Some trouble for Tesla

[skyguyscott]

Article reporting U.S. government investigating Tesla's autopilot, implicated in a number of accidents:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...ystem-rcna1681

A couple of observations:

It has never seemed to me that Tesla's so-called "autopilot" was ready for prime time.

Tesla seems to want it both ways; claiming the capability of autonomous driving yet warning drivers to always be ready to intervene.

Any automatic system has it's limits, critical failure points, and how it responds to those failures, but most pointedly, almost all are designed by engineers who by nature think systematically, and who almost hilariously, universally fail to understand fundamental human nature and it's unpredictability. Or, as has been said, "Anyone who designs a "fool proof" system has never meet a creative and sufficiently motivated fool" There are documented cases of real humans thinking cruise control was autonomous driving; now fingerless humans who ingeniously tried to use their lawn mowers as hedge trimmers, and uncounted other such cases.

GM subsidiary Delphi engineers were working on autonomous vehicles decades ago, but the thinking at the time was that GM would never field such a vehicle, not because of the technical limits, but because of the legal liability when some idiot got himself or others killed misusing the technology.

I must say I am surprised it took this long for some agency to start poking around at Tesla's system, and was very surprised this and other systems like Google's have been afforded such liability shielding for this long, given the nature of our litigious society.

[ROBERT CROSS]

Maybe it's the owners who have larger money pockets than brain pockets.🥴

Bob
🇺🇸

[mikeinca]

I read about this earlier and am not surprised. I've never believed Tesla's claims on this feature. Personally, I can't imagine ever trusting any driving aid that suggests t's autonomous and even remotely implies that I can remove my eyes from the road or hands from the wheel.

Adaptive cruise control is as far as I'm willing to go in this area and even then one should always be alert and ready to intervene if necessary.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

It has never seemed to me that Tesla's so-called "autopilot" was ready for prime time.

Tesla seems to want it both ways; claiming the capability of autonomous driving yet warning drivers to always be ready to intervene.

Any automatic system has it's limits, critical failure points, and how it responds to those failures, but most pointedly, almost all are designed by engineers who by nature think systematically, and who almost hilariously, universally fail to understand fundamental human nature and it's unpredictability. Or, as has been said, "Anyone who designs a "fool proof" system has never meet a creative and sufficiently motivated fool" There are documented cases of real humans thinking cruise control was autonomous driving; now fingerless humans who ingeniously tried to use their lawn mowers as hedge trimmers, and uncounted other such cases.

GM subsidiary Delphi engineers were working on autonomous vehicles decades ago, but the thinking at the time was that GM would never field such a vehicle, not because of the technical limits, but because of the legal liability when some idiot got himself or others killed misusing the technology.

I must say I am surprised it took this long for some agency to start poking around at Tesla's system, and was very surprised this and other systems like Google's have been afforded such liability shielding for this long, given the nature of our litigious society.

You are focusing on the phrase “autopilot” as if it is a binary question, autonomous or not. Tesla’s Autopilot is simply a driver assistance feature. Autonomous driving has 6 levels. 0 is none. 1 is cruise control. 2 is active cruise control, and lane keeping. Tesla Autopilot is level 2. So is GM’s Super Cruise, which is available today despite your comments about liability.

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/

Fully autonomous driving is a ways away. But all of these systems should be evaluated on whether they result in fewer crashes, not on whether they have zero crashes. From the Q1 2021 Tesla safety report:

In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/vehiclesafetyreport

I use Tesla Autopilot features nearly every time I drive. I use the lane keeping feature on the highway, but not in the city. Wouldn’t be without it.

[jondrew55]

Tesla actually has a level 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v39JQZ_tyw

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

You are focusing on the phrase “autopilot” as if it is a binary question, autonomous or not. Tesla’s Autopilot is simply a driver assistance feature. Autonomous driving has 6 levels. 0 is none. 1 is cruise control. 2 is active cruise control, and lane keeping. Tesla Autopilot is level 2. So is GM’s Super Cruise, which is available today despite your comments about liability.

