5 ms·

Why on earth can't this be done by normal testing agencies? Why do things like "Tesla Takedown" have to participate in it? Even if the test was 100% legit, that

Why on earth can't this be done by normal testing agencies? Why do things like "Tesla Takedown" have to participate in it? Even if the test was 100% legit, that connection to mere protest movements taints it immediately. It's like when oil companies publish critical research on climate change. Or Apple publishing research that AI is not that good and their own fumblings should not be seen as a bad omen. This kind of stuff could be factually completely correct and most rational people would still immediately dismiss it due to conflict of interest. All this will do is flame up fanboys who were already behind it and get ignored by people who weren't. If real goal is to divide society, this is how you do it.

sitkack 1y ago
You mean the ones gutted by said owner of said company? Comparing "Tesla Takedown" with ExxonMobile is way too quick, you should have said Greenpeace. I'd say that TT has to do this, Is part of the point.
Eisenstein 1y ago
Which testing agencies are doing these tests?
- sigmoid10 1y ago
  A whole lot actually: https://www.crashtest.org/car-crash-testing-agencies/ https://www.crashtest.org/car-crash-testing-agencies/
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    That's crash testing, which is about the safety of the people inside the vehicle. This test is about whether Tesla's self driving technology is safe for the people outside the vehicle.
    - sigmoid10 1y ago
      >That's crash testing, which is about the safety of the people inside the vehicle. Crash testing is much more than that. Check out NCAP for example. They specifically include safety ratings for other, vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians). And the Model 3 currently sits at the top spot of their 2025 rankings in that category.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        That's still after the person outside the vehicle has been struck. This test shows the self driving software disobeys traffic laws (the school bus stop sign requires everyone else to stop), resulting in a pedestrian collision that would not have happened had traffic laws been followed.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      The same agencies that do crash testing generally do all manner of other tests. Rollover testing, brake distance testing, restraint systems, drive aids, car seat fitment, etc, etc.
cannonpr 1y ago
In normal times, perhaps, today… https://www.theverge.com/news/646797/nhtsa-staffers-office-vehicle-automation-safety-firing-doge-tesla https://www.theverge.com/news/646797/nhtsa-staffers-office-v... When regular in theory bipartisan mechanisms fail, protest is all you have left.
- fragmede 1y ago
  > NHTSA staffers evaluating the risks of self-driving cars were reportedly fired by Elon Musk, who also owns Tesla.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    [flagged]
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
In my view, the onus to conduct tests and prove that it is safe to use should be conducted by the manufacturer and should meet the requirements of the regulating authority (presumably NHTSA in the U.S.) and appropriate city/states if they agree to allow limited public road usage.
- bjord 1y ago
  In theory, that sounds great, but in practice, why should we trust manufacturers to reliably test their own products?
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    I agree, but it's fairly common practise. I think a "trust, but verify" approach should be used and jail board members for attempts to fool the regulators (c.f. VW emissions fraud)
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      The difference in staffing between trust+verification and no-trust is miniscule, because any savings are things that are trusted and unverified. Why not take an objective, fact-based regulatory approach from the start?
    - const_cast 1y ago
      The problem is that the manufacturer of course has a very strong incentive to stand with themselves. People don't advocate against themselves, and companies are no different. When J&J found out about potential asbestos contamination in their baby powder in the 70s, they managed to convince the FDA that they would research and handle it. It took until 2020 for it to come to light that they did not do that, and that, in fact, their baby powder was contaminated. They ran multiple studies, and some of them even showed that the amount of asbestos in their product was dangerous. But those studies never saw the light of day, and the company acted in a self-preserving manner. It's a similar story with 3M and byproducts of Teflon. But, federal or state agencies have no alliance to a company's bottom line. They don't have the same incentives to lie or downplay. So, I think, it only makes sense that they should be responsible for testing directly, not just supervising. I also think we need to adopt some legislation so that we must test products before we release them. You may be shocked to know you're allowed to release new chemical products without proving their safety, and you can even release new food products without proving their safety. Most of these products end up being okay in the long run, but some we have to retroactively ban. It would be easier for everyone if we begin in a banned state.
randomcarbloke 1y ago
Well quite, it's an indictment of americas institutions if investigations held in the public interest must be conducted by third parties and not the establishment. What other hidden dangers slip by without public knowledge.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  If only there some proven way to hold abusive power to account in the public consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
ecocentrik 1y ago
For the same reason that nonprofit consumer advocacy and safety organizations like Consumer Reports and the Center for Auto Safety exist. Lobbyists and wealthy private individuals exert a lot of influence over the operations of publicly funded oversight agencies. They have the power to censor these agencies or as we've seen recently, fire all their staff, defund them or close them completely. As for the fanbois and f*cbois, they have always existed and will always exist. They are the pawns. Smart mature people learn to lead, direct, manipulate, deflect and ignore them.
fragmede 1y ago
Or cigarette companies having doctors show that cigarettes don't cause cancer. It turns out that the bar for science is really really high, and for stuff that's less obvious and takes time and lots of money and effort, it's really hard to show. You'd think I was a loon if I told you gravity wasn't a decided matter of physics, since we're all glued to this Earth every day, but we still don't know that dark matter and the ramifications for the theory of gravity are. Science still doesn't know how to test psychedelic medicine because it's obvious to the control group that they're on the placebo. That doesn't mean we should lower the bar for science, just that we should be aware of shortcomings in our beliefs. So if you want to get into the details and figure out why a video from "Tesla Takedown" should or should not be believed, in all ears, but I'm some random on the Internet. I don't work at NHTSA or anywhere that could affect change based on the outcome of this video. It's not going to affect my buying decisions one way or another, but it'll only divide people who have decided this matters to them and can't get along with others.
philistine 1y ago
You seem to ignore the historical reasons why testing agencies exist in the first place. There wasn't a consensus back then that they even needed to exist. People like Ralph Nader needed to hammer the point again and again and again to will those standards into existence. The pressure groups fighting against Tesla are doing the same harsh difficult job that Nader did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed%3A_The_Designed-In_Dangers_of_the_American_Automobile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed%3A_The_Des...

