of
| distraction is all it takes to get into a ditch.
|
| https://highways.dot.gov/safety/RwD
| moralestapia wrote:
| >A moment of distraction
|
| Indeed, people really under(over?)estimate how small a loss
| of attention has to be to become catastrophic.
|
| I once wanted to know the name of a track that was playing
| while driving on the highway. I looked right to the stereo
| display and read it, that probably took a tenth of a
| second, but it happened right at the moment when something
| came into my lane and I had to veer off not to hit it, I
| did not hit it but also almost drove the car out of the
| road.
|
| When you're distracted, even if you're looking straight
| ahead, coming back to reality, assessing the situation,
| reacting, ... takes at least a couple seconds and that's a
| lot of time in these scenarios.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| What makes sense to me is the top 3 cars:
|
| Tesla - autopilot that really isn't, gets fooled in many
| situations, driver lulled into not paying attention, can't
| react quickly enough when the computer bails, and ends up
| driving into a bridge abutment at 75mph.
|
| Kia - cheap cars built to minimum safety standards driven by
| young people who aren't very experienced drivers.
|
| Buick - cars driven by geriatrics whose declines in vision and
| reaction speed probably should have resulted in their licenses
| being revoked five years ago but who still insist on driving
| themselves.
| vikingerik wrote:
| I'd also venture that the profile of Tesla drivers is also a
| factor along with those other two brands. I'd be pretty sure
| that Tesla owners collectively drive more aggressively than
| the average car on the road. Teslas aren't being driven by
| soccer moms and careful grandmas.
| jvandonsel wrote:
| Simple solution. Cut down all the trees on the side of the
| road.
|
| You're welcome.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| >In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the
| side of the road.
|
| A decade or so ago the Georgia Department of Transportation
| tried to do away with the trees between streets and sidewalks
| because of so many fatalities coming from collisions with
| trees. Clearing out an "automative recovery zone" as they
| called it likely would have saved lives of some people in
| vehicles but of course it would increase the danger to
| pedestrians, who might or might not be present at that moment.
| Lots of trade offs in these types of analysis and not all of
| them are always immediately obvious.
| grecy wrote:
| How can any reasonable person know if any story about Tesla (good
| or bad) is actually factual and useful, or is just a story told
| from a particular angle to manipulate the stock price for gain?
|
| While many says it's the ultimate meme stock, I also can't help
| thinking it's the ultimate manipulation stock - it seems some
| people desperately want it to go down while others desperately
| want it to go up.
| robterrell wrote:
| > analyzed data from the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting
| System (FARS)
|
| Maybe not for the "reasonable person" but government data is
| available and if you are here you likely know some statistics,
| so go nuts:
|
| https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
|
| and
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report...
| Lendal wrote:
| Now Elon will possibly in charge of making that government
| database disappear.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| Rapidly growing new file category on Pirate Bay?
| willsoon wrote:
| Consider, my friends, this elegant plot twist. Musk is a
| secret blue agent infiltrated to make that government
| database disappear.
| thejazzman wrote:
| I've had one since 2015 and so many issues. When I share them
| on Reddit I'm downvoted into oblivion for going against the
| cult
|
| It's gotten better in the last few years, now that millions of
| people share the issues, it's harder to drown them out
|
| Doesn't seem to matter whatsoever for their stock, so that
| doesn't seems to be too relevant
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Tesla is a memestock. There's no reason it should be as high
| as it is; the fundamentals aren't that great and Musk is a
| danger to the company whether he's in or out of government.
| foobazgt wrote:
| Some context for others - 2015 is fairly early in Tesla's
| history. The model 3 didn't even exist until 2017. The
| overwhelming majority of Teslas on the road today are Y's and
| 3's.
|
| FWIW, I've personally owned three Teslas with zero problems,
| but none older than 2019. YMMV.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| Follow the link to the underlying study
| https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
|
| While the linked article is playing up the tesla angle (and so
| may be thought to be manipulative) the underlying study does
| not seem to be unusually focused on tesla, it's simply listing
| the results of a fairly straightforward analysis. I also have
| no reason to doubt it as I more or less expected tesla to have
| bad fatality rates compared to class (although I guess I
| wouldn't have expected them to be quite this bad - I thought
| they'd be bad compared to other luxury vehicles of similar
| weight size and price, not absolutely bad compared to most
| cars).
|
| But you can find the underlying numbers and critique them if
| you have reason to think they might be wrong. E.g. if you
| believed the claims that autopilot was safer than human drivers
| and was saving lives, you might have expected to see a sign of
| that in this data (I didn't).
| jjulius wrote:
| >How can any reasonable person know if any story about Tesla
| (good or bad) is actually factual and useful, or is just a
| story told from a particular angle to manipulate the stock
| price for gain?
|
| This is a data-based story. Follow the link(s) to review the
| data if one is unsure whether or not the reporting piece can be
| trusted.
| mattlondon wrote:
| > Karl Brauer said in the report. "A focused, alert driver,
| traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the
| influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive
| safely regardless of the vehicle they're driving."
|
| ... implication being that Tesla drivers are more likely to be
| driving like pricks and/or under the influence?
|
| I wonder what the rates are like for specific models from other
| brands that are associated with morons. G-wagons, M3s etc etc
| lawn wrote:
| Or that its very difficult to be alert when using Teslas FSD?
| tifik wrote:
| Or it's the drivers are not "focused, alert", because of the
| auto-pilot.
| Lendal wrote:
| I paid $10K for FSD when I was drinking the Kool Aid but haven't
| used it in over a year due to it being a steaming pile of
| garbage. But hey, it's a great party gag and the stock price is
| still soaring so keep the pedal to the metal and take us all to
| RICH town Elon! What could possibly go wron...
| stoplight wrote:
| I wonder how much of this is because (IME anyway) Tesla drivers
| are not very good. With all that tech it's easy to get distracted
| (there's literally a giant tablet looking thing for a console).
