TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto

      • Mac@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Never forget that Chrysler did the exact same thing with the Grand Cherokee that resulted in deaths and never faced accountability.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Agree to disagree. I really hate this era of cars. Take a hot hatch, but make it as ugly as you can. Then make it as heavy as possible and slap an 80bhp iron block in there, that way you have the worst of both worlds in both power and fuel economy. But just for good measure, also give it a 3 speed transmission with no overdrive as one last final fuck you, just to make that the car is as slow—and gas mileage is as terrible as allowed by the laws of physics.

      The 70s was by far the worst era for cars, especially American cars.

        • Psythik@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 days ago

          Even if I were to agree with you, the beauty of a 70s car is only skin-deep, given everything else that is wrong with them that I already mentioned in my previous comment.

          • Mac@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 days ago

            Yeah, your laughably untrue comment that is pulling facts from some cheap economy cars in an attempt to generalize an entire era. lol

          • Krudler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            You can only think 70’s cars are beautiful if you weren’t alive in the 70’s.

            They were UGLY AS FUCK then and now. Just piss poor design in every way.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’ll be honest, I like the aesthetics, but yeah modern materials and gas mileage would be nice. Seatbelts too.

    • Grass@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      fucking thank you. So many people have disagreed with me over the years. its even more baby mustang than the mustang 2. Like its the third child thats not trying to act tough like the second child, or all muscle no brains like the first child.

      If I could get one even in shit condition I’d want to rebuild it as an electric. I’d totally take a mustang 2 if I could get one too though.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        8 days ago

        As a European who knew nothing about Ford Pinto, I thought they made fun of how cars always explode in movies.

        • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Might be someone who doesn’t like Jeremy and down voting top gear related comments. Either way, don’t think too much about it as there is always someone mad doom scrolling internet.

    • jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 days ago

      To be more specific, the fuel tank was placed between the rear bumper and rear differential. In a rear end collision, the tank would get sandwiched by the bumper and differential, which had bolts protruding out the back and would pierce the tank, spilling fuel onto the road.

      Additionally, rear end collisions would bend the frame in a way that jammed the doors so you couldnt get out.

      They figured that people would die and their cost benefit analysis assumed a certain number of deaths and lawsuits. The resulting recall and larger than expected number of deaths and lawsuits made it a huge loss for them.

      • AtariDump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 days ago

        Wherever I’m going, I’ll be there to apply the formula. I’ll keep the secret intact.
        It’s simple arithmetic.
        It’s a story problem.
        If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
        You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement ©.
        A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don’t initiate a recall.
        If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
        If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don’t recall.

        Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      That’s only half the story and not really the part that makes it so significant. The recall was only done after a report sent to NHTSA was released to the public detailing the cost benefit analysis that safer fuel systems was considered more expensive to society than just allowing some people to die due to less safe cars and therefore the car industry shouldn’t have to meet the safety standards the NHTSA was proposing. This was a landmark moment in legal ethics and while it was pretty standard stuff in the corporate and regulatory world of the time (and today) and the dollar values assigned to human lives were based on NHTSAs own figures, not Fords it enraged enough people and a recall was done.

  • generallynonsensical@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    If the fediverse wants to grow and have the half-intelligent populace take it seriously, it’s going to have to start moderating sources. Not censorship. Moderation.

    Too many posts I have seen here in popular ‘subs’ are from a website who got it’s name from an Amazon product, looking to rile up the leftists with confirmation bias, turning it all into a misinformed echo chamber.

    Chklafrknozk.biz reports <thing> people already <emotion> is <adjective>.’ Fuck off with the nonsense.

    We aren’t supposed to be a mirrored version of existing social media. We are meant to be a fair version of it.

    Don’t insult the intelligence of users. If you want the brains to follow you, stop being yet another version of the problem.

    Simply tired of the garbage.

    Edit: Grammar

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      Um yeah I just perused the source website and agree. It’s got an obvious anti-EV bias in both article sections, headlines and interpretations of data. The only author they seem to have for all their ‘news articles’ is a person that doesn’t even have the guts to sign off with their real name, instead using the alias ‘Kay Leadfoot’. They don’t even have an ‘about’ page, just a contact form.

      This is just the blog of some dude that hates EVs. Hot garbage source.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 days ago

    The cool thing is when you set records. Being the most anything is awesome.

    It’s sarcasm, leave me alone.

  • samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 days ago

    My childhood car was a Pinto. I was very grateful it never blew up when I read about the issues many years later.

        • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          it fixed the problem

          Most of them had some rust issues and it was easy to replace the tank with a much better one anyways

          I knew a girl in highschool who had one. Her dad had customized the shit out of it… put a V8 in the hatchback trunk … that think was a fucking rocket

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      It had nice lines. Must’ve been nice whipping that around while I was looking for a place to dock my Cutlass Supreme. Lol

      Glad you didn’t blow up.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 days ago

    How much of that is down to the electronic door locks keeping people from escaping?

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 days ago

    All caps doesn’t make your post more interesting. Just annoying.

  • FackCurs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Who would have guessed the armored tesla trucks have armor to protect whatever is outside of the tesla

        • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I honestly thought it would be the '90’s Ford Explorer/Firestone tires issue that would be the worst, but it seems the 2002-06 Explorer massive repairs at low mileage beats it.

  • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    this again? They didn’t even read their own reference for the fire stats…

    With its decade-long production run, the NHTSA reported that the Ford Pinto and its famously flawed gas tank behind the rear bumper caused 27 fiery deaths with its knowingly negligent design. https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf

    Cherrypicking galore:

    1. 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
    2. They conveniently did not use the 1,626 pinto fatalities from those 2.5 years.
    3. 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.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      There was the original story a week ago about this and the “analyst” included the fireworks explosion in Vegas to get to their resiult.

      • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        yup. it’s quite disturbing that even a rolling industrial garbage container like the CT needs fake analyses to be ridiculed.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I don’t really want to get into a debate about specifics, but this has long been the case with Elon and Tesla/SpaceX.

          Especially pre pedo comment, much of what gets said about him and his companies are much like including the fireworks. Fake, made up, or exaggerated shit meant to stir up extra hate for the circle jerk.

          However, he has done so many blatantly bad things since then that there really is no reason to have to make shit up or do fake analysis, but it still happens and always has. The circlejerk needs to continue fake or not.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      This ‘news article’ from OP is just some dudes one-man show blog, and looking through a few articles they seem to dislike all EVs not just Teslas. Absolutely garbage source, I’m not surprised you found errors.

      • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        yeah half the EV articles are about the CT on the blog. But I suspect it’s because the haters click more. What would be a valid analysis after a little longer because the CTs haven’t been on the roads long enough, is to compare them with the F150 Lightning. I suspect fire rates will be fairly similar between the two.