Tesla Has The Highest Accident Rate Of Any Auto Brand
Tesla Has The Highest Accident Rate Of Any Auto Brand
Tesla drivers had 23.54 accidents per 1,000 drivers, a study found. Tesla recently recalled 2 million vehicles over problems with its autonomous driving functionality.
You're viewing a single thread.
Oh this is hilarious. First, I own a Mercury and a Ram, so I'm apparently the best and the worst at having accidents, DUIs, and tickets.
But I think there's an inherent terrible bias in the data: "Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data..." In other words, people who are regularly shopping for insurance. Probably because they have high rates, so therefore they are looking for better rates. Why do they have high rates? Probably because they have more crashes, DUIs, and other tickets than the average drivers.
I doubt that most people with normal rates go changing insurance companies regularly.
You should always rate shop on a regular basis. There is no such thing as loyalty to an insurance company. I cannot think of any corporate entity with less loyal than an insurance company.
Yes, there are a million things I should be doing, if you watch the financial advice. But no one really has the time to do all of those things. And you have to watch that you're getting an actual quote from the company, not just a pre-quote that can be revised later. It's a lot of time and work.
Also, with the horror stories I hear about other companies, I'm inclined to stick with mine even if they are a bit more. When our car was totaled a few years ago, they offered exactly what similar condition cars of the same make and model were selling for in our area, plus tax and fees, minus our deductible. We had done the research, and I was bracing for a fight, so I was stunned when they opened with that amount, then added the taxes and fees. We literally could have taken the check we received, plus our deductible, and replaced the car with one in similar condition and mileage (I wish we had, because I really dislike the car we bought instead). I see the horror stories people post about other companies, and I'm always thinking, "yeah, that wasn't my experience."
Here's where the loyalty part comes into play: if the insurance company doesn't like something, they can and will drop you or refuse to renew your policy depending on relevant laws. They might have decent service and pay claims without much of a fight, and those are incredibly valuable service qualities. So you're making the right decision for yourself if that's what's important to you and that's the experience you've had.
But if all things are equal, there's no good reason to pay a higher premium for the same service. You better believe that insurance company will drop you in a heartbeat if their analysis indicates that they won't have the level of profit from you that they want. As a for-profit business, that's their perogative just as much as it's yours if you want to switch.
I tend to agree with you by the way. Loyalty comes in many forms. I might not be loyal to a company per se. If they've consistently provided me with a level of service that I'm satisfied with at a price that I feel is appropriate for the value, then I'm not going to go through the trouble of checking prices and switching carriers every year just to save a few bucks. And there's the hassle of being hounded by a half dozen companies that now have your contact info after you requested quotes. That's all a big no thanks from me.
It's not really loyalty, per se...it's that they seem to be offering a reasonable price and good service, so I don't see a reason to change. If some other company offered much better rates for the same coverage and service level, I'd switch. But I'm not spending hours and hours each year to find I might save $50/year either; that's a waste of my time.
Does this argument only apply to Tesla drivers?
Because the other cars were taken and compared from the same data source.
Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data…
I have no idea why you think that would only apply to Teslas.
Because your whole argument is seemingly based on that assumption.
You say it's no wonder that Tesla is last when they used that data.
I think you have my comment confused with another one, I didn't mention Tesla at all.
No, definitely not.
Can you tell me what your argument was then?
Seems like a lot of hot air with zero sense if you now claim you didn't mean tesla. I mean even if you meant tesla, as I already reasoned above.
In both cases your comment only makes sense as a misdirection or an honest mistake. But you're definitely not acknowledging it, so I would lean to the former.
I have no idea where you're getting Tesla from.
My comment was that there is likely bias in the data because it's people applying to one of those sites that compare insurance costs. I think it's likely most people who are doing that regularly are people in high risk groups - their insurance rates are high, so they're looking for some other company. Their insurance rates are high because they are risky drivers.
The data are not based on crash statistics, which would be the most reliable indicator, or tickets issued, or any other similar results. The people using this tool are not randomly selected, either.
In other words, it's anecdotal data at best, and possibly biased toward people with high premiums because of issues in their driving record.
Again, the conclusion still makes sense if you only use this data set.
Tesla drivers are the worst offenders compared to the worst offenders.
your logic to jump to their defence doesn't apply here.
I'm not defending Tesla drivers or anyone else. In my very first sentence, I noted that own one of the vehicles (Ram) that is supposedly the second worst, and I also own one of the vehicles that is the best (Mercury).
I'm simply pointing out that this dataset may have serious flaws and shouldn't be used to draw real conclusions.
Your obsession with Tesla is clouding your reading ability or something.
As far as I can see they don't mention Tesla at all.