>"I'm a lesbian and don't want to be with men"

"But I want to stay with you, and I can't stand seeing you with other women. So I'm going to sleep around, but you stay loyal."

I think the guy might be slightly worse here, but keeping him on the hook while exploring her sexuality was pretty scummy.

I imagine that's what most are objecting to.

You have to be one of the pettiest human beings I've ever met. If you wanted a link, you could've just asked for a link. Much as I'd like to tell you to shove it:

The oft-cited study is this one, compiled by insurance analysts and published to their website (and, ostensibly, independently verified).

The fire data itself is, again, from the NTSB, with sales data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. It's all public and you're free to do a little legwork yourself, if you care to.

I'm not going to run the database searches for you, especially not after being called a "fucking idiot". You can take the study at face value, go verify it with the NTSB data yourself, or shut up about it.

Or I suppose you could keep spreading falsehoods and insulting people for pointing out you're wrong. I guess that's up to you at this point, isn't it?

>And gasoline vehicles (i.e. the majority) are vastly more likely to catch fire than EVs are. This is according to accident data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National Transportation Safety Board. Tesla makes up a plurality of the EV portion of this data, and for every vehicle fire their cars undergo, the "average" vehicle catches fire over 61 times (1529.9 fires per 100k for gas vehicles and just 25.1 fires per 100k sales for electric vehicles).

>You have no data

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>They're comparing CONTEMPORARY model-year vehicles

Heard ya loud and clear the first time, my guy. I just pointed out that yes, Tesla benefits from having newer models. The idea that comparing by same model year has merit isn't lost on me.

>spontaneously combust (not in an accident)

Tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny minority of vehicle fires. You selected the exact subset where EVs perform worse.

>Tesla's ignite more than ICE. This is not difficult.

Good lord. Here, maybe if I adopt your methods and capitalize the letters:

ONLY if you SELECT a TINY subset of the data do Teslas ignite more than ICE vehicles. This is an EGREGIOUS mischaracterization of their ACTUAL RELATIVE SAFETIES.

The difference isn't minor. It's not even close. There's a SIXTY FOLD difference between the two. This is largely due to the enormous reservoir of explosive liquid they carry around with them.

ICE vehicles ignite more than Teslas. This is not difficult.

I agree that per mile driven is an important metric, and Teslas benefit from being newer than an average ICE vehicle.

But that's still far inferior to using every vehicle fire (in the dataset I cited above), due to how tiny this subset is. If you only pick non-crash fires, batteries will be disfavored heavily.

Adding onto this: this only counts non-crash fires (a tiny, cherry-picked subset of vehicle fires).

Right off the bat: this is already a cherry picked data set. You chose exclusively non-crash fires (a tiny minority of vehicle fires).

I question why we chose to focus on this tiny subset of vehicle fires. Is it, perhaps, because that's the dataset that EVs (and Teslas) underperform in?

When we focus on this subset, Teslas catch fire 50% more than ICE vehicles. When we widen our subset to all vehicle fires, ICE vehicles catch fire 6000% more than Teslas.

Strange.

But... I just cited the fire frequency data? Conducted by a third party (a government institution)

Do you have anything to actually support this claim?

OTA means over the air. They didn't "flash" the firmware like you'd expect from a traditional OEM, where you have to bring the car to the dealership to get your firmware updated. It happened overnight in the garage, without any customer needing to do anything.

"A recall is a recall" seems a little disingenuous; not all recalls are created equally, and some are handled faster/better than others.

The vehicles were not sent back, hence the name "recall" is a bit of a misnomer. That's just the regulatory term for making a safety improvement to the car. While technically correct, it will mislead many people.

The bad reporting on the company is an unfortunate, old, and tired pattern. Reddit's enthusiasm for it is a bit newer.

>Recalls for serious and dangerous problems don’t happen to other makes at the same frequency as Teslas. Other cars don’t usually spontaneously explode either.

Gonna need a source for this. How many recalls per year does Tesla have, and how many do other car companies have on average?

And gasoline vehicles (i.e. the majority) are vastly more likely to catch fire than EVs are. This is according to accident data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National Transportation Safety Board. Tesla makes up a plurality of the EV portion of this data, and for every vehicle fire their cars undergo, the "average" vehicle catches fire over 61 times (1529.9 fires per 100k for gas vehicles and just 25.1 fires per 100k sales for electric vehicles).

Curious to know where on earth you're getting the idea that these cars get recalled more or "spontaneously explode" more than other cars do, except perhaps your own perception of media coverage?

To put it more plainly: just because a vehicle fire or recall from a "normal" car company doesn't show up on your newsfeed doesn't mean they don't happen. They just happen without media coverage.