While clearly, in your mind (or at least your writing), Tesla can do no good,
Conjecture in absence of evidence?
Hint - any time one's argument includes "always", "never", or "no good", it requires extraordinary evidence to substantiate it. On the internet, it always always (see what I did there?) is accompanied by insufficient evidence.
For the record, I am in favor of Tesla (and other EVs) making best cars possible for the benefit of the owners, and reducing total cost of ownership for the owners. Then delivering highest possible customer service to the owners throughout the ownership cycle.
When they fall short of those guys, I don't shy to call them out.
I care not for the companies that make those EVs, or their stock price, or their hype.
I'll submit that this started with the design of cars with crumple zones, where the car's structure fails under control on impact to allow more gradual decelerations all around.
This tends to save the occupants at the expense of the vehicle. Insurance companies, of course, hate it since:
a) it makes it much more expensive to repair the car or leads to totaling it more often
Or, crumple zones prevent severe accidents, and lower extreme medical bills?
Either way, the argument is not whether crumple zones are good or bad for your insurance rates.
But rather, does Tesla engineer its cars to make them easily repairable as other automakers.
If that were the case, the cost of insurance an average Tesla would be comparable to insurance a comparably priced car (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc.). Which, unfortunately, it is not. Not by a long shot!
b) more occupants survive, often leading to expensive medical treatments - instead of just dying.
This begins to sound too much like a conspiracy theory.
My nieces and nephews still have a father after his Model Y was t-boned by a mini-van going about 70 mph.
I'm not sure about you but I kind of like the way Tesla made that tradeoff.
True story - my wife got t-boned by a car full of high-schoolers speeding through a stop sign in their parents SUV.
Multiple air-bags blew, her car at that time (3-series bimmer) go spun around more times than she remembered, until wheel hit a curb. She walked away, though had upper body and leg muscle pains for a week. The idiots even attempted to claim that they had a right of way even though they blew past the stop sign at (estimated) 2x the speed limit. Their insurance sued ours, ours counter-sued theirs. Depositions and court cases dragged out for another 2 years.
I was sure the bimmer was totaled, but the car was engineered and build right. It got repaired under 2 weeks after insurance gave the go-ahead (to my amazement). Car drove straight and better than new after the repairs, partly because front suspension got replaced on both sides. We sold it within a year for other reasons.
Bottom line - there does not need to be a trade-off between quality engineering and design for reparability vs. safety!
The infection of tort lawyers chasing ambulances has also had a major impact. It is a lot safer to total a vehicle and avoid the risk of being held liable for putting an unsafe vehicle back on the road should occupants be injured in subsequent accidents. Insurance companies can replace a lot of automobiles for the cost of a major injury or, worse, major injury lawsuit.
I don't believe the above is true, at all.
Do you have any evidence to back-up that dubious claim?
a