In the past when it turned out that turned off unoccupied BMWs were spontaneously combusting around the world in parking lots and gas stations (Fords too) and facing injunctions in various countries like South Korea we got a bunch of bs FUD on Tesla's supposedly catching fire. Curiously the same media pushing the Tesla FUD did not cover BMW's or Fords actual as opposed to manufactured problems, instead of cover competitors problems they told lies about Tesla. Who do we think was behind that? This new line of FUD about sudden unintended acceleration in Tesla vehicles looks like more of the same. Toyota in the not so distant past was burned by a cover up (had to pay 1.2 billion to avoid criminal prosecution- how is that possible?) and Toyota has had literally hundreds of settlement since (where is the total recall for Toyota?)
But is this actually a BMW/Toyota/Ford issue? Paint your opponents comparative strength as a weakness is a tactic out of WWII press manuals. We know quality has become an issue for BMW in recent years but is safety also such an issue (?), are they having the problem Lexus did and involved in another Diesel Gate type cover up? They two were caught lying their customers and regulators on diesel emissions. Which makes me wonder especially given recent comments by Their R&D head why anyone would buy one an electric from them.
There is actually software to prevent this exact situation when it is caused by the driver. Is the FUD attempting to imply a hacking or something malicious and a cover up, or is this just more BMW et al attempting to hide its issues by projecting its issues onto to is primary competitor to cause conflation and cover? Just do a simple search for BMW sudden unintended acceleration- its quite illuminating. BMW is apparently having this issue.
Teslas are the safest cars on the road. New articles showing Teslas are 4x safer just by themselves and another 6x safer with autopilot or about 9-10x safer in general. And Tesla is confident enough to self insure and save you a chunk of money in the process. You can imagine who wouldn't like those stats, all the competition, the insurance industry and the fossil fuel industry. We know who wants to besmirch that reputation. But you can also imagine who likes those stats, a group including close to million Tesla owners. Do we think that Tesla which self-insures would pass along such costs to itself and not fix the issue? Do we imagine a company in first place on safety hyper focused on safety constantly innovating and improving in the field of safety would not address such a flaw and not change it across 3 from the ground up different vehicles across an already large number of iterative and constant stream of improvements of each and across countless improvements over the air to existing vehicles? Do we think it would be more than an over the air update to fix if an issue did exist- do we think it would be an actual recall? Do we think Tesla would miss this given how much attention there as been on this since Toyota. Do we think Tesla's systems wouldn't capture what happened for defense in investigations and in court cases.
If we do some research, Toyota and Ford seem to be the companies most associated historically associated with this problem. But do a simple search and its clear its BMW too. BMW was historically associated with an emission cover up but has somehow evaded VW's fate on that, so is BMW getting heat now on sudden unintended acceleration?
Now lets say there was a problem with a Tesla. What would be done, are we going to take the cars away from 1 million more affluent owners who think rightly that their vehicles are objectively safer, often an order of magnitude objectively safer? That's what the FUD was trying to imply. What do we think the overreach was about? Think also about the crud rags that have been trying to put it forward (Ars Technical is pure garbage that will print anything someone pays it to especially if is on the wrong side of the truth) Don't we believe Tesla with radically better statistics wouldn't have simply wiped out any issue with an over the air update? Again, do we believe that any issue even across 3 from the ground up vehicles and countless iterations and over the air updates would have persisted unaddressed? But lets say there was an issue- over the air update- fixed instantly!!!
No, I believe this is bs and if we could see who pushed this out to the media and filed the complaint it will be a competitor like BMW or people dumb enough and corrupt enough to continue to hold fossil fuel investments and the corrupted gambling addicted insurance industry that through interlocking boards helps socialize the fossil fuel industries endless losses and bail-outs. Also shorts desperate for relief from their short burn of the century. Where is the FBI? Shouldn't they be looking at the NHSTA for being complicit in what are likely to be frivolous claims filed by competitors in order to maliciously damage an effective competitor's stock, good will and market standing? Maybe they should be looking at those competitors? If the competition is under investigation where is the media coverage of that? Is the NHSTA complicit in stock price manipulation schemes to provide relief for terminally stupid shorts and if so how long can this go on without scrutiny and consequence?
Another irony would be that just this year the NHSTA opted not to adopt a rule that would have required safety systems to prevent sudden unintended acceleration by overriding the throttle when the brake was depressed. But the same NHSTA is considering recalling all cars by the safest maker? And why did the NHSTA not choose to adopt a rule that would require safe guards to prevent the issue? Supposedly because 100% of makers already had systems in all new cars that provided that functionality- that was its claim. But closer to the truth was it would have to provide a testable standard and do testing- what would that have done to BMW/Toyota/Ford's existing issues? Would they need to scrutinize source code to do that? But maybe its an issue for BMW (since Tesla is being blamed and that's been the pattern) and now an issue for NHSTA? Strange? Regardless, the safety overide has been a feature for all vehicles now possibly for a while. And Tesla goes further in overriding as I understand it by making sure sudden throttle inputs don't cause a collision by for instance seeing if there objects immediately in front of the car.