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/

Fully autonomous driving is a ways away. But all of these systems should be evaluated on whether they result in fewer crashes, not on whether they have zero crashes. From the Q1 2021 Tesla safety report:



https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/vehiclesafetyreport

I use Tesla Autopilot features nearly every time I drive. I use the lane keeping feature on the highway, but not in the city. Wouldn’t be without it.

Your responses are always thoughtful and well written and I appreciate and enjoy your perspective.

My main complaint with Tesla is their willingness to over sell. I think this is in their DNA because of a founder who never misses an opportunity to hype himself or his product.

For example, GM's autonomous driving feature is called SuperCruise. Porsche's is called Innodrive. But Tesla? Autopilot. When the average consumer thinks of the term autopilot, what do you think they envision? I'm fairly certain that for anyone not well versed, as you are, in the current levels and capabilities of autonomous driving that word conjures up the ability to let the vehicle take over near if not total control of driving functions. I guarantee that the people who have died playing video games or taking a nap at the wheel while travelling down the road using Tesla Autopilot believed that to be true.

Tesla has over promised and under delivered on autonomous driving. They have offered a "Full Self-Driving" (their description) feature for purchase at $10K or a monthly subscription for $199 when they must know that it is nowhere near capable of "full self driving". Yes, the small print indicates that the feature operates under "driver supervision" but the fact remains that when you advertise something as "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" it is bound to be misleading.

I have considerable appreciation for what Elon Musk and Tesla have done to jump start the much needed transition away from the ICE. But sometimes I think that he pushes right to the edge of the envelope, and not in a good way. My $0.02.

Cheers.

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Your responses are always thoughtful and well written and I appreciate and enjoy your perspective.

My main complaint with Tesla is their willingness to over sell. I think this is in their DNA because of a founder who never misses an opportunity to hype himself or his product.

For example, GM's autonomous driving feature is called SuperCruise. Porsche's is called Innodrive. But Tesla? Autopilot. When the average consumer thinks of the term autopilot, what do you think they envision? I'm fairly certain that for anyone not well versed, as you are, in the current levels and capabilities of autonomous driving that word conjures up the ability to let the vehicle take over near if not total control of driving functions. I guarantee that the people who have died playing video games or taking a nap at the wheel while travelling down the road using Tesla Autopilot believed that to be true.

Tesla has over promised and under delivered on autonomous driving. They have offered a "Full Self-Driving" (their description) feature for purchase at $10K or a monthly subscription for $199 when they must know that it is nowhere near capable of "full self driving". Yes, the small print indicates that the feature operates under "driver supervision" but the fact remains that when you advertise something as "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" it is bound to be misleading.

I have considerable appreciation for what Elon Musk and Tesla have done to jump start the much needed transition away from the ICE. But sometimes I think that he pushes right to the edge of the envelope, and not in a good way. My $0.02.

Cheers.

Tesla isn't the only one to keep an eye on.

And no requirements to even tell us about it.
How bout they try it on the railroad first

Bob
🇺🇸

Hey Airstream any bow wave from the driverless semi ?

“Now Mary Jane is legal, but I’m still illegal, nothings changed.”
“Cheech”

[skyguyscott]

Lots of good points here.

I agree that Elon and Tesla have a habit of over-optimistically promising the moon, then again, give them credit for shooting for it. Terms do matter. I worked for a few companies dealing with various computer-assisted technologies and the lawyers were always quick to excise any copy or description with words like "automatically" or "automatic," again because of liability and how it would sound to a jury in a civil suit, once someone inevitably got hurt. The sales people always wanted to imply easy automation, the lawyers never.

Autonomous driving systems will likely eventually happen, but I suspect there will be some ugly death and carnage on the way there, and thus I wonder if it will be an American company that produces it, or another company based in a country shielded from American law suits, that protects companies from the consequences of the use of their products and does not give such easy access of those harmed to compensation.

Tesla is perhaps too young to have have been sued as much or as often as more established players in the field, and has not hired as many lawyers yet.

I remain skeptical of such autonomous systems developed in sunny California or Texas and wonder crazy things like what happens when:

• the roads are icy
• a bug smacks into the sensor
• you drive into an area with little or no wifi or GPS signal
• you encounter a pothole of unknown depth
• the vehicle is damaged after driving over such pothole
• you encounter a situation where you have to either crash into oncoming traffic, swerve left and run over innocent pedestrians, or swerve right to go over a cliff.
• someone hacks into the car's CPU, or after an incomplete software update, or said update is buggy.

