I am still waiting for the inevitable country music song about a broken hearted cowboy whose self driving car leaves him for another man.
Weird Al should be all over this.
Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
(Verse 1)
Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck,
Memories rollin' by, like the miles we used to clock.
Drove through the sunset, with you by my side,
Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
(Chorus)
We were a highway love, wind in our hair,
Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair.
But now you're gone, and it's just my luck,
My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Verse 2)
We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads,
Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds.
Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too,
Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
(Chorus)
We were a highway love, wind in our hair,
Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair.
But now you're gone, and it's just my luck,
My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Bridge)
I miss the way your headlights cut through the night,
The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right.
But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song,
You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
(Verse 3)
We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark,
But now it's just silence, an abandoned truck stop.
I'm left with memories, and a tank full of regret,
A self-driving heartbreak, I'll never forget.
(Chorus)
We were a highway love, wind in our hair,
Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair.
But now you're gone, and it's just my luck,
My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Outro)
So here I am, parked on this lonely track,
Wishing you'd come back, but you won't look back.
You rolled away, with gears that don't feel,
Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
YES!
Fuck, I actually have a decent singing voice, no guitar though.
Lets find someone with a guitar and make this a stupid spotify single or something.
I read that as Weird Artificial Intelligence. Probably because of the context, since it never occured to me to read it like that before.
Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
(Verse 1)
Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck,
Memories rollin' by, like the miles we used to clock.
Drove through the sunset, with you by my side,
Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
(Chorus)
We were a highway love, wind in our hair,
Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair.
But now you're gone, and it's just my luck,
My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Verse 2)
We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads,
Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds.
Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too,
Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
(Chorus)
We were a highway love, wind in our hair,
Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair.
But now you're gone, and it's just my luck,
My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Bridge)
I miss the way your headlights cut through the night,
The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right.
But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song,
You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
(Verse 3)
We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark,
But now it's just silence, an abandoned truck stop.
I'm left with memories, and a tank full of regret,
A self-driving heartbreak, I'll never forget.
(Chorus)
We were a highway love, wind in our hair,
Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair.
But now you're gone, and it's just my luck,
My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Outro)
So here I am, parked on this lonely track,
Wishing you'd come back, but you won't look back.
You rolled away, with gears that don't feel,
Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
I think there might be something to be said here for some potential selection bias. Are Tesla drivers like ram drivers, overly aggressive idiots but with the added layer of being relatively new tech?
More boringly , maybe its selection on the circumstances too. For example maybe ev's tend to drive more in urban environments, more urban may mean more collision opprtunities per time spent driving.
Of course ram is a farmers vehicle is desgned for rural use, so must rarely be seen in built up areas. /s
edit: having glanced at the cited article - theres no obvious mention of any risk adjustment, the measures seem to be simple ratio of crashes per driver. No obvious control for whether the sub-population spend more or less time driving.
Rate per - place-specific-risk adjusted person-hour would work better.
As often with things like risk, it really helps to be able to do a multidimensional analysis. See if vehicle type/brand is significant after controlling for as many circumstantial factors and exposure related factors as you can reliably observe.
I assure you that large obnoxious trucks are a status symbol for many idiot right wing boomers and gen x, who take pride in daily driving a truck for their commute into, inside, and outside of cities.
They also complain about traffic, while simultaneously doing everything they can to under or unfund public transit, because they are literally incapable of understanding that adding more lanes to highways does not actually reduce traffic.
EDIT oh NO i missed the /s.
Oh well lol.
Don't forget complaining about gas prices while driving a 17 mpg vehicle.
Seems like around me most of the big truck douches are probably 45 or under. Don't think it's limited to just boomers or gen x.
Yeah, in my observation, it's young men with money to burn, or they want to appear that they have money to burn.
This is true, there is a whole thing with truck dealerships being immediately adjacent to military bases and housing.
hah, no bother.
Take any excuse to vent.
Fortunately for me I don't live in USA so these things are still a bit of a rarity, and are quite impractical in my town's, compact and heavily pedestrianised town centre.
Sounds like yoy've a plague of them over there.
They’re impractical in US town centers too. Drivers of these often live in suburban and rural areas and act like “omg city = CRIME and those people”, and if they come into the city, get frustrated because their giant POS vehicles are difficult to park as they’re terrible at maneuvering (drivers and the truck) and don’t fit in many parking spaces.
This is so common that when I see the rare one that can actually drive and park well in a city I actually stop being angry and switch to being impressed.
I'm sure some truck drivers are very good at it, if they have to drive large trailers often for instance. But a lot of the time their giant trucks can't even fit into a parking spot without taking up more than one space.
Yep. You say plague, I say smooth brained consuumor zombie apocalypse.
The Forbes article seems to be citing numbers that are now a few weeks out of date. They cite that Tesla drivers have 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers and Ram has 22.76. If you go to their source link you'll see that the more recent numbers are Tesla: 31.13 and Ram: 32.90.
Ram in MA is 64.44 and I want these fucking things outlawed.
Read the source more carefully
Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate. From Nov. 14, 2022, through Nov. 14, 2023, Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76)
Accidents only. Worst driver counts DUIs a d fines as well.
Why does Massachusetts have such aggressive drivers? That seems like a large deviation for such a small state
It’s mostly urban though. 7 million isn’t that small and it shouldn’t affect something expressed as a rate anyway.
I moved here and am still asking that question myself. Only in mass do people honk if you dare to stop for a stop sign.
I see why Stellantis spun Ram into its own brand now.
I had a friend years ago with Dodge Ram van. He said, "it says Dodge in the front because that's what you're supposed to do when you see it coming and Ram in the back because you didn't read the warning on the front."
I wonder what that says about my Dodge Sprinter.....
Worth noting that "Ram" is now its own brand, divorced from Dodge, and they only make 1 vehicle, while other trucks are sold as part of the Ford and Chevy lineup. So it's probable those other vehicles are bringing up the safety ratings of, say F150 and Silverado.
"I am driving a lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK"
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has BLINDING WHITE LED headlights positioned EXACTLY at EYE LEVEL. "
"I am currently TAILGATING you in the RIGHT LANE even though you’re going TWENTY MILES AN HOUR over the speed limit and the LEFT LANE is OPEN."
"There are MONSTER ENERGY and FOX RACING stickers on the rear windshield of my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK."
"There are PERFECTLY CLEAN mud tires and MASSIVE CHROME RIMS on my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK."
"I make THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS a year and thought that that was a WISE FINANCIAL DECISION."
"I bring cases of BUD LIGHT to girls at high school parties while my wife and children are at home."
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has a GUN RACK which holds the AR-15 that I bought at WAL-MART."
At that point is seems like a good idea to replace human drivers.
Exactly, bring in much more public transportation. It would solve so many problems.
November 2016 Tesla publishes video of self-driving with no hands on wheel
Class action lawsuit
More people die
They've been convince of it by that very man.
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.
First thing that came to mind, honestly thought it was the quote at first.
I've actually never seen the movie. I just know that it's a widespread view among people who focus on road safety.
Most news articles I can find dealing with this issue, like this one seem to focus mostly on the idea that one driver may be mostly at fault. Which is true and definitely part of the equation, but personally I'm even more focused on the ways in which the road design itself may have been a contributing factor. When you have high speed roads that also have a large number of driveways and side streets (i.e., a "stroad"), higher numbers of crashes are inevitable, and can be avoided by better design. Same with when you create bike lanes with no separation, or separated but giving cars high speed ways to turn across them at intersections. The design of that street is a significant contributing factor, and calling crashes an "accident" lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.
calling crashes an "accident" lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.
No, it doesn't. Accidents are just things that weren't intended to happen
If calling something an accident let people off the hook for their responsibility in the situation then people wouldn't go to jail for car accudents
It’s not about the dictionary definition of the term. It’s about the subconscious effect your choice of language has on how people think about things. When you call something an accident it gives people the signal that there was nothing that could have been done, and so nothing does get done. There’s no pressure on politicians and engineers in most of the anglosphere to do any of the things that would actually improve road safety. Indeed, a lot of the time when they do try to make our roads safer, you see fearmongering and NIMBY opposition against the idea.
Changing the language is one small step in helping to make our roads safer by making it clearer that making them safer is something we need to be concentrating on.
You are clearly mixing up the phrase "an act of God" with "accident"
The former implies nothing could be done and is said after accidents, but the latter is what we're discussing and it does not imply that at all
An insanely popular saying is that "regulations are written in blood" after all
Go back and reread the comment that you just replied to. Because nothing at here is even remotely related to it.
It’s not about the dictionary definition of the term. It’s about the subconscious effect your choice of language has on how people think about things.
The only way it would affect "how people think about things" is if people don't understand what "accident" means. Which is what happens when people like yourself intentionally spread that sort of disinformation.
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.
It's still an accident. Just look up the definition. I'd wager to say most accidents are entirely preventable as well, but that's not what determines whether something was an accident
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.
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.
Tesla drivers are oblivious to any kind of spatial understanding of the road around them
I blame the design that forces you to keep your eyes off the road. Making a left turn? Don't look left, take your eyes off the road and look down at the screen on your right to see the left lane warning. Wipers need adjustment? Take your eyes off the road and look at the touch screen because there are no buttons.
Now that there is data, maybe the highway administration can force Tesla to put driver safety ahead of esthetics.
I'm sure that's one contributing factor, but I'd bet that the biggest issue is that the car is made to go fast. People who drive faster end up in more accidents. Hence why Audi / BMW drivers are also stereotypically bad drivers - they are both brands with a high-acceleration profile.
The “faster=more accidents” thing is actually kind of up in the air. Like with many things, it’s a bell curve, but driving a few MPH over the limit appears to be safest. Supposedly because people who drive a little bit faster tend to pay more attention. Sure, there are the outliers like the people who weave through traffic at 100MPH, but only a few over the limit appears safest.
