That’s not how rates work tho. Larger sample size doesn’t correlate with a higher rate of accidents, which is what any such study implies, not just raw numbers. Your bullshit rationalization is funny. In fact, a larger sample size tends to correspond with lower rates of flaws, as there is less chance that an error/fault makes an outsized impact on the data.
No one’s talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I’m not justifying anything because I’m not injecting my opinion here. I’m only pointing out that without context, counts don’t give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that’s just math. You can’t even derive a rate without that context!
That’s not my point though. We both know that the government agency doing this work is primarily interested in the rates, whether or not reports from the media are talking about the total numbers or not. The only reason they started the process of investigation was because of individual incidents, yes, but they’re not looking for a few cases, but a pattern.
Once more, I’m literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone’s point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you’re talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn’t, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn’t work unless that context is there.
That’s not how rates work tho. Larger sample size doesn’t correlate with a higher rate of accidents, which is what any such study implies, not just raw numbers. Your bullshit rationalization is funny. In fact, a larger sample size tends to correspond with lower rates of flaws, as there is less chance that an error/fault makes an outsized impact on the data.
No one’s talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I’m not justifying anything because I’m not injecting my opinion here. I’m only pointing out that without context, counts don’t give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that’s just math. You can’t even derive a rate without that context!
That’s not my point though. We both know that the government agency doing this work is primarily interested in the rates, whether or not reports from the media are talking about the total numbers or not. The only reason they started the process of investigation was because of individual incidents, yes, but they’re not looking for a few cases, but a pattern.
(Like this one:https://www.ranzlaw.com/why-are-tesla-car-accident-rates-so-high/)
Once more, I’m literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone’s point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you’re talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn’t, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn’t work unless that context is there.
(I find it funny that the article you just posted is literally an ad for a traffic accident lawyer: here’s the study the ad is citing. The ad did some creative interpretation on those numbers, ignoring things like DUI’s for example: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/#:~:text=Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate compared with all,over 20.00 per 1%2C000 drivers.)