| It's also easy to think all the bells and whistles will do things
| for you so drivers are paying less attention because the car will
| beep and holler at them if things are going awry (except by that
| point it's too late).
| geysersam wrote:
| Tesla drivers are young men with big wallets, stereotypically.
| That demographic is not known for their carefulness in traffic,
| or in any other matter. I'm sure that simple confounding factor
| is enough to explain the excessive fatality rate of Tesla cars.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Tesla drivers demographic was that maybe in 2015. Today, it's
| the California camry.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| And the same boring colors, year after year
| jiveturkey wrote:
| There's a saying: BMWs are for folks that like to drive, Teslas
| are for folks that hate to drive.
|
| My own add-on is: Toyotas are for folks that have to drive.
| almatabata wrote:
| You can add more parameters.
|
| Whats the temperament of the driver. Certain brands attract hot
| heads who will drive recklessly. I was kind of expecting more
| sports cars in the top 5. 2/5 is still a good score.
|
| Given the amount of SUVs as well, no matter how safe you make a
| small car, if an SUV rams you, it is just not going to end well
| for the smaller.
| Koala_ice wrote:
| I thoroughyl expect the Deparment of Government Efficiency to
| recommend U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) be shut
| down to save previous taxpayer dollars.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| And all USG vehicles to be replaced with Teslas to save money
| on gas /s
| ryandvm wrote:
| Not even remotely farce. I hope the rest of the world is taking
| notes...
| oblio wrote:
| Doesn't each major government do independent safety
| testing/has independent safety requirements, anyway?
| dylan604 wrote:
| VW diesel-gate
|
| How many of the independents caught that?
| nickff wrote:
| Interestingly, it was a study commissioned by a non-
| profit, and performed by a university: https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
| dylan604 wrote:
| oh, great, so none.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Diesel gate involved also many others manufacturers
|
| > Opel (General Motors) publicly demonstrated (while
| representatives from the TUV Hessen were present) a
| Zafira that met the NOx emission limits. At the same
| time, Opel started clandestinely pushing an engine
| software update that limited NOx emissions in Zafiras
| that were already on the road.
|
| > German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported that US
| authorities investigating Mercedes have discovered that
| its vehicles are equipped with illegal software to help
| them pass United States' stringent emission tests. The
| claimed defeat devices include a Bit 15 mode to switch
| off emissions control after 16 miles of driving (the
| length of an official U.S. emissions test), and Slipguard
| which tries to directly determine if the car is being
| tested based on speed and acceleration profiles
|
| > Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee trucks, had
| software that allowed them to exceed NOx pollution
| limits, undetected by the usual testing methods.
|
| > BMW was sued in 2018 when certain models were named as
| producing several times more nitrogen oxide emissions
| than laboratory tests indicated
| dylan604 wrote:
| um, that can be read both ways. they very well could be
| taking notes on how to move in the same direction, not the
| opposite
| consteval wrote:
| This is why we need the Department of Department of
| Government Efficiency Efficiency so we can ensure the
| governmental efficiency of the Department of Government
| Efficiency.
| roughly wrote:
| Nobody needs to take notes, we've known what this is for a
| hundred years. We spent most of the last century trying to
| get rid of autocracy in various places, there's entire
| libraries worth of books detailing this playbook at this
| point.
| jfengel wrote:
| Unfortunately, they are. They have discovered that this kind
| of behavior gets people into office.
|
| Expect to see more of it.
| akira2501 wrote:
| The authority and requirement to operate FARS extends from US
| Title Code.
|
| Aside from that misuse and intentional misunderstanding of the
| FARS statistics is readily used by Tesla as a justification for
| their FSD system.
| HaZeust wrote:
| These next 4 years will be a hoot and holler...
| atoav wrote:
| He had been "joking" about a third term already:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/us/politics/congress-
| reso...
|
| So let's see if a Trump with total immunity will _really_
| leave gracefully this time.
| exe34 wrote:
| I'm looking forward to the military coup! it seems that
| America is turning into a new Turkey. you can either have
| freedom or democracy, but not both.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Am I the only one that is not excited about the next four years
| being constant banter of this nature? I loathe it. Nothing
| personal against your comment but the new administration hasn't
| even gone into office and I cannot get away from this.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They have already announced what they are going to do, with
| the pro-Trump side saying he's not serious or will mellow out
| the plan before he takes office, and the anti-Trump side
| saying he will do exactly what he says he's going to do.
|
| Basically a repeat of 2016.
| weaksauce wrote:
| not a repeat of 2016 at all. he's got every lever of the
| government at his disposal. stacked supreme court, three
| branches of government on his side. hiring the worst people
| for every job possible and hiring only for fealty to him.
|
| this will be much worse than 2016.
| stetrain wrote:
| And no need to consider winning re-election.
| exe34 wrote:
| I'm looking forward to the first military coup in the US
| to restore democracy in 4 years.
|
| on the other hand, I'm a bit concerned about these two
| crashing the world economy in the meantime.
| giantg2 wrote:
| He had both chambers in 2016 too, on similarly narrow
| majorities. The hiring has consistently been for
| allegiance. The court has changed a little. One thing you
| don't mention that is perhaps the biggest thing is
| temperance for reelection. But overall, I don't see much
| reason that it will be that much different from last
| time. Talking about things being much worse seems like an
| emotional statement.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It always falls in the middle. There's a reason politicians
| are known as liars. Of course they won't do everything they
| claim on the campaign trail.
| Koala_ice wrote:
| I'm actually not bantering.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'm also jaded by the constant snark I/we have to resort to
| to cope and disconnect from the insanity that is today's
| world
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| I'm glad you used the word snark since that exact word in
| the HN guidelines
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't
| cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
| caekislove wrote:
| They are like this literally any time a Republican is in the
| White House. They were like this when Dubya was President
| too, even though today they act like he's some sort of elder
| statesman just because he hates Trump.
