Report: Elon's cybertrucks are deadlier than infamous Ford Pintos
It's just the latest reason to be skeptical of the car's safety record.
It's just the latest reason to be skeptical of the car's safety record.
You're viewing a single thread.
the approximately 34,000 Cybertrucks on the roads had five fire fatalities
Bad journalism is bad.
Ok, so instead of the Cybertruck being 17 times deadlier than the Ford Pinto, it's only 13.6 times deadlier. Wow, thanks for pointing this out.
See 1. I'd venture a guess that the first 34k Pintos had a much higher fatality rate than the >1M ones.
Source?
Source https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf Page 9.
@Ulrich@feddit.org is absolutely correct
Can you point out specifically where it says that the first 34k pintos had a higher fatality rate? I read page 9 and didn't see it.
Pintos had an over two orders of magnitude higher mortality rate then the numbers used in the original “analysis“. The rest of this is moot.
You want a source for my guess? It's just basic and logic and reason that would lead one to deduce that they probably were working to fix the people dying problem, and issued fixes as they went along.
That was the basis for the Tyler Durden character in Fight Club.
No, you just made that up. The scene in Fight Club did not name a specific vehicle or brand. He says "my company" and the vehicle depicted in the scene is clearly not a Pinto.
Ford had to recall 1.5 million
And they sold >3M.
E: the user I'm replying to here made shit up, got called out, deleted their comments, started making shit up again, got called out again, deleted comments again. If I sound like a jerk, it's because they were accusing me of the things they were doing and I just repeated their statements back to them verbatim.
100% of the cars made at the time were recalled
1.5 million is the sample size you need to spread the 51 deaths and incidents over
You are arguing out of ignorance because you couldn't be bothered to simply read my comment before replying. 1.5M is <50% of the total vehicles manufactured, not 100%. The sample size was 3,173,491 and the number of deaths was 27.
You are fully factually wrong on your assertion above. Your data is wrong. You are wrong.
3 fatalities happened in the same Cybertruck, so this is a grand total of 2 crashes that legitimately resulted in deaths. One just happened to have a large number of occupants.
Even if you weren't wrong, you're operating under the premise that Tesla will (or would even be legally permitted to) follow the same path as Ford did 50 years ago and deny and ignore deaths to save pennies and ounces (it's a 6500lb pickup truck, no one is counting ounces).
There are 3 types of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is an excellent example of the third one.
The time in question is 1971-1976.
Bzzzt wrong, you're making shit up again, it's through 1980.
So just like the cyber truck if 4 people were in the car for one accident it counts as 4 people
4 people in 1 Cybertruck. Choosing people is intentionally misleading because the number of people is irrelevant to the vehicle itself that they're trying to blame their deaths on. It's the "damned lies" I mentioned above.
Tesla does not know how to make the cyber truck safer.
I'm not gonna guess you have no evidence for this and are just making more shit up.
The facts about the pinto are plain, public and well documented.
They are, which is why it's so readily apparent that you haven't even glanced at them.
You analysis is hinged on those facts not being true
I haven't contested any facts. The only thing I've contested is the conclusions drawn from the facts, and also the shit you're just making up as you go.
Jump around all you want, make up all the numbers you want pretend all you want. You need to do all of that because you are wrong.
He did not say "my company":
BUSINESS WOMAN: ... Which... car company do you work for?
JACK: A major one.
Yes he does. Try actually watching the scene.
It's reported as the rate per 100,000 units. So that's accounted for.
Bad commenting is bad.
the total sample is between 0 and 34,000 across the past couple years. You are mixing up sample, 34,000 is actually a remarkably large sample size.
Maybe you dont understand clustering
do enlighten me then.
I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of sample sizes.
So, Wikipedia says the Ford Pinto sold 3,173,491 units. This article says there were 27 Ford Pinto fatalities. The article also says the Cybertruck sold 34,000 units and there have been 5 fatalities.
Your point 2 aside, you're not trying to argue that (5/34,000) / (27/3,173,491) isn't approximately 17, right?
