The differences in accident rates by brand aren't that great. Generally, the typical driver had an accident every 4 years. A Tesla driver had an accident every 3+ years.
Also, I assume that these accident rates are based on cause. If they didn't take into account whether a driver was at fault, they have less credibility.
No not cause! These are sourced from applicants for LendingTree and are 100% taken from driver records used to assess their risk levels. While causality is usually not reported, that, by definition, preselected for poor risk because vanishingly few excellent risks would solicit coverage/loans for Tesla, Ram or Subaru from such a source. I include their next two ‘bad risks’ brands because neither of the others fits that category either unless their drivers have trouble getting credit and insurance from better sources..such as even captives.
The problem here with evaluating this stuff is as it is elsewhere. Very few people actually read the source fo the data used for such 'analyses' as these. LendingTree did disclose the data source, just did so in fien print. next the PR folks made the most click-attracting headlines they could and presented the data in the most provocative way they could to enhance the LendingTree PR image. It is nearly always thus.
Here is the LendingTree source, written right in their first paragraph:
"...Our latest analysis uses QuoteWizard by LendingTree insurance quote data to determine which car brands have the worst drivers. We’ll also break down which brands have the drivers most responsible for accidents, DUIs and other incidents..."
Several people have posted speculations here, but none seem to have taken the rouble to actually look at the source, right there, as I said, in the first paragraph. Regardless of their obvious manipulation they factually did not deceive because they disclosed the source. Now, to explain the source for those who haven't seen it. "QuoteWizard" is an online insurance quoting company:
Learn more about QuoteWizard, one of the largest independent, privately-held insurance lead providers in the United States
quotewizard.com
As clearly disclosed in not-so-bold print, LendingTree acquired the company which now operates as a semi-independent entity. The primary customer base remains people who seek coverage for insurance from an online semi-anonymous source.
Earlier I made the assertion that this practice produces negative selection which results from the essentially anonymous application destination. It is relevant to point out that online applications for known high quality insurance companies (Chubb, Progressive, etc) in most countries are not subject to negative selection, but do usually carefully evaluate risk, especially for expensive and/or exotic vehicles. (years ago I had a Ferrari 308 insured in London more cheaply than my neighbors Golf. Why? I had twenty years no-claim with a succession of high performance vehicles and he had had multiple accidents and violations within the last three years.)
That, seemingly off-topic simply shows that excellent risks almost always have preferred rates from existing insurance sources. People who shop in anonymous online sources, such as 'QuoteWizard", tend to be unestablished elsewhere and/or rejected elsewhere.
In their disclosures the LendingTree driver sources were only applications received online, and the subsequent driving record extracts. There was exactly zero indication about actual coverage experience, simply applicants driving history.
Choosing only applicants as a purported data source is useful to LendingTree but means precisely nothing about the universe of drivers for any given brand. For ones such as Tesla and Subaru, specifically, there is substantial longitudinal data publicly available for securitized portfolio data, with collision rates accounting for the majority of collateral substitution, and less significantly, credit losses. Anyone really wanting to know more about that can look at Fuji Heavy Industries (i.e. Subaru), Tesla Credit or others. Hint: you'll find very, very low collateral substitution rates, which correlates highly with collision damage losses.
Things such as this and the Tesla 'recalls' do attract negative attention. Very, very rarely does anyone actually examine the facts, and headlines take care of the requisite prejudice.
In this thread we would be far better off were the avid posters to spend more time examining what they're about to say than just blurting out the first thing that comes to mind. Were that I could always take my own advice./
