> Facts: Tesla was the first to introduce such wide range of safety features in every car they sold.

Please itemize these "wide range of safety features" for us that other manufacturers do not have or did not have until Tesla innovated them.

> They invest in own crash test facilities. Only Volvo is kind of on par.

Audi owns one, for just one.

Sure, https://www.tesla.com/safety

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KR2N_Q8ep8

Tesla roll out cars in generations. So just take a $40k Model 3/Y platform was introduced in 2017 and compare it with any car been introduced that year. My friend bought a BMW in 2019 for similar money, it doesn't have half of that. Maybe you can have them but you have to buy extra packages for extra money.

Tesla don't sell safety features for extra price. The only extra feature is Autopilot. But hardware, camera's , lane departure avoidance, blind spot collision warning etc in every car.

You can even take such a simple feature as forward collision warning system. When you drive it is super accurate it uses the same data and models from Autopilot to predict when there is a crash. If your slowing down dynamic is not good or the car in front/back change it dynamics it will warn you immediately. Only this feature saved me several times from collision. I'm not a good driver.

As I said in 2022 there are many car brands that catching up in some cases they doing better. And this is good.

Human is a bad, constantly distracted driver. Technology is the only way to make our life safer.

Automatic emergency braking is a required standard feature in the US.

Forward collision warning became standard in 2016 by at least ten manufacturers: Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

Without speaking to Blind Spot, my Audi does similar intelligent things. If you change lanes next to a vehicle or just in front of it, but you have a positive speed differential, it won't activate. If there is a vehicle in your blind spot approaching you but their speed differential to you is low, it will activate later. If there's a much higher speed differential (say they're in a HOV lane, and you're in a much slower regular lane), it will activate much earlier.

It's not about how to calculate it. It' about how can you understand what's around. And Audi is not super good about it. Tesla is far better at understanding the context. This year they will switch to FSD stack. The car will not drive me itself. But security features while driver engaged will have a huge boost. And that will be available for any car that was released from 2015-17 with some minor exceptions. That's how security should be handled.

And yes for these minor exceptions Tesla offers a retrofit.

> And Audi is not super good about it.

Based on what? "Understanding what is around", and "Tesla is far better at understanding the context" - my Audi has never attempted to drive into stopped traffic.

Your vision (and not just about Audi) that all other manufacturers have these dumb, simple systems and no context of what's going on around is simply, and factually, wrong.

My Audi (and I'm not saying they are the leader, I'm just speaking on them because of my experience) has no fewer than 13 radar sensors around the vehicle and will tell me of incursions into the vehicle's "space". It will recognize that some incursions are more "concerning" than others and alert appropriately.

I really have no idea what you mean by "Audi is not super good" about safety systems.

> And Audi is not super good about it.

You have proof for that statement?

I drive a 2021 Audi A1, the most basic version. From Tesla's safety page, this Audi has:

- Impact protection

- Structural integrity

- Crumple zones

- Lane departure warning/prevention

- Collision detection

- Emergency braking

The only thing it doesn't have is the blind spot sensor. But, again, it's on an entry-level car that costs easily 10 thousand dollars less than the cheapest Tesla.

Ah yeah, and all that works in Swedish conditions where Tesla's would be blind for a significant amount of time (the sun hanging just above the horizon for a prolonged time, an reflecting from a snowy/wet road).

But sure. As maxdo would have us believe, "it's hard to match what Tesla offers".

You still haven’t provided any evidence that suggests Tesla’s have (1) more impactful safety features than other cars in the same class (2) that Tesla’s are safer in general.

Also, if your saying FSD is going finally, finally be properly released this year — I doubt it.

Your strong pro-Tesla bias and your sweeping, unfocused and unsubstantiated allegations against other car makers undermine your argument completely.

> Automatic emergency braking is a required standard feature in the US.

Not currently; I just bought a 2022 Jeep Wrangler that doesn’t have anything of the sort.

It is standard on the Cherokee and Compass. On the Wrangler it is part of the Advanced Safety Group with adaptive cruise control. I think it might have to do with false positives when off-road.

