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?