- cross-posted to:
- cars@lemmy.world
- evs@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- cars@lemmy.world
- evs@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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”
Good ole close the ticket with message “PEBKAC”
What was it? 25% more likely to have a DUI record?
I am still waiting for the inevitable country music song about a broken hearted cowboy whose self driving car leaves him for another man.
Weird Al should be all over this.
Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
(Verse 1) Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck, Memories rollin’ by, like the miles we used to clock. Drove through the sunset, with you by my side, Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin’ dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you’re gone, and it’s just my luck, My darlin’ left me, a self-driving truck.
(Verse 2) We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads, Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds. Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too, Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin’ dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you’re gone, and it’s just my luck, My darlin’ left me, a self-driving truck.
(Bridge) I miss the way your headlights cut through the night, The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right. But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song, You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
(Verse 3) We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark, But now it’s just silence, an abandoned truck stop. I’m left with memories, and a tank full of regret, A self-driving heartbreak, I’ll never forget.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin’ dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you’re gone, and it’s just my luck, My darlin’ left me, a self-driving truck.
(Outro) So here I am, parked on this lonely track, Wishing you’d come back, but you won’t look back. You rolled away, with gears that don’t feel, Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
YES!
Fuck, I actually have a decent singing voice, no guitar though.
Lets find someone with a guitar and make this a stupid spotify single or something.
I read that as Weird Artificial Intelligence. Probably because of the context, since it never occured to me to read it like that before.
Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
(Verse 1) Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck, Memories rollin’ by, like the miles we used to clock. Drove through the sunset, with you by my side, Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin’ dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you’re gone, and it’s just my luck, My darlin’ left me, a self-driving truck.
(Verse 2) We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads, Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds. Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too, Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin’ dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you’re gone, and it’s just my luck, My darlin’ left me, a self-driving truck.
(Bridge) I miss the way your headlights cut through the night, The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right. But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song, You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
(Verse 3) We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark, But now it’s just silence, an abandoned truck stop. I’m left with memories, and a tank full of regret, A self-driving heartbreak, I’ll never forget.
(Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin’ dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you’re gone, and it’s just my luck, My darlin’ left me, a self-driving truck.
(Outro) So here I am, parked on this lonely track, Wishing you’d come back, but you won’t look back. You rolled away, with gears that don’t feel, Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
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.
Don’t forget complaining about gas prices while driving a 17 mpg vehicle.
Seems like around me most of the big truck douches are probably 45 or under. Don’t think it’s limited to just boomers or gen x.
Yeah, in my observation, it’s young men with money to burn, or they want to appear that they have money to burn.
This is true, there is a whole thing with truck dealerships being immediately adjacent to military bases and housing.
hah, no bother.
Take any excuse to vent.Fortunately for me I don’t live in USA so these things are still a bit of a rarity, and are quite impractical in my town’s, compact and heavily pedestrianised town centre.
Sounds like yoy’ve a plague of them over there.
They’re impractical in US town centers too. Drivers of these often live in suburban and rural areas and act like “omg city = CRIME and those people”, and if they come into the city, get frustrated because their giant POS vehicles are difficult to park as they’re terrible at maneuvering (drivers and the truck) and don’t fit in many parking spaces.
This is so common that when I see the rare one that can actually drive and park well in a city I actually stop being angry and switch to being impressed.
I’m sure some truck drivers are very good at it, if they have to drive large trailers often for instance. But a lot of the time their giant trucks can’t even fit into a parking spot without taking up more than one space.
Yep. You say plague, I say smooth brained consuumor zombie apocalypse.
The Forbes article seems to be citing numbers that are now a few weeks out of date. They cite that Tesla drivers have 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers and Ram has 22.76. If you go to their source link you’ll see that the more recent numbers are Tesla: 31.13 and Ram: 32.90.
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Ram in MA is 64.44 and I want these fucking things outlawed.
