Is it possible that there’s a large overlap between idiots who are bad at driving and the type of people who buy Teslas?
Yep, and the fact that a ton of people who get these cars legit think they will drive themselves…
Does this statistic account for actual sales? I wonder if there are so many accidents because there are so many. I’m not a fanboy or anything. I am just curious how this was calculated.
Lol you really think there are more tesla on the road than Toyota or Ford?
It all depends on where you live. So yea. More extensive research would be nice.
It says per 1000 drivers
Correct. But how many thousands are there? And in relation to what percentage of all Teslas compared to all other brands with similar models. Do I believe it? Absolutely. Is it a good statistic? It’s a good start.
It’s adjusted per capita. You can’t ask for better.
Does it include accidents by autopilot?
That venn diagram looks like the mid point of an eclipse
Its like how red cars get more speeding tickets.
That’s actually a myth
I can’t fathom any other reality.
I blame the touchscreen first ideology. Give em some physical buttons that you can feel without taking your eyes off the road.
That and the sheer power can make accidents happen faster than you can react.
Those cars with only touchscreen terrify me. I don’t even dare to turn down the AC in the EV car I drove last month when I feel a little cold because it would took THREE precision taps (small UI buttons) at DIFFERENT locations on the screen just to open the Climate Control screen. I have to pull over just to adjust the fan speed, smh.
The dashboard is also a fucking screen with multiple tabs that I have to “scroll” through with a knob on the wheel.
I hate the fucking thing the entire time I’m driving it.
This is a very good point. The more a person is forced to take their eyes off the road, the less safe they become as a driver.
I don’t understand how using a cell phone while driving is a violation in most places, but using a touchscreen as the dashboard is is just fine. Whaaaa …?
It depends. A touch screen, when used sparingly for non-essential features with a clear UI that is up high near the driver’s field of vision, is much safer than smartphone use.
It’s likely no more dangerous than tuning the radio. [Citation needed]
I hear VW is putting buttons back in.
A friendly reminder that road safety advocates recommend against the use of the word “accident” to describe car crashes, because it downplays the fact that many crashes are preventable, either by better safe road design or by the drivers being more responsible with with 2 tonne machinery they are operating.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If it isn’t intentional then isn’t it by definition an accident?
If I break my leg while mountainbiking it seems a bit unreasonable to claim that it wasn’t an accident because mountainbiking is an extreme sport and this could’ve been avoided if I was knitting instead.
I’m speeding through a school zone at 60km/h… I didnt INTEND to kill anyone, but i didnt see the crosswalk and mowed down a bunch of pedestrians.
This is not an accident. Entirely preventable. Intent doesnt matter
The vast majority of car collisions are entirely avoidable.
This is not an accident. Entirely preventable. Intent doesnt matter
This is quite literally the opposite of the truth. You should consult a dictionary.
E: if any downvoters want to point me to a definition from a legitimate source that says “accident” means “not preventable” and doesn’t mention intent, I will delete this comment in shame.
Otherwise 🖕
It’s partly about it being preventable, but mostly about it being expected.
The expected outcome of drunk driving or speeding through crosswalks is hitting someone. It’s preventable by not driving drunk or not speeding.
A careful driver in the Netherlands killing a cyclist in a city center on a 20mph road is unexpected and fairly surprising - that would be a true accident. A drunk driver hitting someone on an American stroad is depressingly normal. It’s hard to call it an accident.
In aviation, an intentional accident is still an accident. A suicidal pilot can deliberately crash an airplane, and it’s still considered an accident.
Which “road safety advocates” are those?
“Accident” simply means it was not intentional and has absolutely nothing to do with preventability.
Yeah, that’ll fix it!
This is purely my anecdotal experience, but Tesla drivers appear to be some of the worst drivers on the road. There are stereotypes of drivers. BMW’s never signal their turns, Jeeps think they can drive basically however they want including on shoulders, and Tesla drivers are oblivious to any kind of spatial understanding of the road around them.
I came here to say exactly that. You can blame Musk for many things, but the cars are only as good as their drivers, and they are some of the worst I’ve seen indeed.