Having driven Audis for years, including an A4, S4, and a recent model A4 (and other models as rentals in Germany), I can tell you definitively that Audi _pales_ in comparison to my Telsa Model Y in terms of safety. It's not even remotely comparable. Until you've driven one on a regular basis, it's hard to explain. They are light years ahead of traditional automakers, to the point of embarrassment.

Suffice it to say, I don't foresee myself ever buying or leasing a BMW or Audi again. Telsa is so far ahead that it probably won't compute unless you've driven one for a while.

>> My friend bought a BMW in 2019 for similar money, it doesn't have half of that.

That's an incredibly bad example, because in German brands you have to pay extra for basic safety features(famously in the new Polo you have to pay extra to have more than the basic 3 airbags, I don't even know how that's allowed). Look at a brand new Peugeot/Citroen/Kia/Hyundai and you will pay less than what a Model 3 costs and get just as many safety features. Yes, all the stuff that is optional in a BMW - but look outside of Audi/Merc/BMW/Volkswagen and you will find that this stuff is also completely standard.

You just excluded 60% of luxury market. Peugeot/Citroen almost not exists in US. Kia and Hundai they will be the biggest competitors among legacy auto brands. Even though their tech is not ambitious, basically copy paste from best and make it a bit cheaper, but not very cheap :)

People shopping in the luxury market can afford options they want. Did you know that any paint other than basic black and basic white is extra cost on BMW? If your argument about luxury cars not having safety options because they cost extra money had been valid then the argument that there are only black and white BMWs also had been a sensible one.

Literally every safety feature listed on that site is on my 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe, which brand new was thousands of dollars less than a Model 3.

> Human is a bad, constantly distracted driver. Technology is the only way to make our life safer.

And humans are infinitely worse when they have to look after a mostly-ok automation. We can’t pay attention to static things for a prolonged time.

But regarding less “clever” safety features, I agree with you.

> My friend bought a BMW in 2019 for similar money, it doesn't have half of that. Maybe you can have them but you have to buy extra packages for extra money.

#1 lesson of buying cars is:

1. Don't buy German cars if you don't have to (or if you buy them, never complain about the price of their optional equipment).

The corollary is:

1". Buy Korean or Japanese cars.

Or buy Škoda which is usually "last year's VW with everything included, for a lower price" :)

Except for the Superb, which was their own design and actually a notch above anything else made at that time by VAG.

It looks like most of their cars have ~110 horsepower? Seems weak.

Usually there is this thing called transmission in a car that effectively make the car able to accelerate enough for most of the situations. The only problem with having less horsepower than other cars is that the maximal achievable speed is lower. But for sure riding above 100mph is much more comfortable in other brands.

Low horsepower vehicles feel downright dangerous. Especially in the third world where executing moves quickly is very important. I suppose there is a way of driving that takes this into account but it feels so unnatural to me.

Depends on the car and where you're driving it.

Well, apparently Tesla's motto should be "Bad driver's car"

>Facts: Tesla was the first to introduce such wide range of safety features in every car they sold. They don't make safety a premium feature. They invest in own crash test facilities. Only Volvo is kind of on par.

Volvo built their crash test facilities before Tesla came to existence.

> Tesla was first to introduce over the air updates of software and firmware.

I want the controls on my car to constantly change out from under me as much as I want my miter saw and power drill to startle me with a new interface. Screwing with safety critical controls does NOT make people safer.

I would like OTA updates that are opt-in. That would be a happy medium between Tesla and traditional automakers.

Big no. Every such update should require a complete re-licensing/safety and crash tests and what-not before they can be pushed.

It is not a goddamn webpage where fking up the fonts will make it temporarily miss some icons.

I think opt-in updates are fine. I want nothing to do with them myself, but have no problem with others making a different decision.

It wasn't much of an accomplishment for Tesla to introduce safety features across its lineup, when its lineup consisted of luxury cars.