| yakz wrote:
| What? Dubya was selected by the Supreme Court. He started a
| war after peddling bullshit evidence in front of the whole
| world. Dubya was and is a piece of shit.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Two wars, but who's counting?
| throwaway425933 wrote:
| >> but the new administration hasn't even gone into office
| and I cannot get away from this.
|
| Well, it cuts both ways. New administration should not be
| talking till they are in office.
| _blk wrote:
| Respectfully, why not? That's the whole point of
| campaigning. I seriously hope an incoming administration
| has a plan before they get to office. "I wouldn't change
| anything" fortunately doesn't seem to win elections when
| everything's sideways.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Campaigning is customarily done _before_ elections, not
| after.
| amazingamazing wrote:
| That makes no sense
| zer8k wrote:
| These people have been inundated with the drivel of a billion
| dollar propaganda machine run by the most expensive campaign
| in history.
|
| It's gonna take a while before they're back to normal again.
| I've heard so many "office of government efficiency" jokes in
| the last week I am tired of it too. But, in their defense if
| all you hear is how this administration is going to be the
| fourth reich (lol), destroy the country (lol), introduce
| fascism (lol), kill people (lol), etc you're going to react
| in a sarcastic way to anything you can grasp onto.
|
| Though tbf, again, "office of government efficiency" seems
| like an oxymoron.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Elon chose the name to be a joke.
|
| You're accusing the wrong side for making a mockery of
| government institutions.
| rightbyte wrote:
| It is a Doge coin joke, right?
|
| edit: But then again P.A.T.R.I.O.T act etc is a thing so
| hard to tell if actual joke or just going with how US
| politicians like to be witty while naming stuff.
| cglace wrote:
| What if we use Trump's actual words?
| zzzeek wrote:
| Enjoy it while it's all just "jokes". Eliminating departments
| that cut into Elon Musk's bottom line is the reason he's
| found his way into the White House with hundreds of billions
| of dollars to throw around to so many starving cats hungry
| for bribes and kickbacks like cat chow
| ithkuil wrote:
| Or perhaps he just does it for ego and visibility.
|
| It's hard to tell which of these two options is more
| likely. 4d chess or simple billionaire egomania ?
| namaria wrote:
| What's 4D chess about saying they'll diminish the
| government capacity to regulate their business and
| proceeding to doing so? It doesn't take an evil genius
| master plan to go about that.
| MBCook wrote:
| We've had them in office before, plus plenty of public
| statements over the last 10 years.
|
| It's not exactly baseless speculation. People have things to
| base their guesses on.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| Being right or wrong is often irrelevant to the question of
| "does it belong on HN?"
| Alupis wrote:
| Let's not pretend everyone is aghast at the goals of this
| administration. We just had an election and these
| viewpoints resoundingly won the day.
|
| A non-trivial component to this election was this constant,
| smug nagging. "We know better, you're all so stupid".
|
| If you turn out to be right, enjoy your smug "I told you
| so", but until then - these views are a minority and are
| very tiring to constantly see/hear/read.
| fundad wrote:
| You can ignore it like you may have ignored snark against
| Biden, the border, the upcoming "recession", wokeness and
| vaccines, can't you?
| hagbard_c wrote:
| You are not alone in this sentiment. It is beyond the pale
| that the denizens of a 'hacker forum' are often so narrow-
| minded when it comes to engaging those who think outside of
| the personal zone of ideological preference. The same people
| who have been yammering about the importance of 'diversity'
| are dead set against diversity of opinion. Grow up, folks,
| get outside your comfort zone and engage some of those
| _deplorables, irredeemables, garbage, rednecks, hillbillies_
| and _bible thumpers_ instead of howling along with the
| masses. Go ahead and try, you may find they are more like you
| than you 've been told by the chattering classes. Sure you'll
| have disagreements over certain things but that does not make
| them the evil monsters your moral mentors have been claiming
| they are. Just... grow up.
| bitzun wrote:
| I don't think GP was talking about ordinary people, they
| were making a comment about a politician's declared plans.
| peutetre wrote:
| > _engage some of those deplorables, irredeemables,
| garbage, rednecks, hillbillies and bible thumpers instead
| of howling along with the masses_
|
| You are aware that no one in this thread has called anyone
| deplorable, irredeemable, garbage, a redneck, a hillbilly,
| or a bible thumper, right?
|
| Your aggrievement and imagined slights is precisely how
| people like Trump and Musk manipulate you. And apparently
| the manipulation works really well.
|
| Trump is not your retribution. Trump doesn't care about
| America. Trump doesn't care about Americans. Trump only
| cares about himself.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Hacker News' eventual death started the moment it joined
| the hysteria over the Lab Leak Theory. Since then it has
| trended more and more to be like Reddit, with ideological
| tribal concerns occupying an increasingly large mindshare.
| This drives away people who want to have earnest
| conversations in good faith, giving even more power to the
| ideologues. It will be a long death spiral but you can see
| it happening day by day.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| The comment you are replying to has the highest
| concentration of ideological hysteria in this and all the
| sibling threads, though.
|
| Basically it dismisses any rational arguments related to
| the topic out of hand because they are inherently biased
| and because supposedly "both sides" are equal/must be
| treated equally due to some undefined reasons.
