338
Tesla crashes because they don't have anyone driving.
RAMs crash because they have someone driving.
They are not the same.
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
338 points (91.6% liked)
Technology
59188 readers
3238 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Afaik most Tesla accidents are due to people not used to such a powerful car / acceleration and bump into stuff? I don’t think the majority of insurance cases for Tesla has anything to do with self driving.
Lol. I have a 2500, and it's borderline too much truck, even in my line of work. It's flat out stupid for just day to day commuting. And their marketing sure does go after egomaniacal dumdums.
Ram trucks drive like fucking assholes so I believe this. Damn near any time you see one of those lifted Dodge trucks on the highway you can assume they’ll behave like a jerk if given the opportunity.
And as far as Teslas go, I really do not think people should have cars that accelerate that fast. People are dumb as shit and Tesla’s slowest model has a 0-60 of under 6 seconds and a lot of their cars are sub 4 seconds. That’s super car territory.
Super car acceleration, normal car braking.
It's not a great combination in a car that's heavy, but I guess you don't sell cars by bragging about braking distances.
Tires moreso than brakes. Ultra low rolling resistance tires help increase range. But they're crap for high acceleration/deceleration. Not sticky enough (by design) to work in those situations.
Plus they are designed to have low amount of aerodynamic drag. So no aerodynamic grip in fast corners.
On most public roads, if you're driving fast enough for downforce to be an issue, your poor judgment is the primary factor in any resulting crash.
Truer words have never been said
Which is true but not any different than normal cars. Very very very few cars have enough aero to matter—even on the track.
Ram trucks also are the #1 vehicle for DUIs in the US.
They dropped to second place for DUIs at least. BMW drivers are nearly twice as likely to be caught driving drunk.
Truck nuts and racist bumper/rear windshield stickers are a must haves
As someone who has done racing on a track and has felt 0-60 in 2.9 seconds, most people wouldnt even be cabile of keeping the car in its lane. And most ram drivers are pure dicks.
As someone who has floored it in a Tesla with no racing experience, it really isn't hard to stay in the lane.
I drive a lifted RAM and in the last twelve months three people have hit me. Two were in Subarus. One was drunk.
That seems pretty high. You are bringing those numbers up.
I agree, but what to do about owners of supercars then? It's not like if they have any particular training to operate them safely, for the most part.
The numbers are bullshit and this isn’t even a study. It’s an analyses of insurance data that was done wrong.
The top 3 “safest” cars are all makes and models that are no longer in production. Mercury, the #1, hasn’t made a new vehicle since 2011, Pontiac since 2009, and Saturn since 2010.
It’s a bullshit story.
And all it analyzes is people's driving record and the current model of vehicle they're trying to insure. Someone who got rear-ended in a Honda and had their car totaled who is now trying to insure their new Tesla would be included in this even though they didn't crash their Tesla nor were they at fault for the accident.
I love it when my bias is confirmed. I bet there's a German word for this feeling.
It’s not confirmed. The “study” is faulty.
Even the site hosting the study includes a huge disclaimer stating that it's just the author's personal opinion.
biasfreude
Not German enough, needs more unnecessary capital letters
PSA: This “study” is crap.
They base their findings on incidents per driver, not per mile driven. Maybe the “safest” drivers here just…don’t drive their vehicles all that much?
Also, like you said.. incidents, not accidents.
accidents, DUIs, speeding and citations
Which I bet includes things like parking tickets and all that. Tbh, seems like most "studies" posted to Lemmy are crap tbh
Another thing about Teslas is that even a slight fender bender that does no damage to an older car will cause damage. The bumpers are full of sensors, all pastic, and repairs are expensive.
I wonder if more minor accidents are reported in Teslas causing the numbers to be higher?
The bumpers are full of sensors, all pastic, and repairs are expensive.
This is the same for all semi-modern cars. Plastic bumbers, even without sensors in them, are surprisingly expensive even on cheaper cars. But the good thing about plastic bumbers, is that they are fairly elastic and most often just bounce back into shape after the amount of deformation a slight fender bender can cause. And scratches are only a cosmetic concern since they can't rust.
Also, Tesla removed the ultrasonic sensors from both front and rear bumpers a while back.
I think this study is incomplete.
Since this study is based on a ratio of accidents vs sold car. Newer cars models have less idle car, helping the statistics of older car models/companies. Given that Tesla and other more price models, will use insurance for minors damage, do to the cost of reparation vs lost sales value.
At Codan, it is Kia's electric cars that top the damage statistics, closely followed by Tesla's and Hyundai's electric cars. Richvoldsen emphasizes that it is Kia's electric cars that top the list, and that the damage statistics do not apply to fossil fuel-powered Kia cars.
https://www.tu.no/artikler/tesla-har-92-prosent-oftere-skader-enn-fossilbiler-br/484354
Yeah don’t call a vehicle Ram. Come on.
In this study, Subaru had 30 incidents per 1000 driver's, and Tesla had 31. Why don't I hear anyone bitching about Subarus?
Duh Subaru != Elon
Headline: Tesla drives desperate to show they're not this biggest assholes on the road.
I have a feeling this list would be very different if motorcycle brands were in the mix as well.
Not sure I believe the statistics in this study seeing as they list a number of legacy brands, such as Saturn.
Did all Saturns disappear from the roads when that brand closed shop?
No, but it’s incredibly suspect that the top 3 cars are all cars that haven’t been produced since 2011 at the latest.
I’m amazed at how many Saturns and Pontiacs I still see on the road.
Why? Just bc the brand doesn't operate anymore doesn't mean those cars vanished from the roads. There's still Saturns and mercuries out there being driven daily.
It's suspicious that all three top slots went to vehicles that haven't been produced in ~15 years. It clearly indicates (among numerous other things) something wrong with the data/analysis. I have major doubts that someone currently driving a clapped out 1995 Pontiac Grand Prix is the safest driver on the road.
Got it, thanks. Sounds like the datas misrepresented, at best. I tried to look for myself but ooph those tables were responsive but not mobile friendly
All the top “safest” cars are legacy brands. They fucked up their analysis.
please moderators remove this garbage