But is this actually a BMW/Toyota/Ford issue? Paint your opponents comparative strength as a weakness is a tactic out of WWII press manuals. We know quality has become an issue for BMW in recent years but is safety also such an issue (?), are they having the problem Lexus did and involved in another Diesel Gate type cover up? They two were caught lying their customers and regulators on diesel emissions. Which makes me wonder especially given recent comments by Their R&D head why anyone would buy one an electric from them.
There is actually software to prevent this exact situation when it is caused by the driver. Is the FUD attempting to imply a hacking or something malicious and a cover up, or is this just more BMW et al attempting to hide its issues by projecting its issues onto to is primary competitor to cause conflation and cover? Just do a simple search for BMW sudden unintended acceleration- its quite illuminating. BMW is apparently having this issue.
Teslas are the safest cars on the road. New articles showing Teslas are 4x safer just by themselves and another 6x safer with autopilot or about 9-10x safer in general. And Tesla is confident enough to self insure and save you a chunk of money in the process. You can imagine who wouldn't like those stats, all the competition, the insurance industry and the fossil fuel industry. We know who wants to besmirch that reputation. But you can also imagine who likes those stats, a group including close to million Tesla owners. Do we think that Tesla which self-insures would pass along such costs to itself and not fix the issue? Do we imagine a company in first place on safety hyper focused on safety constantly innovating and improving in the field of safety would not address such a flaw and not change it across 3 from the ground up different vehicles across an already large number of iterative and constant stream of improvements of each and across countless improvements over the air to existing vehicles? Do we think it would be more than an over the air update to fix if an issue did exist- do we think it would be an actual recall? Do we think Tesla would miss this given how much attention there as been on this since Toyota. Do we think Tesla's systems wouldn't capture what happened for defense in investigations and in court cases.
If we do some research, Toyota and Ford seem to be the companies most associated historically associated with this problem. But do a simple search and its clear its BMW too. BMW was historically associated with an emission cover up but has somehow evaded VW's fate on that, so is BMW getting heat now on sudden unintended acceleration?
Now lets say there was a problem with a Tesla. What would be done, are we going to take the cars away from 1 million more affluent owners who think rightly that their vehicles are objectively safer, often an order of magnitude objectively safer? That's what the FUD was trying to imply. What do we think the overreach was about? Think also about the crud rags that have been trying to put it forward (Ars Technical is pure garbage that will print anything someone pays it to especially if is on the wrong side of the truth) Don't we believe Tesla with radically better statistics wouldn't have simply wiped out any issue with an over the air update? Again, do we believe that any issue even across 3 from the ground up vehicles and countless iterations and over the air updates would have persisted unaddressed? But lets say there was an issue- over the air update- fixed instantly!!!
No, I believe this is bs and if we could see who pushed this out to the media and filed the complaint it will be a competitor like BMW or people dumb enough and corrupt enough to continue to hold fossil fuel investments and the corrupted gambling addicted insurance industry that through interlocking boards helps socialize the fossil fuel industries endless losses and bail-outs. Also shorts desperate for relief from their short burn of the century. Where is the FBI? Shouldn't they be looking at the NHSTA for being complicit in what are likely to be frivolous claims filed by competitors in order to maliciously damage an effective competitor's stock, good will and market standing? Maybe they should be looking at those competitors? If the competition is under investigation where is the media coverage of that? Is the NHSTA complicit in stock price manipulation schemes to provide relief for terminally stupid shorts and if so how long can this go on without scrutiny and consequence?
Another irony would be that just this year the NHSTA opted not to adopt a rule that would have required safety systems to prevent sudden unintended acceleration by overriding the throttle when the brake was depressed. But the same NHSTA is considering recalling all cars by the safest maker? And why did the NHSTA not choose to adopt a rule that would require safe guards to prevent the issue? Supposedly because 100% of makers already had systems in all new cars that provided that functionality- that was its claim. But closer to the truth was it would have to provide a testable standard and do testing- what would that have done to BMW/Toyota/Ford's existing issues? Would they need to scrutinize source code to do that? But maybe its an issue for BMW (since Tesla is being blamed and that's been the pattern) and now an issue for NHSTA? Strange? Regardless, the safety overide has been a feature for all vehicles now possibly for a while. And Tesla goes further in overriding as I understand it by making sure sudden throttle inputs don't cause a collision by for instance seeing if there objects immediately in front of the car.