Today, other car manufacturers are standardizing safety features across their model lineups while manufacturing cars that are a third the price of the cheapest Tesla.

BMW is a luxury Car, you still have to pay for safety extra. That's the difference. One car brand make it mandatory, other ask you extra dollars for every safety camera to install.

Absolutely false. Some BMW are luxury cars. Some BMW are business/premium trims, and some are fleet rental trims.

BMW is hated for a reason, and most car manufacturers (not just Tesla) would compare favorably to it.

Pretty much every major manufacturer makes safety features standard on the base models across their lineup today.

A third the price but still pouring disgusting fumes into our neighborhoods

The disgusting fumes are almost exclusively from diesel trucks and very old cars. Manufacturing affordable (no, the Model 3 is not affordable) new cars helps take old cars off the streets and make our neighborhoods cleaner.

Those are just more disgusting fumes, I prefer no fumes entering the cabin of my car and into my lungs from the car in front of me

Funny, most of the pollution of modern cars comes from tires and brakes. Tesla may remove particulates from brakes, but any mild hybrid+ does.

You are never going to convince me that a car emitting gray or black smoke out the back is somehow not any worse than one that has no emissions at all.

lol who cares about convincing you personally, besides, that's not even the point I was making.

> Tesla has lots of measures to return distracted customer back to the driving as opposed to any car on the road 10 years ago

Perhaps true, but I've seen more people asleep at the wheel in Teslas in the last 2 years (two) than the rest of my life combined (zero).

> Autopilot is a tool. You can miss use it, sure. But if you care about safety it's hard to match with what they offer.

1. It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria

2. As the adjusted data clearl shows, it's not that hard to match it. And since you mention Volvo, they definitely match it. They are honest enough though not to call it "autopilot", or "full safe driving" or pin the plame for its failures on the driver.

Yup. Autopilot on aircraft is very different because pilots don't have to be ready to take over on a moment's notice.

Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.

There are moments a pilot has seconds to react and disengage autopilot.

Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve the proper climb/descent. There are other times on e.g. approach, or ground collision warnings with even narrower margins for disengaging autopilot.

Pilots generally know when they need to be hyper-aware with autopilot and so do competent Tesla drivers. If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.

> If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.

If a drivers license required as much training as a pilots license then you might have a point.

"Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time"

When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms.

It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers-autopilot-swerve...

The problem is bad enough that it killed someone; you don't need to use exaggerated made-up numbers.

In the example video the car starts turning at 40 seconds and passes the barrier at 47 seconds.

Surely you can see how you might have less than a second to react if Autopilot swerves into the oncoming traffik? I can't search all tesla accidents by 'least time to react'

If they actually do that, it could be a problem, but I'm not convinced that's a failure case that we need to worry much about.

> If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.

Pilots require extensive training (an re-training). The must meet certain criteria to even fly certain types of plains. And they have to go through additional training if they have to switch planes (going from Airbus to Boeing for example).

So, if we're making "teh same argument" for Tesla, then Tesla needs all that to call its system an autopilot.

5 seconds (or the 2 seconds that pilots require) is a lot more time than you’re afforded to take action while driving a Tesla in autopilot. And when driving the Tesla you often won’t get a clear warning signaling that you have to take over and do something - it can fail silently and swerve straight into an obstacle.

The difference is that you can’t be a pilot with even as little physical impairment as a crooked nose and it takes extensive years to get a license, while every rich 18 years old can sleep behind a tesla’s wheel…

A sailboat autopilot is even simpler. The simplest ones maintain compass direction, but don’t compensate for drift due to water currents or side winds, or for the difference between magnetic and true north.

An IMO important difference with pilots is that pilots are professionals that get trained and periodically retrained on how specific planes and their autopilots work.

Tesla drivers, on the other hand, hear Tesla’s at times optimistic marketing, and may just learn how to switch autopilot on and off without understanding when to use it and when not to use it.