Yeah all the priest drivers switched to tesla’s, I’ve seen them so many times getting in the highway going to slow and merging across all lanes just to cause traffic
My guess it’s kind of like when you get solar panels and you’re tied to the grid you feel a little better about using electricity willy-nilly, and so you use more electricity with solar panels than without.
I’m willing to bet that Tesla drivers were told that this vehicle will prevent them from getting an accident and so they are driving worse because they feel like they don’t have to be as on guard as they do behind a non Tesla vehicle.
How can you write an article like this with zero citations? They mention Lending Tree, who is a mortgage originator and that’s it.
Even the Lending Tree “article” has a disclaimer at the top that they haven’t reviewed or approved any of it.
The actual source is on the first sentence, this is just a tabloid repost
Yeah that wasn’t there earlier. They must have added it.
I have a hard time seeing why the average person should have a zero to 60 in the sub 6 second range. People fucking suck at driving.
While I love to jump on the anti-Elon bus, I have to query: the highest accident rates, or highest accident rates as a percentage of vehicles on the road? If you have 10 Tesla cars on the road, and there are 2 MGs on the road, and 2 Telsas and one MG crashes, then what? 20% of Tesla vs. 50% of MG, but also that could be framed as ‘double the number of Teslas crash compared to MGs’ or ‘Tesla has the highest accident rate of any auto brand’.
Good question
Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76) and Subaru (20.90) were the only other brands with more than 20 accidents per 1,000 drivers for every brand.
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers.
Wonder how many drivers of each brand they actually have, that would very much sway the numbers if they have smaller numbers of some brands insured.
This sounds like less of a “study” and more of a top ten list for page views.
The right source for this kind of stuff is the NHTSA’s database, but you can’t manufacture juicy headlines from that.
Oh this is hilarious. First, I own a Mercury and a Ram, so I’m apparently the best and the worst at having accidents, DUIs, and tickets.
But I think there’s an inherent terrible bias in the data: “Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data…” In other words, people who are regularly shopping for insurance. Probably because they have high rates, so therefore they are looking for better rates. Why do they have high rates? Probably because they have more crashes, DUIs, and other tickets than the average drivers.
I doubt that most people with normal rates go changing insurance companies regularly.
You should always rate shop on a regular basis. There is no such thing as loyalty to an insurance company. I cannot think of any corporate entity with less loyal than an insurance company.
Yes, there are a million things I should be doing, if you watch the financial advice. But no one really has the time to do all of those things. And you have to watch that you’re getting an actual quote from the company, not just a pre-quote that can be revised later. It’s a lot of time and work.
Also, with the horror stories I hear about other companies, I’m inclined to stick with mine even if they are a bit more. When our car was totaled a few years ago, they offered exactly what similar condition cars of the same make and model were selling for in our area, plus tax and fees, minus our deductible. We had done the research, and I was bracing for a fight, so I was stunned when they opened with that amount, then added the taxes and fees. We literally could have taken the check we received, plus our deductible, and replaced the car with one in similar condition and mileage (I wish we had, because I really dislike the car we bought instead). I see the horror stories people post about other companies, and I’m always thinking, “yeah, that wasn’t my experience.”
Here’s where the loyalty part comes into play: if the insurance company doesn’t like something, they can and will drop you or refuse to renew your policy depending on relevant laws. They might have decent service and pay claims without much of a fight, and those are incredibly valuable service qualities. So you’re making the right decision for yourself if that’s what’s important to you and that’s the experience you’ve had.
But if all things are equal, there’s no good reason to pay a higher premium for the same service. You better believe that insurance company will drop you in a heartbeat if their analysis indicates that they won’t have the level of profit from you that they want. As a for-profit business, that’s their perogative just as much as it’s yours if you want to switch.
I tend to agree with you by the way. Loyalty comes in many forms. I might not be loyal to a company per se. If they’ve consistently provided me with a level of service that I’m satisfied with at a price that I feel is appropriate for the value, then I’m not going to go through the trouble of checking prices and switching carriers every year just to save a few bucks. And there’s the hassle of being hounded by a half dozen companies that now have your contact info after you requested quotes. That’s all a big no thanks from me.