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm not sure what hysteria about lab leaks? I mean maybe
| it did, maybe it didn't.
| yarg wrote:
| The idea that the novel coronavirus didn't escape from
| the coronavirus R&D laboratory never had anywhere near
| enough evidence to be credible.
|
| It was pretty much the WHO simply repeating the claims of
| the Chinese government, who had already tried to cover up
| the outbreak (with any warnings sent to the WHO coming
| from Taiwan instead).
|
| It was about as believable as the completely baseless
| claims that the emergency use authorised vaccine was safe
| and effective.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > Grow up, folks, get outside your comfort zone and engage
| some of those deplorables
|
| Like eat a random whale carcass you find and then dump a
| bear in the central park? Then get infected by brain
| worms...
|
| Surely nobody who hasn't tried doing stuff like that has
| the right to criticise these people?
|
| > does not make them the evil
|
| The person who they think will make a great secretary of
| health has publicly declared that he is an unhinged lunatic
| (I'm not even talking about the vaccines and other stuff
| but only his personal behaviour).
|
| Entirely eliminating any ideological preferences from it
| does not even fundamentally change much...
| noncoml wrote:
| Can you mention one thing that Trump or Musk ever did out of
| altruism?
| bydo wrote:
| Trump set up a whole university!
| tim333 wrote:
| Musk seems quite well meaning. Neuralink, the early
| Starlink donated to Ukraine, trying to move the world to
| Solar/electric etc.
|
| Trump... dunno.
| namaria wrote:
| It sucks for everyone. What you want us to do? Pretend it
| ain't so?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'm more disappointed that we have to have it. They want to
| shutdown the weather service for Christ sakes.
|
| Specifically to transportation, they want to "save money"
| with public-private partnerships and removing the requirement
| to separate design and build functions for contractors.
|
| A textbook example of how that works out is the former Tappan
| Zee bridge in New York. The tollpayers are in the hook to pay
| the contractor for 50 years, and the design has some
| significant flaws that reduced build expense. Stuff like
| bolts regularly falling off the bridge.
|
| Elections have consequences, and hearing about our descent
| into third world graft will continue to annoy you.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > I loathe it
|
| They are planning to appoint a nutjob who has publicly that
| he admitted cutting off the heads of whale carcasses with a
| chainsaw and dumping dead bears in the Central Park for
| "fun". Presumably he is also consuming those rotting animals
| carcasses that he keeps finding somehow (how else do you get
| brain worms?) to be the new US health secretary.
|
| Seriously... what else do you need to know?
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| As a non-american watching the election, this was one of the
| reasons I didn't want the result to be the way it went. Just
| for having to hear about it constantly from everywhere.
| axus wrote:
| It looks like the scientific method to me: Make a hypothesis,
| let the experiment run, check the result.
| asdasdsddd wrote:
| No, we need more SNL trump impressions, Trump pundits, and
| corny jokes
| fumeux_fume wrote:
| Can't be much more worse than an off topic comment.
| more_corn wrote:
| Agreed. This seems like just the sort of government waste that
| department has been created to eliminate.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| If that happens, that would be the most efficient form of
| regulatory capture yet!
| peppertree wrote:
| I suspect the biggest factor is speed. After getting used to EV
| for over a year, every ICE vehicle feels painfully sluggish and
| slow. If that's the case I'm curious to see how the numbers
| compare to other EVs.
| nytesky wrote:
| Torque and touchscreens.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > every ICE vehicle feels painfully sluggish and slow.
|
| You don't do much towing, do you?
| Kiro wrote:
| 99.9% of drivers will never tow anything in their life.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > 99.9% of drivers
|
| I think you've just made that up; however, I am willing to
| stipulate that 99.9% of Hacker News posters will never tow
| anything. I always forget how out of touch the audience
| here is.
| connicpu wrote:
| That might be a little high given how many small boats
| exist in this country, but definitely agree the vast
| majority will never tow.
| roughly wrote:
| Not that one could tell by their vehicle choice, of course.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| The worst 23 models according to the study are here:
| https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
|
| I'm not sure which of them are evs, but you could work it out
| fairly easily. Even if many of them are, it still looks to me
| like tesla is doing poorly by this metric.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| None of the others are EVs, except maybe a small % of Kia
| Souls
| r00fus wrote:
| Mostly non-EVs. In fact the only EVs are both Tesla.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| I heard EVs are very heavy, how can they be faster?
| MBCook wrote:
| EVs have full torque at 0 RPM so they are capable of
| accelerating much faster than an average ICE.
|
| The manufacturer can alter based on software, how much
| current the electrical system is capable of supplying, how
| powerful the motors are, etc.
|
| But even "normal non-performance" EVs that aren't designed
| for performance like a Chevy Bolt come off the line way
| quicker than an equivalent normal car, even if they're full 0
| to 60 time isn't that much faster.
| tim333 wrote:
| I wonder what percentage are autopilot driving into things?
| janalsncm wrote:
| I would also like to know this. How many fatal crashes happened
| where autopilot was engaged in the 30 seconds prior to a fatal
| accident?
|
| By definition, if the autopilot has disengaged it's a more
| dangerous situation, so it is fair to place the blame on it. A
| relief pitcher doesn't get charged with earned runs he
| inherits.
| avidiax wrote:
| Very low.
|
| Technically the driver drove into those things, since autopilot
| disengaged .4 seconds before impact.
|
| Autopilot was just there to ensure the trip to that last .4
| seconds wasn't too draining.
| nytesky wrote:
| Have the demographics of typical Tesla driver changed in last
| 5-10 years? I think it was at first wealthy environmentalists,
| but it shifted to be a new Yuppie mobile, and most recently
| probably skews to a young male crowd?
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| > The study was conducted on model year 2018-2022 vehicles, and
| focused on crashes between 2017 and 2022 that resulted in
| occupant fatalities.
|
| Teslas can go fast real fast, so naively this is the result I
| would expect given how they have filtered the data. In other
| words, unless they controlled for this, this would be biased by
| natural selection playing out.
|
| Having said that, as someone who had a couple of close calls with
| the autopilot. I would love to know what percent of those crashes
| was with autopilot enabled.
| phony-account wrote:
| > Teslas can go fast real fast, so naively this is the result I
| would expect given how they have filtered the data. In other
| words, unless they controlled for this...
|
| Explain to me why you would want to filter out fatalities
| caused by going "real fast"?