Read the source more carefully
Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate. From Nov. 14, 2022, through Nov. 14, 2023, Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76)
Accidents only. Worst driver counts DUIs a d fines as well.
Why does Massachusetts have such aggressive drivers? That seems like a large deviation for such a small state
It doesn’t it has a shit ton of ice and snow
Maybe in the Berkshires? The Boston area doesn’t get to much snow, and I would bet that is where most of the accidents are.
It’s mostly urban though. 7 million isn’t that small and it shouldn’t affect something expressed as a rate anyway.
I moved here and am still asking that question myself. Only in mass do people honk if you dare to stop for a stop sign.
It’s it the Ram that’s the problem, or the driver that also likes to cover the Ram in Infowars bumper stickers?
Where I live Audi’s drivers are the worst. It’s like they are for losers that would like to do some posturing but can’t afford a Mercedes and their frustrations manifest themselves in their stupid driving style.
They don’t have a Mercedes because the EQS is not aspirational, as MB recently declared in relation to the lackluster sales of the series.
There just expensive and brands expect people to fork out crazy amounts of cash for these cars.
“If you can’t Dodge it, Ram it”
I see why Stellantis spun Ram into its own brand now.
I had a friend years ago with Dodge Ram van. He said, “it says Dodge in the front because that’s what you’re supposed to do when you see it coming and Ram in the back because you didn’t read the warning on the front.”
I wonder what that says about my Dodge Sprinter…
“I am driving a lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK”
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has BLINDING WHITE LED headlights positioned EXACTLY at EYE LEVEL. "
“I am currently TAILGATING you in the RIGHT LANE even though you’re going TWENTY MILES AN HOUR over the speed limit and the LEFT LANE is OPEN.”
“There are MONSTER ENERGY and FOX RACING stickers on the rear windshield of my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK.”
“There are PERFECTLY CLEAN mud tires and MASSIVE CHROME RIMS on my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK.”
“I make THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS a year and thought that that was a WISE FINANCIAL DECISION.”
“I bring cases of BUD LIGHT to girls at high school parties while my wife and children are at home.”
“My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has a GUN RACK which holds the AR-15 that I bought at WAL-MART.”
Worth noting that “Ram” is now its own brand, divorced from Dodge, and they only make 1 vehicle, while other trucks are sold as part of the Ford and Chevy lineup. So it’s probable those other vehicles are bringing up the safety ratings of, say F150 and Silverado.
At that point is seems like a good idea to replace human drivers.
Exactly, bring in much more public transportation. It would solve so many problems.
Oh definitely! I barely drive my car these days.
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.
First thing that came to mind, honestly thought it was the quote at first.
I’ve actually never seen the movie. I just know that it’s a widespread view among people who focus on road safety.
Most news articles I can find dealing with this issue, like this one seem to focus mostly on the idea that one driver may be mostly at fault. Which is true and definitely part of the equation, but personally I’m even more focused on the ways in which the road design itself may have been a contributing factor. When you have high speed roads that also have a large number of driveways and side streets (i.e., a “stroad”), higher numbers of crashes are inevitable, and can be avoided by better design. Same with when you create bike lanes with no separation, or separated but giving cars high speed ways to turn across them at intersections. The design of that street is a significant contributing factor, and calling crashes an “accident” lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.
calling crashes an “accident” lets the designers and the politicians who signed off on it off the hook.
No, it doesn’t. Accidents are just things that weren’t intended to happen
If calling something an accident let people off the hook for their responsibility in the situation then people wouldn’t go to jail for car accudents
It’s not about the dictionary definition of the term. It’s about the subconscious effect your choice of language has on how people think about things. When you call something an accident it gives people the signal that there was nothing that could have been done, and so nothing does get done. There’s no pressure on politicians and engineers in most of the anglosphere to do any of the things that would actually improve road safety. Indeed, a lot of the time when they do try to make our roads safer, you see fearmongering and NIMBY opposition against the idea.
