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.

If you can’t believe a PHD holder on their subject of expertise, and you won’t run your own analysis…

…When you have such low numbers of cases you need to individually review each case because the risk of bias is exorbitant.

Car fires are not common in 2025.

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.

Every single car built in 2025 should be safer than the Ford fucking Pinto!

Perhaps excluding 99.7% of Pinto deaths makes this conclusion slightly less valid…

ces. 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

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.

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…

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.

1. I’m posting this response because shitty analyses like this keep feeding people’s confirmation biases while making us dumbder given the poor bases in reality.
2. I’m referring to this table because that’s the main data table this very “analysis” refers to.

You should also include a screen grab of the page of the report that specifies the 27 deaths due to the notoriously fatal design flaw in the Pinto that is included in my article.

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).

If you read my article, I’m specifically comparing the fire death rate due to the notoriously fatal design flaw. It’s specified in plain English in the methodology section. If you don’t like the clearly stated methodology, re-run the study with a methodology you do like, IDGAF.

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?:)

The reason for that methodology: 100% of the Cybertruck fires involved ONLY the Cybertruck. Which is weird, single car fire accidents are not common. The Ford Pintos, I could only verify that SOME of the fires were caused ONLY by the Ford Pinto. I wanted an apples-to-apples comparison as best as I could make it. If you don’t like any aspect of this, like the vehicle totals or whatever, you can always re-run the numbers like I told you to in the original article.

**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. **

Like, I’m a comedian who tells pickup truck jokes most the time.

This definitely makes a good joke, but people confusing jokes and reality is the issue.

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.

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?

yup, trump’s a symptom not a straight up cause. his demise is expected to be the least consequential of this “elite” trio, as he is already getting sidelined without consequence. Old, virile trump would have fired musk a month ago.

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.

yup. but putin was young. trump is old and aging fast so the direct applicability to the US is limited. at this point that’s the only nice thing. putin’s old, trump’s old, xi jinping is old. At least twp of them go out of commission in the next 5 years.

the only thing that is going to end this war. It’s called ‘Mutually-Assured Destruction’.

The IDF wouldn’t drop a bomb on their own citizens because their prime ideology is jewish supremacy, plus they have the military might without it. Hamas, OTOH would have no qualms about it. I can’t figure out if you are sarcastic here, but mutual destruction is exactly what would happen, so if you’re saying that nuclear annihilation is the only way to stop this war, then you might be right, but generally that’s the least favorable outcome.

I thought you put it together already. Hamas’ willingness to sacrifice Palestinians is only second to IDF. They’d drop that bomb without hesitation if that meant the final defeat of Israel.

Genocide?

Because of this:

Every single European country with a shared border with Russia has mandatory military service (that red exception on the map is Latvia, which also reinstated it in 2024). This is how much Russia is trusted.

so what would you think hamas do with nukes?

The most telling statistic about Russia’s trustworthiness is that every single independent country that shares a border with Russia on the West has mandatory military service and those in the same region without a shared border with Russia don’t.

without criming?

tate is part black.

No surprise there. Couches are known to need long courting.

Not sure if European couches are into the whole eyeliner thing.

would be a pretty big ego stroke, I’d venture.

did I hear big stroke?:)

TIL, Thanks!