| Petersipoi wrote:
| Because comparing the fatality rate of a Corolla going 50mph
| and a Tesla going 90mph is useless to a person who wants a
| car that is safe when driven responsibly.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Unless the Tesla _induces_ unsafe behavior, of course. Does
| the car make it easier to break the speed limit, drive
| distracted, or drive under the influence? I don't know.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Quite literally selling points
| skybrian wrote:
| It seems fair to say that it's difficult to control for
| variation due to the drivers being different. But I don't
| think giving faster cars a better rating is a good way to
| control for that. Faster seems more dangerous for other
| reasons.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Corollas can easily go 90mph, so can a Prius, so can a
| dodge neon.
|
| Even eco-shitboxes in the US have 160 hp. Sure, they get
| 0-60 times of 10 seconds, but I don't think there's been a
| car model in the US that cannot reach 100mph in decades
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| If a bunch of lunatics buy the car because it is fast, and
| kill themselves, that doesn't necessarily affect my safety in
| the car if I'm buying it for some other feature and don't
| intend to drive it dangerously.
| piva00 wrote:
| I think gathering the data to judge who's a lunatic is
| quite hard and fragile. Finding proxies like past
| infractions record would be already hard enough to compile
| at scale, I can't really derive a passable methodology that
| could tell you what you're asking for.
|
| At least the data informs others that perhaps it's good to
| be cautious around Teslas, not very much if it's a safe
| purchase, and they state that it's a safe car so I don't
| see the hangup you had about it on position of a buyer.
| MBCook wrote:
| > In other words, unless they controlled for this, this would
| be biased by natural selection playing out.
|
| Why should they control for it? It's a natural consequence of
| Tesla's design choices, not a total coincidence that Tesla had
| no control over.
| bunderbunder wrote:
| I'd love to see some sort of multiple regression or ANOVA on
| this, instead of singling out a single variable. Is car brand
| really the best independent predictor? Or is it specific design
| decisions you tend to see in certain brands?
|
| (Like, say, maximizing driver distraction by consolidating a
| bunch of essential controls and information displays into a
| touchscreen display that's really difficult to operate when it's
| sunny outside. Just to pick something at random, of course.)
|
| Somewhat related, I was recently shopping for refrigerators, and
| fell down a data rabbit hole. If you just look at the overall
| style of fridge, French doors look like a _terrible_ option from
| a reliability perspective. But then, digging in a bit more, it
| turns out that 's kind of a spurious correlation. Actually it's
| the presence of bells and whistles like through-door ice
| dispensers that kill a refrigerator's reliability. And then
| perhaps on top of that the amount of extra Rube Goldberg machine
| you need to make a chest height ice dispenser work in a bottom-
| freezer French door refrigerator creates even more moving parts
| to break. But a those problems don't apply to a model that
| doesn't have that feature.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| It's an interesting perspective. I was recently shopping for
| shoes, and a fully closed shoe had more places where it could
| break compared to my flip flops. That's why whenever you are
| doing a dangerous activity, flip flops are recommended.
| TheGamerUncle wrote:
| Nick Mullen may disagree
| bunderbunder wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure an anecdote about the dangers of
| singling out just one variable is a great counterpoint to a
| criticism of the practice of singling out just one variable.
| stego-tech wrote:
| I mean, even lacking proper scientific data, ask yourself how
| often your brain "autocompletes" someone based on a brand or
| object? There's a reason advertisers spend so much money and
| effort cultivating a very specific customer image: _it works_.
|
| In the case of Tesla - and I cannot overstress enough how much
| lf this is purely subjective conjecture on my part and _not a
| statement of fact_ - the image cultivated by the company and
| its Chief Executive is very much one of rejecting norms and
| expectations, fierce independence, and a hostility towards
| others (mostly from the Cybertruck unveiling onward). The
| people who relate to that brand would, I would think, be more
| likely to flout laws like speed limits, failing to use
| indicators for turns or merges, and drive more aggressively
| than a brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience
| (like Hondas and Toyotas). My _purely subjective experiences_
| bear this out, and I'm consistently rewarded giving Teslas a
| wider berth on the roads.
|
| So as far as branding as an indicator of outcome, yeah, I can
| totally see that being a reliable indicator. I'd still be darn
| curious to see more research about it, though.
| sshine wrote:
| > _The people who relate to that brand would, I would think,
| be more likely to flout laws like speed limits, failing to
| use indicators for turns or merges, and drive more
| aggressively than a brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment
| of experience_
|
| And BMW owners like German shepherds?
| soerxpso wrote:
| This was my thought as well from looking at the actual list.
| Of the top 5 models with the worst fatal accident rate, 2 are
| luxury cars that seem like they'd attract drivers with
| reckless personalities (the Chevrolet Corvette and the
| Porsche 911). I don't think the average mile driven in a
| Corvette is really equivalent to the average mile driven in a
| Honda Civic.
|
| This data is interesting, but not really useful for
| decisionmaking if we can't isolate the extent to which the
| disparities are caused by features of the actual vehicle, as
| opposed to driver selection factors.
|
| Is anyone making an argument that the Model Y has an actual
| safety problem in its design? I'd like to hear about which
| physical aspect of the car people think is making it 4x less
| safe than the average car? I don't see anything obvious. Its
| crash test performance is fine. I'd hesitate to blame
| autopilot, since we know that they crash less often with
| autopilot enabled than without (even if due to selection
| factors).
| piotrkaminski wrote:
| > brand that emphasizes safety or enjoyment of experience
| (like Hondas and Toyotas)
|
| This is plausible on its face, and yet the Honda CR-V Hybrid
| ended up higher on the list than the Model Y. No idea how to
| explain that...
| jameskraus wrote:
| I'd love to read any analysis you've done like this, or any
| reading you might recommend.
| cowpig wrote:
| Check out the study, it's linked to in the article:
|
| https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
| bilsbie wrote:
| I was thinking for my next fridge to just buy a plain cheap one
| and then buy a cheap countertop ice cube maker.
|
| Since that's the thing that always breaks on the fridges. And
| it adds like $500 to the price.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| Mine is French door without a front ice maker/water, and I
| love it. Way more room in the fridge too. Just open the
| bottom to get ice.