Changing the language is one small step in helping to make our roads safer by making it clearer that making them safer is something we need to be concentrating on.
You are clearly mixing up the phrase “an act of God” with “accident”
The former implies nothing could be done and is said after accidents, but the latter is what we’re discussing and it does not imply that at all
An insanely popular saying is that “regulations are written in blood” after all
Go back and reread the comment that you just replied to. Because nothing at here is even remotely related to it.
It’s not about the dictionary definition of the term. It’s about the subconscious effect your choice of language has on how people think about things.
The only way it would affect “how people think about things” is if people don’t understand what “accident” means. Which is what happens when people like yourself intentionally spread that sort of disinformation.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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.
It’s still an accident. Just look up the definition. I’d wager to say most accidents are entirely preventable as well, but that’s not what determines whether something was an accident
This is not an accident. Entirely preventable. Intent doesnt matter
This is quite literally the opposite of the truth. You should consult a dictionary.
E: if any downvoters want to point me to a definition from a legitimate source that says “accident” means “not preventable” and doesn’t mention intent, I will delete this comment in shame.
Otherwise 🖕
It’s partly about it being preventable, but mostly about it being expected.
The expected outcome of drunk driving or speeding through crosswalks is hitting someone. It’s preventable by not driving drunk or not speeding.
A careful driver in the Netherlands killing a cyclist in a city center on a 20mph road is unexpected and fairly surprising - that would be a true accident. A drunk driver hitting someone on an American stroad is depressingly normal. It’s hard to call it an accident.
In aviation, an intentional accident is still an accident. A suicidal pilot can deliberately crash an airplane, and it’s still considered an accident.
Which “road safety advocates” are those?
“Accident” simply means it was not intentional and has absolutely nothing to do with preventability.
Yeah, that’ll fix it!
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.
Are you comparing with other cars at the same price range or cheaper cars?
I don’t know but based from my experience(since you also commented based on your experience), compared to some other brands although Tesla are better than some cheaper models of other brands, some are better than Tesla if you compared to the models with the same price range
Yes, some brands might be worse, but Tesla is not quite considered as being the best
Some cheaper, some the same price range.
What’s your experience based on? Do you own one? Or is this just third-hand?
I don’t care what it’s considered. It’s the best car I’ve ever owned and I’ve owned Fords, Dodges, VWs, Toyotas, and BMWs.
Ah yes a personal anecdote is 100% more valid.
That said, from what I’ve heard the big problem is the disparity of build quality. Some Tesla’s (like possibly yours) are built amazing. Some others are put together like shit.
At least I provided some kind of evidence, even if it’s an anecdote. You made a generalization with absolutely no evidence.
That’s fine if there’s a disparity but it’s not as common as your statement makes it seem.
Personal experience is not scientific or journalistic fact. As for providing evidence Google it. There’s lots of reputable sites that will tell you their build quality is inconsistent AF as well as they intentionally bully owners to accept shit.
Personal experience is still evidence. It’s not objective evidence, which normally would be a problem, but you haven’t provided any whatsoever. “Google it” doesn’t serve as a replacement for it, either.
https://lemmy.ca/comment/5795499
Also this -
Also this -
I’ll keep going if you need me to do your research for you. Not really because not my job to educate you but still.
Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.
Every brand isn’t evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose. They’re run of the mill or worse than industry averages.
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2022-us-initial-quality-study-iqs
Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it
Every brand isn’t evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose.
Maybe, but ask an Alfa Romeo fans about the brand… they are way worse than the Tesla fans… 😉
They’re run of the mill or worse than industry averages.
Look, I can tell way worse things about Renault if I look at how my car came out, so ? And I would concede that Tesla is pretty new to mass producted cars. During the years I found many quality problems also with brand that are even more evangelized and have a way longer history.
Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it
In Italy, a couple of models (Y and 3) are pretty much aligned with other brand’s cars of the same category, so they don’t seems to be that expensive. Or the other brands are too expensive.