Let's just say experience has taught me not to trust the software, security, or testing of same from the "perfect" climate of southern CA where wifi is ubiquitous and always clear and strong and available.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Your responses are always thoughtful and well written and I appreciate and enjoy your perspective.

My main complaint with Tesla is their willingness to over sell. I think this is in their DNA because of a founder who never misses an opportunity to hype himself or his product.

For example, GM's autonomous driving feature is called SuperCruise. Porsche's is called Innodrive. But Tesla? Autopilot. When the average consumer thinks of the term autopilot, what do you think they envision? I'm fairly certain that for anyone not well versed, as you are, in the current levels and capabilities of autonomous driving that word conjures up the ability to let the vehicle take over near if not total control of driving functions. I guarantee that the people who have died playing video games or taking a nap at the wheel while travelling down the road using Tesla Autopilot believed that to be true.

Tesla has over promised and under delivered on autonomous driving. They have offered a "Full Self-Driving" (their description) feature for purchase at $10K or a monthly subscription for $199 when they must know that it is nowhere near capable of "full self driving". Yes, the small print indicates that the feature operates under "driver supervision" but the fact remains that when you advertise something as "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" it is bound to be misleading.

I have considerable appreciation for what Elon Musk and Tesla have done to jump start the much needed transition away from the ICE. But sometimes I think that he pushes right to the edge of the envelope, and not in a good way. My $0.02.

Cheers.

My Autopilot system requires that I keep my hands on the steering wheel and actually provide some movement/force at regular intervals, measured in seconds, to assure the vehicle that I am still paying attention. If I don’t do so then the system turns itself off. This safety feature isn’t hidden, there is a warning on the screen every time the feature is activated.

Now let’s consider the big 3 domestic manufacturers. They all make pickups. They all know the tongue weight and cargo limits of each vehicle. But they exaggerate ridiculously in their marketing materials, and I just picked this because it is one of the most oft discussed issues on this board. If the Big 3 were as honest as Tesla, they would have onboard scales, with payload readouts on the dash. Just as the off road mining trucks I sold in 2001 had. And if a pickup truck purchaser exceeded the safe limit, the truck would not go into gear. Now that would be honest.

There are idiots out there who are trying to trick Tesla’s safety interlocks. One way is to suspend a can of paint from a cord tied to the steering wheel. The system senses resistance to small course corrections. I am sure there are other schemes. I think they are the problem, not the system designer.

Note: I didn’t pay for “Full Self Driving”. Autopilot works for me.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

How bout they try it on the railroad first

We have had autonomous rail systems operating in my city, Vancouver, since 1985. They work very well.

As for the semi trucks, there will only be one bow wave, since they will be platooning. So there’s that.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

My Autopilot system requires that I keep my hands on the steering wheel and actually provide some movement/force at regular intervals, measured in seconds, to assure the vehicle that I am still paying attention. If I don’t do so then the system turns itself off. This safety feature isn’t hidden, there is a warning on the screen every time the feature is activated.

Now let’s consider the big 3 domestic manufacturers. They all make pickups. They all know the tongue weight and cargo limits of each vehicle. But they exaggerate ridiculously in their marketing materials, and I just picked this because it is one of the most oft discussed issues on this board. If the Big 3 were as honest as Tesla, they would have onboard scales, with payload readouts on the dash. Just as the off road mining trucks I sold in 2001 had. And if a pickup truck purchaser exceeded the safe limit, the truck would not go into gear. Now that would be honest.

There are idiots out there who are trying to trick Tesla’s safety interlocks. One way is to suspend a can of paint from a cord tied to the steering wheel. The system senses resistance to small course corrections. I am sure there are other schemes. I think they are the problem, not the system designer.

Note: I didn’t pay for “Full Self Driving”. Autopilot works for me.

There is one significant difference between the towing claims made by pickup manufacturers and Tesla's autonomous driving claims. While the big 3 could be more specific about the capabilities of their pickup's various trim levels, at least there ARE models of their product that can achieve the payload and tow ratings that they advertise. There is no version of "Autopilot" or "Full Self Driving" that either meets the average person's expectations of what a true autopilot feature is or can actually perform full self driving safely.

