this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
83 points (89.5% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3089 readers
293 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No it doesn't. That data was seriously flawed and even had an added disclaimer from the company saying it is solely the author's opinion.
Looks like they used the same data that they use to provide insurance quotes, and then the article got popular, and they didn’t want to fight pissed off car manufacturers, so they chucked a disclaimer on the article.
Using it to provide insurance quotes would be appropriate. Using it to determine which vehicles crash the most is not.
Using their 'formula,' if I drive a Honda Civic and get rear-ended, insurance totals the car, and I use that money to go buy a Model 3, they will count me as a "Tesla crash statistic" because I'm getting a quote for a Tesla with an accident on my record. This is idiotic because A) I wasn't driving a Tesla during the crash, and B) I wasn't even at fault for the accident, yet they still count it as a Tesla crash.
Not to mention other issues with the article like Pontiac, Saturn, and Oldsmobile being some of the "safest" cars on the road even though those companies built shitty cars and went out of business 10-15 years ago.
The company put the disclaimer on the article because it's junk data and misleading conclusions.
Have a Y and pay $677.00 per 6-months for pretty good coverage.