I love that you were downvoted, for all we know your previous vehicle was a Daewoo or something. A Tesla is likely a better quality vehicle than a Daewoo.
You sound like a forbes article
Edit for clarification. My comment was intended to a be a bit tongue in cheek and its because of this part of the top comment that i made what i thought was clearly a light hearted joke. Sorry if it wasnt so obvious
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.
In response to the assertion of owning a Daewoo. I assumed your comment i replied to was also referencing this quote
Removed by mod
Wow overreaction to a joke much? But thank you for blocking me i appreciate your sacrifice
Lemmy is pretty toxic. There are 5 opinions allowed on here and your personal experience is irrelevant.
Pretty much. I’m looking through the replies I’ve received, and one says, “You sound like a forbes article” with two upvotes and only one downvote. Why would I continue to contribute to this community if that’s how people are going to act?
There’s a small center of people who are actually knowledgeable and courteous here. You just have to wade through the shit and sewage to get to it.
Yeah, and I need to get back to blocking people. The signal improved drastically when I was doing that a while back.
but my Tesla is the best ve
Sadly, you’ll never be able to say anything nice about any Musk properties here without massive downvotes by people who wouldn’t purchase anything from Musk.
The hardware (occasional bad quality control aside) is pretty awesome. My neighbor has one, His holiday update was an absolute hoot. They’re fast, clean, comfortable and are generally long lasting, low maintenance cars.
When you factor in EV and Price, there’s nothing that stands out as nicer from a pure hardware standpoint.
They could use a few more buttons inside. When they become disabled on the road, their requirement for you to have them do the towing and taking hours to do so sucks. Suing people over selling their vehicles second hand is pretty bad. No second party repairs allowed is a problem.
The real 800 lb gorilla in the room is the autopilot. The only redeemable thing about the auto pilot is that it mostly works and it’s pushing the tech forward. They have enough money to lobby congress to make it legal, all those 730+ wrecks and *42+ deaths as horrible as they are, will lead us to the feature being viable eventually.
*edit: found a newer source
I bought mine way before Musk became a right-wing nutjob asshole and wouldn’t buy another of his cars now unless something changed with their leadership structure.
That doesn’t mean that I can retroactively say the car sucks now. It is a fantastic vehicle. I don’t use Autopilot so that part doesn’t apply (tried it during a trial and wasn’t impressed) but, as a car, I have no qualms.
Yeah, I wonder if he became one, or if he was already one and just did a better job at hiding it.
Probably a bit of both. Before the hair plugs, he probably did want to help the world. Now he just wants to help himself.
It’s like he had a really bad drug trip at some point and rewired some synapses
When this was posted yesterday, I brought up issues with the sample selection (not random) and universe the “study” looked at (people using one of those sites to shop for insurance), and while I think most understood my point, some people got upset at me “defending Tesla drivers”…
Last time a garbage clickbait hit-piece like this pissed me off, I looked into the crash statistics myself and found Tesla vehicles were around 1/80th the average crash ratio per capita.
I’m sure this is somewhat skewed by the kinds of people driving them versus the average work vehicles and clunkers out there, but still, it just feels absurdly false to claim Teslas even approach the highest crash rate.
And even the sketchy “study” not even endorsed by the site it’s posted to, then linked by Forbes, then says Ram vehicles as the highest crash rate (lol), so it’s wild that Forbes goes on to say it’s Tesla at the top spot.
Per capita means nothing in this situation.
Comparing with the per capita means nothing here, you need to compare with other car companies, as comparing to the per capita is like comparing the number of lung cancer deaths to the number of all deaths, of course it’s going to be a very small number, but when you compare with other cancers then you can see that lung cancer is one of biggest killers amongst cancers
To be fair, Tesla / Musk spend a LOT of time talking about how they’re autonomous driving product are critical for reducing accidents and saving lives. Also, there isn’t a lot of public quantitative data around this major recall. That’s why they’re getting the headline.