I'm glad you were smart enough not to pay $10K for a "Full Self Driving" feature that can't actually fully self drive. I'm not so sure that the response of someone like yourself is the best yardstick to measure whether the self driving claim was misleading or not in the first place to a less knowledgeable consumer.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

Lots of good points here.

I agree that Elon and Tesla have a habit of over-optimistically promising the moon, then again, give them credit for shooting for it. Terms do matter. I worked for a few companies dealing with various computer-assisted technologies and the lawyers were always quick to excise any copy or description with words like "automatically" or "automatic," again because of liability and how it would sound to a jury in a civil suit, once someone inevitably got hurt. The sales people always wanted to imply easy automation, the lawyers never.

Autonomous driving systems will likely eventually happen, but I suspect there will be some ugly death and carnage on the way there, and thus I wonder if it will be an American company that produces it, or another company based in a country shielded from American law suits, that protects companies from the consequences of the use of their products and does not give such easy access of those harmed to compensation.

Tesla is perhaps too young to have have been sued as much or as often as more established players in the field, and has not hired as many lawyers yet.

I remain skeptical of such autonomous systems developed in sunny California or Texas and wonder crazy things like what happens when:

• the roads are icy
• a bug smacks into the sensor
• you drive into an area with little or no wifi or GPS signal
• you encounter a pothole of unknown depth
• the vehicle is damaged after driving over such pothole
• you encounter a situation where you have to either crash into oncoming traffic, swerve left and run over innocent pedestrians, or swerve right to go over a cliff.
• someone hacks into the car's CPU, or after an incomplete software update, or said update is buggy.

Let's just say experience has taught me not to trust the software, security, or testing of same from the "perfect" climate of southern CA where wifi is ubiquitous and always clear and strong and available.

The legal issues will be interesting. If we assume that a single crash creates liability, that would stall development. But if we look at the crash statistics, maybe there should be class action suits against sellers of vehicles that aren’t as safe. At the very least, insurance rates would skyrocket for any vehicle that didn’t have those safety features. Note Tesla’s move into car insurance.

Many of the technical challenges you list can be addressed. For 20 years, my vehicles have alerted me when road ice could form, usually at 3C. My vehicle uses 8 cameras, although I suppose it could be a swarm of bugs. I get warnings when a camera is obstructed. No need for constant wifi or gps with vision based systems. Not sure on potholes and subsequent damage, but is that different than a non autonomous vehicle? The “no good option” scenario assumes that there were no opportunities for better choices to be made earlier on. Most crashes are the result of a series of decisions, not just one.

If I am in the left lane of a highway or major road, and someone is merging on, or turning left in front of me, I evaluate the risks and act accordingly, eg cover the brake pedal. My Autopilot will choose to brake more often than I would. Sometimes it can be annoying. I can see that there is room for the other driver to merge, but if the car’s cameras can’t distinguish lane markings it isn’t sure that there are still two lanes, so it brakes preemptively. I can see why there are statistically fewer crashes. It is programmed to be safer than typical drivers. The challenge will be when two competing autonomous systems are advertising, and one claims to be more aggressive, and we get a race to the bottom. Then we would see who is the first to design an autonomous system that is as bad a driver as Joe Average.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

I'm not so sure that the response of someone like yourself is the best yardstick to measure whether the self driving claim was misleading or not in the first place to a less knowledgeable consumer.

The person who may be misled by advertising still has to acknowledge the limitations of the system. Every time they turn it on. I don’t know what the return rate on Tesla vehicles is over this issue. I do know that they have the highest customer satisfaction and loyalty rates in the industry, so I estimate it isn’t very high.

[RedSHED]

I've wondered about Tesla's approach to FMEAs for a while (flash rewrite limits, loss of rear door opening in Model 3 w/ power loss, etc.). That's probably the biggest difference between them & big 3. Might be just fine, and I'd consider owning one but ... the liability will start to show itself when adoption picks up in some notorious states. Cali isn't any of them, FWIW.
It's not a bad product overall, IMO. Their fans do Tesla a disservice, I think, by glossing over some of the teething issues. Plaids combust occasionally, there are garages where they're unwelcome, none of which is novel or unexpected.