It’s not really loyalty, per se…it’s that they seem to be offering a reasonable price and good service, so I don’t see a reason to change. If some other company offered much better rates for the same coverage and service level, I’d switch. But I’m not spending hours and hours each year to find I might save $50/year either; that’s a waste of my time.
Holy F… this image is from an accident couple of years ago near Baarn, The Netherlands. My brother in law was present at the scene as a fireman. Took them several hours to put out the battery fire. First time an accident ruptured the batteries and no one knew how to handle this type of fires yet.
deleted by creator
Maybe they’re sentient and actively suicidal.
It would be a brilliant way to knock people off.
Terra Ignota used carefully calculated automobile tragedies as a pretext for civil war.
Unpopular opinion: all “fun” cars should be banned from public roads. You think driving is “fun”? Go to a racing track and have fun there. When I’m commuting I want to get to work safely, that’s my only objective. I don’t want to share the road with an idiot who thinks he’s the next Schumacher and can drive safely at 150km/h. All cars should have speed limiters installed. Why can they drive faster then the national speed limit at all? It makes no sense. You want to race? Put your racing car on a flat bet and carry it to the racetrack, I don’t care. The idea that driving is “fun” is cancer that killed more people than… well, real cancer. Shows like Top Gear that promote this idea are responsible for more deaths than Nazis.
Edit: Ok, I was wrong, cancer kills more people. Bad example. 1.3M people die in car accidents every year. Speeding is the second most common cause. Just think about another example like guns or something.
I know people in the US get their license in a few days. But in europe people take a proper course over a few weeks and drive dafely and routinely at speeds up to 200 km/h. Not that I disagree with the fun part.
Yeah, I’m sure they can drive safely at 200km/h at a race track. There’s no way to drive safely above the speed limit on a public road.
There’s no way to drive safely above the speed limit on a public road.
If you’re driving a well maintained regular car in good conditions you absolutely can drive safely above many speed limits. If the speed limit was set at the true limit of safety nothing but the best handling vehicles in the best of conditions could drive at said limit safely, and this is clearly not the case for the vast majority of speed limits. Instead most traffic can travel safely at the set speed limit in less than ideal vehicles and in less than ideal conditions, so logically there are going to be situations where it would be safe to drive above said limit.
Consider too speed limit changes. In my area there have been a few roads recently which have been lowered from 100km/h limits to 80km/h. Nothing changed about these roads except the speed limit signs. Why was it possible to drive safely at the 100km/h limit one day but not possible to drive safely at the same speed on the next day? Another road several years back had its speed limit changed from 80km/h to 90km/h. Again only the signs changed, so why would it be unsafe to drive 90km/h there one day when that would be the speed limit the following day?
As with everything we do, there is a subjective element to setting limits, but it’s definitely not as arbitrary as you are suggesting. Maybe they reduced one limit because there were too many accidents, and maybe they increased the other because they finally got the signal pattern working as intended.
Risk assessment is incredibly complex. It might be perfectly reasonable to drive 110km/h on a given road most of the time, but frequent use by large farm equipment could necessitate a lower speed. Or, maybe adjusting traffic on road x decreases accidents on road y.
We are still learning how to produce vehicles that reliably compensate for variables like friction, or human reaction time. The implications of even these two simple things seem to be completely lost on most drivers: with a tiny bit of rubber touching the asphalt, we happily drive around in inconceivably heavy vehicles at rates where it’s very easy for an event to begin and end before we even suspect something is imminent.
While I’m here: turn your lights on when you start your car, turn into your own fucking lane, always move over if someone is behind you in the fast lane even if you think you’re going “fast enough” (someone could be bleeding out, seriously), don’t pass people on the wrong side, and finally: stop trusting the meat in your head so much, our brains fuck up all the time, so in addition to driving defensively wrt external factors, consider how you can set yourself up to succeed if something unexpected happens internally.
Crapy article. They miss used there own source.
