We now have a full year of data for the Cybertruck, and a strange preponderance of headlines about Cybertrucks exploding into flames, including several fatalities. That’s more than enough data to compare to the Ford Pinto, a car so notoriously combustible that it has become a watchword for corporate greed. Let’s start with the data […]
TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto
If the fediverse wants to grow and have the half-intelligent populace take it seriously, it’s going to have to start moderating sources. Not censorship. Moderation.
Too many posts I have seen here in popular ‘subs’ are from a website who got it’s name from an Amazon product, looking to rile up the leftists with confirmation bias, turning it all into a misinformed echo chamber.
‘Chklafrknozk.biz reports <thing> people already <emotion> is <adjective>.’ Fuck off with the nonsense.
We aren’t supposed to be a mirrored version of existing social media. We are meant to be a fair version of it.
Don’t insult the intelligence of users. If you want the brains to follow you, stop being yet another version of the problem.
Since I’m half-intelligent, I won’t pretend to understand most what you’re saying here.
I don’t think the article linked is nonsense, though. It certainly isn’t leftist anything, miss me with that.
But… importantly… There is a statistically correct way to complete the following sentence:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is ______ times more/less explosive than the Ford Pinto.”
If you disagree with my answer to that question, what is your answer? I showed my math, I even invite the readers to re-run the equation. If you re-run it, what do you come up with? I bet your answer will be informative and helpful to the conversation about EV safety, two elements that are the “sugar,” “spice,” and “everything nice” about good reporting.
Um yeah I just perused the source website and agree. It’s got an obvious anti-EV bias in both article sections, headlines and interpretations of data. The only author they seem to have for all their ‘news articles’ is a person that doesn’t even have the guts to sign off with their real name, instead using the alias ‘Kay Leadfoot’. They don’t even have an ‘about’ page, just a contact form.
This is just the blog of some dude that hates EVs. Hot garbage source.
Hey, boss… If you say my name and don’t knock on wood, I show up.
This place seems nice! I might post here in the future.
I do not hate EVs. Read my reviews of the Tesla Model 3, the new Dodge Charger EV, and the F-150 Lightning. If you don’t like to read, the TL;DR is that I very much like each vehicle. Like many pickup truck people, I specifically do not like the Cybertruck, but that’s because it’s a lousy vehicle.
You should keep an open mind - just because you disagree with me, doesn’t mean I have some unreasonable bias. I may have followed evidence to a different conclusion.
I do smile when Tesla fans ask me to announce my name. I already did! I’m Kay Leadfoot. You can learn more about me on my About page, which has definitely been there since Day 1. Unrelated to anything, please don’t call me dude.
While i agree with your intent here i thing we should rather begin with a more thoughtful criticism of the articles, rather than criticizing the websites name or if it’s vibe can be considered pandering.
Like how the statistics used is hyperbolic in it’s conclusions. While 34,438 produced cars are many, but not loads in car terms (especially when compared to the 3,173,491 built Pintos) and the there have only been two actual accidents with fire fatalities leading to 4 deaths. (The Vegas firebombing should not count.) Sure it’s two to many but it’s not really significant.
On the other hand the article does point out something here, “only” 27 deaths did lead to a huge recall, and i for one am not sure that a company that have yet to commit for a NHTSA will adhere to a similar standard. And fire safety over all has been a long concern in Tesla cars.
I think you touch on something important here. Some folks say the sample size is too small, on a strict statistical basis. Automotive safety works on different scales, often fast-paced decisions are made about auto safety and we don’t wait around for “statistical significance” in an academically rigorous sense.
Ironically, the smallest production run of cars to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was… the Ford Pinto, because the accelerator pedal got stuck! That was its first year of production. All 26,000 were recalled 2 months after the model was released.
DOUBLE ironic… the smallest production run of pickup trucks to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was… the Tesla Cybertruck! ALSO because the accelerator pedal got stuck! All 4,000 were recalled a few months after deliveries started at scale, in the first full year of production.
Isn’t that funny? History doesn’t repeat itself, but it is basically a dirty limerick. And what an awful chapter of automotive history to repeat, our vehicles should be vastly safer in 2025 than they were in 1971.
Considering that statistically sigificant numbers here would be writen in blood a low threashold “better safe than sorry” approach deffintely is for the better.
And these are some crazy stats you found, thanks for posting that.
If the fediverse wants to grow and have the half-intelligent populace take it seriously, it’s going to have to start moderating sources. Not censorship. Moderation.