As far as the semi ... maybe Tesla carves a niche. But Volvo, Paccar, and Daimler ate all the others that came before and they still seem hungry. Would be a mistake to think they'll roll over for this one

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

The person who may be misled by advertising still has to acknowledge the limitations of the system. Every time they turn it on. I don’t know what the return rate on Tesla vehicles is over this issue. I do know that they have the highest customer satisfaction and loyalty rates in the industry, so I estimate it isn’t very high.

The fact that the person who is misled by advertising is reminded every time they operate their vehicle that it won't really do what the advertising implied it would do doesn't go very far toward improving my opinion of Tesla's sales practices.

I've included a link to J.D. Power's most recent vehicle dependability study which measures numbers of problems per 100 vehicles. FWIW, Porsche and Lexus are at the top; Tesla is well down the list. I believe the the survey you are referring to is one from Consumer reports which is basically a subjective measurement of how happy you are with your car. (Link also included). That's important, but as the article states, it leaves lots of room for people who may have cars with serious problems but are in love with them "because of the mission".

Anyway, I found this comment from J.D. Power interesting:

"Tesla profiled for first time: Tesla receives a score of 176 PP100. The automaker is not officially ranked among other brands in the study because it doesn’t meet the ranking criteria. Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla doesn’t grant J.D. Power permission to survey its owners in 15 states where it is required. However, Tesla’s score was calculated based on a robust sample of surveys from owners in the other 35 states."

This is consistent with the fact that Tesla does not provide vehicles to magazines like Car and Driver for independent testing, either. When those magazines test a Tesla, they typically have to obtain one from a private owner. It makes me wonder what Tesla are afraid of.

Tesla have done admirable things, but something about their corporate ethos leaves me cold. That's my problem, obviously.

J.D Power https://www.jdpower.com/sites/defaul...0%28VDS%29.pdf

Consumer Reports https://insideevs.com/features/40360...sfaction-rate/

[rowiebowie]

Hard to argue Tesla's aren't safe in the face of the stats offered by jcl in post #4 (above).

In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

Statistically speaking on a miles-driven (apples to apples) comparison, Teslas are 1/4th as likely as the average car to be involved in an accident while on Autopilot. And every model they make has the highest crash safety rating by NHTSA.

Ever since the invention of cruise control, the driver is responsible for maintaining control of his vehicle. Now, adaptive cruise, lane keep, auto emergency breaking,and other features are being added, but does anyone want to go back because a few will misuse these features? Not me.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

Hard to argue Tesla's aren't safe in the face of the stats offered by jcl in post #4 (above).

In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

Statistically speaking on a miles-driven (apples to apples) comparison, Teslas are 1/4th as likely as the average car to be involved in an accident while on Autopilot. And every model they make has the highest crash safety rating by NHTSA.

Ever since the invention of cruise control, the driver is responsible for maintaining control of his vehicle. Now, adaptive cruise, lane keep, auto emergency breaking,and other features are being added, but does anyone want to go back because a few will misuse these features? Not me.

First, the accident information provided about Tesla accident rates comes from...Tesla. Let's just say I'd love to see an independent analysis of the data and the methodology used to obtain it. Referring back to the title of this thread, apparently the NHTSA has an interest as well.

Second, all of the safety features you mention are on both of my EV's and they are worth having. But neither manufacturer of my vehicles advertises these features as anything more than assists nor engages in hyperbole about them like Tesla does in naming it's systems Autopilot and Full Self Driving.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

Hard to argue Tesla's aren't safe in the face of the stats offered by jcl in post #4 (above).

In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

Statistically speaking on a miles-driven (apples to apples) comparison, Teslas are 1/4th as likely as the average car to be involved in an accident while on Autopilot. And every model they make has the highest crash safety rating by NHTSA.

Ever since the invention of cruise control, the driver is responsible for maintaining control of his vehicle. Now, adaptive cruise, lane keep, auto emergency breaking,and other features are being added, but does anyone want to go back because a few will misuse these features? Not me.

This.