Maybe autopilot is great, and it’s the non-autopilot drivers that are terrible, but right now, the brand has net accident rate that rivals a company that sells massive rolling blind spots to people who love Calvin pissing stickers.
Forbes is shit and I wish people would stop taking them seriously.
How exactly could this study give a concrete reason for the higher than average crash rates?
Thank you. This is exactly right, it’s a hit piece designed to get people who already don’t like Tesla all worked up… and it worked remarkably well.
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.
What made you want to become a policeman-officer?
The mom or the sister?
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.
One of the many ways trucking companies avoid liability by putting all responsibility for fuck-ups on the driver.
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.
Exactly, so the use of “crash” would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.
“Accident” starts addressing intentions or expectations.
We could just add easily refer to them as “vehicular violence” but then we’d end up distorting things in another direction.
It doesn’t have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone’s control. You can’t fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
If you’re driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it’s not an accident.
If it’s due to bad road design, then it’s not an accident.
This scene immediately popped into my head.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/puK5CwThaq4?si=nsj3gOrdMN8dmn4p
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Wouldn’t an accident still involve “fault”
Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.
That’s why there’s a push to use neutral terms like “crash” that don’t imply that the “accident” was just a random accidental mistake.
And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say “this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers”.
While many accidents do involve fault, there are scenarios where an accident can occur without anyone being legally at fault (mechanical failure, natural disasters). It does excludes malicious intent though. in the specific context of commercial motor vehicle regulations in the US, the term “accident” is defined in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) under 49 CFR § 390.5
Good point, so does Accidents exclude “accidental crashes with fault”
Car caused trauma
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.
My last car was like that and then every time I borrowed my dad’s mercedes I’d constantly do stupid unecessary overtakes just because I could. It’s a moral hazard - I don’t think a faster accelerating car is safer because people drive those differently.
Of course you have to hold yourself back, but where I live there’s plenty of really nice stretches of road where you can overtake. But with my car while I’m accelerating some guy in an Audi or a BMW already decides to overtake from the back… overtaking with a better car feels much less stressful and safer.
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.
When I got my license back in the early 2000s I got taught very economical driving, generally choosing gears to keep rpm low, use the motor brake to decelerate before traffic lights, such stuff. Then it was time to get on the Autobahn, and the instructor just said “Forget everything I taught you, now it’s safety first: Floor it in 3rd gear, merge in third gear, once you’ve found your position switch directly to 5th you’ll be fast enough.”
If I’m not mistaken that was an Audi A4 TDI so… 15 seconds 0 to 100? Maybe about 10, don’t remember the displacement. Of course, merging is more like 30 to 120, directly onto the second lane. With a Punto you’re kinda lucky if you get to 80 by the time the on-ramp ends and barely get into the right-most lane (where you’re probably staying).
“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
It is a relative performance indicator that is easy to measure and verify.
Of course you rarely ever actually do 0-60, but it gives you an idea of how well the car accelerates relative to other cars. So in a way 0-60 is like a cinebench score for cars.
Rolling to 75 is more relevant in MA where onramps to highways are 50 feet long, but 0 to 60 is correlated.
How can you write an article like this with zero citations? They mention Lending Tree, who is a mortgage originator and that’s it.
They’re going off of Lending Tree’s internal insurance quote data. That link about the lending tree quote showed this, “Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data…”
Insurance rates are usually determined by risk associated with the car and driver and the value of the car. The lending tree analysis showed they were looking at several factors as well as accidents. They said also that Ram drivers have the “highest incident rates,” meaning they lumped together accidents, DUIs, speeding violations, and other traffic citations. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a Ram.
The actual source is on the first sentence, this is just a tabloid repost
Yeah that wasn’t there earlier. They must have added it.
