this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
599 points (97.5% liked)
Not The Onion
13614 readers
1046 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it's like the 3rd repost of this Cherrypicking galore: They literally took 27 which is the fire deaths from rear-ending only (vs 41 fire fatalities from a 2.5 year period instead of the 9 years they mention They conveniently did not use the 1,626 pinto fatalities from those 2.5 years. They used the total number of pintos produced, not the number of pintos on the roads at the end of the analysis, which would be less than 2.2M. At least they did get your clicks.
You're back! I've seen this article posted a couple different places (not by me), and you keep finding it! And posting an image of one of the many data tables from the same study.
So, after seeing it a couple times, I do have a couple of ideas about it:
People often ask about me including the Las Vegas case, so maybe I answer that concern, too. That's the methodology - I set out to count every fire death for the Cybertruck that I could confirm through reliable news sources. And I struggled with that one. I worried if I didn't include it, I'd be open to the opposite criticism - folks would say "wait these stats suck, I literally saw a guy die on the news in a flaming Cybertruck, and y'all didn't count it, so these numbers can't be right." So, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. It was controversial, I knew it would be, so I flagged it in the article so folks could make their own decision about it. Ultimately, it didn't meaningfully change the final findings. I've run the numbers with and without it, and the story is fundamentally the same either way.
Like, I'm a comedian who tells pickup truck jokes most the time. I've linked in the original article to a very credible scientist who re-ran my numbers more rigorously and they came to the same conclusions, with the added benefit of confirming the sample sizes were statistically significant. Take their word for it, not mine. Or hell, run the numbers yourself, you got all the same sources I do.
That's not how a real analysis is done. On the Pinto's end you're OK with them selecting 1.6% of the deaths that occurred due to evidently passive accidents (rear-ending), deflate the rates of these by using clearly false production numbers (60% less than counted) and timeframes within these events happened (4x shorter than counted).
So on the CT's end you find it acceptable to include ALL causes and further inflate the death rate by 20% with the inclusion of the suicide guy?! Seriously?:)
**No, if you want a real "apples-to-apples" analysis and not meme-shit like this, you compare the fire rates to a contemporary vehicle of a comparable class. Either a gasoline/diesel F150 or even better, a Ford Lightning. Now that would be something we could learn from. **
This definitely makes a good joke, but people confusing jokes and reality is the issue.
The first step in a real analysis is formulating a relevant question. One can make ANYTHING "statistically significant" For example, I can guarantee you that I can find a singular metric for most cars from the 70s in which would make them look safer than a modern EV. What would we learn from that other than making memes?
Alright, boss.
If you can't believe a PHD holder on their subject of expertise, and you won't run your own analysis, I guess you'll believe whatever you like no matter what anybody else says. Ok! I'm fine with that if you're fine with that.
I should probably explain: I do find it acceptable to include all the deaths in the Cybertruck... simply because 100% of the fatalities have been in Cybertrucks that burned. Isn't that absolutely AGGRAVATINGLY ridiculous? That alone is worth the headline. Car fires are not common in 2025. Every single car built in 2025 should be safer than the Ford fucking Pinto!
...When you have such low numbers of cases you need to individually review each case because the risk of bias is exorbitant.
They seem to be more common in EVs, so if you want to make a statement on the CT youcompare it to other EV trucks and if you spot a difference, THEN you can make the case about the CT being unsafe.
Perhaps excluding 99.7% of Pinto deaths makes this conclusion slightly less valid...
You literally couldn't be more wrong.
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/environment-energy-coordination/climate-matters/EV-less-fire-risk
I know people just google stuff without looking into references, but let me do it for you:
Reference: Kelly Blue Book, Study: Electric Vehicles Involved in Fewest Car Fires by Sean Tucker, January 28, 2022 Points to AutoInsuranceEZ.com which appears like the worst kind of EV slop: https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/?_cl=aC559XZjJUWkUEucak9lPfNY
I.e. this reference is useless and surprisingly low quality for a .gov site.
Your best data is from Sweden and that also doesn't provide rate of fatalities so this whole thing isn't settled when it comes to fires with injuries (the rate for that is about 0.6%)in ICEV dominated data: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-fires)
I do think that EVs are safer, this is why I drive one (not a tesla...), but if an EV burns, that a huge issue. And again, drawing conclusions from 2 accidents over a year vs. 10 years of pinto data is well...not a good comparison.