Some of the highest accident rates actually come from people who regularly go under the limit. Because those are the people who are geriatric, distracted, texting, drunk, high, etc. and are going slower because they want the extra stopping distance or don’t want to be pulled over for speeding. Plus there’s all the hazards associated with going slow on the highway, when you’re only doing 45 MPH and traffic is flying past you in the next lane at 75. At that point, you’re practically a moving road hazard.
As far as I can tell that's not at all the case in Sweden where I live, in fact geriatric or slow drivers are very rarely involved in accidents. Intoxicated drivers are extremely rare compared to most other countries. See e.g. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/sweden-road-safety.pdf which says "Inappropriate speed is one of the leading causes of road crashes". You can find more research saying similar things on Google, e.g. that for every 10 km/h increase, the risk of an accident increases by 33 percent.
But it's not just a matter of having a high overall speed. It's also how quickly you accelerate / break. BMW/Audio/Tesla drivers have a high capacity for acceleration and they use it e.g. to overtake in situations when others wouldn't. I suspect the cause/effect is the other way around though: if you're a reckless driver who doesn't care about safety, you're more likely to choose a car that has a lot of power.
I posit that the amount of potential acceleration may be more correlated than the raw speed. Accelerating quickly makes you less predictable to the drivers around you and reduces the control you have over your own car.
Could it be the that nervous and less confident drivers are the ones that drive at or slightly below the speed limit?
Maybe it's not that driving faster is safer but worse drivers drive slower to attempt to compensate.
That's the reason why my friend wants to get one even though he dislikes Elon. One of the faster ev cars out there.
The wiper thing used to be an issue for sure, thankfully now you can use the wheel buttons to do it. Also for turning you really don't need to look at anything. I'm not saying people don't but you don't need to. There are still a few things that are somewhat annoying mainly the defrost/defog but I feel like I look the same amount as I did in my other car to push those buttons as well
The voice commands work as well as anything. It's much easier to push the roller button on the steering wheel and say "turn on defroster" than to manipulate controls (either on a touch screen or non-touch screen interface)
Voice controls are great, unless you have a strong accent it doesn’t understand, a speech impediment, or mute. Which are all things that normally wouldn’t disqualify you from driving a car. Which I feel like should disqualify them from the discussion of physical vs tablets myself.
Fair enough, mate.
The number of times I shout "your car is supposed to be smarter than that!" As a Tesla does something like, without signaling, whips around me and into oncoming traffic to pass a stopped city bus is staggering.
Fun fact, the Lending Tree analysis listed in the article showed that Ram drivers have the "highest incident rate," which looks at accidents, DUIs, speeding, and other traffic citations. This makes them the statistically worst drivers. BMWs have honorable mention as the having the highest DUI rate.
and Tesla drivers are oblivious to any kind of reality
Fixed based on experience. I really do feel like these are scarlet letters to being thundering assholes, and they communicate with their king like wifi routers.
It's reflective of their larger view/"understanding" (or lack of understanding) of the world/how it all works.
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.
the cars are only as good as their drivers,
The design of the car isn't that great. No physical buttons so you have to constantly look away from the road to interact with any car feature. Wipers, mirrors, climate control, music, etc... the blind spot and side views are on the display. Need to merge left but have to look right to see if it's clear.
Using the touch screen as a pain, for sure. However, nearly all commands on the touch screen can be accessed via voice commands from a button on the steering wheel. In practice, the need to use the touch screen while driving (other than to monitor your speed and cruise control settings) is practically zero.
They do have mirrors, you know… The lack of physical buttons isn’t that bad either. You shouldn’t be fucking with things while driving whether there are buttons or not.
You pull over to adjust the AC?
I don’t adjust anything unless I’m stopped. Red light, stop sign, etc. Also, at this point, I can reference all that stuff without looking at the screen so, even if I needed to, I don’t have to take my eyes off the road.
It’s nonsense that Tesla drivers are somehow less safe because of the screens considering every other driver is staring at their phones.
considering every other driver is staring at their phones.
Oh yeah, and this definitely doesn't cause problems. There's not a single law that forbids this. And yet, looking and messing with a larger version is supposed to be ok? I am not talking out of my ass. I have driven Teslas and it is distracting whether you agree or not. It was the first reason i decided i wouldn't buy one unless there were buttons. In fact, some people are starting to mod them to put physical buttons back in.
I never said it doesn’t cause problems. The issue is the inattention whatever the device.
And I own one and it’s not distracting if you don’t let it distract you. You are talking out of your ass.
You might be able to adjust things without taking your eyes off the road fairly safely if you had some sort of tactile feedback. Like a knob to adjust the volume of the radio or another knob or lever to adjust the heat/AC. I doubt you could do so just as reliably and without accidentally hitting a different button with a touch screen without looking at all, but even if you can, most drivers couldn't.
There's also a learning curve to contend with. Put me in a car with a standard stereo that has a volume knob, and I'll be able to use it without looking pretty quickly and without error. Put me in a car that has only a touch screen with a UI that is different from every other manufacturer's UI, now I have to memorize where buttons are. And until I have it memorized, I have to look.
It isn't at all reasonable or feasible to suggest you shouldn't adjust any control unless you're stopped. That completely ignores the fact that the US is comprised of many highways and interstates that won't have any stops for hours under the right conditions. You're telling me that you exit the freeway just to adjust the AC? That's a lie and you know it. And again, even if that's the case for you, it isn't the case for most drivers.
Cars marketed to the masses should be designed for use by the masses and should be designed with safety in mind. These are 80 mph tin cans that can do a ton of damage and need to be treated as such. Especially modern EVs with batteries that burn with the light and temperature of 1000 suns when damaged.
Also "every other driver is staring at their phone" sounds like a disingenuous way to suggest that taking your eyes off the road is okay because everyone else does it too. Yes, lots of people do, but lots of people do not, and just because some do, that doesn't mean we should design our cars in a way that requires the same level of inattention.
If you’re driving, you shouldn’t be doing anything that distracts you from driving. Period.
Right. Which is exactly why removing tactile knobs and buttons is stupid.
Messing with knobs is still a distraction. You’re simply arguing for lesser distractions when the point is that, if you’re driving, you should be focused on driving and not on buttons, knobs, screens, or phones. It’s literally the first lesson of driving and yet you’re pretending like there’s some safer way to be distracted. It’s a load of bollocks.
And yet pretty much every car has a blind spot detector of some sort. Pretty weird for something that's never needed.
People don’t set up their mirrors properly. If you’re turning your head to make a lane change, you’re doing it wrong. Also, the visibility in a Tesla is much, much better than it is in most cars. Not having an engine in the front of the car allows for more angle in the pillars that would normally cause blind spots.
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
i know many of you all just LOVE to hate on Tesla, it's like the shit flavor of he year for hating and no doubt Elon's shit fuckery is partially driving it, but honestly this is an absolutely classic Forbes piece of garbage. Firstly, it's a masterclass in selective bias - focusing solely on Tesla while barely whispering about Ram's near-similar accident rates. Classic move to sensationalize one brand over another. Then there's the U.S. only scope, which conveniently ignores the global context which could paint a vastly different picture. The article kicks off with a 'non-causal' disclaimer but then spends the rest of the time subtly linking Tesla's Autopilot to the high accident rate, without concrete evidence. It's a bit like saying 'no offense' before offending someone.
The Tesla recall is mentioned, sneakily implying a connection to the accident rate, despite the lack of direct correlation. The article is less about informing and more about crafting a narrative that fits a preconceived notion, all while skating on thin ice made of half-truths and strategic omissions.
Two things are true. The article is garbage, but so are Teslas.
They’re not, though. Elon can suck it but my Tesla is the best vehicle I’ve ever owned and it’s not even close.
I heard that you don't even have to open the door, you just slide in through a panel gap
I love that you were downvoted, for all we know your previous vehicle was a Daewoo or something. A Tesla is likely a better quality vehicle than a Daewoo.
You sound like a forbes article
Edit for clarification. My comment was intended to a be a bit tongue in cheek and its because of this part of the top comment that i made what i thought was clearly a light hearted joke. Sorry if it wasnt so obvious
The article is less about informing and more about crafting a narrative that fits a preconceived notion, all while skating on thin ice made of half-truths and strategic omissions.
In response to the assertion of owning a Daewoo. I assumed your comment i replied to was also referencing this quote
Lemmy is pretty toxic. There are 5 opinions allowed on here and your personal experience is irrelevant.
Pretty much. I'm looking through the replies I've received, and one says, "You sound like a forbes article" with two upvotes and only one downvote. Why would I continue to contribute to this community if that's how people are going to act?
There’s a small center of people who are actually knowledgeable and courteous here. You just have to wade through the shit and sewage to get to it.
Yeah, and I need to get back to blocking people. The signal improved drastically when I was doing that a while back.
Are you comparing with other cars at the same price range or cheaper cars?
I don't know but based from my experience(since you also commented based on your experience), compared to some other brands although Tesla are better than some cheaper models of other brands, some are better than Tesla if you compared to the models with the same price range
Yes, some brands might be worse, but Tesla is not quite considered as being the best
Some cheaper, some the same price range.
What’s your experience based on? Do you own one? Or is this just third-hand?
I don’t care what it’s considered. It’s the best car I’ve ever owned and I’ve owned Fords, Dodges, VWs, Toyotas, and BMWs.
but my Tesla is the best ve
Sadly, you'll never be able to say anything nice about any Musk properties here without massive downvotes by people who wouldn't purchase anything from Musk.
The hardware (occasional bad quality control aside) is pretty awesome. My neighbor has one, His holiday update was an absolute hoot. They're fast, clean, comfortable and are generally long lasting, low maintenance cars.
When you factor in EV and Price, there's nothing that stands out as nicer from a pure hardware standpoint.
