[RipSawyer]

“...at roughly 1 in 8,000 vehicles, are five times lower than those of an average gasoline car,”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Can’t take people seriously when they use mathematical absurditites like five times lower. Just when did we reach the point that college graduates feel compelled to speak in such ridiculous language that what they say literally has no discernible meaning so that you have to try to figure out what they are trying to say? Then when you call them on it they have the audacity to say that, “Everyone else knows what I mean.” Wouldn’t it be easier for them to just say what they mean rather than making up such stupid expressions as five times lower?

[LogicDesigner]

"Model S vehicles ... for an average of one fire per at least 6,333 cars, compared to the rate for gasoline vehicles of one fire per 1,350 cars."

Doing the math it comes out to about 4.7 times lower, so I guess he rounded.

[GeronL]

I hope the comparison of car fires is actually comparing vehicles that are in some way comparable?

A new series of electric car against 30 year old rust buckets is not a real comparison. This is the reason I don’t take stats seriously.

[houeto]

Can’t take people seriously when they use mathematical absurditites like five times lower.

Look nitpicker, the poster said “...at roughly 1 in 8,000 vehicles, are five times lower than those of an average gasoline car,”

It was simply a misprint. The poster meant to say that roughly 1 in 40,000 vehicles that have not yet been produced are five times lower than those of an average gasoline car.

I don't normally confuse myself, but when I do, I do a splendid job!