Not only is he using statistics generated by other people - as is obviously cited in the blog post - you seem to be leaving out your own apparent 96% of ICE fires which are apparently spontaneous and not caused by collision, of which Tesla has, of course, had zero. So if there is less overall risk, and less spontaneous risk, and there is risk involved when driving through multiple concrete walls and into a tree but the occupants still stay safe, you consider this a safety issue?
And if you're so convinced that these statistics are wrong, why not present your own? How are you going to do the math on that one? Do you know how many collisions there have been with road debris which haven't resulted in an incident? How are you going to sort these collisions, by size or geometry of object? Is your denominator any bigger than two? Because, you know, having a two in the denominator leads to some rather silly statistics.
As for tarnishing electric vehicle reputation, Tesla had to deal with years of "Volt fire" and "Fisker fire" nonsense (which were, I repeat, both nonsense), and now you think they're trying to drag everyone else down? Tesla is the name in EVs, and Tesla is the reason the Volt and Leaf even exist in the first place (by explicit statement from the CEOs of those companies). Of course what happens to Tesla affects EVs.