Even the Lending Tree “article” has a disclaimer at the top that they haven’t reviewed or approved any of 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…
Does this statistic account for actual sales? I wonder if there are so many accidents because there are so many. I’m not a fanboy or anything. I am just curious how this was calculated.
Lol you really think there are more tesla on the road than Toyota or Ford?
It all depends on where you live. So yea. More extensive research would be nice.
It says per 1000 drivers
Correct. But how many thousands are there? And in relation to what percentage of all Teslas compared to all other brands with similar models. Do I believe it? Absolutely. Is it a good statistic? It’s a good start.
It’s adjusted per capita. You can’t ask for better.
Does it include accidents by autopilot?
Its like how red cars get more speeding tickets.
That’s actually a myth
That venn diagram looks like the mid point of an eclipse
I can’t fathom any other reality.
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.
Those cars with only touchscreen terrify me. I don’t even dare to turn down the AC in the EV car I drove last month when I feel a little cold because it would took THREE precision taps (small UI buttons) at DIFFERENT locations on the screen just to open the Climate Control screen. I have to pull over just to adjust the fan speed, smh.
The dashboard is also a fucking screen with multiple tabs that I have to “scroll” through with a knob on the wheel.
I hate the fucking thing the entire time I’m driving it.
I don’t understand how using a cell phone while driving is a violation in most places, but using a touchscreen as the dashboard is is just fine. Whaaaa …?
deleted by creator
This is a very good point. The more a person is forced to take their eyes off the road, the less safe they become as a driver.
I hear VW is putting buttons back in.
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
They also think because the car accelerates quickly it will also stop as quickly. Same as idiots that drive too fast in the snow.
Tesla’s self-driving and safety systems are clearly half baked compared to competitor and other vendors.
But Tesla always says the opposite.
regulators who don’t trust FSD are KILLING people because it’s so safe -Elron
THE JUDGE IS THE PEOPLE OF EARTH!
now please excuse me while I, free speech absolutist Felon Musk, go and intimidate videos showing how shitty Autopilot and FSD off of the internet.
I smell last well tonight with John Oliver
I have been following Musk’s insanity for years now, and I am glad that Oliver covered him, but he could have been soooo much more scathing while being absolutely factual.
His relatively moderate criticisms of Musk reminded me that a whole lot of libs and tech bros are in his demographic.
You can’t apparently tell them Rocket Jesus is not going to save us and is infact a contemptible racist fascist mad man whose entire persona is a fraud and has done nothing but defraud all his investors with insane claims he hasnt delivered on in nearly a decade without making his audience too depressed, I guess.
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.
200kmh is never really safe, I hope that everyone driving at that speed realize it, of course we feel safe in those new cars, it’s like nothing, but a flat tire or something else and it’s done for you
And I don’t think every country in Europe have proper training, in France people are not that disciplined as in other part of Europe
Yeah, I’m sure they can drive safely at 200km/h at a race track. There’s no way to drive safely above the speed limit on a public road.
There’s no way to drive safely above the speed limit on a public road.
If you’re driving a well maintained regular car in good conditions you absolutely can drive safely above many speed limits. If the speed limit was set at the true limit of safety nothing but the best handling vehicles in the best of conditions could drive at said limit safely, and this is clearly not the case for the vast majority of speed limits. Instead most traffic can travel safely at the set speed limit in less than ideal vehicles and in less than ideal conditions, so logically there are going to be situations where it would be safe to drive above said limit.
Consider too speed limit changes. In my area there have been a few roads recently which have been lowered from 100km/h limits to 80km/h. Nothing changed about these roads except the speed limit signs. Why was it possible to drive safely at the 100km/h limit one day but not possible to drive safely at the same speed on the next day? Another road several years back had its speed limit changed from 80km/h to 90km/h. Again only the signs changed, so why would it be unsafe to drive 90km/h there one day when that would be the speed limit the following day?
