I agree with others that there is no point in parsing this to avoid the fact that there has been the first fatality. It happened, it was bound to someday.
But people, this is a (morbidly) positive thing if your concern is the stock and the viability of the company. I have had restless nights wondering how the first death would affect the stock. (I listed it many times as the #1 negative catalyst waiting in the wings). If it had been a photogenic mother of 4 young children, belted in, who happened to get distracted and weave into oncoming traffic... well the blowback would be fierce. Irrational yes, but fierce.
Here, even a casual headline-only observer would readily see this as either the death of a thief, or of a reckless unbuckled driver and has little to say about the car's safety. And the novelty of the "first" is used up, for the inevitable second incident. That takes the steam out of that story and materially de-risks the stock. Now it has to be a numbers game and on a per-mile basis Model S' are still quite safe.
But people, this is a (morbidly) positive thing if your concern is the stock and the viability of the company. I have had restless nights wondering how the first death would affect the stock. (I listed it many times as the #1 negative catalyst waiting in the wings). If it had been a photogenic mother of 4 young children, belted in, who happened to get distracted and weave into oncoming traffic... well the blowback would be fierce. Irrational yes, but fierce.
Here, even a casual headline-only observer would readily see this as either the death of a thief, or of a reckless unbuckled driver and has little to say about the car's safety. And the novelty of the "first" is used up, for the inevitable second incident. That takes the steam out of that story and materially de-risks the stock. Now it has to be a numbers game and on a per-mile basis Model S' are still quite safe.