Hacker News Reader

Comment by ra7 | Hacker News Reader

It's raw data, just put the spreadsheet into Google Sheets or Excel and have at 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%

Matches up to parent comment's numbers. Incredible amount of missing data!

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.

View on HN

Good grief:

   Number of fatal crashes detected by telemetry: 11
   Number of fatal crashes reported only by 'complaint/claim' source: 7

Yeah, that's what I thought. Reasoning from outliers. Now for extra credit, compute a confidence interval from these 18 lines you cherry picked from a 1000-entry data set. I mean, really?

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.)

Cherry picking from raw data of 1000+ crashes? Yeah, you're not here for a good faith discussion after vehemently asking for sources and assuming "confusion and obfuscation". You just want to shout down "I declare this debunked" with absolutely nothing to support it. This is gaslighting at its finest.

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.

Your argument is:

“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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com