They could use a few more buttons inside. When they become disabled on the road, their requirement for you to have them do the towing and taking hours to do so sucks. Suing people over selling their vehicles second hand is pretty bad. No second party repairs allowed is a problem.
The real 800 lb gorilla in the room is the autopilot. The only redeemable thing about the auto pilot is that it mostly works and it's pushing the tech forward. They have enough money to lobby congress to make it legal, all those 730+ wrecks and *42+ deaths as horrible as they are, will lead us to the feature being viable eventually.
*edit: found a newer source
I bought mine way before Musk became a right-wing nutjob asshole and wouldn’t buy another of his cars now unless something changed with their leadership structure.
That doesn’t mean that I can retroactively say the car sucks now. It is a fantastic vehicle. I don’t use Autopilot so that part doesn’t apply (tried it during a trial and wasn’t impressed) but, as a car, I have no qualms.
Yeah, I wonder if he became one, or if he was already one and just did a better job at hiding it.
Probably a bit of both. Before the hair plugs, he probably did want to help the world. Now he just wants to help himself.
It's like he had a really bad drug trip at some point and rewired some synapses
Ah yes a personal anecdote is 100% more valid.
That said, from what I've heard the big problem is the disparity of build quality. Some Tesla's (like possibly yours) are built amazing. Some others are put together like shit.
Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.
Every brand isn't evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose. They're run of the mill or worse than industry averages.
Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it
Every brand isn’t evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose.
Maybe, but ask an Alfa Romeo fans about the brand... they are way worse than the Tesla fans... 😉
They’re run of the mill or worse than industry averages.
Look, I can tell way worse things about Renault if I look at how my car came out, so ? And I would concede that Tesla is pretty new to mass producted cars. During the years I found many quality problems also with brand that are even more evangelized and have a way longer history.
Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it
In Italy, a couple of models (Y and 3) are pretty much aligned with other brand's cars of the same category, so they don't seems to be that expensive. Or the other brands are too expensive.
At least I provided some kind of evidence, even if it’s an anecdote. You made a generalization with absolutely no evidence.
That’s fine if there’s a disparity but it’s not as common as your statement makes it seem.
Personal experience is not scientific or journalistic fact. As for providing evidence Google it. There's lots of reputable sites that will tell you their build quality is inconsistent AF as well as they intentionally bully owners to accept shit.
Personal experience is still evidence. It's not objective evidence, which normally would be a problem, but you haven't provided any whatsoever. "Google it" doesn't serve as a replacement for it, either.
I'll keep going if you need me to do your research for you. Not really because not my job to educate you but still.
None of those say what you claimed.
Your first Lemmy link just links to an article that says 10 to 20 thousand vehicles. Considering they’ve sold millions, their rates are actually below lots of other manufacturers by volume. They’re not the best by any stretch but they are far from the worst, as you stated.
The 2nd is the same - “tens of thousands”. That means less than 1% of their cars sold.
The last link has nothing to do with build quality and its source is a LendingTree article based on insurance data that is specious. Their “safest” cars are vehicles that haven’t been produced in over 10 years. They clearly have issues with their data and even have a disclaimer at the top of the source.
If you’re going to be a condescending ass, at least get your information straight instead of falling right into the sensationalist bs that you’re complaining about.
Anything to avoid doing your own research eh? Will happily "fact check" my shit but God forbid you do your own work? I may be a condescending ass but at least my head isn't up one.
It's clear I won't find anything outside of Elon telling you they're crap for you to believe but by all means Consumer Reports and JD Power having them run of the mill or worse surely can't be legit.
Oh wait. Elon has stated before their quality issues are shit. Of course you'll dismiss it because "hurr durr it was years ago"
I have done my own research and I own a Model 3. Your head clearly is up your ass because nothing that you've provided here disproves what I said - that the issues you're discussing make up less than 1% of the cars they've sold. On top of that, Consumer Reports ranks the Model 3 as one of their top vehicles for build and reliability. The Model 3 lost that score in 2019 for less than a year because there were build issues with a small percentage of the cars being produced.
I'm not dismissing that they had a QC issues with a small amount of the cars. I never did dismiss that. I'm simply acknowledging that you're making it out to be a far bigger issue than it actually was and their actual numbers are better than nearly every car maker out there for the number of vehicles they've sold (and in such a short period of time).
If you're going to claim people have their heads up their asses, you'd need to pull yours out first to actually be able to see anything. On top of that, I don't like Elon. So I don't know why him saying anything would sway me in one direction or another considering he's a serial liar.
When this was posted yesterday, I brought up issues with the sample selection (not random) and universe the "study" looked at (people using one of those sites to shop for insurance), and while I think most understood my point, some people got upset at me "defending Tesla drivers"...
Forbes is shit and I wish people would stop taking them seriously.
How exactly could this study give a concrete reason for the higher than average crash rates?
To be fair, Tesla / Musk spend a LOT of time talking about how they’re autonomous driving product are critical for reducing accidents and saving lives. Also, there isn’t a lot of public quantitative data around this major recall. That’s why they’re getting the headline.
Maybe autopilot is great, and it’s the non-autopilot drivers that are terrible, but right now, the brand has net accident rate that rivals a company that sells massive rolling blind spots to people who love Calvin pissing stickers.
Last time a garbage clickbait hit-piece like this pissed me off, I looked into the crash statistics myself and found Tesla vehicles were around 1/80th the average crash ratio per capita.
I'm sure this is somewhat skewed by the kinds of people driving them versus the average work vehicles and clunkers out there, but still, it just feels absurdly false to claim Teslas even approach the highest crash rate.
And even the sketchy "study" not even endorsed by the site it's posted to, then linked by Forbes, then says Ram vehicles as the highest crash rate (lol), so it's wild that Forbes goes on to say it's Tesla at the top spot.
Per capita means nothing in this situation.
Comparing with the per capita means nothing here, you need to compare with other car companies, as comparing to the per capita is like comparing the number of lung cancer deaths to the number of all deaths, of course it's going to be a very small number, but when you compare with other cancers then you can see that lung cancer is one of biggest killers amongst cancers
Huh, so like every single article nowadays, basically.
Thank you. This is exactly right, it's a hit piece designed to get people who already don't like Tesla all worked up... and it worked remarkably well.
I know its super pedantic, but the word “accident” really grinds my gears in this context.
The proper terminology is “crash”.. accident infers that there is no fault or misconduct.
The official UK Police term is Road Traffic Collision, or RTC, which does not imply fault or otherwise.
What made you want to become a policeman-officer?
The mom or the sister?
Trucking companies have switched the terms in the same way, since "accident" lightens responsibility. Even a not-at-fault crash could have been preventable often times, which is what they try to emphasize.
One of the many ways trucking companies avoid liability by putting all responsibility for fuck-ups on the driver.
You can intentionally crash into someone which would not be an accident but if you crash into someone not on purpose, then it's an accident.
Exactly, so the use of "crash" would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.
"Accident" starts addressing intentions or expectations.
We could just add easily refer to them as "vehicular violence" but then we'd end up distorting things in another direction.
It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.
If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.
Wouldn't an accident still involve "fault"
Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.
That's why there's a push to use neutral terms like "crash" that don't imply that the "accident" was just a random accidental mistake.
And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say "this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers".
While many accidents do involve fault, there are scenarios where an accident can occur without anyone being legally at fault (mechanical failure, natural disasters). It does excludes malicious intent though. in the specific context of commercial motor vehicle regulations in the US, the term "accident" is defined in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) under 49 CFR § 390.5
Good point, so does Accidents exclude "accidental crashes with fault"
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.
A coworker of mine was recently bragging about their new electric mustang and its zero to sixty time. "Have you ever gone zero to sixty?" was my only response. Of all the facts and figures, 0-60 has you to be one of the least important when buying a car.
Only up to a certain point. My Kia Rio has a 0-60 of like 16 seconds.. overtaking even on a clear road sucks.
The car is perfect otherwise, but I'd definitely want much better acceleration in the future.
My last car was like that and then every time I borrowed my dad's mercedes I'd constantly do stupid unecessary overtakes just because I could. It's a moral hazard - I don't think a faster accelerating car is safer because people drive those differently.
Of course you have to hold yourself back, but where I live there's plenty of really nice stretches of road where you can overtake. But with my car while I'm accelerating some guy in an Audi or a BMW already decides to overtake from the back.. overtaking with a better car feels much less stressful and safer.
Let me guess, automatic transmission? I have a manual Rio and I can push it in half the time in third gear. Not redlining anything, just less conservative shifting.
Nope, manual, I'm in Europe. But 75 PS Diesel with 6 gears. Redlining doesn't help much when it comes to accelerating.
Especially diesel engines.
Being able to accelerate to highway speeds quickly is useful when merge lanes are short. We have a car that kind of struggles with that, and it's pretty scary sometimes merging into 70 mph traffic. Normally it's not a major issue, but one ramp we sometimes use is designed poorly - it's curvy, so you can't accelerate to highway speed until after the final curve, then it's up a hill, and of course there's a short merge area into traffic that's usually doing about 70 mph. So, there, I REALLY miss the power our previous car had. It's a frustrating experience.
When I got my license back in the early 2000s I got taught very economical driving, generally choosing gears to keep rpm low, use the motor brake to decelerate before traffic lights, such stuff. Then it was time to get on the Autobahn, and the instructor just said "Forget everything I taught you, now it's safety first: Floor it in 3rd gear, merge in third gear, once you've found your position switch directly to 5th you'll be fast enough."
If I'm not mistaken that was an Audi A4 TDI so... 15 seconds 0 to 100? Maybe about 10, don't remember the displacement. Of course, merging is more like 30 to 120, directly onto the second lane. With a Punto you're kinda lucky if you get to 80 by the time the on-ramp ends and barely get into the right-most lane (where you're probably staying).