Ever since the advent of the motor vehicle, with all the possible real world dynamics and variables, there have been accidents. That is a guarantee especially with an unpredictable human being, not all created equal, put behind the wheel. Hitting other cars, bikers, and pedestrians are an all too often occurrence for standard cars.

Relative accident rates are important.

Even basic cruise control regularly leads to serious accidents and fatalities as standard cars are all too happy to drive off the road with driver inattention or falling asleep. It's far to easy to engage and trick those systems without any real protections. These systems surely crash too. But the headlines are not as interesting or sensational.

What you haven't seen or read are cases where autopilot and active safety functions, aka drivers aids, has actually saved occupants, other cars, and pedestrians. Rudimentary cars with or without drivers aids regularly crash and kill. Tesla's cars are safer for everyone. Unique cases of heart attacks where autopilot helped get the driver to safety, or active collision avoidance when rogue cars attempt to change lanes into a Tesla, or saving pedestrians.

I'd rather my future children drive a Tesla than anything else. For the safety of themselves and others.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

The fact that the person who is misled by advertising is reminded every time they operate their vehicle that it won't really do what the advertising implied it would do doesn't go very far toward improving my opinion of Tesla's sales practices.

I've included a link to J.D. Power's most recent vehicle dependability study which measures numbers of problems per 100 vehicles. FWIW, Porsche and Lexus are at the top; Tesla is well down the list. I believe the the survey you are referring to is one from Consumer reports which is basically a subjective measurement of how happy you are with your car. (Link also included). That's important, but as the article states, it leaves lots of room for people who may have cars with serious problems but are in love with them "because of the mission".

Anyway, I found this comment from J.D. Power interesting:

"Tesla profiled for first time: Tesla receives a score of 176 PP100. The automaker is not officially ranked among other brands in the study because it doesn’t meet the ranking criteria. Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla doesn’t grant J.D. Power permission to survey its owners in 15 states where it is required. However, Tesla’s score was calculated based on a robust sample of surveys from owners in the other 35 states."

This is consistent with the fact that Tesla does not provide vehicles to magazines like Car and Driver for independent testing, either. When those magazines test a Tesla, they typically have to obtain one from a private owner. It makes me wonder what Tesla are afraid of.

Tesla have done admirable things, but something about their corporate ethos leaves me cold. That's my problem, obviously.

J.D Power https://www.jdpower.com/sites/defaul...0%28VDS%29.pdf

Consumer Reports https://insideevs.com/features/40360...sfaction-rate/

The point about the warning, and understanding the limitations, is that you can’t test drive the vehicle without acknowledging that warning. I suppose you could buy a vehicle without test driving it, or reading the operator’s manual. I never have.

I agree with you on the Tesla early hour reliability issues, anecdotally. The customer satisfaction and owner loyalty scores (one was CR, I think the other was Forbes) are in spite of that. That is very telling to me.

I think the biggest contrast i have seen is with opinions of Tesla owners and non owners. Most criticisms I hear about the autonomous driving features are from non owners. I don’t know why that is.

Tesla doesn’t play the game with the car mags, but this is more consistent with them not doing advertising, than the JD Powers issue. They simply decided not to play. That must drive the automotive press crazy. They always liked selling car of the year trophies. It also relates to the charge of false advertising. They don’t advertise.

Two years ago I really wanted to buy an EV. I have owned many BMWs and other Euro brands. I also looked at Mercedes and Audi. I have owned many Fords, and was most likely to buy a Mach E. i compared them all. I ended up with the Model Y. It wasn’t even close. The product is what did that. And it was in spite of Elon Musk and his occasional rants.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

First, the accident information provided about Tesla accident rates comes from...Tesla. Let's just say I'd love to see an independent analysis of the data and the methodology used to obtain it. Referring back to the title of this thread, apparently the NHTSA has an interest as well.

It would be great to see that info from the other manufacturers. And audits would be good. But the others don’t have the info. Or the vehicle architecture to gather it. Tesla does. Tesla committed to publishing this every quarter.

The last manufacturer that did anything like this for safety was probably Volvo with seatbelts in the early 1960s. Other manufacturers fought that. Some of the same manufacturers are still fighting safety standards, as well as emissions controls. It isn’t that they are losing to Tesla. They aren’t even in the same race,