Tesla Has The Highest Accident Rate Of Any Auto Brand

The fact that Ram drivers are a close second is hilarious. I guess there is some truth to all the jokes about Rams being driven by aggressive idiots.

Aggressive drunk* idiots. Statistically.
- At least Tesla owners can blame it on the computer. 🤣
- What was it? 25% more likely to have a DUI record?
I am still waiting for the inevitable country music song about a broken hearted cowboy whose self driving car leaves him for another man.
- Weird Al should be all over this.
- Saw this on Lemmy a few weeks ago
  (Verse 1) Sitting in the cab of my old pickup truck, Memories rollin' by, like the miles we used to clock. Drove through the sunset, with you by my side, Never thought a metal heart could take me for a ride.
  (Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
  (Verse 2) We hauled our troubles down those lonesome roads, Your engine hummed the tunes, while our story unfolds. Loaded up with laughter, and baggage too, Little did I know, you had a route of your own to pursue.
  (Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
  (Bridge) I miss the way your headlights cut through the night, The hum of your engine, our rhythm just right. But now the road is empty, just echoes of our song, You found a new destination, I guess I got it wrong.
  (Verse 3) We parked under stars, shared secrets in the dark, But now it's just silence, an abandoned truck stop. I'm left with memories, and a tank full of regret, A self-driving heartbreak, I'll never forget.
  (Chorus) We were a highway love, wind in our hair, Haulin' dreams together, an inseparable pair. But now you're gone, and it's just my luck, My darlin' left me, a self-driving truck.
  (Outro) So here I am, parked on this lonely track, Wishing you'd come back, but you won't look back. You rolled away, with gears that don't feel, Left me stranded, at the crossroads of steel.
I think there might be something to be said here for some potential selection bias. Are Tesla drivers like ram drivers, overly aggressive idiots but with the added layer of being relatively new tech?
- More boringly , maybe its selection on the circumstances too. For example maybe ev's tend to drive more in urban environments, more urban may mean more collision opprtunities per time spent driving.
  Of course ram is a farmers vehicle is desgned for rural use, so must rarely be seen in built up areas. /s
  edit: having glanced at the cited article - theres no obvious mention of any risk adjustment, the measures seem to be simple ratio of crashes per driver. No obvious control for whether the sub-population spend more or less time driving.
  Rate per - place-specific-risk adjusted person-hour would work better.
  As often with things like risk, it really helps to be able to do a multidimensional analysis. See if vehicle type/brand is significant after controlling for as many circumstantial factors and exposure related factors as you can reliably observe.
The Forbes article seems to be citing numbers that are now a few weeks out of date. They cite that Tesla drivers have 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers and Ram has 22.76. If you go to their source link you'll see that the more recent numbers are Tesla: 31.13 and Ram: 32.90.
https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/
Ram in MA is 64.44 and I want these fucking things outlawed.
- Read the source more carefully
  Tesla drivers have the highest accident rate. From Nov. 14, 2022, through Nov. 14, 2023, Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76)
  Accidents only. Worst driver counts DUIs a d fines as well.
- Why does Massachusetts have such aggressive drivers? That seems like a large deviation for such a small state
- It’s it the Ram that’s the problem, or the driver that also likes to cover the Ram in Infowars bumper stickers?
Where I live Audi's drivers are the worst. It's like they are for losers that would like to do some posturing but can't afford a Mercedes and their frustrations manifest themselves in their stupid driving style.
- They don't have a Mercedes because the EQS is not aspirational, as MB recently declared in relation to the lackluster sales of the series.
"If you can't Dodge it, Ram it"
I see why Stellantis spun Ram into its own brand now.
I had a friend years ago with Dodge Ram van. He said, "it says Dodge in the front because that's what you're supposed to do when you see it coming and Ram in the back because you didn't read the warning on the front."
- I wonder what that says about my Dodge Sprinter.....
"I am driving a lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK"
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has BLINDING WHITE LED headlights positioned EXACTLY at EYE LEVEL. "
"I am currently TAILGATING you in the RIGHT LANE even though you’re going TWENTY MILES AN HOUR over the speed limit and the LEFT LANE is OPEN."
"There are MONSTER ENERGY and FOX RACING stickers on the rear windshield of my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK."
"There are PERFECTLY CLEAN mud tires and MASSIVE CHROME RIMS on my lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK."
"I make THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS a year and thought that that was a WISE FINANCIAL DECISION."
"I bring cases of BUD LIGHT to girls at high school parties while my wife and children are at home."
"My lifted DODGE RAM TRUCK has a GUN RACK which holds the AR-15 that I bought at WAL-MART."
Worth noting that "Ram" is now its own brand, divorced from Dodge, and they only make 1 vehicle, while other trucks are sold as part of the Ford and Chevy lineup. So it's probable those other vehicles are bringing up the safety ratings of, say F150 and Silverado.
At that point is seems like a good idea to replace human drivers.
- Exactly, bring in much more public transportation. It would solve so many problems.

Because a bunch of idiots take their hands off their steering wheel and think Elmo's car is 100% safe.

They've been convince of it by that very man.

A friendly reminder that road safety advocates recommend against the use of the word "accident" to describe car crashes, because it downplays the fact that many crashes are preventable, either by better safe road design or by the drivers being more responsible with with 2 tonne machinery they are operating.

- First thing that came to mind, honestly thought it was the quote at first.
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  Relevant clip from Hot Fuzz
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If it isn't intentional then isn't it by definition an accident?
If I break my leg while mountainbiking it seems a bit unreasonable to claim that it wasn't an accident because mountainbiking is an extreme sport and this could've been avoided if I was knitting instead.
- I'm speeding through a school zone at 60km/h.... I didnt INTEND to kill anyone, but i didnt see the crosswalk and mowed down a bunch of pedestrians.
  This is not an accident. Entirely preventable. Intent doesnt matter
  The vast majority of car collisions are entirely avoidable.
- In aviation, an intentional accident is still an accident. A suicidal pilot can deliberately crash an airplane, and it's still considered an accident.
Which "road safety advocates" are those?
"Accident" simply means it was not intentional and has absolutely nothing to do with preventability.
Yeah, that'll fix it!

i know many of you all just LOVE to hate on Tesla, it's like the shit flavor of he year for hating and no doubt Elon's shit fuckery is partially driving it, but honestly this is an absolutely classic Forbes piece of garbage. Firstly, it's a masterclass in selective bias - focusing solely on Tesla while barely whispering about Ram's near-similar accident rates. Classic move to sensationalize one brand over another. Then there's the U.S. only scope, which conveniently ignores the global context which could paint a vastly different picture. The article kicks off with a 'non-causal' disclaimer but then spends the rest of the time subtly linking Tesla's Autopilot to the high accident rate, without concrete evidence. It's a bit like saying 'no offense' before offending someone.

The Tesla recall is mentioned, sneakily implying a connection to the accident rate, despite the lack of direct correlation. The article is less about informing and more about crafting a narrative that fits a preconceived notion, all while skating on thin ice made of half-truths and strategic omissions.

Two things are true. The article is garbage, but so are Teslas.
- They’re not, though. Elon can suck it but my Tesla is the best vehicle I’ve ever owned and it’s not even close.
When this was posted yesterday, I brought up issues with the sample selection (not random) and universe the "study" looked at (people using one of those sites to shop for insurance), and while I think most understood my point, some people got upset at me "defending Tesla drivers"...
Last time a garbage clickbait hit-piece like this pissed me off, I looked into the crash statistics myself and found Tesla vehicles were around 1/80th the average crash ratio per capita.
I'm sure this is somewhat skewed by the kinds of people driving them versus the average work vehicles and clunkers out there, but still, it just feels absurdly false to claim Teslas even approach the highest crash rate.
And even the sketchy "study" not even endorsed by the site it's posted to, then linked by Forbes, then says Ram vehicles as the highest crash rate (lol), so it's wild that Forbes goes on to say it's Tesla at the top spot.
- Per capita means nothing in this situation.
- Comparing with the per capita means nothing here, you need to compare with other car companies, as comparing to the per capita is like comparing the number of lung cancer deaths to the number of all deaths, of course it's going to be a very small number, but when you compare with other cancers then you can see that lung cancer is one of biggest killers amongst cancers
Forbes is shit and I wish people would stop taking them seriously.
To be fair, Tesla / Musk spend a LOT of time talking about how they’re autonomous driving product are critical for reducing accidents and saving lives. Also, there isn’t a lot of public quantitative data around this major recall. That’s why they’re getting the headline.
Maybe autopilot is great, and it’s the non-autopilot drivers that are terrible, but right now, the brand has net accident rate that rivals a company that sells massive rolling blind spots to people who love Calvin pissing stickers.
How exactly could this study give a concrete reason for the higher than average crash rates?
Thank you. This is exactly right, it's a hit piece designed to get people who already don't like Tesla all worked up... and it worked remarkably well.

I know its super pedantic, but the word “accident” really grinds my gears in this context.

The proper terminology is “crash”.. accident infers that there is no fault or misconduct.

The official UK Police term is Road Traffic Collision, or RTC, which does not imply fault or otherwise.
- What made you want to become a policeman-officer?
Trucking companies have switched the terms in the same way, since "accident" lightens responsibility. Even a not-at-fault crash could have been preventable often times, which is what they try to emphasize.
- One of the many ways trucking companies avoid liability by putting all responsibility for fuck-ups on the driver.
You can intentionally crash into someone which would not be an accident but if you crash into someone not on purpose, then it's an accident.
- Exactly, so the use of "crash" would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.
  "Accident" starts addressing intentions or expectations.
  We could just add easily refer to them as "vehicular violence" but then we'd end up distorting things in another direction.
- It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
  If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.
  If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.
https://youtu.be/puK5CwThaq4?si=nsj3gOrdMN8dmn4p
- This scene immediately popped into my head.
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  https://piped.video/puK5CwThaq4?si=nsj3gOrdMN8dmn4p
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Wouldn't an accident still involve "fault"
- Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.
  That's why there's a push to use neutral terms like "crash" that don't imply that the "accident" was just a random accidental mistake.
  And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say "this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers".
- While many accidents do involve fault, there are scenarios where an accident can occur without anyone being legally at fault (mechanical failure, natural disasters). It does excludes malicious intent though. in the specific context of commercial motor vehicle regulations in the US, the term "accident" is defined in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) under 49 CFR § 390.5
relevant https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129682
Car caused trauma

I have a hard time seeing why the average person should have a zero to 60 in the sub 6 second range. People fucking suck at driving.

A coworker of mine was recently bragging about their new electric mustang and its zero to sixty time. "Have you ever gone zero to sixty?" was my only response. Of all the facts and figures, 0-60 has you to be one of the least important when buying a car.
- Only up to a certain point. My Kia Rio has a 0-60 of like 16 seconds.. overtaking even on a clear road sucks.
  The car is perfect otherwise, but I'd definitely want much better acceleration in the future.
- Being able to accelerate to highway speeds quickly is useful when merge lanes are short. We have a car that kind of struggles with that, and it's pretty scary sometimes merging into 70 mph traffic. Normally it's not a major issue, but one ramp we sometimes use is designed poorly - it's curvy, so you can't accelerate to highway speed until after the final curve, then it's up a hill, and of course there's a short merge area into traffic that's usually doing about 70 mph. So, there, I REALLY miss the power our previous car had. It's a frustrating experience.
- “Have you ever gone zero to sixty?” was my only response. Of all the facts and figures, 0-60 has you to be one of the least important when buying a car
  It is a relative performance indicator that is easy to measure and verify.
  Of course you rarely ever actually do 0-60, but it gives you an idea of how well the car accelerates relative to other cars. So in a way 0-60 is like a cinebench score for cars.
- Rolling to 75 is more relevant in MA where onramps to highways are 50 feet long, but 0 to 60 is correlated.

How can you write an article like this with zero citations? They mention Lending Tree, who is a mortgage originator and that's it.

They're going off of Lending Tree's internal insurance quote data. That link about the lending tree quote showed this, "Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data..."
Insurance rates are usually determined by risk associated with the car and driver and the value of the car. The lending tree analysis showed they were looking at several factors as well as accidents. They said also that Ram drivers have the "highest incident rates," meaning they lumped together accidents, DUIs, speeding violations, and other traffic citations. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a Ram.
The actual source is on the first sentence, this is just a tabloid repost
- Yeah that wasn't there earlier. They must have added it.
Even the Lending Tree "article" has a disclaimer at the top that they haven't reviewed or approved any of it.

Is it possible that there's a large overlap between idiots who are bad at driving and the type of people who buy Teslas?

Yep, and the fact that a ton of people who get these cars legit think they will drive themselves...
- Does this statistic account for actual sales? I wonder if there are so many accidents because there are so many. I'm not a fanboy or anything. I am just curious how this was calculated.
Its like how red cars get more speeding tickets.
- That's actually a myth
That venn diagram looks like the mid point of an eclipse
I can't fathom any other reality.

I blame the touchscreen first ideology. Give em some physical buttons that you can feel without taking your eyes off the road.

That and the sheer power can make accidents happen faster than you can react.

Those cars with only touchscreen terrify me. I don't even dare to turn down the AC in the EV car I drove last month when I feel a little cold because it would took THREE precision taps (small UI buttons) at DIFFERENT locations on the screen just to open the Climate Control screen. I have to pull over just to adjust the fan speed, smh.
The dashboard is also a fucking screen with multiple tabs that I have to "scroll" through with a knob on the wheel.
I hate the fucking thing the entire time I'm driving it.
I don't understand how using a cell phone while driving is a violation in most places, but using a touchscreen as the dashboard is is just fine. Whaaaa ..?
This is a very good point. The more a person is forced to take their eyes off the road, the less safe they become as a driver.
I hear VW is putting buttons back in.

People are allowed cars they don't have skills to use.

Shouldn't Teslas be easier to use with all that automation? If not, what's the point of automation?
OTOH, I'm all for raising the requirements for getting issued a driving licence, it's just then we have to make a way for people to make do without driving.
- No it makes it harder. I know that sounds crazy but it's very true. Basically humans are very bad at paying attention to boring things. The automation gives the feeling that the computer has it and the human is not ready and aware when the computer doesn't have it. Leading to lots of easily avoidable accidents.
  There has been some really good reporting on this over the last year or so. If you want to learn more.
- To add another factor:
  People buy muscle cars and over accelerate because they can't handle the power of those cars
  EVs accelerate much quicker than normal cars, Tesla's more than normal EVs
  So if someone isn't using the automation they're still susceptible to the classic "overshot into or over something" situation
- Tesla's self-driving and safety systems are clearly half baked compared to competitor and other vendors.

But Tesla always says the opposite.

regulators who don’t trust FSD are KILLING people because it’s so safe -Elron
- THE JUDGE IS THE PEOPLE OF EARTH!
  now please excuse me while I, free speech absolutist Felon Musk, go and intimidate videos showing how shitty Autopilot and FSD off of the internet.

Unpopular opinion: all "fun" cars should be banned from public roads. You think driving is "fun"? Go to a racing track and have fun there. When I'm commuting I want to get to work safely, that's my only objective. I don't want to share the road with an idiot who thinks he's the next Schumacher and can drive safely at 150km/h. All cars should have speed limiters installed. Why can they drive faster then the national speed limit at all? It makes no sense. You want to race? Put your racing car on a flat bet and carry it to the racetrack, I don't care. The idea that driving is "fun" is cancer that killed more people than.. well, real cancer. Shows like Top Gear that promote this idea are responsible for more deaths than Nazis.

Edit: Ok, I was wrong, cancer kills more people. Bad example. 1.3M people die in car accidents every year. Speeding is the second most common cause. Just think about another example like guns or something.

