That list is garbage: it includes Tesla Megapacks (energy storage, not car), multi-car crashes where any car catches fire, a car carrier carrying Teslas catching fire, etc.

Did you have any actual statistics to back up your assertion?

  Vehicle Model   | Total Units | Fire Fatalities |Fatality Rate (per 100k)
  Tesla Cybertruck|      34,438 |               5 |        14.52
  Ford Pinto      |   3,173,491 |              27 |         0.85

https://fuelarc.com/evs/its-official-the-cybertruck-is-more-...

Like the parent comment says, this is garbage. For the cybertruck it includes all fatalities (3 in a high speed crash that caught on fire, 1 in a different crash, 1 in the recent car bomb outside Trump's tower). For the pinto they only count the 27 deaths the NHTSA identified as being caused by the design flaw that led to catching fire from low speed collisions.

A meaningful comparison would say that the Pinto could catch fire as a result of a low speed collision and the cybertruck apparently does not.

tbh, despite the rap the Pinto gets it really was just as dangerous as the rest of the vehicles on the road [1].

Of course, a gas can with a spear pointed at it isn't a great design. But the rest of the cars were also dangerous as well.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Retrospective_safet...

if you keep dismissing the data, maybe you can provide some data

The people involved are clearly trying hard to make the cybertruck look bad. If there was real data, I assume they'd present it. The fact they choose to produce these crude distortions instead implies to me there is not real data that makes the cybertruck look bad.

The data is right there. You're welcome to do your own analysis rather than ask other people to do it for you.

I'm not sure what your point is - as I've already mentioned this comparison is between all cybertruck deaths, none of which were low speed collisions resulting in a fire, and the deaths that the NHTSA review identified as caused by fires from low speed collisions caused by the design flaw in the Pinto.

I know that neither you nor the other commenters nor the person who made that website needs anyone to explain to you why this comparison is invalid. It is such a facile comparison that to describe it is to explain why it's invalid.

So, again, I'm confused as to the point of your comment.

My point is the data is right there and you can do your own analysis to make the comparison. Do you not know the difference between data and analysis?

I'm confused as to the level of your incompetence.