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.
Does this argument only apply to Tesla drivers?
Because the other cars were taken and compared from the same data source.
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data…
I have no idea why you think that would only apply to Teslas.
Because your whole argument is seemingly based on that assumption.
You say it's no wonder that Tesla is last when they used that data.
I think you have my comment confused with another one, I didn't mention Tesla at all.
No, definitely not.
Can you tell me what your argument was then?
Seems like a lot of hot air with zero sense if you now claim you didn't mean tesla. I mean even if you meant tesla, as I already reasoned above.
In both cases your comment only makes sense as a misdirection or an honest mistake. But you're definitely not acknowledging it, so I would lean to the former.
I have no idea where you're getting Tesla from.
My comment was that there is likely bias in the data because it's people applying to one of those sites that compare insurance costs. I think it's likely most people who are doing that regularly are people in high risk groups - their insurance rates are high, so they're looking for some other company. Their insurance rates are high because they are risky drivers.
The data are not based on crash statistics, which would be the most reliable indicator, or tickets issued, or any other similar results. The people using this tool are not randomly selected, either.
In other words, it's anecdotal data at best, and possibly biased toward people with high premiums because of issues in their driving record.
Again, the conclusion still makes sense if you only use this data set.
Tesla drivers are the worst offenders compared to the worst offenders.
your logic to jump to their defence doesn't apply here.
I'm not defending Tesla drivers or anyone else. In my very first sentence, I noted that own one of the vehicles (Ram) that is supposedly the second worst, and I also own one of the vehicles that is the best (Mercury).
I'm simply pointing out that this dataset may have serious flaws and shouldn't be used to draw real conclusions.
Your obsession with Tesla is clouding your reading ability or something.
As far as I can see they don't mention Tesla at all.
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.
Does this argument only apply to Tesla drivers?
Because the other cars were taken and compared from the same data source.
I have no idea why you think that would only apply to Teslas.
Because your whole argument is seemingly based on that assumption.
You say it's no wonder that Tesla is last when they used that data.
I think you have my comment confused with another one, I didn't mention Tesla at all.
No, definitely not.
Can you tell me what your argument was then?
Seems like a lot of hot air with zero sense if you now claim you didn't mean tesla. I mean even if you meant tesla, as I already reasoned above.
In both cases your comment only makes sense as a misdirection or an honest mistake. But you're definitely not acknowledging it, so I would lean to the former.
I have no idea where you're getting Tesla from.
My comment was that there is likely bias in the data because it's people applying to one of those sites that compare insurance costs. I think it's likely most people who are doing that regularly are people in high risk groups - their insurance rates are high, so they're looking for some other company. Their insurance rates are high because they are risky drivers.
The data are not based on crash statistics, which would be the most reliable indicator, or tickets issued, or any other similar results. The people using this tool are not randomly selected, either.
In other words, it's anecdotal data at best, and possibly biased toward people with high premiums because of issues in their driving record.
Again, the conclusion still makes sense if you only use this data set.
Tesla drivers are the worst offenders compared to the worst offenders.
your logic to jump to their defence doesn't apply here.
I'm not defending Tesla drivers or anyone else. In my very first sentence, I noted that own one of the vehicles (Ram) that is supposedly the second worst, and I also own one of the vehicles that is the best (Mercury).
I'm simply pointing out that this dataset may have serious flaws and shouldn't be used to draw real conclusions.
Your obsession with Tesla is clouding your reading ability or something.
As far as I can see they don't mention Tesla at all.