Secondly, Tesla themselves makes it clear that their self-driving can't be relied upon to driver the car unsupervised - the driver has to be paying attention at all times in case the Tesla self-driving code decides to do something catastrophically stupid. Hence the same factors that correlate with driver attentiveness in the ordinary population will also affect the Tesla population. Wealth correlates with health correlates with better reaction times & general fitness.
The Tesla autopilot tends to turn itself off precisely in situations where driving is difficult and complex - which in turn implies that these human factors will remain just as important as they are in the general driving population.
(Of course it may simply be that the reason wealthy people have a lower death rate on the roads per mile is that they can afford cars that are safer in crashes; the above is my supposition, not evidentially backed.)
I agree with your general point, but you can't just join up 2 correlations like that, that isn't always going to work when there are other confounding factors (and there always are). Wealth also correlates with age which anticorrelates with reaction times and general fitness.
And not all markets are equally competitive. Just because insurance rates differ doesn't mean risks necessarily do the same way. And let's not forget that while insurers are professional risk assessors that doesn't mean they're infallible either, or immune to other distortions (e.g. pass-the-buck subprime mortgage kind of issues).
But at some point between wealthy and rich the person hires a (non-wealthy) driver and now they're back to square one.
All other factors taken into account, driving has become much, much safer in recent years, and is now safer than it ever was. When you start to use technology to eliminate driver errors in that self-same error-prone cohort, there's no reason to think that the safety dividend won't be even more pronounced than it is today.
If you want to link crash rates to wealth, you would also have to account for countries like Germany, that has a similar median wealth figure to the US, but a vastly lower motorway death rate [1]
It seems you can't both say 1) Tesla drivers are less likely to have accidents because they are wealthy and error-prone, and 2) Extending self-driving technology that eliminates basic errors to less-wealthy and/or more error-prone drivers won't have a net benefit on driver safety.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584401...
Clearly /if/ Tesla self-driving code is safer than the average driver then extending that to the general driving population would be a net good. But if the apparent safety is an artefact of the statistics due to Tesla cars themselves being intrinsically safer just as practically every other modern vehicle is a safer car than one built 20 years ago then extending self-driving to every vehicle might not be a net safety benefit
Likewise, if the driver cohort is different (and we know that it is different) from the general population & that cohort is required to drive the vehicle precisely at the times that the self-driving code can't cope which are probably the times when driving places the most demand on the driver, then that different in driver cohort matters: the statistical difference in death rates could easily be a result of differences in driver populations.
You can't tell from the data as given & the fact that Tesla keeps repeating the aggregate figures in their PR is suspicious frankly.
(NB. that paper you link simply underlines my point - In both countries, the lowest wealth quartile has a vastly greater death rate on the roads than the rest of the population. It doesn't matter whether Germany is worse or better than the US. If Tesla draws disproportionately from higher income deciles, then we should a priori expect them to have a far lower death rate than the mean. Quoting the mean as a benchmark to compare the Tesla death rate against is outright misleading.)
People who buy a super expensive car have more to lose than some dude in a 10 year old hoopty.
Maintenance standards vary. We can presume that big brother Tesla maintained the car as they would have castigated the driver for not doing so. They are also the only game in town.
All sorts of constraints are correlated with wealth that put you in way more risky situations if you're poorer.
It's not exactly controversial to claim that lower income correlates to crime though.
DUI is a tough one, people of all socioeconomic backgrounds like to get drunk, and people of all socioeconomic backgrounds like to drive. Off the cuff, I might guess that the numbers would show DUI to be the most egalitarian crime, actually.
We do? Is there a cite for that? It seems to me that driver of new luxury vehicles are disproportionately aggressive and unsafe, actually. Has this been studied?
If your going to make an argument for bad statistics, you need to practice good science yourself.
This seems intuitively that it would be true, but are there any stats on car age and accident frequency? Also where is the line on old? Vehicles made in the last 5-10 years will share most safety features, with all but a small minority of newer cars having some cutting edge. I'll admit I had been thinking of fleet age from the state of maintenance, but safety feature is a fascinating angle as well.. And the article you link in another comment was a fascinating read too, thanks!
Then there is the actual design of the vehicles, cars that were made in the last couple of years fare much better in collisions with cars that are older because they are a lot stronger, and are better able to channel the energy of an impact to areas away from the passengers. Many newer vehicles will for instance shift the engine under the passenger compartment in a frontal impact.
Older airbags had 'best before' dates associated with the igniters being somewhat unstable and that reduced the certainty of them going off as they got older.
Then, finally, the bodies themselves, once cars start to rust you can patch them up but they won't be the same afterwards. There is quite a bit of redundancy in the body but it definitely doesn't help if there is significant corrosion.
In fact I personally doubt (i.e. I have no evidence and am not actually making this argument because it would be "bad statistics") this is true if you compare Tesla's to the BMWs being sold into the same demographic. Those "safe new vehicles" you're positing include a whole lot of crossovers and minivans driven in much safer ways.
It doesn't. But autopilot is only supposed to be used on the highway. Not in New York City. Not on dirt roads. On the highway. That's the easiest place to make a system like that work - adaptive cruise control and a simple lane follower go a long way there (I hope Tesla has something a lot more advanced than that). To compare stats on their limited use autopilot to the whole country is truly disingenuous.
One important nit: it isn't self driving. It's sometimes self driving.
About cohorts: how about this: young (thus inexperienced and more careless) drivers generally can't afford Teslas. So yes, wealth is an indicator for how accident prone someone might be.
You're going to have to explain to me how the wealth of a driver has any bearing on their ability to pilot a self-driving car.