3 ms·

If there's an actual problem with Chinese courts corruptly defending Tesla, why is this article presenting a case where Tesla seems to be in the right, rather t

If there's an actual problem with Chinese courts corruptly defending Tesla, why is this article presenting a case where Tesla seems to be in the right, rather than one in which the court made a clearly corrupt decision?

simondotau 2y ago
> rather than one in which the court made a clearly corrupt decision? Are you aware of any clearly corrupt decisions?
wruza 2y ago
The whole article is unrelated to the headline, it’s just a classic journalist turn. The authors already know who’s wrong without any hearings.
kelnos 2y ago
> why is this article presenting a case where Tesla seems to be in the right The only evidence that the crash was caused by the driver was provided by Tesla themselves. Of course they would provide data to support their case, fabricated or otherwise. It's weird that the woman in the article asked for Tesla to provide the pre-crash data, but they refused until much later, after the legal proceedings were going on. Why not provide that data immediately?
- cosmotic 2y ago
  I can't think of a single company that would provide data upon request. Certainly Google, Microsoft, Apple, Ford, GM,Samsung, UPS, etc... wouldn't.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Good thing that's a state mandate in my state.
    - akimbostrawman 2y ago
      How would that matter in the case of malice? Modern cars are black boxes where the manufacturers could just choose to only hand over certain data or even modify it.
      - SR2Z 2y ago
        Unless I'm very mistaken, regulators/investigators are capable of independently reading a black box directly.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Tesla will however happily hold a press conference and use that data to imply you weren’t paying attention in a fatal accident, as happened a few years ago. Tesla: “our vehicle telemetry indicates the driver wasn’t paying attention, and in fact the vehicle had warned him of this”. Reality: the driver had tripped -one- intention warning, and that was -eighteen minutes- before the crash. That part only came out after the NHTSA got involved, though…

simondotau 2y ago

> rather than one in which the court made a clearly corrupt decision? Are you aware of any clearly corrupt decisions?

wruza 2y ago

The whole article is unrelated to the headline, it’s just a classic journalist turn. The authors already know who’s wrong without any hearings.

kelnos 2y ago

> why is this article presenting a case where Tesla seems to be in the right The only evidence that the crash was caused by the driver was provided by Tesla themselves. Of course they would provide data to support their case, fabricated or otherwise. It's weird that the woman in the article asked for Tesla to provide the pre-crash data, but they refused until much later, after the legal proceedings were going on. Why not provide that data immediately?

cosmotic 2y ago
I can't think of a single company that would provide data upon request. Certainly Google, Microsoft, Apple, Ford, GM,Samsung, UPS, etc... wouldn't.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Good thing that's a state mandate in my state.
  - akimbostrawman 2y ago
    How would that matter in the case of malice? Modern cars are black boxes where the manufacturers could just choose to only hand over certain data or even modify it.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      Unless I'm very mistaken, regulators/investigators are capable of independently reading a black box directly.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Tesla will however happily hold a press conference and use that data to imply you weren’t paying attention in a fatal accident, as happened a few years ago. Tesla: “our vehicle telemetry indicates the driver wasn’t paying attention, and in fact the vehicle had warned him of this”. Reality: the driver had tripped -one- intention warning, and that was -eighteen minutes- before the crash. That part only came out after the NHTSA got involved, though…