Rolling to 75 is more relevant in MA where onramps to highways are 50 feet long, but 0 to 60 is correlated.
“Have you ever gone zero to sixty?” was my only response. Of all the facts and figures, 0-60 has you to be one of the least important when buying a car
It is a relative performance indicator that is easy to measure and verify.
Of course you rarely ever actually do 0-60, but it gives you an idea of how well the car accelerates relative to other cars. So in a way 0-60 is like a cinebench score for cars.
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
I can't fathom any other reality.
Its like how red cars get more speeding tickets.
That's actually a myth
How can you write an article like this with zero citations? They mention Lending Tree, who is a mortgage originator and that's it.
They're going off of Lending Tree's internal insurance quote data. That link about the lending tree quote showed this, "Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data..."
Insurance rates are usually determined by risk associated with the car and driver and the value of the car. The lending tree analysis showed they were looking at several factors as well as accidents. They said also that Ram drivers have the "highest incident rates," meaning they lumped together accidents, DUIs, speeding violations, and other traffic citations. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a Ram.
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.
Even the Lending Tree "article" has a disclaimer at the top that they haven't reviewed or approved any of it.
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.
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 ..?
regulators who don’t trust FSD are KILLING people because it’s so safe -Elron
THE JUDGE IS THE PEOPLE OF EARTH!
now please excuse me while I, free speech absolutist Felon Musk, go and intimidate videos showing how shitty Autopilot and FSD off of the internet.
I smell last well tonight with John Oliver
I have been following Musk's insanity for years now, and I am glad that Oliver covered him, but he could have been soooo much more scathing while being absolutely factual.
His relatively moderate criticisms of Musk reminded me that a whole lot of libs and tech bros are in his demographic.
You can't apparently tell them Rocket Jesus is not going to save us and is infact a contemptible racist fascist mad man whose entire persona is a fraud and has done nothing but defraud all his investors with insane claims he hasnt delivered on in nearly a decade without making his audience too depressed, I guess.
People are allowed cars they don't have skills to use.
Shouldn't Teslas be easier to use with all that automation? If not, what's the point of automation?
OTOH, I'm all for raising the requirements for getting issued a driving licence, it's just then we have to make a way for people to make do without driving.
To add another factor:
People buy muscle cars and over accelerate because they can't handle the power of those cars
EVs accelerate much quicker than normal cars, Tesla's more than normal EVs
So if someone isn't using the automation they're still susceptible to the classic "overshot into or over something" situation
They also think because the car accelerates quickly it will also stop as quickly. Same as idiots that drive too fast in the snow.
Tesla's self-driving and safety systems are clearly half baked compared to competitor and other vendors.
Quite frankly, driving skills standards in the entire American continent are a joke to begin with. I've seen current requirements in Canada ("Wut?" bad), united states (teehehehehe bad) and Mexico (the aristocrats joke bad) and I know going south it only gets worse.
I got my driver's license 25 years ago in the Netherlands and had to take classes for a number of months, learn an entire book of rules, had a one bour theory exam where typically only 60-70% would pass at the first try, then I had to take 30 hours of practical lessons with an instructor in a special car, and take a practical exam with an examiner where the rulr is pretty much "one mistake and you're out". I learned how to drive in rain, what to look out for, hoe to drive in show, how to manage losing control of your car, etc etc etc... I was instilled with andeaddaly respect for what s car is and what it can do in seconds to ruin lives for good.
Comparing that ti anything they teach today in the Americas, it's just a sad joke.
My drivers ed class in new england pretty much focused only on educating teenagers about how brutally dangerous drunk driving is. It was frustrating at the time because I felt like I didn’t even learn how to drive but given how where I grew up as a teenager you had to go drink in sketch places which usually involved driving (what a dumb way to structure society ughh) because of the car hellscape I grew up in…. I honestly think those drivers ed teachers spent their time well.
Driving a car isn’t so hard so long as you take the perspective that you have one rule, don’t hit other people and always remind yourself that you can’t assume other drivers will do anything they should on the road. Drunk driving was VERY hard not to do as a bored teenager trying to hang out with other bored teenagers. I could have died, my friends could have died. Idk, so I can’t be too upset at my drivers ed class in retrospect.
In Canada we still have to pass a practical test that covers that stuff with pretty strict requirements for passing. Just how you gain the knowledge and ability to pass that test is up to you. It's pretty normal to take a driver's Ed class if your friends or family don't have time to trach you themselves. And the drivers Ed class is what you described as what is mandatory in the Netherlands. We just don't put people through it automatically if they have already learned all that somewhere else.
Having said that, there are some small towns that are known as places to go if you want an easier driving test, as they just don't have enough things around to properly represent everything you should know while driving. But if it turns out you do actually suck at driving, you'll lose your tiny amount of demerits on your beginners license pretty fast and then you are legally required to pass a driver's Ed and defensive driving class before being able to reclaim your license. It's not perfect, and I do think the one major thing we are missing is periodic re-testing. In Canada people are a little less resistant to "greater good" social policies, but there is still resistance. It's tough to pass stuff that lowers or is perceived to lower freedoms, but they do still occasionally pass.
And as I'm sure is the problem everywhere, people want all kinds of services, they just don't want the government to have the money to pay for those services. And also they only want the services they personally currently benefit from, everything else can be cut until they personally need it, then it was a tragedy that no one stood up for it.
That doesn't sound all that different from where I learned in Maryland. You had to go to a class for a few months that had both theoretical and practical portions. You had to do 40 hours of supervised driving outside of class with an adult. The 40 hours covered a range of situations. Then there was a driving test. Which I passed fine for the car but failed for a motorcycle because I started about a foot back from the stop sign on the course so I didn't pull up and stop at it. Doh.
Adult being a friend or family member? I've heard about that, and it always struck me as strange, as people aren't driving instructors, driving instructors are driving instructors.
In California, the first 20hr or so, it had to be a licensed instructor if you were under 18. An adult would just need to register for a learner's permit and just need any licensed driver in the front passenger seat
I think it was somewhere around 6 to 10 hours with a certified instructor. The 40 with an adult was yeah a family member or friend. The quality definitely depended on the adult. My parents took it seriously and made sure we completed the lessons, but I had friends whose parents just signed the form without providing the additional instruction. It was 20 years ago so details are fuzzy.
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.
Yeah, their "safest" list top 3 were all dead marques; Mercury, Pontiac, and Saturn. They definitely have some sampling issues.
The right source for this kind of stuff is the NHTSA's database, but you can't manufacture juicy headlines from that.
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.
Could also be things like fast acceleration pulling the numbers up. A lot of people are going to gun it if you give them something that can do 0-60 under 4 seconds. Those are numbers that were relegated to expensive sports cars a decade ago, not a grocery getter.
Is this speed special in Tesla cars or all consumer electric or normal cars? Why waste money to give a grocery getter that much extra power
Most internal combustion cars tend to hover around 8-9 seconds with a 0-60. Something with some kick was often considered sub 6 seconds.
Telsa prides itself on fast acceleration. Their slowest car is in the 5’s, but many hover in the 3-4 second band, which is quite quick. Telsa’s slowest base model car is often performance that many brands would have for their top performing internal combustion car.
It is often easier to make electric cars that accelerate quickly, but not every brand has decided to make their EV soccer mom cars launch like a corvette. A base Kia EV6 will 0-60 in 7.2s and Ford’s Mach E Mustang does 6.1s.
Ahhh, I suppose money factors in a decision like this?
I am both shocked and pleased that Ford did not make this list. Seriously, the brand with the most sold pickup truck doesn’t make a list for just about everything?
I'd bet a significant chunk of the F150's sold every year go to fleet operators which would skew the saftey numbers.
And fleet operators have stricter requirements. Get in an accident? They want a piss test on the spot, and if you refuse you're done.
And fleet operators have stricter requirements.
Including requiring regular driver training refresher courses.
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.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted? Oh, Tesla bad? Yeah, Tesla bad. LendingTree bad too. It's spin and propaganda for the mortgage industry. They publish clickbait "research" using non scientific metrics to reach whatever conclusion they set out to reach, usually it's just shitting on blue states. They frequently reach the opposite conclusions of credible researchers with no explanation as to why they created their own formulas when perfectly valid, standard formulas exist.
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.
lol, Ram isn't even a make (the make would be Dodge), but owners are such bad drivers that they have a category of their own.
Musk: Woo, we're number 1!
*In the USA
The 1958 Edsel is the reigning champ in Cuba.
dang, just checked for my country (data from 2019), look out for those priuses! I guess the handling the GTA 4 analog had was pretty accurate, it's like a brick on the road ^^
I don't know how many of these collisions are with pedestrians, but I have nearly stepped out in front of one twice just because they're so quiet.
My 1994 Ford Probe was so quiet you couldn't tell it was running most of the time even standing next to it, and there are plenty of ICE cars around today with even smaller and quieter engines. Most people learn to look both ways before crossing the street when they're toddlers.
My car is so quiet I have to rev it to double check if I've started it sometimes.
Look Ma, no hands!
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.
Crapy article. They miss used there own source.
NPC drivers. In the 90s it was Toyotas, then entry level Nissans took over in the mid 2000s ... And now we got Tesla
The fact that Ram drivers are a close second is hilarious. I guess there is some truth to all the jokes about Rams being driven by aggressive idiots.
Aggressive drunk* idiots. Statistically.
What was it? 25% more likely to have a DUI record?
1 in 22
https://www.thedrive.com/news/38238/ram-2500-drivers-have-the-most-duis-more-than-twice-the-national-average-report
I am still waiting for the inevitable country music song about a broken hearted cowboy whose self driving car leaves him for another man.
Weird Al should be all over this.
Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
(Verse 1) Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck, Memories rollin' by, like the miles we used to clock. Drove through the sunset, with you by my side, Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Verse 2) We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads, Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds. Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too, Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Bridge) I miss the way your headlights cut through the night, The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right. But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song, You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
(Verse 3) We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark, But now it's just silence, an abandoned truck stop. I'm left with memories, and a tank full of regret, A self-driving heartbreak, I'll never forget.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Outro) So here I am, parked on this lonely track, Wishing you'd come back, but you won't look back. You rolled away, with gears that don't feel, Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
YES!
Fuck, I actually have a decent singing voice, no guitar though.
Lets find someone with a guitar and make this a stupid spotify single or something.
I read that as Weird Artificial Intelligence. Probably because of the context, since it never occured to me to read it like that before.
Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
(Verse 1) Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck, Memories rollin' by, like the miles we used to clock. Drove through the sunset, with you by my side, Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Verse 2) We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads, Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds. Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too, Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Bridge) I miss the way your headlights cut through the night, The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right. But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song, You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
(Verse 3) We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark, But now it's just silence, an abandoned truck stop. I'm left with memories, and a tank full of regret, A self-driving heartbreak, I'll never forget.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
(Outro) So here I am, parked on this lonely track, Wishing you'd come back, but you won't look back. You rolled away, with gears that don't feel, Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
I think there might be something to be said here for some potential selection bias. Are Tesla drivers like ram drivers, overly aggressive idiots but with the added layer of being relatively new tech?
More boringly , maybe its selection on the circumstances too. For example maybe ev's tend to drive more in urban environments, more urban may mean more collision opprtunities per time spent driving.
Of course ram is a farmers vehicle is desgned for rural use, so must rarely be seen in built up areas. /s
edit: having glanced at the cited article - theres no obvious mention of any risk adjustment, the measures seem to be simple ratio of crashes per driver. No obvious control for whether the sub-population spend more or less time driving.
Rate per - place-specific-risk adjusted person-hour would work better.
As often with things like risk, it really helps to be able to do a multidimensional analysis. See if vehicle type/brand is significant after controlling for as many circumstantial factors and exposure related factors as you can reliably observe.
I assure you that large obnoxious trucks are a status symbol for many idiot right wing boomers and gen x, who take pride in daily driving a truck for their commute into, inside, and outside of cities.
They also complain about traffic, while simultaneously doing everything they can to under or unfund public transit, because they are literally incapable of understanding that adding more lanes to highways does not actually reduce traffic.
EDIT oh NO i missed the /s.
Oh well lol.
Don't forget complaining about gas prices while driving a 17 mpg vehicle.
Seems like around me most of the big truck douches are probably 45 or under. Don't think it's limited to just boomers or gen x.
Yeah, in my observation, it's young men with money to burn, or they want to appear that they have money to burn.
This is true, there is a whole thing with truck dealerships being immediately adjacent to military bases and housing.
hah, no bother.
Take any excuse to vent.
Fortunately for me I don't live in USA so these things are still a bit of a rarity, and are quite impractical in my town's, compact and heavily pedestrianised town centre.
Sounds like yoy've a plague of them over there.
They’re impractical in US town centers too. Drivers of these often live in suburban and rural areas and act like “omg city = CRIME and those people”, and if they come into the city, get frustrated because their giant POS vehicles are difficult to park as they’re terrible at maneuvering (drivers and the truck) and don’t fit in many parking spaces.
This is so common that when I see the rare one that can actually drive and park well in a city I actually stop being angry and switch to being impressed.
I'm sure some truck drivers are very good at it, if they have to drive large trailers often for instance. But a lot of the time their giant trucks can't even fit into a parking spot without taking up more than one space.
Yep. You say plague, I say smooth brained consuumor zombie apocalypse.
The Forbes article seems to be citing numbers that are now a few weeks out of date. They cite that Tesla drivers have 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers and Ram has 22.76. If you go to their source link you'll see that the more recent numbers are Tesla: 31.13 and Ram: 32.90.
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Ram in MA is 64.44 and I want these fucking things outlawed.
Read the source more carefully
Accidents only. Worst driver counts DUIs a d fines as well.
Why does Massachusetts have such aggressive drivers? That seems like a large deviation for such a small state
It’s mostly urban though. 7 million isn’t that small and it shouldn’t affect something expressed as a rate anyway.
I moved here and am still asking that question myself. Only in mass do people honk if you dare to stop for a stop sign.
It’s it the Ram that’s the problem, or the driver that also likes to cover the Ram in Infowars bumper stickers?
"If you can't Dodge it, Ram it"
I see why Stellantis spun Ram into its own brand now.
I had a friend years ago with Dodge Ram van. He said, "it says Dodge in the front because that's what you're supposed to do when you see it coming and Ram in the back because you didn't read the warning on the front."
I wonder what that says about my Dodge Sprinter.....
Worth noting that "Ram" is now its own brand, divorced from Dodge, and they only make 1 vehicle, while other trucks are sold as part of the Ford and Chevy lineup. So it's probable those other vehicles are bringing up the safety ratings of, say F150 and Silverado.
"I am driving a lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK"
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has BLINDING WHITE LED headlights positioned EXACTLY at EYE LEVEL. "
"I am currently TAILGATING you in the RIGHT LANE even though you’re going TWENTY MILES AN HOUR over the speed limit and the LEFT LANE is OPEN."
"There are MONSTER ENERGY and FOX RACING stickers on the rear windshield of my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK."
"There are PERFECTLY CLEAN mud tires and MASSIVE CHROME RIMS on my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK."
"I make THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS a year and thought that that was a WISE FINANCIAL DECISION."
"I bring cases of BUD LIGHT to girls at high school parties while my wife and children are at home."
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has a GUN RACK which holds the AR-15 that I bought at WAL-MART."
At that point is seems like a good idea to replace human drivers.
Exactly, bring in much more public transportation. It would solve so many problems.
Oh definitely! I barely drive my car these days.
Because a bunch of idiots take their hands off their steering wheel and think Elmo's car is 100% safe.
That's probably because Elon's literally been trying to sell their autopilot as fully autonomous for at least 7 years now.
History of their self-driving claims
They've been convince of it by that very man.
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.
Relevant clip from Hot Fuzz
First thing that came to mind, honestly thought it was the quote at first.
I've actually never seen the movie. I just know that it's a widespread view among people who focus on road safety.
Most news articles I can find dealing with this issue, like this one seem to focus mostly on the idea that one driver may be mostly at fault. Which is true and definitely part of the equation, but personally I'm even more focused on the ways in which the road design itself may have been a contributing factor. When you have high speed roads that also have a large number of driveways and side streets (i.e., a "stroad"), higher numbers of crashes are inevitable, and can be avoided by better design. Same with when you create bike lanes with no separation, or separated but giving cars high speed ways to turn across them at intersections. The design of that street is a significant contributing factor, and calling crashes an "accident" lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.
No, it doesn't. Accidents are just things that weren't intended to happen
If calling something an accident let people off the hook for their responsibility in the situation then people wouldn't go to jail for car accudents
It’s not about the dictionary definition of the term. It’s about the subconscious effect your choice of language has on how people think about things. When you call something an accident it gives people the signal that there was nothing that could have been done, and so nothing does get done. There’s no pressure on politicians and engineers in most of the anglosphere to do any of the things that would actually improve road safety. Indeed, a lot of the time when they do try to make our roads safer, you see fearmongering and NIMBY opposition against the idea.
Changing the language is one small step in helping to make our roads safer by making it clearer that making them safer is something we need to be concentrating on.
You are clearly mixing up the phrase "an act of God" with "accident"
The former implies nothing could be done and is said after accidents, but the latter is what we're discussing and it does not imply that at all
An insanely popular saying is that "regulations are written in blood" after all
Go back and reread the comment that you just replied to. Because nothing at here is even remotely related to it.
The only way it would affect "how people think about things" is if people don't understand what "accident" means. Which is what happens when people like yourself intentionally spread that sort of disinformation.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Relevant clip from Hot Fuzz
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.
It's still an accident. Just look up the definition. I'd wager to say most accidents are entirely preventable as well, but that's not what determines whether something was an accident
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 blame the design that forces you to keep your eyes off the road. Making a left turn? Don't look left, take your eyes off the road and look down at the screen on your right to see the left lane warning. Wipers need adjustment? Take your eyes off the road and look at the touch screen because there are no buttons.
Now that there is data, maybe the highway administration can force Tesla to put driver safety ahead of esthetics.
I'm sure that's one contributing factor, but I'd bet that the biggest issue is that the car is made to go fast. People who drive faster end up in more accidents. Hence why Audi / BMW drivers are also stereotypically bad drivers - they are both brands with a high-acceleration profile.
The “faster=more accidents” thing is actually kind of up in the air. Like with many things, it’s a bell curve, but driving a few MPH over the limit appears to be safest. Supposedly because people who drive a little bit faster tend to pay more attention. Sure, there are the outliers like the people who weave through traffic at 100MPH, but only a few over the limit appears safest.
Some of the highest accident rates actually come from people who regularly go under the limit. Because those are the people who are geriatric, distracted, texting, drunk, high, etc. and are going slower because they want the extra stopping distance or don’t want to be pulled over for speeding. Plus there’s all the hazards associated with going slow on the highway, when you’re only doing 45 MPH and traffic is flying past you in the next lane at 75. At that point, you’re practically a moving road hazard.
As far as I can tell that's not at all the case in Sweden where I live, in fact geriatric or slow drivers are very rarely involved in accidents. Intoxicated drivers are extremely rare compared to most other countries. See e.g. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/sweden-road-safety.pdf which says "Inappropriate speed is one of the leading causes of road crashes". You can find more research saying similar things on Google, e.g. that for every 10 km/h increase, the risk of an accident increases by 33 percent.
But it's not just a matter of having a high overall speed. It's also how quickly you accelerate / break. BMW/Audio/Tesla drivers have a high capacity for acceleration and they use it e.g. to overtake in situations when others wouldn't. I suspect the cause/effect is the other way around though: if you're a reckless driver who doesn't care about safety, you're more likely to choose a car that has a lot of power.