I hate people like you on the roads. You’re not the one who decides what’s the safe maximum speed on the road is. If you think you can arbitrary decide that some speed limit is too low and you can drive faster you’re wrong and shouldn’t be on the road at all. If we had less people like you on the roads everyone would be safer.
If speed limits are indeed set at the true safe maximum for all vehicles and all conditions then how can you travel safely at said speed limits in your car, which I would wager cannot corner as well or stop as quickly as a top end sports car?
If it’s a maximum limit to what’s safe, you can say anything at or below it is safe. They don’t set the maximum at a value that is unsafe for some vehicles.
Indeed, at least for most modern speed limits. That was intended as more of a rhetorical question to lead the person I was replying to towards noticing speed limits are typically set with a wide safety margin, and not actually at the limit of what can be safe in good conditions.
I’m not saying all speed limits are set perfectly. I’m saying it’s not up to you to decide which ones are ‘safe’ to break. The driver that think they know better than everyone else are the most dangerous ones. Even if you think the limit is set tol low just follow it, ok? Is it so hard?
Say that to start off with then rather than “there’s no way to drive safely above the speed limit on a public road”, because there clearly are roads where it can be safe to drive above the speed limit.
As with everything we do, there is a subjective element to setting limits, but it’s definitely not as arbitrary as you are suggesting. Maybe they reduced one limit because there were too many accidents, and maybe they increased the other because they finally got the signal pattern working as intended.
Risk assessment is incredibly complex. It might be perfectly reasonable to drive 110km/h on a given road most of the time, but frequent use by large farm equipment could necessitate a lower speed. Or, maybe adjusting traffic on road x decreases accidents on road y.
We are still learning how to produce vehicles that reliably compensate for variables like friction, or human reaction time. The implications of even these two simple things seem to be completely lost on most drivers: with a tiny bit of rubber touching the asphalt, we happily drive around in inconceivably heavy vehicles at rates where it’s very easy for an event to begin and end before we even suspect something is imminent.
While I’m here: turn your lights on when you start your car, turn into your own fucking lane, always move over if someone is behind you in the fast lane even if you think you’re going “fast enough” (someone could be bleeding out, seriously), don’t pass people on the wrong side, and finally: stop trusting the meat in your head so much, our brains fuck up all the time, so in addition to driving defensively wrt external factors, consider how you can set yourself up to succeed if something unexpected happens internally.
There are a lot of streets without a speed limit in europe. People are told to drive around at least 130 to not hinder traffic. Most people go about 140 or 150 if the roads are free. Speed lane is usually about 160
No, not a lot, only highways in Germany AFAIK. Where I live the limit is 120 so 150 is always over the limit. Road fatalities in Germany are the same as in my country because in Germany you also have idiots driving 200km/h. What you have to do is adjust your speed to the conditions. Depending on how the roads are build the limit will be different but if you’re driving 50km/h faster than everyone else you’re creating dangerous situation. Same if you’re driving too slow obviously.
There’s also the Isle of Man, but it’s an unusual case in its own right
It takes months and months in the UK. The tests are pretty strict.
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?
Ok, I was wrong, cancer kills more people than speeding. But 1.3 million die every year in traffic accidents and the second most common cause of accidents is speeding. Or do you think that shows like Top Gear and magazines promoting the idea that “fast cars are awesome” do not promote speeding?
So, here’s the thing…
Speeding is definitely the culprit. But accidents due to speeding have been an issue long before shows like Top Gear ever happened.
The issue is terrible drivers. Fast cars or Horse Carriages, doesn’t matter.
I agree with your remark about keeping cars that can do more than the speed limit off the public roads, but sadly that won’t solve accidents due to speeding. Because that’s just one of the reasons.
Top Gear is just an example. Everyone loves them but I think shows like this, and they specifically, cause of a lot of harm to many people.
I understand what you mean, but that’s not really true.
This is the Television equivalent of “Video Games cause kids to be violent”. If the kid was mentally unstable and needed help without the game, the game is the least of the parents’ worries.
