Crash Report Florida Form

Getting “caught putting out bogus statistics” implies some sort of nefarious action to provide a specific narrative.There is absolutely ZERO evidence this happened, and no one of any authority has claimed there was anything nefarious about it.The NHTSA made an easy-to-make, if not fairly elementary, error in their analysis. And then this extremely preliminary analysis was taken by other parties (including Tesla) to mean more than it was ever supposed to.Their original analysis was never to determine the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of Autopilot. But only to see if there were gross differences between cars before and after Autopilot was installed to determine whether further studies were warranted. It was clearly an extremely high-level analysis (more of a ‘glance’ really) of two samples with all sorts of co-mingled variables that the NHTSA never made an effort to remove because it wasn’t the point of what they were doing at the time.After Tesla began claiming the NHTSA’s initial analysis said more than it was ever intended to make claim to, the NHTSA issued a statement (over a year ago now) that those results were, in fact, preliminary and did not demonstrate the results that Tesla was claiming it did.Should the NHTSA’s initial study have the errors it did? No, but people make mistakes and this was one that even experienced data scientists make on occasion. And that’s assuming there even was one at all, and the intent wasn’t to compare the groups that were compared as they were (which I find unlikely).Did they walk it back as soon as Tesla started being widely quoted in the media (after they had a fatality) with their “study results”? Yes. Which is not what someone does who is putting out “bogus statistics” with some intent to mislead people.Someone there messed up and hoped someone wouldn’t notice. Once it got out that Tesla was using this study in the media, the NHTSA walked it back. Perhaps not as forcefully as they could/should have. But they did walk it back. Nearly a year before this guy “caught” them.

I believe conducting crash tests does not need any “random testing” because the crash outcome is not random but certain.Random testing is instead useful to perform tests where the outcomes are not certain or researchers are not sure. This is especially true for testing out new drugs or technology where the outcomes are uncertain/random.Good luck.

There really is no way to definitively answer this question, because unless there were expert witnesses, or the police clocked the rider, the only person who knows how fast he was going is dead. Because of this, only a small portion of the rider’s speeds are known with certainty.However, it’s pretty well validated that approximately 70% of fatal crashes involve rider error of some type, which would include speeding.

Probably just the opposite.Such voyeurs would want to see blood, broken limbs, crushed people. Perhaps a sign saying, “Drive slower than 30 mph past this accident and the spraying arm on this farmer's tractor next to the accident will coat your car with sticky manure.”These plonkers are just a waste of space and not open to reason or common decency.