3 ms·

Yes 24 people that had to die for no reason, but yeah it's low for the massive fuck up that this was. I don't really know what the point of that statement is t

Yes 24 people that had to die for no reason, but yeah it's low for the massive fuck up that this was. I don't really know what the point of that statement is though. Reads like part of a Boeing spokesman's speech.

Night_Thastus 3y ago
My point is that the person who made the statement "those are more likely to kill you than these airbags" wasn't really all that off the mark. There's been more (~35) deaths due to Tesla issues (fires, self-driving, etc) in a few years than in the 2 decades this problem airbag has existed.
- theultdev 3y ago
  Are those 35 counting the people who were asleep, trying to kill themselves, etc? Because if they are from the same news outlets as reports the other Tesla crashes, those are not always due to Tesla issues, and it always comes out they weren't because they have data on everything. And other cars catch on fire in crashes and people burn to death in ICE cars. Fires are not exclusive to EVs. Shrapnel airbags on the other hand... Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death?
  - Night_Thastus 3y ago
    >Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death? Safety features that exist in other cars too? A base-model Corolla has pedestrian detection and collision avoidance in it as well. And plenty of other manufacturers have similar systems.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      I'm not talking about pedestrian detection, I'm talking about active avoidance of oncoming vehicles. But if the positives of any safety system don't count, then the negatives don't count against Tesla. Because all cars have safety systems that could kill or save you under that logic.

3 ms·

Yes 24 people that had to die for no reason, but yeah it's low for the massive fuck up that this was. I don't really know what the point of that statement is t

by theultdev 3y ago

Night_Thastus 3y ago
My point is that the person who made the statement "those are more likely to kill you than these airbags" wasn't really all that off the mark. There's been more (~35) deaths due to Tesla issues (fires, self-driving, etc) in a few years than in the 2 decades this problem airbag has existed.
- theultdev 3y ago
  Are those 35 counting the people who were asleep, trying to kill themselves, etc? Because if they are from the same news outlets as reports the other Tesla crashes, those are not always due to Tesla issues, and it always comes out they weren't because they have data on everything. And other cars catch on fire in crashes and people burn to death in ICE cars. Fires are not exclusive to EVs. Shrapnel airbags on the other hand... Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death?
  - Night_Thastus 3y ago
    >Plus I've seen at least 5+ videos where the safety features in a Tesla reacted faster than the driver and saved them, do we count that as a negative death? Safety features that exist in other cars too? A base-model Corolla has pedestrian detection and collision avoidance in it as well. And plenty of other manufacturers have similar systems.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      I'm not talking about pedestrian detection, I'm talking about active avoidance of oncoming vehicles. But if the positives of any safety system don't count, then the negatives don't count against Tesla. Because all cars have safety systems that could kill or save you under that logic.