sitkack 1y ago

You mean the ones gutted by said owner of said company? Comparing "Tesla Takedown" with ExxonMobile is way too quick, you should have said Greenpeace. I'd say that TT has to do this, Is part of the point.

Eisenstein 1y ago

Which testing agencies are doing these tests?

sigmoid10 1y ago
A whole lot actually: https://www.crashtest.org/car-crash-testing-agencies/ https://www.crashtest.org/car-crash-testing-agencies/
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  That's crash testing, which is about the safety of the people inside the vehicle. This test is about whether Tesla's self driving technology is safe for the people outside the vehicle.
  - sigmoid10 1y ago
    >That's crash testing, which is about the safety of the people inside the vehicle. Crash testing is much more than that. Check out NCAP for example. They specifically include safety ratings for other, vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians). And the Model 3 currently sits at the top spot of their 2025 rankings in that category.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      That's still after the person outside the vehicle has been struck. This test shows the self driving software disobeys traffic laws (the school bus stop sign requires everyone else to stop), resulting in a pedestrian collision that would not have happened had traffic laws been followed.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    The same agencies that do crash testing generally do all manner of other tests. Rollover testing, brake distance testing, restraint systems, drive aids, car seat fitment, etc, etc.

cannonpr 1y ago

In normal times, perhaps, today… https://www.theverge.com/news/646797/nhtsa-staffers-office-vehicle-automation-safety-firing-doge-tesla https://www.theverge.com/news/646797/nhtsa-staffers-office-v... When regular in theory bipartisan mechanisms fail, protest is all you have left.