Too many posts I have seen here in popular ‘subs’ are from a website who got it’s name from an Amazon product, looking to rile up the leftists with confirmation bias, turning it all into a misinformed echo chamber.
‘Chklafrknozk.biz reports <thing> people already <emotion> is <adjective>.’ Fuck off with the nonsense.
We aren’t supposed to be a mirrored version of existing social media. We are meant to be a fair version of it.
Don’t insult the intelligence of users. If you want the brains to follow you, stop being yet another version of the problem.
Simply tired of the garbage.
Edit: Grammar
Since I’m half-intelligent, I won’t pretend to understand most what you’re saying here.
I don’t think the article linked is nonsense, though. It certainly isn’t leftist anything, miss me with that.
But… importantly… There is a statistically correct way to complete the following sentence:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is ______ times more/less explosive than the Ford Pinto.”
If you disagree with my answer to that question, what is your answer? I showed my math, I even invite the readers to re-run the equation. If you re-run it, what do you come up with? I bet your answer will be informative and helpful to the conversation about EV safety, two elements that are the “sugar,” “spice,” and “everything nice” about good reporting.
Um yeah I just perused the source website and agree. It’s got an obvious anti-EV bias in both article sections, headlines and interpretations of data. The only author they seem to have for all their ‘news articles’ is a person that doesn’t even have the guts to sign off with their real name, instead using the alias ‘Kay Leadfoot’. They don’t even have an ‘about’ page, just a contact form.
This is just the blog of some dude that hates EVs. Hot garbage source.
Hey, boss… If you say my name and don’t knock on wood, I show up.
This place seems nice! I might post here in the future.
I do not hate EVs. Read my reviews of the Tesla Model 3, the new Dodge Charger EV, and the F-150 Lightning. If you don’t like to read, the TL;DR is that I very much like each vehicle. Like many pickup truck people, I specifically do not like the Cybertruck, but that’s because it’s a lousy vehicle.
You should keep an open mind - just because you disagree with me, doesn’t mean I have some unreasonable bias. I may have followed evidence to a different conclusion.
I do smile when Tesla fans ask me to announce my name. I already did! I’m Kay Leadfoot. You can learn more about me on my About page, which has definitely been there since Day 1. Unrelated to anything, please don’t call me dude.
Downvoted the parent post to help.
I did, too!
https://media1.tenor.com/m/zJvexdmTjA4AAAAC/im-doing-my-part-serious.gif
Well done. Thank you.
While i agree with your intent here i thing we should rather begin with a more thoughtful criticism of the articles, rather than criticizing the websites name or if it’s vibe can be considered pandering.
Like how the statistics used is hyperbolic in it’s conclusions. While 34,438 produced cars are many, but not loads in car terms (especially when compared to the 3,173,491 built Pintos) and the there have only been two actual accidents with fire fatalities leading to 4 deaths. (The Vegas firebombing should not count.) Sure it’s two to many but it’s not really significant.
On the other hand the article does point out something here, “only” 27 deaths did lead to a huge recall, and i for one am not sure that a company that have yet to commit for a NHTSA will adhere to a similar standard. And fire safety over all has been a long concern in Tesla cars.
Thanks Iceman. I loved your work in Top Gun.
I think you touch on something important here. Some folks say the sample size is too small, on a strict statistical basis. Automotive safety works on different scales, often fast-paced decisions are made about auto safety and we don’t wait around for “statistical significance” in an academically rigorous sense.
Ironically, the smallest production run of cars to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was… the Ford Pinto, because the accelerator pedal got stuck! That was its first year of production. All 26,000 were recalled 2 months after the model was released.
DOUBLE ironic… the smallest production run of pickup trucks to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was… the Tesla Cybertruck! ALSO because the accelerator pedal got stuck! All 4,000 were recalled a few months after deliveries started at scale, in the first full year of production.
Isn’t that funny? History doesn’t repeat itself, but it is basically a dirty limerick. And what an awful chapter of automotive history to repeat, our vehicles should be vastly safer in 2025 than they were in 1971.
Considering that statistically sigificant numbers here would be writen in blood a low threashold “better safe than sorry” approach deffintely is for the better.
And these are some crazy stats you found, thanks for posting that.
I just discovered… a scientist tested my findings! Well that’s real nice, we held up with statistically significant findings.
https://www.someweekendreading.blog/cybertruck-vs-pinto/