That's just a spreadsheet. Can you link me to the analysis that pulls out the specifics you're claiming? I mean, yes, I can do it myself. But my experience is that when people point to raw data and not analysis when challenged, it's because they're simply wrong and trying to hide confusion and obfuscation.
> 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 claimed Tesla systems are safe stating: “Your contention is that having FSD the car makes accidents more likely because people will rely on it when they shouldn't be driving at all. The statistics don't seem to bear that out. This is the first significant accident of that type we've seen…”
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.
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.
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.)
“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.
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.
> 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.