You can't compare absolute numbers of deaths in a year vs. number of cars sold in that year. Safety is calculated as injuries per miles driven. For death rate, it is usually shown as deaths per 100k miles driven.<p>Vehicles sold here is also a mis-leading number. It is talking about Volvo's total safety across all models, but then only including sales numbers for it Electric Vehicles. Tesla sells many more EVs than Volvo.<p>It talks about battery fires in Tesla models, which are rare. But ignores how many fires happen in ICE vehicles, even though the are far more common.<p>Everything in this article is mis-leading and low quality analysis.
"When I post this chart I often hear Tesla believers complain it doesn’t conform to their bias because it obscures sales volumes. Does it? In fact, it is the opposite. First, volume shouldn’t cause more deaths to start with (remember more cars means more data, which means more safety). Second, Tesla doesn’t have higher volume."<p>I don't agree with the first part. Volume does matter doesn't it? However the first part is mute if Volvo sold more cars.
This post is dangerously innumerate. I don't like Tesla, but I do like math: accidents are a <i>rate</i>, so of course mileage matters.<p>The table is also pernicious, as it shows cars sold in a year per model vs deaths in a year per model. Almost sounds legit, until you realize "no wait, sold per year doesn't matter, just how many were operating".
This just seems weird, clearly bias too...<p>Looking at that chart, not even touching on the other issues, it says the source is tesladeaths.com. Going there, just using the first 10 entires makes the entire data look bad. This database would literally count someone in a Tesla, purposely running over someone as a "Tesla death" which sure I guess but it's obviously disingenuous.<p>entry #2 and #3 are both DUIs where the driver hits someone else... There's even an entry where a Tesla gets into a fender bender and a BMW hits a "responder" and that gets labeled a Tesla death ???<p>I'd be shocked if the author even looked at the entries lol.<p>Overall, this is just ridiculous tbh.
Regardless of the truth behind it, this is bogus statistics at its best:<p>“Look at the following table showing this year of high sales volumes for electric cars next to total deaths by model”<p>You can’t compare single year sales to <i>total</i> deaths by model. You’ve got cars on that chart that have only been for sale for a single year, and one that has been available for a decade.<p>10 years of sales and 10 years of miles driven would be expected to have more deaths than 1 year of sales… and that’s before you account for a decade’s worth of potential improvements.<p>The only way to show a true correlation would be a year by year breakdown of miles driven vs deaths.
There’s actual data on the IIHS site where you can compare like with like.<p><a href="https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model" rel="nofollow">https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...</a><p><a href="https://www.iihs.org/ratings/insurance-losses-by-make-and-model" rel="nofollow">https://www.iihs.org/ratings/insurance-losses-by-make-and-mo...</a>
Gets even better, scrolled down a bit and saw this entry:<p><a href="https://www.winknews.com/2020/01/31/state-troopers-responding-to-charlotte-county-fatal-crash-along-us-41-tribune-blvd/" rel="nofollow">https://www.winknews.com/2020/01/31/state-troopers-respondin...</a><p>This database is counting _this_ as a Tesla death.<p>The source being used in that very database says the Nissan lost control, hit the median and the driver died due to injuries. The Tesla hit the debris of the wreckage but neither driver nor passenger was harmed.<p>Just wow.
I'm completely willing to believe Tesla's safety record is poor, and in fact, I fully expect it to be the case, because Musk sure as fuck doesn't care about the safety of peons, but this article doesn't seem to have any valid data backing the assertion.
The <i>Tesla deaths per year</i> bar chart peaks at 2019 and then decays for 2020 and 2021. It is presented by the author, however, as exponential growth.<p>That’s the moment this article jumped the shark, for me. No one knows what the trend is, but the author clearly only wants to consider one interpretation.<p>I’ve flagged it, but maybe someone can vouch for this article as being written by a serious and reputable blogger?
<p><pre><code> It stands out because this brand is superior to Tesla in every way, including innovation (because safety is valued), yet somehow Tesla has pranced around falsely claiming to be better at safety than Volvo.
</code></pre>
The singular redeemable thing about this article is how quickly it advertises its bias. I guess it has some value for people looking to confirm their own beliefs?
> Look at the following table showing this year of high sales volumes for electric cars next to total deaths by model<p>But the deaths come from previous years too. There are about 500k Tesla Model 3s on the road vs 12k Ford Mustang Mach Es.
How much does it cost to buy posts like this?<p>Much like spam and robocalls, there must be an economic incentive or they wouldn't keep doing it.<p>It shouldn't be amplified on HN, though.
<p><pre><code> And while Volvo states a clear commitment to reaching zero deaths
and shows very obvious actions to achieving that laudable goal,
Tesla seems only to come up with lies and excuses for why it has
keeps failing — killing more and more people.
</code></pre>
The post convincingly makes that case. Now I have an urge to buy a Volvo.