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.
At least Tesla owners can blame it on the computer. 🤣
“It appears the fault was located between the drivers seat and steering wheel, sir”
I am still waiting for the inevitable country music song about a broken hearted cowboy whose self driving car leaves him for another man.
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.
Because a bunch of idiots take their hands off their steering wheel and think Elmo's car is 100% safe.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can you write an article like this with zero citations? They mention Lending Tree, who is a mortgage originator and that's it.
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...
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.
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.
No it makes it harder. I know that sounds crazy but it's very true. Basically humans are very bad at paying attention to boring things. The automation gives the feeling that the computer has it and the human is not ready and aware when the computer doesn't have it. Leading to lots of easily avoidable accidents.
There has been some really good reporting on this over the last year or so. If you want to learn more.
This is something Japanese train companies figured out awhile ago for train engineers. Because driving locomotives can be really repetitive, they train engineers to do hand signals and call out actions out loud even when they're alone in the car in order to help keep the brain active and focused.
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
But Tesla always says the opposite.
regulators who don’t trust FSD are KILLING people because it’s so safe -Elron
Unpopular opinion: all "fun" cars should be banned from public roads. You think driving is "fun"? Go to a racing track and have fun there. When I'm commuting I want to get to work safely, that's my only objective. I don't want to share the road with an idiot who thinks he's the next Schumacher and can drive safely at 150km/h. All cars should have speed limiters installed. Why can they drive faster then the national speed limit at all? It makes no sense. You want to race? Put your racing car on a flat bet and carry it to the racetrack, I don't care. The idea that driving is "fun" is cancer that killed more people than.. well, real cancer. Shows like Top Gear that promote this idea are responsible for more deaths than Nazis.
Edit: Ok, I was wrong, cancer kills more people. Bad example. 1.3M people die in car accidents every year. Speeding is the second most common cause. Just think about another example like guns or something.
I know people in the US get their license in a few days. But in europe people take a proper course over a few weeks and drive dafely and routinely at speeds up to 200 km/h. Not that I disagree with the fun part.
The idea that driving is "fun" is cancer that killed more people than.. well, real cancer. Shows like Top Gear that promote this idea are responsible for more deaths than Nazis.
I was with you right up until here. There's no way to upvote and downvote different parts of a comment, is there?
Driving can be "fun" in any car though. You don't need a sports car to enjoy driving, for some driving is just a fun activity that can still be done safely and within the regulations of the road.
The idea that driving is “fun” is cancer that killed more people than… well, real cancer.
You've literally just made this up.
And doesn't his newest atrocity, long overdue and underdelivered/overpriced, also have a front end like a knife?
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.
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.
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.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
