Motors What do you drive? - The Photo Gallery

I acquired a similar piece, donated anonymously, by a local tradesman I believe. It isn't priceless, by any means, but I did have it appraised for "250 quid plus three hours labour".

 

So it is okay for you to say things like:
"Tesla vehicles have up to four times (Model Y) the average fatality rate - including fire deaths, but also including all the other ways you can die in a car."
Or dismissing driver caused problem as a joke:
"Why is what you claimed, based on Euro-NCAP (I think, I haven't checked, replace as appropriate) testing, is the "safest car" showing four times the fatality rate of the average vehicle? It can't all be down to people turning off all safety features, pointing it at a wall, and flooring it."

Not a single word about the source report's disclaimer heavily suggesting the stats has very little to do with vehicle design. "as much or much more" to me reads like "there's more than half probability".

So you also wouldn't get in to the following:
1 Tesla 5.6
2 Kia 5.5
3 Buick 4.8
4 Dodge 4.4
5 Hyundai 3.9
Or these cars in their earlier report?
https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2019
Assessing car safety based solely on accident fatality doesn't show the whole story, according to car jerno interviewing the author. But what do they know?
https://www.jalopnik.com/americas-most-dangerous-car-is-actually-pretty-damn-saf-1834762891/

The way you kept ignoring imperial data from standardised vehicle safety testing seems to suggest so (or otherwise for your second part, you decide).

Which is more comparable? data with a lot of variable from a short 5 year period where the brand you don't like happen to come out on top for your claims. Or data from multiple standardised test organisations designed for comparison?

I've no problem you disliking the brand or dislike the individual that you seem to think the brand represents.

But I find your claims that their vehicle are not safe to be so far from the truth that I have gathered, I cannot ignore.

 

2023.44.30.

This is you are being obtuse.

Lab data is designed to be comparable across different vehicle make and models. It is the precise job for labs to design repeatable comparable tests.
Real world data has so many variables it makes it almost impossible to compare.

Let's take a metric everyone knows and love: MPG. The quoted WLTP MPG is designed to be comparable across car make and models.
Are you saying statistical analysis of real world 911 race car MPG is comparable to Honda Jazz, a car with reputation being driven gently by OAP's?

Let's not forget in UK and EU, the assistive features being tested are exactly what's available. We (everyone here) don't have to be worried about those more advanced "self driving" features that make may the difference between US accident data and EuroNCAP, ANCAP, IIHS.

Apology, I misquoted. I don't work in writing good English, I can agree the writer is saying "there's no way to know, using the data in the study, whether the fatalities are because of the car, the driver, or a combination, and in what ratio."

As the report author said in an interview: https://www.jalopnik.com/americas-most-dangerous-car-is-actually-pretty-damn-saf-1834762891/

So let's re-iterate: The facts you are quoting are real world US data, possibly have driving features enabled that are not available outside US, where it is impossible to know "whether the fatalities are because of the car, the driver, or a combination, and in what ratio." and also "*-NCAP testing is performed with the features that could possibly (there's that word again) be responsible for the excess deaths turned off".

You then came to the conclusion that: Tesla's are unsafe, regardless of the feature possibly responsible for "excess death" is not available outside of US and (understandably) you wouldn't go to US.

Yes, indeed, hand picked facts from data that has huge variables. The variability factor seems to be something we now agree on, it wasn't acknowledged before.

Yes, I did throw out real-world fatality data (from 1 sources: iSeeCars) because it is not for vehicle safety comparison purposes, there's too many variables as the author said.

Same question for you. Are you saying you did not throw out industry recognised lab testing results designed for vehicle safety comparison across different make and models, instead use data with huge number of variables to claim a vehicle is not safe?


By the way, the recall (all 3 links are talking about same thing 23V838, which was installed in update 2023.44.30) essentially only makes the inattentiveness warning more visible. Something a safe driver should not see anyway.

 

Let's step back a bit.

I have nothing against you personally and I don't believe you have anything against me.

You have a dim view of Musk. I have a slightly less dim early on (pre 2018, I didn't think SolarCity was amiss just bad business decision) but similar view of Musk now.

I'd be happier to get on with my weekend. Obviously we feel differently about an inanimate object and both see fit to use different point of references.


May I suggest you consider not using or asking any driver to not use the possibly death inducing button.

 

But are you including BMW and Audi in your definition of “average”? ‘Cos those are gonna skew your average massively, judging by the sheer number of absolute posstots* who drive them. Every time there’s someone half a bee’s wingwang away from my rear bumper it’s those stupid bloody lights**, or that stupid bloody badge with the rings, that I see in the mirror.

*You may decipher this spoonerism at your leisure
**You know what I mean, no other manufacturer has lights that look like that

 

Based on experience if you're really serious about maximising safety the only car for you should be the Volvo XC90. Their safety record is obscene.

Beyond that you have to draw a line somewhere, I agree that 4x average is too high for me. But I'm also a motorcyclist, so my risk choices are very relative.

 

Edit: Yes, I know Volvos don’t look like that any more, it’s a dumb joke and an obscure film reference, deal with it.

 

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm leather elbow patches and the smell of rough shag

 

No photo, but I currently drive a venerable 2009 Audi A4 Avant.
It's a fairly economical diesel workhorse and I hope I'm not representative of the average 'four ring' driver.

It's interesting that almost all those sheets of drivers were those of the propeller badge persuasion and at some point their competitors made cars to tempt them away to drive another brand badly and antisocially...

I don't want a more modern car with more electronics to go wrong which add stuff I don't need.
Mine's bad enough with rear brake calipers that have to be told to retract by a laptop or OBD tablet just to fit new pads/discs.
Didn't really want diesel again, but it was a good buy when my last car died.
I didn't even know it was new enough for a F_#@ing DPF until the sodding thing needed cleaning 3 years into owning it.

/Another middle aged bloke rant

 

You might be surprised how often I move a far superior car off the driveway just so I can go for a run in one of these

 

Superior on what basis?

 

I have fond memories of an old 1987 Cavalier just because of how far you could dismantle the front end* with nothing more than a 10mm spanner.

* Lets not get bogged down with questions like why I had to dismantle the front end.

 

Power, torque, fuel economy, comfort, reliability, passenger carrying capacity, manoeuvrability and safety.

Everything except sex appeal I guess

 

I don’t know about you but, I’m never going to fancy shagging a Land Rover…

 

I learned to drive in a 1987 Cavalier. Think it was a 1.6 GL.

 

Or where all the goddamn 10mm sockets keep bloody going…

 

Finally painted!