| interestica wrote:
| Dedicated Ice Makers can be quite good and fast at what they
| do too.
| jdietrich wrote:
| The Tesla Model Y is a two ton SUV with the performance of a
| Porsche 911. The base RWD model is fast and the Performance
| model is _stupidly_ fast. I don 't think anyone would be
| particularly surprised to learn that Porsche drivers get into a
| lot of fatal accidents.
| technothrasher wrote:
| The top most model of the Model Y is as fast _in a straight
| line_ as the lowest base model 911, and the handling isn 't
| even close to the same. Saying the Model Y has the
| performance of the 911 is not really an accurate statement.
| CarVac wrote:
| The straight-line performance is exactly what makes it
| dangerous.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| To be more precise, it's probably the disparity between
| straight-line performance and cornering performance that
| gets people in real trouble.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Don't the aerodynamics severely limit the cornering
| performance of the Model Y? How can it have the same
| performance? Or is there only one metric of performance that
| is being measured?
| larkost wrote:
| I would suspect that it is the weight of the vehicle that
| is the primary driver there. There is some additional
| negative effects of the vehicle being taller (increasing
| roll), but that is probably mostly mitigated by the battery
| pack pulling down the (vertical) center of mass. But
| certainly the aerodynamics creating less down-force would
| play some role.
| XenophileJKO wrote:
| Looking at the results.. it does make you wonder if there is
| something other underlying problem with the model Y vs the
| Model X or model 3.
| floxy wrote:
| >I don't think anyone would be particularly surprised to
| learn that Porsche drivers get into a lot of fatal accidents.
|
| From the actual study:
| Fatal Accident Rate Compared to Rank| Model
| |(per 10^9 Miles) | Overall Average ----+---------
| ------------+--------------------+-----------------
| 1 | Hyundai Venue | 13.9 | 4.9x
| 2 | Chevrolet Corvette | 13.6 | 4.8x
| 3 | Mitsubishi Mirage | 13.6 | 4.8x
| 4 | Porsche 911 | 13.2 | 4.6x
| 5 | Honda CR-V Hybrid | 13.2 | 4.6x
| 6 | Tesla Model Y | 10.6 | 3.7x
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| So the Tesla Model Y has a lower fatal accident rate than
| sports cars, but they report it as Tesla overall having the
| highest fatal accident rate? Perhaps that's because _all_
| the cars they make are stupid fast and heavy, and they
| don't offer cars where it's far harder to get into those
| situations?
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I wonder if it's because there's more passengers per
| model Y on average than a two-door sports car!
|
| One fatal model Y accident might cause half a dozen gas
| fatalities, but a Porsche wrapped around a tree might
| kill just the lone driver.
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| Good point too. Things that the authors should've thought
| about.
| piotrkaminski wrote:
| What in the world is the Honda CR-V Hybrid doing so high on
| this list?! That doesn't seem to fit any of the theories
| I've seen spun up so far.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| My fridge has been repaired twice, the first time within its
| first year. Both times, each repair guy said the same thing:
| Avoid LG and Samsung. Avoid counter depth. I have no idea if
| that's accurate, so I'm curious if your data dive backs up
| either of those notes?
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| What is "counter depth"?
| aziaziazi wrote:
| > essential controls
|
| Can't you drive a Tesla without it? I expect the screen was for
| radio, gps, AC...
|
| I agree those are distracting through.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Rent a Tesla and try to adjust the mirrors while driving I
| dare you.
|
| Less difficult but much more common:
|
| Change the radio station / music.
|
| Change the climate control.
|
| Both of those _require_ taking your eyes off the road and
| navigating through multiple touch screen-only modal windows.
| I have owned one for years and it is a distraction factory.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I get it but Climate and Music can wait right? It's a
| vehicle not an entertainment room. And adjusting motor
| while driving seems crazy and dangerous!! changing
| something that supposed to be set before departure?
|
| At least that's what taught at driving school and written
| in texts I guess... too sad the distraction factory is so
| dangerous. I wouldn't drive that.
| bunderbunder wrote:
| Engineers should not ask reality to adapt to their
| designs; they should adapt their designs to reality.
| altairprime wrote:
| The linked study is better: https://www.iseecars.com/most-
| dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
| samatman wrote:
| > _"Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings,
| performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it's
| not a vehicle design issue," said Brauer. "The models on this
| list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and
| driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and
| fatalities."_
|
| Quoting what's easily the most important passage in that study.
|
| The two Teslas on the list are the Model Y, right beneath the
| Porsche 911, and the Model S, right beneath the... Toyota
| Prius.
|
| So yeah. No surprises here. It's a study where the lesson
| should be "a car is as dangerous as its driver" and everyone is
| going to read it as "Teslas are deathtraps". What else is new.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| That just assumes that the crash tests are good indicators of
| actual safety. My understanding is that car manufacturers
| could go much further in the name of safety, but do just
| enough to scrape by on those crash tests. So there could
| definitely be differentials in terms of safety even among
| cars that have perfect safety measures from IIHS/NHTSA.
| ccorcos wrote:
| It's hard to to be cynical about the intentions of the
| authors of the original article after seeing this...
| Animats wrote:
| How much data does Tesla have on the details of crashes? Probably
| depends on whether enough electronics survived to phone home.
|
| It's possible to dig the airbag controller out of the wreckage
| and read out the last 30 seconds or so. Airbag controllers have a
| short but nonvolatile memory and usually survive crashes. That
| gets you speed, acceleration in several axes, plus steering,
| brake, and power inputs, and detailed info about what the airbag
| system did.[1] Those were originally created to tune the airbag
| algorithm, and, over the years, false airbag deployments have
| dropped almost to zero.
|
| That's the basic info needed to analyze fatal crashes. Speed at
| collision? Speed 10 secs before collision? Accelerator and brake
| inputs? Maneuvering (side accel) before crash? That, plus the
| crash scene, tells most of what you need to know.