I posit that the amount of potential acceleration may be more correlated than the raw speed. Accelerating quickly makes you less predictable to the drivers around you and reduces the control you have over your own car.
Could it be the that nervous and less confident drivers are the ones that drive at or slightly below the speed limit?
Maybe it's not that driving faster is safer but worse drivers drive slower to attempt to compensate.
That's the reason why my friend wants to get one even though he dislikes Elon. One of the faster ev cars out there.
The wiper thing used to be an issue for sure, thankfully now you can use the wheel buttons to do it. Also for turning you really don't need to look at anything. I'm not saying people don't but you don't need to. There are still a few things that are somewhat annoying mainly the defrost/defog but I feel like I look the same amount as I did in my other car to push those buttons as well
The voice commands work as well as anything. It's much easier to push the roller button on the steering wheel and say "turn on defroster" than to manipulate controls (either on a touch screen or non-touch screen interface)
Voice controls are great, unless you have a strong accent it doesn’t understand, a speech impediment, or mute. Which are all things that normally wouldn’t disqualify you from driving a car. Which I feel like should disqualify them from the discussion of physical vs tablets myself.
Fair enough, mate.
The number of times I shout "your car is supposed to be smarter than that!" As a Tesla does something like, without signaling, whips around me and into oncoming traffic to pass a stopped city bus is staggering.
Fun fact, the Lending Tree analysis listed in the article showed that Ram drivers have the "highest incident rate," which looks at accidents, DUIs, speeding, and other traffic citations. This makes them the statistically worst drivers. BMWs have honorable mention as the having the highest DUI rate.
Fixed based on experience. I really do feel like these are scarlet letters to being thundering assholes, and they communicate with their king like wifi routers.
It's reflective of their larger view/"understanding" (or lack of understanding) of the world/how it all works.
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.
The design of the car isn't that great. No physical buttons so you have to constantly look away from the road to interact with any car feature. Wipers, mirrors, climate control, music, etc... the blind spot and side views are on the display. Need to merge left but have to look right to see if it's clear.
Using the touch screen as a pain, for sure. However, nearly all commands on the touch screen can be accessed via voice commands from a button on the steering wheel. In practice, the need to use the touch screen while driving (other than to monitor your speed and cruise control settings) is practically zero.
They do have mirrors, you know… The lack of physical buttons isn’t that bad either. You shouldn’t be fucking with things while driving whether there are buttons or not.
You pull over to adjust the AC?
I don’t adjust anything unless I’m stopped. Red light, stop sign, etc. Also, at this point, I can reference all that stuff without looking at the screen so, even if I needed to, I don’t have to take my eyes off the road.
It’s nonsense that Tesla drivers are somehow less safe because of the screens considering every other driver is staring at their phones.
Oh yeah, and this definitely doesn't cause problems. There's not a single law that forbids this. And yet, looking and messing with a larger version is supposed to be ok? I am not talking out of my ass. I have driven Teslas and it is distracting whether you agree or not. It was the first reason i decided i wouldn't buy one unless there were buttons. In fact, some people are starting to mod them to put physical buttons back in.
I never said it doesn’t cause problems. The issue is the inattention whatever the device.
And I own one and it’s not distracting if you don’t let it distract you. You are talking out of your ass.
You might be able to adjust things without taking your eyes off the road fairly safely if you had some sort of tactile feedback. Like a knob to adjust the volume of the radio or another knob or lever to adjust the heat/AC. I doubt you could do so just as reliably and without accidentally hitting a different button with a touch screen without looking at all, but even if you can, most drivers couldn't.
There's also a learning curve to contend with. Put me in a car with a standard stereo that has a volume knob, and I'll be able to use it without looking pretty quickly and without error. Put me in a car that has only a touch screen with a UI that is different from every other manufacturer's UI, now I have to memorize where buttons are. And until I have it memorized, I have to look.
It isn't at all reasonable or feasible to suggest you shouldn't adjust any control unless you're stopped. That completely ignores the fact that the US is comprised of many highways and interstates that won't have any stops for hours under the right conditions. You're telling me that you exit the freeway just to adjust the AC? That's a lie and you know it. And again, even if that's the case for you, it isn't the case for most drivers.
Cars marketed to the masses should be designed for use by the masses and should be designed with safety in mind. These are 80 mph tin cans that can do a ton of damage and need to be treated as such. Especially modern EVs with batteries that burn with the light and temperature of 1000 suns when damaged.
Also "every other driver is staring at their phone" sounds like a disingenuous way to suggest that taking your eyes off the road is okay because everyone else does it too. Yes, lots of people do, but lots of people do not, and just because some do, that doesn't mean we should design our cars in a way that requires the same level of inattention.
If you’re driving, you shouldn’t be doing anything that distracts you from driving. Period.
Right. Which is exactly why removing tactile knobs and buttons is stupid.
Messing with knobs is still a distraction. You’re simply arguing for lesser distractions when the point is that, if you’re driving, you should be focused on driving and not on buttons, knobs, screens, or phones. It’s literally the first lesson of driving and yet you’re pretending like there’s some safer way to be distracted. It’s a load of bollocks.
Your can see the blind spot in the physical mirrors?
Properly positioned mirrors don’t have blind spots.
Edit: Any modern vehicle with functioning mirrors should not have blind spots: https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~gdguo/driving/BlindSpot.htm
And yet pretty much every car has a blind spot detector of some sort. Pretty weird for something that's never needed.
People don’t set up their mirrors properly. If you’re turning your head to make a lane change, you’re doing it wrong. Also, the visibility in a Tesla is much, much better than it is in most cars. Not having an engine in the front of the car allows for more angle in the pillars that would normally cause blind spots.
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
i know many of you all just LOVE to hate on Tesla, it's like the shit flavor of he year for hating and no doubt Elon's shit fuckery is partially driving it, but honestly this is an absolutely classic Forbes piece of garbage. Firstly, it's a masterclass in selective bias - focusing solely on Tesla while barely whispering about Ram's near-similar accident rates. Classic move to sensationalize one brand over another. Then there's the U.S. only scope, which conveniently ignores the global context which could paint a vastly different picture. The article kicks off with a 'non-causal' disclaimer but then spends the rest of the time subtly linking Tesla's Autopilot to the high accident rate, without concrete evidence. It's a bit like saying 'no offense' before offending someone.
The Tesla recall is mentioned, sneakily implying a connection to the accident rate, despite the lack of direct correlation. The article is less about informing and more about crafting a narrative that fits a preconceived notion, all while skating on thin ice made of half-truths and strategic omissions.
Two things are true. The article is garbage, but so are Teslas.
They’re not, though. Elon can suck it but my Tesla is the best vehicle I’ve ever owned and it’s not even close.
I heard that you don't even have to open the door, you just slide in through a panel gap
I love that you were downvoted, for all we know your previous vehicle was a Daewoo or something. A Tesla is likely a better quality vehicle than a Daewoo.
You sound like a forbes article
Edit for clarification. My comment was intended to a be a bit tongue in cheek and its because of this part of the top comment that i made what i thought was clearly a light hearted joke. Sorry if it wasnt so obvious
In response to the assertion of owning a Daewoo. I assumed your comment i replied to was also referencing this quote
Lemmy is pretty toxic. There are 5 opinions allowed on here and your personal experience is irrelevant.
Pretty much. I'm looking through the replies I've received, and one says, "You sound like a forbes article" with two upvotes and only one downvote. Why would I continue to contribute to this community if that's how people are going to act?
There’s a small center of people who are actually knowledgeable and courteous here. You just have to wade through the shit and sewage to get to it.
Yeah, and I need to get back to blocking people. The signal improved drastically when I was doing that a while back.
Are you comparing with other cars at the same price range or cheaper cars?
I don't know but based from my experience(since you also commented based on your experience), compared to some other brands although Tesla are better than some cheaper models of other brands, some are better than Tesla if you compared to the models with the same price range
Yes, some brands might be worse, but Tesla is not quite considered as being the best
Some cheaper, some the same price range.
What’s your experience based on? Do you own one? Or is this just third-hand?
I don’t care what it’s considered. It’s the best car I’ve ever owned and I’ve owned Fords, Dodges, VWs, Toyotas, and BMWs.
Sadly, you'll never be able to say anything nice about any Musk properties here without massive downvotes by people who wouldn't purchase anything from Musk.
The hardware (occasional bad quality control aside) is pretty awesome. My neighbor has one, His holiday update was an absolute hoot. They're fast, clean, comfortable and are generally long lasting, low maintenance cars.
When you factor in EV and Price, there's nothing that stands out as nicer from a pure hardware standpoint.
They could use a few more buttons inside. When they become disabled on the road, their requirement for you to have them do the towing and taking hours to do so sucks. Suing people over selling their vehicles second hand is pretty bad. No second party repairs allowed is a problem.
The real 800 lb gorilla in the room is the autopilot. The only redeemable thing about the auto pilot is that it mostly works and it's pushing the tech forward. They have enough money to lobby congress to make it legal, all those 730+ wrecks and *42+ deaths as horrible as they are, will lead us to the feature being viable eventually.
*edit: found a newer source
I bought mine way before Musk became a right-wing nutjob asshole and wouldn’t buy another of his cars now unless something changed with their leadership structure.
That doesn’t mean that I can retroactively say the car sucks now. It is a fantastic vehicle. I don’t use Autopilot so that part doesn’t apply (tried it during a trial and wasn’t impressed) but, as a car, I have no qualms.
Yeah, I wonder if he became one, or if he was already one and just did a better job at hiding it.
Probably a bit of both. Before the hair plugs, he probably did want to help the world. Now he just wants to help himself.
It's like he had a really bad drug trip at some point and rewired some synapses
Ah yes a personal anecdote is 100% more valid.
