Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    307 points MBCook | 13 comments | | HN request time: 0.014s | source | bottom
    Show context
    bunderbunder ◴[] No.42151125[source]
    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.

    replies(10): >>42151205 #>>42151278 #>>42151294 #>>42151316 #>>42151413 #>>42151582 #>>42151717 #>>42151753 #>>42162767 #>>42176234 #
    jdietrich ◴[] No.42151582[source]
    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.
    replies(4): >>42151731 #>>42151738 #>>42151752 #>>42151851 #
    1. floxy ◴[] No.42151851[source]
    >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
    replies(2): >>42151921 #>>42152026 #
    2. IAmNotACellist ◴[] No.42151921[source]
    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?
    replies(1): >>42152010 #
    3. jiggawatts ◴[] No.42152010[source]
    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.

    replies(2): >>42152140 #>>42153994 #
    4. piotrkaminski ◴[] No.42152026[source]
    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.
    replies(1): >>42152799 #
    5. IAmNotACellist ◴[] No.42152140{3}[source]
    Good point too. Things that the authors should've thought about.
    6. yardstick ◴[] No.42152799[source]
    Family car, probably lots of accidents due to kids distracting drivers.
    replies(4): >>42152910 #>>42152948 #>>42154345 #>>42154695 #
    7. floxy ◴[] No.42152910{3}[source]
    Looks like the hybrid version of the CR-V was released in 2020:

    https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/relea...

    ...and the study only covered model years up to 2022. It would be interesting to compare the hybrid to the standard version. If there is a significant difference, I'd be suspicious of data quality.

    8. tzs ◴[] No.42152948{3}[source]
    If that was the case I'd expect the non-hybrid CR-V to be up there too.

    I found a discussion of the 2019 report, which was the year before the CR-V hybrid came out, and the CR-V fatality rate was 2.7.

    9. tga_d ◴[] No.42153994{3}[source]
    Both the comment and TFA clearly indicate it's measured in terms of fatal accidents, not fatalities.
    replies(1): >>42180650 #
    10. lostmsu ◴[] No.42154345{3}[source]
    Highlander that I see everywhere is not.
    replies(1): >>42156612 #
    11. m463 ◴[] No.42154695{3}[source]
    Could it be more average passengers per accident?
    12. mathgeek ◴[] No.42156612{4}[source]
    The Highlander rates somewhat higher on crash ratings from what I can find (both are top picks). Also a significantly heavier vehicle (by about 10% depending on model years).
    13. sneed-oil ◴[] No.42180650{4}[source]
    I would guess that having more than one passenger increases the chance of at least one of them dying in an accident