5 ms·

A for-profit company never deserves some benefit of doubt. Thats why we have and need all those regulations.

manojlds 7y ago
We are not talking about them circumventing the regulations. We are talking about them satisfying them.
kjksf 7y ago
The argument is not that we should trust Tesla to self-certify. The argument is that they have shipped 3 cars in Europe. All their cars got among the best, if not the best, crash test ratings by every government and non-profit agency that tested their cars. They deserve benefit of the doubt because they've demonstrated several times that they know what they're doing. A can't say the same about randos speculating how Tesla will fail to certify their 5th or 6th car in Europe (after Model Y and possibly Roadster and Semi). Being a TUV expert doesn't really make up for the fact that the guy is commenting based on a video of an early prototype. Not to mention that people seem to arguing that Cybertruck is not safe... for other cars. Hummer was sold in Europe. Tell me again how stupidly large and heavy cars can't possibly be certified for European sales.
- foepys 7y ago
  The Hummer is classified as a small truck in Europe (>3.5t and <=7.5t). You need a special C1 driver's license for that which costs a few hundred euros and you need to be recertified every few years. It's highly unlikely that Tesla will sell it in Europe under those circumstances. Also, in the EU, no car manufacturer self-certifies. In Germany for example it's the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (similar to the American DOT) that certifies vehicles to be street-legal.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > you need to be recertified every few years I don't believe you need to be recertified per se. As far as I know, you need a medical exam but that aside it's an administrative procedure.
perceptronas 7y ago
You make it sound like customers don't care about safety. If company will deliver better customer satisfaction they will get more profit. If anything I would trust a for-profit motive more than a feature forced by regulations.
- ProblemFactory 7y ago
  Very few customers care about pedestrian safety, and pedestrians can only control what sort of cars other people buy with regulations.
  - perceptronas 7y ago
    I would argue that more innovations and overall safety for passengers increased more due markets than it did due regulations. While it might not be the priority, but more pedestrian safety is still a nice thing to have.
- Renaud 7y ago
  Ahhh, the "Magical Market" that solves all... even in the most capitalists of countries safety regulations are necessary. Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.
  - perceptronas 7y ago
    >Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates. An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)
et2o 7y ago
lol. It’s tiresome to argue like that. Replace benefit of the doubt with “high prior probability of designing a safe car.”

We are not talking about them circumventing the regulations. We are talking about them satisfying them.

The argument is not that we should trust Tesla to self-certify. The argument is that they have shipped 3 cars in Europe. All their cars got among the best, if not the best, crash test ratings by every government and non-profit agency that tested their cars. They deserve benefit of the doubt because they've demonstrated several times that they know what they're doing. A can't say the same about randos speculating how Tesla will fail to certify their 5th or 6th car in Europe (after Model Y and possibly Roadster and Semi). Being a TUV expert doesn't really make up for the fact that the guy is commenting based on a video of an early prototype. Not to mention that people seem to arguing that Cybertruck is not safe... for other cars. Hummer was sold in Europe. Tell me again how stupidly large and heavy cars can't possibly be certified for European sales.

foepys 7y ago
The Hummer is classified as a small truck in Europe (>3.5t and <=7.5t). You need a special C1 driver's license for that which costs a few hundred euros and you need to be recertified every few years. It's highly unlikely that Tesla will sell it in Europe under those circumstances. Also, in the EU, no car manufacturer self-certifies. In Germany for example it's the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (similar to the American DOT) that certifies vehicles to be street-legal.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > you need to be recertified every few years I don't believe you need to be recertified per se. As far as I know, you need a medical exam but that aside it's an administrative procedure.

perceptronas 7y ago

You make it sound like customers don't care about safety. If company will deliver better customer satisfaction they will get more profit. If anything I would trust a for-profit motive more than a feature forced by regulations.

ProblemFactory 7y ago
Very few customers care about pedestrian safety, and pedestrians can only control what sort of cars other people buy with regulations.
- perceptronas 7y ago
  I would argue that more innovations and overall safety for passengers increased more due markets than it did due regulations. While it might not be the priority, but more pedestrian safety is still a nice thing to have.
Renaud 7y ago
Ahhh, the "Magical Market" that solves all... even in the most capitalists of countries safety regulations are necessary. Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.
- perceptronas 7y ago
  >Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road. It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates. An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)

et2o 7y ago

lol. It’s tiresome to argue like that. Replace benefit of the doubt with “high prior probability of designing a safe car.”