Here's the raw data of the top 10 models involved in fatal accidents according to the study.
1 Hyundai Venue
2 Chevrolet Corvette
3 Mitsubishi Mirage
4 Porsche 911
5 Honda CR-V Hybrid
6 Tesla Model Y
7 Mitsubishi Mirage G4
8 Buick Encore GX
9 Kia Forte
10 Buick Envision
This looks like the sort of data you'd expect to see if there was absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the class of vehicle and accident rates. And then the data was massaged to put Tesla in the headline because clickbait — and even after that massaging, Tesla was pretty much tied with Kia. So what have we learned from this data? Nothing. It's meaningless data. Might as well be random.
This is individual cars and in particular mostly heavy SUVs. But if you group this data by car brand, Hyundai has many smaller cars. But all Tesla’s are heavy (and fast!). So stop buying heavy/fast vehicles if you care about fatalities.
> So stop buying heavy/fast vehicles if you care about fatalities.
The report makes precisely the opposite claim. It says small cars have a higher rate of fatal accidents. From the report:
"When broken out by size, small cars have the highest fatal accident rate while midsize and full-size cars are both below average. While modern small cars benefit from the latest engineering and safety tech, they still have a size and weight disadvantage in accidents with a larger vehicle."[0]
Perhaps you are right and weight is a critical factor, but then you'll need to explain why the heavy Model S was lower in their rankings than the Toyota Prius. It should also be noted that Tesla vehicles are generally lighter than most comparable EVs, and typically 0–10% heavier than comparable ICE cars.
I contend that this report is junk data. The authors haven't published the statistics (or methodology for collecting the statistics) used to normalise the raw NHTSA FARS data. Without it, its conclusions are as useless as you might suspect when looking at their top 23 list. (I wonder... if we knew what the 24th car was, would we know more about the motivations of the authors?)
That the only automaker name in the headlines stemming from this report is Tesla is proof that there's no intellectual integrity associated with its dissemination — it's just vibe, and an opportunity for people to push their pet explanations, even when the report itself contradicts them. Or when the pet explanation doesn't make sense of literally any data point.
I was walking down the road, beside me a young man with airpods on. He was walking on a side lane which is intended for parking lots. Suddenly, a Tesla was driving behind him with about the same speed, but at a distance of less than 10cm behind him.. forcing him off the street. He didn't hear or see the car.
So, how stupid a driver must be to drive that close behind a walking one?
It's Tesla drivers. In Germany I saw that kind of behavior more than once.
If someone could drive "less than 10cm behind" a pedestrian without them noticing, my reaction is to be impressed with such astonishingly precise driving.
Astonishingly precise driving should be reserved for a closed circuit, not a public street, where there are a million other variables you can't control.
That's why a good driver in public is a smooth and predictable one, not one who can just parallel park with 2 cm space in one go every time.
The pedestrian guy did not hear the Tesla. And the Tesla was really that close. I saw it and thought what the heck is happening - even if the road is yours, why would you choose to drive that close to a pedestrian - who at any time can choose to stop or to turn around. It's stupid, because if the Tesla would even slightly touch the pedestrian, it would be a serious problem for the driver.
I looked at the Tesla driver, then the pedestrian noticed something is wrong and then noticed the Tesla, too, and left the lane.
This is a very risky and reckless driving behavior. I've seen such behavior from young guys wanting to impress or some stupid drivers with fast cars who things the roads are belong to them. The Tesla driver was about 50y old.
I've should have made a video and post it here. No one believes me :)
I don’t believe you. When the two entities are a wheeled vehicle and a bipedal animal, the differences in locomotion are too different to achieve a sub-10cm clearance.
I'm not questioning what you said, I'm saying that you are wrong.
It's obviously not true that "adaptive cruise control or FSD" could explain your anecdote. Adaptive cruise does not engage in a Tesla unless the road is marked and painted. FSD is not available in Germany. Even if it was, it's far too cautious around pedestrians, it wouldn't allow itself to get within 1 metre of a pedestrian let alone 0.1 metres.
It's also obviously not true that "Tesla used" anything, because the car in your anecdote was owned and operated by a (presumably) licensed driver and not by Tesla.
A better hypothesis for your anecdote is that the driver was French and not that driving a Tesla vehicle somehow reprograms human brains to drive dangerously.
No, the kind of people buying a Tesla are already programmed to drive like this. That's the whole point.
It's the same question like who buy's a BMW or a Mercedes Benz? There's a special type of people the different car makers are aiming at. The same applies to Tesla drivers.
In Germany, where a lot of discussion around cars is happening, just a special type of people buy Tesla.
Does anyone have any idea why Honda CR-V Hybrid is #5? Its fatal accident rate is 4.6x the average according to the study.
From what I've been able to find it looks like non-hybrid CR-Vs are around average. So what is it that specifically makes the hybrid have such a high rate?