That said, from what I've heard the big problem is the disparity of build quality. Some Tesla's (like possibly yours) are built amazing. Some others are put together like shit.
Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.
Every brand isn't evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose. They're run of the mill or worse than industry averages.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/who-makes-the-most-reliable-cars-a7824554938/
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2022-us-initial-quality-study-iqs
Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it
Maybe, but ask an Alfa Romeo fans about the brand... they are way worse than the Tesla fans... 😉
Look, I can tell way worse things about Renault if I look at how my car came out, so ? And I would concede that Tesla is pretty new to mass producted cars. During the years I found many quality problems also with brand that are even more evangelized and have a way longer history.
In Italy, a couple of models (Y and 3) are pretty much aligned with other brand's cars of the same category, so they don't seems to be that expensive. Or the other brands are too expensive.
At least I provided some kind of evidence, even if it’s an anecdote. You made a generalization with absolutely no evidence.
That’s fine if there’s a disparity but it’s not as common as your statement makes it seem.
Personal experience is not scientific or journalistic fact. As for providing evidence Google it. There's lots of reputable sites that will tell you their build quality is inconsistent AF as well as they intentionally bully owners to accept shit.
Personal experience is still evidence. It's not objective evidence, which normally would be a problem, but you haven't provided any whatsoever. "Google it" doesn't serve as a replacement for it, either.
https://lemmy.ca/comment/5795499
Also this -
https://lemmy.nz/post/4638562
Also this -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/amp/
I'll keep going if you need me to do your research for you. Not really because not my job to educate you but still.
None of those say what you claimed.
Your first Lemmy link just links to an article that says 10 to 20 thousand vehicles. Considering they’ve sold millions, their rates are actually below lots of other manufacturers by volume. They’re not the best by any stretch but they are far from the worst, as you stated.
The 2nd is the same - “tens of thousands”. That means less than 1% of their cars sold.
The last link has nothing to do with build quality and its source is a LendingTree article based on insurance data that is specious. Their “safest” cars are vehicles that haven’t been produced in over 10 years. They clearly have issues with their data and even have a disclaimer at the top of the source.
If you’re going to be a condescending ass, at least get your information straight instead of falling right into the sensationalist bs that you’re complaining about.
Anything to avoid doing your own research eh? Will happily "fact check" my shit but God forbid you do your own work? I may be a condescending ass but at least my head isn't up one.
It's clear I won't find anything outside of Elon telling you they're crap for you to believe but by all means Consumer Reports and JD Power having them run of the mill or worse surely can't be legit.
Oh wait. Elon has stated before their quality issues are shit. Of course you'll dismiss it because "hurr durr it was years ago"
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/business/elon-musk-tesla-quality-problems/index.html
Best of luck and enjoy your Tesla!
I have done my own research and I own a Model 3. Your head clearly is up your ass because nothing that you've provided here disproves what I said - that the issues you're discussing make up less than 1% of the cars they've sold. On top of that, Consumer Reports ranks the Model 3 as one of their top vehicles for build and reliability. The Model 3 lost that score in 2019 for less than a year because there were build issues with a small percentage of the cars being produced.
I'm not dismissing that they had a QC issues with a small amount of the cars. I never did dismiss that. I'm simply acknowledging that you're making it out to be a far bigger issue than it actually was and their actual numbers are better than nearly every car maker out there for the number of vehicles they've sold (and in such a short period of time).
If you're going to claim people have their heads up their asses, you'd need to pull yours out first to actually be able to see anything. On top of that, I don't like Elon. So I don't know why him saying anything would sway me in one direction or another considering he's a serial liar.
When this was posted yesterday, I brought up issues with the sample selection (not random) and universe the "study" looked at (people using one of those sites to shop for insurance), and while I think most understood my point, some people got upset at me "defending Tesla drivers"...
Forbes is shit and I wish people would stop taking them seriously.
How exactly could this study give a concrete reason for the higher than average crash rates?
To be fair, Tesla / Musk spend a LOT of time talking about how they’re autonomous driving product are critical for reducing accidents and saving lives. Also, there isn’t a lot of public quantitative data around this major recall. That’s why they’re getting the headline.
Maybe autopilot is great, and it’s the non-autopilot drivers that are terrible, but right now, the brand has net accident rate that rivals a company that sells massive rolling blind spots to people who love Calvin pissing stickers.
Last time a garbage clickbait hit-piece like this pissed me off, I looked into the crash statistics myself and found Tesla vehicles were around 1/80th the average crash ratio per capita.
I'm sure this is somewhat skewed by the kinds of people driving them versus the average work vehicles and clunkers out there, but still, it just feels absurdly false to claim Teslas even approach the highest crash rate.
And even the sketchy "study" not even endorsed by the site it's posted to, then linked by Forbes, then says Ram vehicles as the highest crash rate (lol), so it's wild that Forbes goes on to say it's Tesla at the top spot.
Per capita means nothing in this situation.
Comparing with the per capita means nothing here, you need to compare with other car companies, as comparing to the per capita is like comparing the number of lung cancer deaths to the number of all deaths, of course it's going to be a very small number, but when you compare with other cancers then you can see that lung cancer is one of biggest killers amongst cancers
Huh, so like every single article nowadays, basically.
Thank you. This is exactly right, it's a hit piece designed to get people who already don't like Tesla all worked up... and it worked remarkably well.
I know its super pedantic, but the word “accident” really grinds my gears in this context.
The proper terminology is “crash”.. accident infers that there is no fault or misconduct.
The official UK Police term is Road Traffic Collision, or RTC, which does not imply fault or otherwise.
What made you want to become a policeman-officer?
The mom or the sister?
Trucking companies have switched the terms in the same way, since "accident" lightens responsibility. Even a not-at-fault crash could have been preventable often times, which is what they try to emphasize.
One of the many ways trucking companies avoid liability by putting all responsibility for fuck-ups on the driver.
https://youtu.be/puK5CwThaq4?si=nsj3gOrdMN8dmn4p
This scene immediately popped into my head.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/puK5CwThaq4?si=nsj3gOrdMN8dmn4p
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
You can intentionally crash into someone which would not be an accident but if you crash into someone not on purpose, then it's an accident.
Exactly, so the use of "crash" would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.
"Accident" starts addressing intentions or expectations.
We could just add easily refer to them as "vehicular violence" but then we'd end up distorting things in another direction.
It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.
If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.
Wouldn't an accident still involve "fault"
Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.
That's why there's a push to use neutral terms like "crash" that don't imply that the "accident" was just a random accidental mistake.
And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say "this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers".
While many accidents do involve fault, there are scenarios where an accident can occur without anyone being legally at fault (mechanical failure, natural disasters). It does excludes malicious intent though. in the specific context of commercial motor vehicle regulations in the US, the term "accident" is defined in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) under 49 CFR § 390.5
Good point, so does Accidents exclude "accidental crashes with fault"
relevant https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129682
Car caused trauma
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.
A coworker of mine was recently bragging about their new electric mustang and its zero to sixty time. "Have you ever gone zero to sixty?" was my only response. Of all the facts and figures, 0-60 has you to be one of the least important when buying a car.
Only up to a certain point. My Kia Rio has a 0-60 of like 16 seconds.. overtaking even on a clear road sucks.
The car is perfect otherwise, but I'd definitely want much better acceleration in the future.
My last car was like that and then every time I borrowed my dad's mercedes I'd constantly do stupid unecessary overtakes just because I could. It's a moral hazard - I don't think a faster accelerating car is safer because people drive those differently.
Of course you have to hold yourself back, but where I live there's plenty of really nice stretches of road where you can overtake. But with my car while I'm accelerating some guy in an Audi or a BMW already decides to overtake from the back.. overtaking with a better car feels much less stressful and safer.
Let me guess, automatic transmission? I have a manual Rio and I can push it in half the time in third gear. Not redlining anything, just less conservative shifting.
Nope, manual, I'm in Europe. But 75 PS Diesel with 6 gears. Redlining doesn't help much when it comes to accelerating.
Especially diesel engines.
Being able to accelerate to highway speeds quickly is useful when merge lanes are short. We have a car that kind of struggles with that, and it's pretty scary sometimes merging into 70 mph traffic. Normally it's not a major issue, but one ramp we sometimes use is designed poorly - it's curvy, so you can't accelerate to highway speed until after the final curve, then it's up a hill, and of course there's a short merge area into traffic that's usually doing about 70 mph. So, there, I REALLY miss the power our previous car had. It's a frustrating experience.
When I got my license back in the early 2000s I got taught very economical driving, generally choosing gears to keep rpm low, use the motor brake to decelerate before traffic lights, such stuff. Then it was time to get on the Autobahn, and the instructor just said "Forget everything I taught you, now it's safety first: Floor it in 3rd gear, merge in third gear, once you've found your position switch directly to 5th you'll be fast enough."
If I'm not mistaken that was an Audi A4 TDI so... 15 seconds 0 to 100? Maybe about 10, don't remember the displacement. Of course, merging is more like 30 to 120, directly onto the second lane. With a Punto you're kinda lucky if you get to 80 by the time the on-ramp ends and barely get into the right-most lane (where you're probably staying).
Rolling to 75 is more relevant in MA where onramps to highways are 50 feet long, but 0 to 60 is correlated.
It is a relative performance indicator that is easy to measure and verify.
Of course you rarely ever actually do 0-60, but it gives you an idea of how well the car accelerates relative to other cars. So in a way 0-60 is like a cinebench score for cars.
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
I can't fathom any other reality.
Its like how red cars get more speeding tickets.
That's actually a myth
How can you write an article like this with zero citations? They mention Lending Tree, who is a mortgage originator and that's it.
They're going off of Lending Tree's internal insurance quote data. That link about the lending tree quote showed this, "Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data..."