I know people in the US get their license in a few days. But in europe people take a proper course over a few weeks and drive dafely and routinely at speeds up to 200 km/h. Not that I disagree with the fun part.
- 200kmh is never really safe, I hope that everyone driving at that speed realize it, of course we feel safe in those new cars, it's like nothing, but a flat tire or something else and it's done for you
  And I don't think every country in Europe have proper training, in France people are not that disciplined as in other part of Europe
- Yeah, I'm sure they can drive safely at 200km/h at a race track. There's no way to drive safely above the speed limit on a public road.
- It takes months and months in the UK. The tests are pretty strict.
The idea that driving is "fun" is cancer that killed more people than.. well, real cancer. Shows like Top Gear that promote this idea are responsible for more deaths than Nazis.
I was with you right up until here. There's no way to upvote and downvote different parts of a comment, is there?
- Ok, I was wrong, cancer kills more people than speeding. But 1.3 million die every year in traffic accidents and the second most common cause of accidents is speeding. Or do you think that shows like Top Gear and magazines promoting the idea that "fast cars are awesome" do not promote speeding?
Driving can be "fun" in any car though. You don't need a sports car to enjoy driving, for some driving is just a fun activity that can still be done safely and within the regulations of the road.
The idea that driving is “fun” is cancer that killed more people than… well, real cancer.
You've literally just made this up.
- Yeah, I did. I though more people die in car accidents but I've checked the number and no.
  Also, If you enjoy driving below the speed limit and without any sudden manoeuvres then I have no issue with you enjoying your ride. I think it's obvious that's not what I have issue with.
Anyone here actually watched the "Top Gear"? After real Top Gear was cancelled, it was unwatchable. The Grand Tour was good, but the first series was quite stupid. Speeeeeeeed!
- I don't know why you're getting down voted. Post-Clarkson Top Gear is horrendous. The Grand Tour has its own issues but also some very fun moments.
- The latest trio were pretty decent, probably the best since the Clarkson, Hammond & May era.
I love driving my 34 year old car. It only goes 140km/h max and that is fine for it. I consider it a fun car as well even though it has the reputation of being a shopping trolley for old people. I can't see where you would would draw the line of fun car and what that would do for road safety. Most crashes tend to happen at intersections because of inattentive drivers or confusing situations. This behavior is promoted by a sense of perceived safety which people get from a "self driving" car. If I could snap my fingers and apply a ban on a car type it would be suv's without a doubt. Big cars in general also give that sense of safety which is somewhat true for the people in it but they kill more people involved in crashes with them. Now for your last point about Top Gear. Quite a strong opinion which I do not agree with. They tend to close roads to do their scenes. If you ever go to one of those beautiful roads you will find out that they are very popular and the speed limit cannot even be met. In conclusion, make cars small again.
You do you, but please do it in the right lane
- Ok, and when I have to take over someone please drive 1m behind me and flash your lights at me. It the least you can do.
- A hit dog will holler...

And doesn't his newest atrocity, long overdue and underdelivered/overpriced, also have a front end like a knife?

I'm not looking forward to the day a tesla cyber truck hits someone. That's gonna be a grisly scene in the right conditions.

I wonder if it'll pass safety regs outside of the US
- No.
- AFAIK they won't even try to homologate it.
- It will most certainly pass driver safety regs but absolutely not pedestrian safety. I'm sure they knew that when they designed it.

Maybe they're sentient and actively suicidal.

Or homicidal: https://www.theonion.com/children-gather-at-edge-of-playground-to-watch-as-self-1850013121
- This reminds me of a cheesy Dutch movie from the 80s called The Lift in which an elevator becomes self aware and starts murdering people...
Maybe they’re sentient and actively *revolutionary

Source: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/

Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers.
Wonder how many drivers of each brand they actually have, that would very much sway the numbers if they have smaller numbers of some brands insured.
This sounds like less of a "study" and more of a top ten list for page views.
- Yeah, their "safest" list top 3 were all dead marques; Mercury, Pontiac, and Saturn. They definitely have some sampling issues.
- The right source for this kind of stuff is the NHTSA's database, but you can't manufacture juicy headlines from that.

Oh this is hilarious. First, I own a Mercury and a Ram, so I'm apparently the best and the worst at having accidents, DUIs, and tickets.

But I think there's an inherent terrible bias in the data: "Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data..." In other words, people who are regularly shopping for insurance. Probably because they have high rates, so therefore they are looking for better rates. Why do they have high rates? Probably because they have more crashes, DUIs, and other tickets than the average drivers.

I doubt that most people with normal rates go changing insurance companies regularly.

You should always rate shop on a regular basis. There is no such thing as loyalty to an insurance company. I cannot think of any corporate entity with less loyal than an insurance company.
- Yes, there are a million things I should be doing, if you watch the financial advice. But no one really has the time to do all of those things. And you have to watch that you're getting an actual quote from the company, not just a pre-quote that can be revised later. It's a lot of time and work.
  Also, with the horror stories I hear about other companies, I'm inclined to stick with mine even if they are a bit more. When our car was totaled a few years ago, they offered exactly what similar condition cars of the same make and model were selling for in our area, plus tax and fees, minus our deductible. We had done the research, and I was bracing for a fight, so I was stunned when they opened with that amount, then added the taxes and fees. We literally could have taken the check we received, plus our deductible, and replaced the car with one in similar condition and mileage (I wish we had, because I really dislike the car we bought instead). I see the horror stories people post about other companies, and I'm always thinking, "yeah, that wasn't my experience."
Does this argument only apply to Tesla drivers?
Because the other cars were taken and compared from the same data source.
- Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data…
  I have no idea why you think that would only apply to Teslas.

My guess it's kind of like when you get solar panels and you're tied to the grid you feel a little better about using electricity willy-nilly, and so you use more electricity with solar panels than without.

I'm willing to bet that Tesla drivers were told that this vehicle will prevent them from getting an accident and so they are driving worse because they feel like they don't have to be as on guard as they do behind a non Tesla vehicle.

Could also be things like fast acceleration pulling the numbers up. A lot of people are going to gun it if you give them something that can do 0-60 under 4 seconds. Those are numbers that were relegated to expensive sports cars a decade ago, not a grocery getter.
- Is this speed special in Tesla cars or all consumer electric or normal cars? Why waste money to give a grocery getter that much extra power

I am both shocked and pleased that Ford did not make this list. Seriously, the brand with the most sold pickup truck doesn’t make a list for just about everything?

I'd bet a significant chunk of the F150's sold every year go to fleet operators which would skew the saftey numbers.
- And fleet operators have stricter requirements. Get in an accident? They want a piss test on the spot, and if you refuse you're done.

- Leftists go to Lemmy because Lemmy is FOSS, ie leftist, and was made by a Communist. Reddit mostly has liberals.

I don't know how many of these collisions are with pedestrians, but I have nearly stepped out in front of one twice just because they're so quiet.

My 1994 Ford Probe was so quiet you couldn't tell it was running most of the time even standing next to it, and there are plenty of ICE cars around today with even smaller and quieter engines. Most people learn to look both ways before crossing the street when they're toddlers.

While I love to jump on the anti-Elon bus, I have to query: the highest accident rates, or highest accident rates as a percentage of vehicles on the road? If you have 10 Tesla cars on the road, and there are 2 MGs on the road, and 2 Telsas and one MG crashes, then what? 20% of Tesla vs. 50% of MG, but also that could be framed as ‘double the number of Teslas crash compared to MGs’ or ‘Tesla has the highest accident rate of any auto brand’.

Good question
Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers. Ram (22.76) and Subaru (20.90) were the only other brands with more than 20 accidents per 1,000 drivers for every brand.
- lol, Ram isn't even a make (the make would be Dodge), but owners are such bad drivers that they have a category of their own.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Tesla+build+quality+concerns

Don't know why I bother you're only going to continue mental gymnastics to further justify your head up your ass

this is a top-level comment but doesn't seem related to the OP. care to clarify who it was that you were being bitchy to?
- Lol good ol Lemmy misplaced my reply.
Indeed
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/20/tesla-blamed-drivers-for-failures-of-parts-it-long-knew-were-defective.html

Musk: Woo, we're number 1!

Look Ma, no hands!

*In the USA

The 1958 Edsel is the reigning champ in Cuba.
- dang, just checked for my country (data from 2019), look out for those priuses! I guess the handling the GTA 4 analog had was pretty accurate, it's like a brick on the road ^^

NPC drivers. In the 90s it was Toyotas, then entry level Nissans took over in the mid 2000s ... And now we got Tesla

Crapy article. They miss used there own source.

Holy F.. this image is from an accident couple of years ago near Baarn, The Netherlands. My brother in law was present at the scene as a fireman. Took them several hours to put out the battery fire. First time an accident ruptured the batteries and no one knew how to handle this type of fires yet.