Even ignoring the fact that Tesla habitually lies and acts in bad faith to consumers and investors alike, the “statistics” their marketing department publishes are worthless. They present no analysis, methodology, or even data to support it. It is literally just a conclusion. The level of scientific rigor they demonstrate is unfit to even grace the hallowed halls of a grade school science fair.
Even ignoring that, this is not the first significant incident. By Tesla’s own admission there were already ~30 known incidents a year ago at the beginning of 2023. Unfortunately, I can not tell you which ones specifically because they, you guessed it, demanded NHTSA redact which system was active from their public disclosures.
Even ignoring that, their reports are suspect in the first place. Of the over 1,000 crashes they admit to being involved in they did not report the injury severity in ~95% of cases. Of the ~5% of cases where they do report the injury severity a third party (news, official complaint, etc.) published that information which compels Tesla to report the same information under penalty of law.
Of the tens of confirmed fatalities, Tesla only discovered a single one on their own (as of 2023-09). Their telemetry systems, which are responsible for detecting 90+% of their reported incidents detected fewer than 40% of their reported fatal crashes. A full 30% of known fatalities were undetected by both telemetry and media and are only recorded due to customer complaints by surviving parties who knew the system was engaged. The amount of missing data is almost certainly staggering.
So no, the data does not bear it out since there is no credible positive safety data. And, as we all know, in a safety critical system we must assume the worst or people die. No data, no go.
I'm curious where the data is about their telemetry systems' failure to detect incidents. It seems very fishy.
Come on, link your stuff. I mean, what's the source for telemetry detecting different fractions of fatal vs. non-fatal crashes? Are you sure that's not just confounded data (fatal crashes are more likely to involve damage to the computers and radio!) or outliers (there are very few fatal crashes known!)?
Basically, the red yarn on your bulletin board looks crazy thick to me. But I'd genuinely love a shot at debunking it.
But thanks for boldly calling me a conspiracy theorist when I quote data from official Tesla reports to the government.
As to your other questions, go ask Tesla. It is not my job to speculate for Tesla’s benefit when Tesla has all the data and chooses to act in bad faith by not only refusing to disclose it, but even forcing NHTSA to suppress unfavorable information.
As to “debunking” anything I am saying, whatever. It is not my job to thoroughly analyze Tesla systems from the outside to prove they are unnecessarily dangerous. It is Tesla’s burden to present robust data and analysis to third party auditors to demonstrate they are safe.
Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe. It just means I, a random person on the internet, could not prove they were definitely unsafe. I probably also can not find the flaw in a random perpetual motion machine someone presents on the internet, but that does not make it work. Though if you are convinced by Tesla’s brand of bad faith safety analysis, then I have a perpetual motion machine powered on dreams to sell you since you can not prove it does not work.
[1] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ffdd/sgo-2021-01/SGO-2021-01_In...
> Debunking what I am saying does not somehow magically prove Tesla’s systems safe.
No, but it's still a blow for good faith argument and worth pursuing.
You have presented exactly zero analysis or data supporting your claim that machines that have demonstrably killed people are in actuality safe. The burden of proof is on you to present evidence, not me.
In fact, I have even presented you a new data source filled with official data that you apparently have never seen before that can bolster your point. So how about you engage in good faith argument and support your positive claims of Tesla safety instead of demanding I prove the negative?
Note that quoting unaudited statements by the Tesla marketing department are not support by the same token that official statement by VW about their emissions or Philip Morris about the safety of cigarettes are invalid. You should also not point to haphazard “analysis” derived from those statements.
Also try not to argue there is a absence of evidence that the systems are unsafe. That is only applicable before somebody dies. A death is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof that a system is unsafe. The burden of proof then shifts to demonstrate that the rate of death is acceptable. If there is a absence of evidence to demonstrate the rate of death is acceptable, then we must conclude, based on the burden of proof already established, that the system is unsafe.
That is your real burden here. Demonstrating the available data is sufficiently unbiased, robust, and comprehensive to support your claim. Good luck, you’ll need it.
Here's what I found in my quick analysis after filtering all Tesla crashes:
Total Tesla crashes: 1048
Crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 997
Percentage of crashes with 'unknown' injury severity: 95.13%
Total number of reported 'fatal' crashes: 27
Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11
Percentage of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 40.74%
Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7
Percentage of fatal crashes with only 'complaint/claim' as source: 25.92%
My experience is that when people repeatedly ask for analysis in the face of raw data being presented, it's because they're afraid to find out what's in it and hope to sweep it under the rug.
Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11
Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7
Yeah, I declare this debunked. This nonsense is only a tiny bit better than trying to declare a product dangerous based on one DUI accident.
(Also, I'm pretty sure you're making the argument in the wrong direction. Wasn't the contention upthread that there were too *FEW* telemetry-reported accidents, as if to claim that Tesla was suppressing them? This seems to say that Telemetry is a more reliable reporter, no? Meh. Not even interested in the specifics anymore, there's literally nothing a data set this small is going to tell us.)
The original claim was this:
> Their telemetry systems, which are responsible for detecting 90+% of their reported incidents detected fewer than 40% of their reported fatal crashes. A full 30% of known fatalities were undetected by both telemetry and media and are only recorded due to customer complaints by surviving parties who knew the system was engaged.
So no, I'm not making the argument in the wrong direction. Perhaps try re-reading it? The numbers match it almost exactly.
I'm done with your nonsense.
“Ha, Tesla actively suppressed and concealed 95% of the evidence so you do not have enough evidence to prove them wrong. Checkmate.
Tesla just hides it because it is too vindicating. So you have no choice but to believe their unsupported and unaudited claims.”
Again, you have not presented a single claim supported by any auditable data or analysis. You demand others present conclusions with a confidence interval when even the Tesla safety team is unable to do so even though Tesla is the one pushing a system conclusively known to kill people. It is their duty to collect sufficient, comprehensive, and incontrovertible evidence that their systems do not incur excess risk and subject it to unbiased audits.
So, present your comprehensive, incontrovertible claim with a confidence interval based on audited data. That is the burden of proof to support killing more people.