Insurance rates are usually determined by risk associated with the car and driver and the value of the car. The lending tree analysis showed they were looking at several factors as well as accidents. They said also that Ram drivers have the "highest incident rates," meaning they lumped together accidents, DUIs, speeding violations, and other traffic citations. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a Ram.
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.
Even the Lending Tree "article" has a disclaimer at the top that they haven't reviewed or approved any of it.
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.
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 ..?
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 hear VW is putting buttons back in.
But Tesla always says the opposite.
regulators who don’t trust FSD are KILLING people because it’s so safe -Elron
THE JUDGE IS THE PEOPLE OF EARTH!
now please excuse me while I, free speech absolutist Felon Musk, go and intimidate videos showing how shitty Autopilot and FSD off of the internet.
I smell last well tonight with John Oliver
I have been following Musk's insanity for years now, and I am glad that Oliver covered him, but he could have been soooo much more scathing while being absolutely factual.
His relatively moderate criticisms of Musk reminded me that a whole lot of libs and tech bros are in his demographic.
You can't apparently tell them Rocket Jesus is not going to save us and is infact a contemptible racist fascist mad man whose entire persona is a fraud and has done nothing but defraud all his investors with insane claims he hasnt delivered on in nearly a decade without making his audience too depressed, I guess.
People are allowed cars they don't have skills to use.
Shouldn't Teslas be easier to use with all that automation? If not, what's the point of automation?
OTOH, I'm all for raising the requirements for getting issued a driving licence, it's just then we have to make a way for people to make do without driving.
To add another factor:
People buy muscle cars and over accelerate because they can't handle the power of those cars
EVs accelerate much quicker than normal cars, Tesla's more than normal EVs
So if someone isn't using the automation they're still susceptible to the classic "overshot into or over something" situation
They also think because the car accelerates quickly it will also stop as quickly. Same as idiots that drive too fast in the snow.
Tesla's self-driving and safety systems are clearly half baked compared to competitor and other vendors.
Quite frankly, driving skills standards in the entire American continent are a joke to begin with. I've seen current requirements in Canada ("Wut?" bad), united states (teehehehehe bad) and Mexico (the aristocrats joke bad) and I know going south it only gets worse.
I got my driver's license 25 years ago in the Netherlands and had to take classes for a number of months, learn an entire book of rules, had a one bour theory exam where typically only 60-70% would pass at the first try, then I had to take 30 hours of practical lessons with an instructor in a special car, and take a practical exam with an examiner where the rulr is pretty much "one mistake and you're out". I learned how to drive in rain, what to look out for, hoe to drive in show, how to manage losing control of your car, etc etc etc... I was instilled with andeaddaly respect for what s car is and what it can do in seconds to ruin lives for good.
Comparing that ti anything they teach today in the Americas, it's just a sad joke.
My drivers ed class in new england pretty much focused only on educating teenagers about how brutally dangerous drunk driving is. It was frustrating at the time because I felt like I didn’t even learn how to drive but given how where I grew up as a teenager you had to go drink in sketch places which usually involved driving (what a dumb way to structure society ughh) because of the car hellscape I grew up in…. I honestly think those drivers ed teachers spent their time well.
Driving a car isn’t so hard so long as you take the perspective that you have one rule, don’t hit other people and always remind yourself that you can’t assume other drivers will do anything they should on the road. Drunk driving was VERY hard not to do as a bored teenager trying to hang out with other bored teenagers. I could have died, my friends could have died. Idk, so I can’t be too upset at my drivers ed class in retrospect.
In Canada we still have to pass a practical test that covers that stuff with pretty strict requirements for passing. Just how you gain the knowledge and ability to pass that test is up to you. It's pretty normal to take a driver's Ed class if your friends or family don't have time to trach you themselves. And the drivers Ed class is what you described as what is mandatory in the Netherlands. We just don't put people through it automatically if they have already learned all that somewhere else.
Having said that, there are some small towns that are known as places to go if you want an easier driving test, as they just don't have enough things around to properly represent everything you should know while driving. But if it turns out you do actually suck at driving, you'll lose your tiny amount of demerits on your beginners license pretty fast and then you are legally required to pass a driver's Ed and defensive driving class before being able to reclaim your license. It's not perfect, and I do think the one major thing we are missing is periodic re-testing. In Canada people are a little less resistant to "greater good" social policies, but there is still resistance. It's tough to pass stuff that lowers or is perceived to lower freedoms, but they do still occasionally pass.
And as I'm sure is the problem everywhere, people want all kinds of services, they just don't want the government to have the money to pay for those services. And also they only want the services they personally currently benefit from, everything else can be cut until they personally need it, then it was a tragedy that no one stood up for it.
That doesn't sound all that different from where I learned in Maryland. You had to go to a class for a few months that had both theoretical and practical portions. You had to do 40 hours of supervised driving outside of class with an adult. The 40 hours covered a range of situations. Then there was a driving test. Which I passed fine for the car but failed for a motorcycle because I started about a foot back from the stop sign on the course so I didn't pull up and stop at it. Doh.
Adult being a friend or family member? I've heard about that, and it always struck me as strange, as people aren't driving instructors, driving instructors are driving instructors.
In California, the first 20hr or so, it had to be a licensed instructor if you were under 18. An adult would just need to register for a learner's permit and just need any licensed driver in the front passenger seat
I think it was somewhere around 6 to 10 hours with a certified instructor. The 40 with an adult was yeah a family member or friend. The quality definitely depended on the adult. My parents took it seriously and made sure we completed the lessons, but I had friends whose parents just signed the form without providing the additional instruction. It was 20 years ago so details are fuzzy.
I'm not looking forward to the day a tesla cyber truck hits someone. That's gonna be a grisly scene in the right conditions.
I wonder if it'll pass safety regs outside of the US
No.
AFAIK they won't even try to homologate it.
It will most certainly pass driver safety regs but absolutely not pedestrian safety. I'm sure they knew that when they designed it.
yeah pedestrian safety is what I meant, thanks
Maybe they're sentient and actively suicidal.
Or homicidal: https://www.theonion.com/children-gather-at-edge-of-playground-to-watch-as-self-1850013121
This reminds me of a cheesy Dutch movie from the 80s called The Lift in which an elevator becomes self aware and starts murdering people...
It would be a brilliant way to knock people off.
Terra Ignota used carefully calculated automobile tragedies as a pretext for civil war.
A plane crash was used as the pretext for the civil war/genocide in Rwanda
And doesn't his newest atrocity, long overdue and underdelivered/overpriced, also have a front end like a knife?
Source: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
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.
Yeah, their "safest" list top 3 were all dead marques; Mercury, Pontiac, and Saturn. They definitely have some sampling issues.
The right source for this kind of stuff is the NHTSA's database, but you can't manufacture juicy headlines from that.
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.
Could also be things like fast acceleration pulling the numbers up. A lot of people are going to gun it if you give them something that can do 0-60 under 4 seconds. Those are numbers that were relegated to expensive sports cars a decade ago, not a grocery getter.
Is this speed special in Tesla cars or all consumer electric or normal cars? Why waste money to give a grocery getter that much extra power
Most internal combustion cars tend to hover around 8-9 seconds with a 0-60. Something with some kick was often considered sub 6 seconds.
Telsa prides itself on fast acceleration. Their slowest car is in the 5’s, but many hover in the 3-4 second band, which is quite quick. Telsa’s slowest base model car is often performance that many brands would have for their top performing internal combustion car.
It is often easier to make electric cars that accelerate quickly, but not every brand has decided to make their EV soccer mom cars launch like a corvette. A base Kia EV6 will 0-60 in 7.2s and Ford’s Mach E Mustang does 6.1s.
Ahhh, I suppose money factors in a decision like this?
I am both shocked and pleased that Ford did not make this list. Seriously, the brand with the most sold pickup truck doesn’t make a list for just about everything?
I'd bet a significant chunk of the F150's sold every year go to fleet operators which would skew the saftey numbers.
And fleet operators have stricter requirements. Get in an accident? They want a piss test on the spot, and if you refuse you're done.
Including requiring regular driver training refresher courses.
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.
Oh fuck off lending tree. Made up nonsense.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted? Oh, Tesla bad? Yeah, Tesla bad. LendingTree bad too. It's spin and propaganda for the mortgage industry. They publish clickbait "research" using non scientific metrics to reach whatever conclusion they set out to reach, usually it's just shitting on blue states. They frequently reach the opposite conclusions of credible researchers with no explanation as to why they created their own formulas when perfectly valid, standard formulas exist.
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
lol, Ram isn't even a make (the make would be Dodge), but owners are such bad drivers that they have a category of their own.
Musk: Woo, we're number 1!
*In the USA
The 1958 Edsel is the reigning champ in Cuba.
dang, just checked for my country (data from 2019), look out for those priuses! I guess the handling the GTA 4 analog had was pretty accurate, it's like a brick on the road ^^
I don't know how many of these collisions are with pedestrians, but I have nearly stepped out in front of one twice just because they're so quiet.
My 1994 Ford Probe was so quiet you couldn't tell it was running most of the time even standing next to it, and there are plenty of ICE cars around today with even smaller and quieter engines. Most people learn to look both ways before crossing the street when they're toddlers.
My car is so quiet I have to rev it to double check if I've started it sometimes.
Look Ma, no hands!
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.
Crapy article. They miss used there own source.
NPC drivers. In the 90s it was Toyotas, then entry level Nissans took over in the mid 2000s ... And now we got Tesla
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Tesla+build+quality+concerns
Don't know why I bother you're only going to continue mental gymnastics to further justify your head up your ass
this is a top-level comment but doesn't seem related to the OP. care to clarify who it was that you were being bitchy to?
Lol good ol Lemmy misplaced my reply.
Indeed
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/20/tesla-blamed-drivers-for-failures-of-parts-it-long-knew-were-defective.html