|
| Law enforcement will sometimes read out those units, when it's
| not clear what happened. It's not done routinely.
|
| [1]
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/fmvss/EDR_QAs_11...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| "Fun" fact... Tesla doesn't count fatalities in their accident
| stats!
|
| Nor does it count accidents where there was no airbag
| deployment because as you point out, modern airbag systems use
| a wide variety of parameters, not just "if speed > x and
| collision = true; deploy".
|
| So you can hit someone obliquely at 30mph, and due to factors,
| airbags don't deploy, and Tesla says "great, not an accident".
|
| Or you can be in such a serious collision or similar where the
| airbags CAN'T deploy, and Tesla? "Not an accident".
| fakedang wrote:
| Something something Lex Fridman something.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| Seems flawed. Tesla Model Y was the best selling model worldwide
| for 2023. (I think #3 if limited to US.) The study only covers
| 2017-2022, but we can infer that for the entire Brand, Teslas
| sold quite well over at least that latter part of that period.
|
| Now if there are more Teslas on the road vs other vehicles (note
| they excluded car model years earlier than 2017, another fatal
| (heh) flaw in the study), it makes sense they would have more
| fatalities.
|
| So this should be normalized "per capita" to vehicle counts if we
| want to extract any brand-related causality, in the same way as
| the data is already normalized to miles driven.
|
| I enjoy hating on Tesla as much as the next person, but come on.
| cachecrab wrote:
| It's on a "per billion miles driven" basis so it is normalized.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| If you had clicked through to the article before writing your
| comment, you would know that the stat being compared is "fatal
| crash rate per billion miles driven", and that the fatal crash
| rate for Teslas is 2.0x the national average
| Projectiboga wrote:
| What is the Horsepower equivalent of the Tesla power trains? Is
| this just because they are the new luxury sportscar and many of
| these drivers haven't been trough major car repairs, ever? The
| zero to sixty of even a basic Tesla is very quick and even with
| strong breaking other physical limits with turning and
| maneuvering can arise if some one is zooming around weaving in
| traffic. These stats need to be studied by age and other
| demographics like age, income and alcohol consumption.
| MBCook wrote:
| It's not just the horsepower, a big thing is the torque. There
| is so much and it's available basically from zero. So even if
| you can compare it to a combustion engine with the same amount
| of horsepower it may take off the line a lot faster.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I remember some car collision data that showed that men were more
| likely to get into _any_ collision and women were more likely to
| get into _a fatal_ collision. A comment I read about the study
| suggested the conclusion that men take _more_ risks while women
| take _bigger_ risks.
|
| It's interesting to think in that context about this. Could Tesla
| drivers be taking bigger risks because they think the car's
| software will save them from the negative consequences of their
| risky decisions? (As an extreme example, one such driver opted to
| drive in the back seat instead of the driver's seat.
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-highway-patr...)
| sombrero_john wrote:
| > A comment I read about the study suggested the conclusion
| that men take more risks while women take bigger risks.
|
| Or women's weaker musculoskeletal systems provide less
| protection against blunt force trauma?
| roughly wrote:
| Or, like medicine and a whole variety of other fields, "male"
| is assumed default and anyone who isn't the default has worse
| outcomes.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/business/car-safety-
| women...
| mrguyorama wrote:
| If you look into car safety testing and design, they haven't
| used "Woman sized" crash test dummies until very very
| recently.
|
| Cars were less safe for women because they were not designed
| to be safe for women.
| bastloing wrote:
| If you read the article it implies driver fault not car fault.
| Tesla receiving the highest ever crash safety ratings echos that.
| MBCook wrote:
| The huge difference between their cars seems to indicate that
| too. The Y is way above their brand average, for example.
| yumraj wrote:
| > "The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver
| behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and
| fatalities,"
|
| I'm assuming the driver behavior also includes relying on the
| half baked auto pilot/FSD features.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| I wonder how this breaks down by region. I imagine a heavy car is
| probably bad in the snow.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I'm really confused. A major reason I bought one was because I
| heard they were so safe.
| MBCook wrote:
| If you read the end of the article they basically say that
| Teslas are safe.
|
| It really appears to be an issue of average Tesla driver
| behavior compared to overall average driver behavior.
| vegadw wrote:
| I think they _probably_ are when not using "autopilot" as
| others are commenting, this isn't cause. It's likely that the
| brand attracts a kind of driver that likes to speed or that
| wants to over rely on assisted driving tech that isn't there
| yet.
|
| That said, I suspect they're regressing, like how they removed
| ultrasonic sensors which are a dime a dozen to only rely on
| computer vision. That's just plain stupid, IMHO.
|
| For the money, I think you can do much better than a Tesla in
| many regards, but I'm not about to shame you for reading
| marketing and believing it either, especially if it was pre the
| current Musk hell and the general knowledge that he's
| essentially a fraudster given the perpetual 1 year away for
| autopilot and what not.
| itake wrote:
| I wish this would break down driver and passenger deaths in the
| tesla vs outside the tesla.
|
| if other people are more likely to hit a tesla or are tesla
| drivers usually at fault?
