SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At least one national insurer, AAA, is raising rates on Tesla vehicles based on data showing that the Model S and Model X had abnormally high claim frequencies and high costs of insurance claims compared with other cars in the same classes.
AAA said premiums for Tesla vehicles could go up 30 percent based on data from the Highway Loss Data Institute and other sources.
Tesla is disputing the analysis.
"This analysis is severely flawed and is not reflective of reality," the electric-vehicle maker said in a statement emailed to Automotive News. "Among other things, it compares Model S and X to cars that are not remotely peers, including even a Volvo station wagon."
Anthony Ptasznik, chief actuary of AAA, said the group noticed the anomaly in company data and then investigated other data sources, primarily relying on the Highway Loss Data Institute because of its scope, to confirm its analysis. "Looking at a much broader set of countrywide data, we saw the same patterns observed in our own data, and that gave us the confidence to change rates," he said.
Other large insurance companies, including State Farm and Geico, said that claims data is a major factor in calculating premiums, but would not disclose if their Tesla-owning customers would also see rates rise.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
To be fair, I wasn't just responding to your initial post, but more directly to another parent post below yours that WOULD require some sort of collusion among insurance companies to work. Yes, in the process of replying there, I also made some comments you have related to your post, but I agree that your particular theory doesn't necessarily require that scale of collusion.
On the other hand, it DOES still require more than a NY Times reporter making a few circles in a car during a sort of "product review." Here, you have the AAA chief actuary going on the record saying effectively, "I've crunched the numbers, and these are costing us more to insure." Actuaries are a heavy regulated profession with professional organizations that regulate qualifications and professional behavior. A reporter who skips out on some details in a review might have his reporting labeled as unfair; an actuary who knowingly disseminates a false actuarial opinion could face sanctions that end his career.
Finally, even your claims about the NY Times seem a bit exaggerated, based on your OWN link from Forbes. The Forbes story actually notes at its end that the review was primarily targeted at the Supercharger network, not the Tesla Model S. And the supposed "telemetry" issues that you claim to be "lies" apparently had to do with (1) a 2-mile detour, and (2) circling a bit to find an unlighted charging station at night. The reporter in question responded to Musk's criticism and admits that if he did such a test again, he likely would have plugged in the car for an overnight charge, but he didn't think it was necessary given the car's reputation AND was assured by Tesla that he should be fine even after the charge dropped overnight. Moreover, again as your Forbes link notes, the reporter was trying to evaluate the PRACTICALITY and ease of use for the Supercharger network.
If you have something more than your Forbes account to confirm your "lies," by all means offer it. But from a neutral perspective (I don't care much about Tesla one way or the other), it looks like a reporter who perhaps was slightly less careful in some of decisions than Tesla owners might be, but your assertions for deliberate sabotage aren't supported even in your own link.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:20PM
I've done some of your work for you, since I'm legitimately curious about this story (which I guess I missed when it happened years ago).
Here's Musk's account [tesla.com] and criticisms, including lots of graphs.
Here's a point-by-point rebuttal [nytimes.com] by the reporter, including explanations that he was advised by Tesla personnel to do certain things that Musk then criticized him for.
And here's a Times editor [nytimes.com] commenting on what happened, along with an extended quote from a reader's reaction.
And the tow truck driver [jalopnik.com], who didn't seem to think the Times reporter was "faking" an incident.
And yes, other Tesla owners could make the trip [greencarreports.com], though they didn't recreate the cold night, and it wasn't without incident. (One car wouldn't accept a full charge at a Delaware station, which then caused other cars to be unable to charge properly there, which required calls to Tesla support and pushing new software to fix it.)
Sounds like a bad story, a reporter that was perhaps careless, and a bunch of nonsense dithering with Musk over driving stats. Imprecision in reporting, coupled with an overreaction by Musk that apparently fails to acknowledge most of the reporter's behavior was sanctioned by Tesla. Unless you want to claim that the calls made to Tesla about his drive, during his tow, etc. never happened either.