Same here. If the person was incapable of following rules and abiding by basic decency standards, then they will be reckless with or without such shows. Classic example: lots of small city residents of India have never seen Top Gear or any such show. Yet the quality of driving is terrible. I say this as a native resident of India.
Reason: driving tests are not enforced well enough.
Reckless driving is not the same as bad quality driving. For example I knew a guy once who said that he never knew who has to yield at a intersection so would always stop and let the other guy go. Was he a good driver? No. Was his behavior going to kill someone? Also no. A driver that knows he has the right of way and drives through a roundabout at 100km/h maybe a better driver but has higher chance of killing someone.
As to TV shows and automotive press I think they invested or at least are actively promoting the idea that driving fast is ‘sexy’. It’s really hard to watch Top Gear and not to get the idea that what they are selling is the idea that driving a Ferrari at 200km/h is exciting. It would one thing it they showed it strictly in the context of a racetrack and professional competition but they are constantly mixing it with every day driving. The are saying that all driving can be exiting. Why we don’t do this with other sports? Downhill cycling is existing but you don’t see a lot of people jumping down the stairs on their way to work. Why with other sports we clearly separate the sport activity and everyday version of it but with driving the idea is that public roads are extensions of race tracks and a good driver can have fun on both? I blame the shows romanticizing fast cars as something desirable by everyone and driving as a skill every real man should master. The effects we see on the roads every day.
Fair enough.
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.
Yeah, I did. I though more people die in car accidents but I’ve checked the number and no.
Also, If you enjoy driving below the speed limit and without any sudden manoeuvres then I have no issue with you enjoying your ride. I think it’s obvious that’s not what I have issue with.
Anyone here actually watched the “Top Gear”? After real Top Gear was cancelled, it was unwatchable. The Grand Tour was good, but the first series was quite stupid. Speeeeeeeed!
I don’t know why you’re getting down voted. Post-Clarkson Top Gear is horrendous. The Grand Tour has its own issues but also some very fun moments.
I’m guessing at least a few are for getting so far off topic.
The latest trio were pretty decent, probably the best since the Clarkson, Hammond & May era.
Ok.I saw some bits with that redhead weirdo and LeBlanc and it was cringe AF.
Yeah Chris Evans was the worst. LeBlanc was ok but I didn’t get the hype that he had by others.
I love driving my 34 year old car. It only goes 140km/h max and that is fine for it. I consider it a fun car as well even though it has the reputation of being a shopping trolley for old people. I can’t see where you would would draw the line of fun car and what that would do for road safety. Most crashes tend to happen at intersections because of inattentive drivers or confusing situations. This behavior is promoted by a sense of perceived safety which people get from a “self driving” car. If I could snap my fingers and apply a ban on a car type it would be suv’s without a doubt. Big cars in general also give that sense of safety which is somewhat true for the people in it but they kill more people involved in crashes with them. Now for your last point about Top Gear. Quite a strong opinion which I do not agree with. They tend to close roads to do their scenes. If you ever go to one of those beautiful roads you will find out that they are very popular and the speed limit cannot even be met. In conclusion, make cars small again.
You do you, but please do it in the right lane
Ok, and when I have to take over someone please drive 1m behind me and flash your lights at me. It the least you can do.
If you’re uncomfortable driving, get yourself a bus pass. Problem solved.
A hit dog will holler…
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.
I wonder if it’ll pass safety regs outside of the US
No.
AFAIK they won’t even try to homologate it.
It will most certainly pass driver safety regs but absolutely not pedestrian safety. I’m sure they knew that when they designed it.
yeah pedestrian safety is what I meant, thanks
Maybe they’re sentient and actively suicidal.
This reminds me of a cheesy Dutch movie from the 80s called The Lift in which an elevator becomes self aware and starts murdering people…
Maybe they’re sentient and actively *revolutionary