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| How does iSeeCars (who did the study) know how many miles were
| driven by each brand's cars? It says they have a database of
| cars, but do we know whether it's an unbiased sample?
| postmeta wrote:
| exactly, we should ask Karl Brauer to cite his sources and
| explain his methodology
| pluc wrote:
| Let's put that guy in charge of government efficiency, what's the
| worst that could happen
| whitej125 wrote:
| > Tesla vehicles have a fatal crash rate of 5.6 per billion miles
| driven, according to the study;
|
| > So, why are Teslas -- and many other ostensibly safe cars on
| the list -- involved in so many fatal crashes? "The models on
| this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and
| driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,"
|
| What is the nature of those miles driven by each brand? I've got
| to imagine that pure-EV companies like Tesla are predominantly
| driven in urban/city driving (shorter daily distances, more
| traffic, etc). In contrast to ICE cars which can rack up lots of
| miles on long trips.
|
| 1 billion Tesla miles I suspect looks different than 1 billion
| Ford miles.
| breckenedge wrote:
| > In 2022, the rate of crash deaths per 100 million miles
| traveled was much higher in rural areas than in urban areas
| (1.68 in rural areas compared with 1.15 in urban areas). From
| 1977 to 2022, the rates decreased by 61% in rural areas (from
| 4.35 to 1.68) and 51% in urban areas (from 2.35 to 1.15).
|
| https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...
| why_at wrote:
| The ranking is still strange to me though. The model S is lower
| than the model Y even though it is smaller and faster, both of
| which should make it less safe, and the model 3 didn't even
| make the list.
| stbullard wrote:
| Misleading/clickbait "journalism":
|
| * The FARS data is "normalized" by unpublished internal iSeeCars
| estimates of miles driven; the underlying "study" is a marketing
| blog post for their company.
|
| * FARS data distinguishes between driver and occupant fatalities
| - the "study" looks only at occupant fatalities, which is not
| what most people would reasonably expect given the headline.
|
| * One might reasonably suspect Tesla's long history of touting
| 5-star safety ratings and advanced safety tech could lead to
| passengers being lulled into a false sense of security, and being
| less likely to use seatbelts.
|
| Driver fatalities and seatbelt use are right there in the FARS
| data - one wonders why these weren't considered and incorporated
| in the "study".
|
| Anyhow, a note to the HN user: don't upvote FUD-sowing headlines
| based on blog posts about unscientific "studies" that are really
| just submarine PR; they carry none of the credibility of the
| underlying studies, and are a disservice to the scientists and
| public servants who rigorously and faithfully collect and analyze
| this data.
|
| HN used to be better than this...
| drcode wrote:
| Per page 234 of FARS, drivers are classified as occupants
| https://www.ire.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/USERGUIDE-201...
| _wire_ wrote:
| In any lineup by height someone is tallest and someone is
| shortest, so what's significant about Tesla in this spread? If
| not them then another.
|
| A significant aspect is that Telsa, as a harbinger of "progress",
| by this measure is making cars less safe. That's a surprising
| development as it's contrary to the promises and prognostications
| for the devices.
|
| It's expected that the distribution of harm from cars would
| change with increasing automation, but the promise of the
| automation is to make the devices safer overall. So is this a key
| metric by which we find that the progress is actually a hazard,
| or is the changing distribution part of an overall trend of
| improvement with some hazardous edge cases?
|
| All we have with this article is yet another headline with no
| useful information.
|
| > "A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent
| speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is
| the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle
| they're driving."
|
| What does "focused and alert" mean for a robot? Does arriving
| safely allow a wake of carnage?
|
| The Trump administration figures as a harbinger for such
| questions in that he is a well-known champion of disinformation
| in favor of his self interest, as are all of his cabinet picks
| and advisors. But this is in keeping with the modern history of
| the GOP.
| Alupis wrote:
| > The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate
| Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In
| fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the
| Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024
| Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of
| the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been
| given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the
| National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.
|
| > So, why are Teslas -- and many other ostensibly safe cars on
| the list -- involved in so many fatal crashes? "The models on
| this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and
| driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,"
| iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report. "A
| focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed,
| without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the
| most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they're
| driving."
|
| Ok so Tesla's aren't less safe than any other vehicle in this
| lineup. It's just that Tesla drivers are more likely to be
| careless.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| My first thought was if mass got factored into it, but it looks
| like mass has already crept up pretty high for other cars. A
| Toyota Prius is about 3200 lbs and a Model 3 is about 4000 lbs
| or 3800 lbs for their lightest variant. My mental models were
| outdated and still imagined sedans as about one ton and change.
| While bigger not as significant a factor as I initially
| thought.
| scruple wrote:
| I spend a lot of time driving around Irvine, CA and it _feels
| like_ the Tesla (especially Model Y) capital of the world. And I
| am not at all surprised to see these sorts of fatality statistics
| about these vehicles because _their drivers_ are, far and away,
| the most distracted and oblivious drivers I have ever encountered
| on the road in 28 years of driving.
| jccc wrote:
| Buried at the very end of the article:
|
| > The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver
| behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and
| fatalities," iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the
| report.
|
| > "A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent
| speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is
| the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle
| they're driving.
| jaco6 wrote:
| The list of deadliest cars is a mixture of compact cars and
| sports cars. Compact cars are less safe because they get
| obliterated in collisions with bigger vehicles. Sports cars are
| unsafe because drivers tend to drive them at high speeds and
| attempt dangerous cornering maneuvers, eg driving the Pacific
| Coastal Highway at high speeds.
|
| Teslas are faster than many sports cars, but in the case of the
| Model Y and Model X lack the preferred low profile of a true
| sports car. In the case of the Model S, the acceleration is so
| great that it is frankly surprising it doesn't rank higher. I
| wonder how many new Model S owners have gotten themselves killed
| within a few days of owning the car?
|
| I myself purchased a Model 3 last year and drove it quite
| foolishly for the first few months I had it. The acceleration was
| so amazing to me coming from a Honda Accord that it was hard to
| resist the temptation to weave and corner like a mad man. Model S
| would have been even worse. The Model S also has a long body like
| a full size sedan, not ideal for sports performance either,
| compared to the Model 3's short length, more comparable to a
| Corrola or Toyota BRZ.
|
| So I suspect that speculations about "Tesla drivers being morons"
| and "distracted by the screen" (almost all new cars have shiny
| screens!) are nonsense.
|
| But I do agree with some commenters that the autonomous features,
| and particular misuse of those features, are probably a
| contributor to these statistics as well. If you're new to them
| you assume they are safer than they really are. With more
| experience you realize you still need to be watching the road the
| whole time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-15 23:01 UTC)