The study was debunked by a Tesla exec posting on X and reposted on Reddit. Excuse me if I view that with a very healthy amount of skepticism.

I'd happily wager $100 that in a couple of years time we'll have the data to conclude that Model Ys were not 3x more lethally dangerous than average.

Would you take that bet?

The Tesla exec has access to the actual figure for miles traveled and why should he lie about something like that?

And just from visual inspection, it is evident that there are numerous surprises with the iSeeCars study that are difficult to explain. For example, why is there such a huge difference between Model 3 and Y fatality rates even though the cars are similar in most respects?

Another thing to note is that the number of fatalities is only a handful, often under 10 in a year. The standard deviation of the Poisson distribution would already give error bars of 30% at least, making direct comparisons between models meaningless.

Finally, if you read the accident reports, most of the fatalities are head on collisions with drunk drivers and not wearing seatbelts. Having physical controls for hvac or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with it.

> The Tesla exec has access to the actual figure for miles traveled and why should he lie about something like that?

Because money?

> why should he lie about something like that?

Nobody's that naive.

People are naive to trust the obviously wrong numbers from the iSeeCars study though.