Photo: NTSB
Show up at a Ford meeting and tell them that the Mustang is the car with the lowest survival rate, and you're gonna be banned for life from stepping there again. Also, writing things that Tesla fans don't want to hear will drive them mad and have them call you names.
It is absurd to say that a car junkie hates a car. I still remember the thrill of riding shotgun in a Tesla Roadster more than a decade ago. I admired the combination of the Lotus Elise's nimble chassis and the electric motor's instant torque. That model sparked the electric car revolution and deserves all credit. Just like the Prius is the epitome of the hybrid revolution, so hats off to that, too.
Come 2022, see what's happening with the world's biggest EV-maker. There are lawsuits against Tesla for various reasons. Some of them were already lost by Musk's company, and Tesla had to pay for them. In Germany, they had to buy back some vehicles. Moreover, several deaths have been confirmed in the U.S. due to Tesla cars.
You might say that users were to blame, I know. But then, why didn't Mercedes-Benz record any deaths blamed on the customers' misuse of their driving aids? Why not other carmakers? Why not Ford? I'll tell you why: these carmakers, with over 100 years of experience, already know that having a person die in a vehicle is the worst-case scenario. Only Ford's bean counters considered that paying for Pinto deaths would be cheaper than fixing the cars, and its reputation went down the drain.
So, back to Tesla. We have some astonishing vehicles with that logo. Besides being drag-strip kings in front of countless muscle cars and supersports, the Model S, 3, X, and Y are so cost-effective that most people don't care about problems.
If a car is studied well and assembled wrong, then the end result is a bad car. If you give people a car that allegedly drives itself, they will let it drive itself. Other carmakers did the same, but made it clear that it's not good to do that. In addition, they even installed sensors to force drivers stay alert. Of course, some people find some ways to avoid that. But then, it's their full responsibility. If you trick the car, it's on you.
But if the vehicle tricks you, then who's to blame? Tesla could have avoided that. But no, Musk said that LiDar is terrible, and we should rely solely on cameras and ultrasonic sensors. Well, tell that to those emergency vehicle drivers hit by Teslas.
After a while, we found out that Tesla started installing experimental equipment in its vehicles, and their owners didn't know anything about that. It's kind of like buying an Advil and not knowing it's something else. Would that be right? I guess not. So why would it be suitable for vehicles? As it has already been proved, a car can kill more than one person at once.
If Tesla is so advanced, why didn't it install breathalyzers in their cars' ventilation systems to stop the vehicles and prevent a drunk driver from skidding off the road? Why didn't they install sensors to "see" if the driver was taking a nap at the wheel from the beginning? Because Tesla didn't care about that. It's a way of saying, "the driver is solely responsible."
But blaming the driver doesn't make you a safer carmaker. First, you have to protect your customers. Then, if they make their own mistakes, they'll probably understand that it was their fault, and the car's merit was to save their lives.
Some of you have already accused us of being against Tesla, and that's not true. For instance, I can't hate a car. I might dislike a producer or a CEO, but not a vehicle. As a result, as long as Tesla continues to build cars without really caring about their drivers, to protect them against their own mistakes, you'll see more articles against Tesla cars all over the place. And we're not doing that because we hate Tesla or Musk. But if nobody raises a red flag about Tesla's problems, we'll end up being crushed by a badly assembled Cybertruck with a drunk or asleep driver behind the wheel.
Come 2022, see what's happening with the world's biggest EV-maker. There are lawsuits against Tesla for various reasons. Some of them were already lost by Musk's company, and Tesla had to pay for them. In Germany, they had to buy back some vehicles. Moreover, several deaths have been confirmed in the U.S. due to Tesla cars.
You might say that users were to blame, I know. But then, why didn't Mercedes-Benz record any deaths blamed on the customers' misuse of their driving aids? Why not other carmakers? Why not Ford? I'll tell you why: these carmakers, with over 100 years of experience, already know that having a person die in a vehicle is the worst-case scenario. Only Ford's bean counters considered that paying for Pinto deaths would be cheaper than fixing the cars, and its reputation went down the drain.
So, back to Tesla. We have some astonishing vehicles with that logo. Besides being drag-strip kings in front of countless muscle cars and supersports, the Model S, 3, X, and Y are so cost-effective that most people don't care about problems.
If a car is studied well and assembled wrong, then the end result is a bad car. If you give people a car that allegedly drives itself, they will let it drive itself. Other carmakers did the same, but made it clear that it's not good to do that. In addition, they even installed sensors to force drivers stay alert. Of course, some people find some ways to avoid that. But then, it's their full responsibility. If you trick the car, it's on you.
But if the vehicle tricks you, then who's to blame? Tesla could have avoided that. But no, Musk said that LiDar is terrible, and we should rely solely on cameras and ultrasonic sensors. Well, tell that to those emergency vehicle drivers hit by Teslas.
After a while, we found out that Tesla started installing experimental equipment in its vehicles, and their owners didn't know anything about that. It's kind of like buying an Advil and not knowing it's something else. Would that be right? I guess not. So why would it be suitable for vehicles? As it has already been proved, a car can kill more than one person at once.
If Tesla is so advanced, why didn't it install breathalyzers in their cars' ventilation systems to stop the vehicles and prevent a drunk driver from skidding off the road? Why didn't they install sensors to "see" if the driver was taking a nap at the wheel from the beginning? Because Tesla didn't care about that. It's a way of saying, "the driver is solely responsible."
But blaming the driver doesn't make you a safer carmaker. First, you have to protect your customers. Then, if they make their own mistakes, they'll probably understand that it was their fault, and the car's merit was to save their lives.
Some of you have already accused us of being against Tesla, and that's not true. For instance, I can't hate a car. I might dislike a producer or a CEO, but not a vehicle. As a result, as long as Tesla continues to build cars without really caring about their drivers, to protect them against their own mistakes, you'll see more articles against Tesla cars all over the place. And we're not doing that because we hate Tesla or Musk. But if nobody raises a red flag about Tesla's problems, we'll end up being crushed by a badly assembled Cybertruck with a drunk or asleep driver behind the wheel.
Google News