(Again, point 2 aside) is your point that 5 deaths (or rather 4 deaths if you don't count the guy from point 2) out of 34,000 units isn't a big enough sample size to draw conclusions and that you think it's likely that as more units are sold, the rate won't stay that high and over time the data will average out to a fatality rate less than that of the Ford Pinto?
One more question if I may. Are you a fan of Tesla?
you think it's likely that as more units are sold, the rate won't stay that high
That would be a prediction of the future that I'm not prepared to make, but I do suspect that will end up being the case. Assuming they ever even sell a million of them before ending production. All I will comment on is today, and the idea that the first 34k Pintos probably had a much higher fatality rate than the last 3,139,491.
Are you a fan of Tesla?
I'm a fan of rational thought processes and statistics. Something I think very few people are capable of when it comes to anything having to do with Musk. The fact that Elon's name is even in the headline leads me to believe that's the case here as well. When was the last time you heard about "Farley's Ford" or "Rawlinson's Lucid"? If you're a "journalist", you just can't go wrong with anything to do with Elon.
Assuming they ever even sell a million of them before ending production.
You don't think there's anything magical about the number "a million", though, correct? Just "enough to form a sufficiently good sample size" (whatever your threshold might be.)
Are you a fan of Tesla?
I’m a fan of rational thought processes and statistics...
I can't help but notice you dodged my question.
You don't think there's anything magical about the number "a million", though, correct?
Sure.
I can't help but notice you dodged my question.
I didn't dodge it, I chose not to engage because you're looking to attack my character and derail the conversation rather than discussing the merit of my statements.
For those spending this much time explaining that an N=4 being statistically conclusive (LOL), perhaps your time would have been better used if you looked into how badly the pinto data was cherry picked (1626 deaths in 2.5 years):
(sauce: https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf Page 9.)
Dude. I've taught statistics. I don't think you understand what you're arguing here. lol.
Why don't you bring me up to speed instead of levying personal attacks and then disappearing?
I get paid to teach stats. So not my job here. But let me use common sense and see if that works.
Is a comparison valid? Of course it is. Connecticut has a population of about 3.5 million. Torrington CT has a population of around 35,000. Are you telling me that you can't compare death rates in Torrington vs. the rest of Connecticut because of "statistics"?
You can compare whatever you want. But there are good comparisons and there are bad comparisons, and this is the latter.
Also we're talking about cars that roll off an assembly line, not people. If the death rate is higher in people, do you blame the people? Another bad comparison.
What are you even talking about? Failure rates in manufacturing are governed by the same statistics rules as human errors or deaths for sufficiently large n. And 35,000 is sufficiently large n .
It's a valid comparison and statistically sound.
Jesus Christ. You really need this spelled out, don't you?
This is a bad comparison and statistically insignificant.
1 works against your point, 2 is irrelevant or you need to expand on what you mean, 3 is misunderstanding what is being compared when you compare samples of two different pops. a population in one environment being compared to a population in another, the difference is the environment. a car population of one make being compared with a car population of a different make, the thing being compared is the manufacturing and design.
you appear to be working from a conclusion backwards that this is an invalid comparison and grasping for why.
a population in one environment being compared to a population in another, the difference is the environment. a car population of one make being compared with a car population of a different make, the thing being compared is the manufacturing and design.
you appear to be working from a conclusion backwards that this is an invalid comparison and grasping for why.
Buddy, you just explained exactly why it's a bad analogy....
At this point I don't know how to be anymore clear, and I'm done trying. If you still don't understand, that's on you.
If machines coming off an assembly line are virtually identical, then a smaller sample size can be used due to reduced variation. Larger samples are required to control for variation.
I think you guys are just blowing smoke for kicks at this point. Your stats reasoning doesn't display even a superficial understanding.
You're just intentionally ignoring #2, ignoring the fact that we were comparing machines vs. humans, and arguing in bad faith because you know you're wrong, and you're bad at your job and trying to save face. We're done here.