fragmede 1y ago
> NHTSA staffers evaluating the risks of self-driving cars were reportedly fired by Elon Musk, who also owns Tesla.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  [flagged]

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

In my view, the onus to conduct tests and prove that it is safe to use should be conducted by the manufacturer and should meet the requirements of the regulating authority (presumably NHTSA in the U.S.) and appropriate city/states if they agree to allow limited public road usage.

bjord 1y ago
In theory, that sounds great, but in practice, why should we trust manufacturers to reliably test their own products?
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  I agree, but it's fairly common practise. I think a "trust, but verify" approach should be used and jail board members for attempts to fool the regulators (c.f. VW emissions fraud)
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The difference in staffing between trust+verification and no-trust is miniscule, because any savings are things that are trusted and unverified. Why not take an objective, fact-based regulatory approach from the start?
  - const_cast 1y ago
    The problem is that the manufacturer of course has a very strong incentive to stand with themselves. People don't advocate against themselves, and companies are no different. When J&J found out about potential asbestos contamination in their baby powder in the 70s, they managed to convince the FDA that they would research and handle it. It took until 2020 for it to come to light that they did not do that, and that, in fact, their baby powder was contaminated. They ran multiple studies, and some of them even showed that the amount of asbestos in their product was dangerous. But those studies never saw the light of day, and the company acted in a self-preserving manner. It's a similar story with 3M and byproducts of Teflon. But, federal or state agencies have no alliance to a company's bottom line. They don't have the same incentives to lie or downplay. So, I think, it only makes sense that they should be responsible for testing directly, not just supervising. I also think we need to adopt some legislation so that we must test products before we release them. You may be shocked to know you're allowed to release new chemical products without proving their safety, and you can even release new food products without proving their safety. Most of these products end up being okay in the long run, but some we have to retroactively ban. It would be easier for everyone if we begin in a banned state.

randomcarbloke 1y ago

Well quite, it's an indictment of americas institutions if investigations held in the public interest must be conducted by third parties and not the establishment. What other hidden dangers slip by without public knowledge.

ethbr1 1y ago
If only there some proven way to hold abusive power to account in the public consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

ecocentrik 1y ago

For the same reason that nonprofit consumer advocacy and safety organizations like Consumer Reports and the Center for Auto Safety exist. Lobbyists and wealthy private individuals exert a lot of influence over the operations of publicly funded oversight agencies. They have the power to censor these agencies or as we've seen recently, fire all their staff, defund them or close them completely. As for the fanbois and f*cbois, they have always existed and will always exist. They are the pawns. Smart mature people learn to lead, direct, manipulate, deflect and ignore them.

fragmede 1y ago

Or cigarette companies having doctors show that cigarettes don't cause cancer. It turns out that the bar for science is really really high, and for stuff that's less obvious and takes time and lots of money and effort, it's really hard to show. You'd think I was a loon if I told you gravity wasn't a decided matter of physics, since we're all glued to this Earth every day, but we still don't know that dark matter and the ramifications for the theory of gravity are. Science still doesn't know how to test psychedelic medicine because it's obvious to the control group that they're on the placebo. That doesn't mean we should lower the bar for science, just that we should be aware of shortcomings in our beliefs. So if you want to get into the details and figure out why a video from "Tesla Takedown" should or should not be believed, in all ears, but I'm some random on the Internet. I don't work at NHTSA or anywhere that could affect change based on the outcome of this video. It's not going to affect my buying decisions one way or another, but it'll only divide people who have decided this matters to them and can't get along with others.

philistine 1y ago

You seem to ignore the historical reasons why testing agencies exist in the first place. There wasn't a consensus back then that they even needed to exist. People like Ralph Nader needed to hammer the point again and again and again to will those standards into existence. The pressure groups fighting against Tesla are doing the same harsh difficult job that Nader did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed%3A_The_Designed-In_Dangers_of_the_American_Automobile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed%3A_The_Des...