"Boeing instructed pilots to take corrective action in case of a malfunction, when the airplane would enter a series of automated nosedives. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

And that is why the whole 737 Max fleet got grounded and none of those planes were allowed to be operational until Boeing put in place a fix for the problem.

And most airlines ended up cancelling pending orders for the 737 Max and switched to a different brand that didn't play nearly as fast and loose with safety.

Indeed, Tesla's autopilot behaves a lot more like MCAS than like an airplane autopilot.

> It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria

It does seem quite comparable in capabilities to the actual autopilot in aircraft. And that’s what’s confusing to people; most don’t realize that an autopilot is a control used by a driver or pilot to reduce their workload. (As a pilot, I am still logging flight time as the “sole manipulator of controls” during the time the autopilot is engaged.)

And that "confusion" was created intentionally by Tesla. So that it is easy to pretend it was not deliberately pretending higher capabilities while giving yourself option to pretend you are not.

You know like that claim about human being there just because of pesky regulations and laws. Not because human would be needed.

The kind of environment that a car is in (and the kind of monitoring required by the driver) is much more akin to autoland than autopilot.

>It does seem quite comparable in capabilities to the actual autopilot in aircraft.

including the system's assumption that the operator of the vehicle is doing so as a trained professional in that skill, including the extensive continuous training requirements required to maintain professional-level expertise?

The author is projecting his assumptions based on 400 people questioned. Is it fair.

Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe. They also promote hybrid Cars that has highest chances to catch on fire compares to EV and regular ICE cars.

But yeah, naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc. That's a logic media is trying to put in our head. Don't think.

> Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car

That's... quite a leap.

> Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"?

That would be just that: a screaming article.

> so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe.

Ah, yes. Because the only way to make a car safe is to make it electric.

1. I was responding to the ridiculous claim of "if you care about safety it's hard to match with what Tesla offers".

This claim is bullshit, and Volvo easily matches what Tesla offers when it comes to car safety

2. Volvo XC40 Recharge, C40 Recharge are the cars that exist, but you chose to ignore them

> Naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc.

I tried to parse this sentense, and I couldn't. Are you saying that Volvo doesn't do real tech, or doesn't do crash tests etc.? If so, are you delusional?

BTW, here's Volvo's purpose-built crash-test laboratory: https://www.media.volvocars.com/se/sv-se/media/videos/154740...

> Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe.

Dude, really?

https://group.volvocars.com/company/innovation/electrificati...

Volvo's plans all in the future, it's just a commitment. today is there in 2025, tomorrow web designer put another beautiful article with 2030. Gasoline cars is less safe to the same car with the same set of airbags just because of It's physics e.g. lower center of gravity, no engine in the front that can kill you during forward collision, battery at the bottom serve as a protection layer during other type of crashes.

In fact tesla is about to release structural batteries cars, that will use battery as part of the cars body, makes it even more safe. Model Y with structural pack will be out in March 2022.

Volvo at this moment promoting hybrids and ICE that doesn't have this features, because it's bloody business. And money is money.

Just compare real actions of Volvo who claim one of the safest brand and Tesla.

Did you even read the article I linked? I have friends that have the XC40 Recharge...

> In fact tesla is about to release structural batteries cars, that will use battery as part of the cars body, makes it even more safe. Model Y with structural pack will be out in March 2022.

I'll believe that when I see it. How's the Tesla Semi release going? Especially since structural batteries are still an active research topic that actual researchers think will be in mass production in 5 years or more.

> battery at the bottom serve as a protection layer during other type of crashes.

And it can nicely burst into flames that burn for hours on, without any easy way to put it out. I sure as hell would rather have a broken arm over being burnt alive in a steel frame.

What makes you say gasoline cars are much less safe than electric?

Hollywood movie explosions

> But because other brands release millions of boring cars with 0 innovation they are not criticized.

That's not actually why.

It's because carmakers are huge advertisers. You get on their bad side, they pull their advertising.

Tesla's advertising consists of Elon Musk's Twitter account, so Tesla gets the reporting the others would get if the authors weren't reliant on the subjects of those stories for their paychecks.