The whole premise is that the pinto was known for being a fire hazard. Deaths due to lack of airbags and piss-poor seatbelt usage is the 70s has nothing to do with fire-related deaths.
And given they're also using the number of cyber trucks produced, that is also an apples to apples comparison.
It takes some olympic-level mental gymnastics to look at a story about exploding cars and try to rope in non-fire-related deaths.
So you choose a single metric responsible for about 1.6% fatalities for the Pinto from 25% of the timeframe it was produced and at very best 66% of the ever existed pintos on the road and then you compare that metric to what appears to be 125% of ALL deaths in the CT and then you call it apples to apples?
Talking about mental gymnastics...
If you want to talk about how the Pinto's reputation was not entirely earned, I'll probably be on your side. My first car was a '72 Pinto, and it will always have a special place in my heart. Cars were dangerous in the 70s, including a lot of poor designs that led to fires. The Pinto had somewhat more than most other models, but it was not exactly the ticking time bomb that people made it out to be. Overall, the safest car engineers could possibly produce in 1980 wouldn't even be legal to drive today; that's how much safety has progressed, including Tesla.
And all that's irrelevant. The Pinto has been dead for longer than most internet users have been alive. I'd wager that less than half of the people in this thread have even seen one on the road. But still, if you say the word "Pinto" online, more people will reach for a fire extinguisher than a can of beans. That's how ingrained the reputation is.
So when comparing the reputation of the Pinto as a fire hazard to the reality of the Cybertruck as a fire hazard, the author isn't trying to make any rigorous, peer-reviewed, scientific conclusions about total safety here. It's about fire. Maybe the best answer is to give the Pinto some (some) leeway for being better than its reputation, but if that reputation can persist in the country's consciousness for nearly half a century after the car died maybe we can also look to today and see that some lessons were apparently not learned.
I see 41 fire fatalities in that image. Out of 2.2M, that's 1.86 fatalities per 100k units. Still much lower than 14.52 for the Cybertruck.
That's still an overestimate because the miles driven needs to be taken into consideration, time to fire, etc and on the CT's side we should never include the suicide case in the stats...
But an honest analysis would compare the CT to EVs as their fire rates are inherently higher, which doesn't mean at all that EVs are less safe in general than ICE vehicles.
Speaking of cherrypicking....the report also counts that Cybertruck in Las Vegas loaded with fireworks and gas canisters, where the driver died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
I'm just copy pasting from above, but here's my thoughts on that:
"People often ask about me including the Las Vegas case, so maybe I answer that concern, too. That's the methodology - I set out to count every fire death for the Cybertruck that I could confirm through reliable news sources. And I struggled with that one. I worried if I didn't include it, I'd be open to the opposite criticism - folks would say "wait these stats suck, I literally saw a guy die on the news in a flaming Cybertruck, and y'all didn't count it, so these numbers can't be right." So, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. It was controversial, I knew it would be, so I flagged it in the article so folks could make their own decision about it. Ultimately, it didn't meaningfully change the final findings. I've run the numbers with and without it, and the story is fundamentally the same either way."
If it's a difficult choice to not include the guy who shot himself in the car he exploded then I want to know what is considered an easy one:D
How can we be sure pinto data from 70s is anywhere near perfect either?
If you don't trust the pinto numbers then you're going to have to talk to ABC about that.
Im sure pinto numbers from fuckin 70s have some unreliable addons as well that do not skew the overall data, like the dumpster ones.
Yeah, he even calls it out as controversial but then "fuck it I'm gonna include it anyway".
No, that's not what I said at all. Get your quote right. I said "fuck it, we ball."
Serious tho, if you're curious why I did that, read up the thread, I explain it. Nothin nefarious (I hope)
"damned if you do, damned if you don't" isn't a reason. You've provided the exact reason why it shouldn't be included and then just 🤷♂️.Even sympathetic readers on lemmy are pointing out how dishonest it is...
LOL, I dishonestly flagged it for the reader to review themselves? Wow, I must be a real piece of shit.
So anyhow, you're an honest person, so if I'm a lying bastard with some non-specific ulterior motive (or I just really fuckin suck at math), what's your number when you run the stats with one fewer fire fatality in the Cybertruck column? Does it change the overall meaning of the study, or nah?
"This death was not caused by fire, but I'm going to include it in a list of deaths caused by fire."
I don't know what to tell you buddy. If it doesn't effect your results then leave it out?
Oh you! Stop with the facts. We're here to bag on Elon, reality be damned.