←back to thread

307 points MBCook | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.4s | source | bottom
1. altairprime ◴[] No.42151126[source]
The linked study is better: https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
replies(2): >>42151463 #>>42152974 #
2. samatman ◴[] No.42151463[source]
> “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.

replies(2): >>42151674 #>>42151933 #
3. _dark_matter_ ◴[] No.42151674[source]
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.
4. ccorcos ◴[] No.42151933[source]
It’s hard to to be cynical about the intentions of the authors of the original article after seeing this…
5. floxy ◴[] No.42152974[source]
It is better. But in the year 2024, why should I believe the data from a random source, with unknown data analysis? When will they be releasing their data package for independent analysis? Why isn't this the expected norm? And how can we make it so?
replies(1): >>42159530 #
6. altairprime ◴[] No.42159530[source]
Did you email them to ask for it? What sort of meta-analysis do you intend to do with their data? Have you released other interesting work in this field that would benefit the post? Why weren’t your intentions for their model published in your comment? What can we do to denormalize rhetoric in forum discussions?