StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
No legacy OEM would put a 1% failure rate L5 system into service. Their tolerance for risk is FAR lower than Teslas.
It's a misconception that Tesla has a higher tolerance for risking the lives or safety of their customers compared to the legacy auto companies. Actions speak louder than words.
Tesla has a higher tolerance for business risk, meaning they are more likely to take bold moves that risk failure, ie. the Cybertruck would never be released by a legacy manufacturer. But you are just plain wrong when you claim Tesla has a higher tolerance for risking the safety or well-being of their customers. If anything, Tesla, as a company, takes this more seriously than all the legacy manufacturers combined. This is demonstrated, not by words but, by actions:
1) Tesla vehicles are designed to protect the occupants to a higher standard than just about any legacy manufacture spends the research time and effort to achieve. This goes beyond the fact that they don't have an engine as evidenced by the crash test results and injury/death rates of the products of GM, Nissan, Toyota, etc., all who have produced EV's that protect the passengers to lesser standards compared to Tesla products. In some cases a lot less. This is no accident. Pun intended. Accident and injury statistics support this objectively.
2) Tesla's core mission is to protect the one planet, the only planet that provides a safe living environment for all humans alive today. If that's not caring about the safety of people, I don't know what is.
3) Tesla has put huge effort into having the safest and most advanced driver aids available. These aids make the car more safe than the competition and reams of data support this in an objective manner.
4) Not to crap on legacy auto but they have a long and sordid history of putting their customers lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. Ford, GM, Toyota, etc. I won't go into the specifics but suffice to say, it has been repeatedly well documented how these companies knew defects that risked their customers lives were present but they decided it would cost less to ignore the problem or even cover it up rather than spend the money to eliminate the danger. This has cost the lives of at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
The narrative that Tesla plays fast and loose with road safety is a false narrative propagated by those set on destroying or slowing Tesla down. It appears that either you are gullible enough to have swallowed this fish tale hook, line and sinker or you are knowingly participating in the movement to bring Tesla down or, at the very least, slow them down. I don't claim to know which it is but simple logic says it must be one or the other. If the latter case, you are the one playing fast and loose with human safety. Because hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) die every year from from the negative impacts of fossil fuel consumption and poorly designed automobiles of legacy manufacture, people who would have lived if they were in a Tesla. Again, this is not empty rhetoric or fanboy irrationality, it is fact supported by reams of crash data, thousands of well-documented court cases, testimony from senior engineers at legacy auto plants, and the list goes on.
I know these are strong words but it pains me to see this forum, a forum that aspires to assist the transition to safer, more sustainable energy and transport, be used, either inadvertently or on purpose, to slow the transition down. It's not empty corporate rhetoric that Tesla cares deeply how their products affect the safety and well-being of their customers, it's supported by their actions and deeds and backed up by actual data.
In other words, no, Tesla would not put a L5 system into general usage that had a 1% failure rate. That's absurd!
Last edited: