Feds told Tesla to stop making “misleading statements” on Model 3 safety

"Your company has issued a number of misleading statements," NHTSA wrote to Musk.

Read the whole story

 

[Raistian77]

The reality is that once you achieve “5 stars” or “good” you can reasonably be assured that in most real world crashes your injuries are going to be primarily airbag/seatbelt rash and deceleration related instead of having body parts broken. When you get into ones like very high speed (65mph +) crashes due to reckless or negligent (drunk) drivers, all bets are off. Nothing out there can reliably protect you from that kind of violent impact.

UM no. Even low speed crashes with modern cars can be lethal, it really determines on MANY factors that occur before, during and directly after a collision.

Assuming 5 star rating means reasonably no injuries is in direct opposition to what the rating agency says and how physics works.

 

[traumadog]

The weight thing is a red herring. Even if Tesla made all the technically-correct qualifications on their statement (according to NHTSA test data, within its weight class, etc.) they'd have still been in violation of NHTSA guidelines, which only allow automakers to use the star rating and specific other claims in their marketing materials. If consumers want to look up VSS scores in order to inform their purchasing decisions, the data is publically available, but it's not supposed to be used in advertisements or spec sheets.

Specifically prohibited from using and "not supposed to" are 2 different things

These same sort of loopholes allow audi & jaguar to advertise their ev's with EU mileage/ratings
which is quite short of U.S ones

This might explain in the legal response letter why the telsa lawyer did not back down.

Which sets up Tesla for a false advertising lawsuit if a Model 3 hits a heavier vehicle head-on, and the Model 3 occupants fare worse than the others...

 

[daveishere]

It is a fact that the Tesla Model 3 is significantly safer than other cars of similar size and weight. IMO, Tesla is fully within its rights to highlight that fact using publicly available NHTSA data.

Only allowing Tesla to advertise "5 stars", when it's vehicles are actually far safer than competing "5 star" rated vehicles, largely defeats the point of the NHTSA tests - to encourage auto makers to improve their vehicle's safety. Why spend time and money to exceed a 5 star safety rating if you're not allowed to tell anyone about it?

Heh. What you're saying is, "This goes to 11."
What a hoot.

Edit- What would it take for you to comprehend that no car can 'exceed a 5-star safety rating' since 5 stars is the highest rating? For extra credit, show documentation of your claim that Tesla 'vehicles are actually far safer than competing "5-star" rated vehicles'.
I'd be fascinated to learn the criteria for the term 'far safer'.

 

[sneakeypete]

Why spend time and money to exceed a 5 star safety rating if you're not allowed to tell anyone about it?

The requirements to meet a 5 star rating continuously increase over time, so there's incentive to get ahead of the game there I suppose

 

[TVPaulD]

This is a case where both sides are right.

(and where I'll be downvoted by readers who do fall on a particular side )

This just reads like the typical “if there’s two sides shouting equally loudly, I must be right because I’m in the middle” nonsense. It’s nothing more than the balance fallacy. Just because there are factual elements to both arguments doesn’t mean they have equal weight. In this case, unless Tesla demonstrates that NHTSA doesn’t understand its own tests, data or rules (and they have given no indication that they are remotely capable of doing so), an objective observer would have little reason not to give greater weight to NHTSA’s side.

Smugly complaining about people disagreeing with you to imply that it confirms your fence-sitting is rational and any other view is simply biased is never persuasive and it’s certainly not clever. It’s an excuse not to think.

 

[Raistian77]

It is a fact that the Tesla Model 3 is significantly safer than other cars of similar size and weight. IMO, Tesla is fully within its rights to highlight that fact using publicly available NHTSA data.

Only allowing Tesla to advertise "5 stars", when it's vehicles are actually far safer than competing "5 star" rated vehicles, largely defeats the point of the NHTSA tests - to encourage auto makers to improve their vehicle's safety. Why spend time and money to exceed a 5 star safety rating if you're not allowed to tell anyone about it?

Except that is again not what they said. Tesla did not claim they are safer than any other car in its weight class. They said that it is safer than any other car period. That just doesn't hold up.

Exactly, their claims are not supported by the test as the tests do not even test the conclusion Tesla is making. I can't blame the NHTSA from objecting as Tesla is committing confounding bias with the data.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

I don't know about the VSS rating, but this guy survived a 40ft fall

Tesla Model 3 Driver Survives Massive 40-Foot Tumble Down Embankment After Seizure

https://www.thedrive.com/news/29138/tes ... er-seizure

What's amazing is he walked away without any major injuries & the glass roof did not shatter (how on earth did that not break)

Sure, other cars may survive as well, I'm impressed with the structural integrity of this car & that roof, given its a very heavy car with those batteries.

 

[The Cappy]

This is something that has been raised a lot in discussions, when The Faithful inevitably parrot The Leader. Its good to see it finally being addressed at a higher level, although I don’t look forward to the dumpster fire this comment section will inevitably become.

Yeah it's so much better in a partisan situation to use the well-established tropes of religious mockery. Because that makes you look soooo much better informed. Thanks for taking the intellectual level of the discussion down a notch. And with the second comment too.

 

[Tondelaya Shillyshally von Brainstorm]

The clear issue here is that Musk is attempting to use an official source as a citation while arguing that the official source is wrong.

He could have said, according to an independent analysis of NHTSA data, the Model 3 is the safest car in its class, and probably been okay.

Instead, he wanted to use the reputation of the NHTSA as a reliable agency, so he said it was according to the NHTSA, and then, he compared to all cars, not just cars in the same class.

When the agency told him he was using the data in an unsupported manner, he said they were wrong.

If they are wrong, why refer to their numbers at all? Are they right on everything else, and just wrong on how to read their own tests? That would be odd, would you agree?

Musk is just showing he is really not fit to be in the position he has.

 

[daveishere]

This is something that has been raised a lot in discussions, when The Faithful inevitably parrot The Leader. Its good to see it finally being addressed at a higher level, although I don’t look forward to the dumpster fire this comment section will inevitably become.

Yeah it's so much better in a partisan situation to use the well-established tropes of religious mockery. Because that makes you look soooo much better informed. Thanks for taking the intellectual level of the discussion down a notch. And with the second comment too.

I see we have the torch tossed in the dumpster. Well done.

 

[daveishere]

The clear issue here is that Musk is attempting to use an official source as a citation while arguing that the official source is wrong.

He could have said, according to an independent analysis of NHTSA data, the Model 3 is the safest car in its class, and probably been okay.

Instead, he wanted to use the reputation of the NHTSA as a reliable agency, so he said it was according to the NHTSA, and then, he compared to all cars, not just cars in the same class.

When the agency told him he was using the data in an unsupported manner, he said they were wrong.

If they are wrong, why refer to their numbers at all? Are they right on everything else, and just wrong on how to read their own tests? That would be odd, would you agree?

Musk is just showing he is really not fit to be in the position he has.

I'm doubtful it would have been OK. If the highest rating is 5 stars and if there is more than one 5 star rated vehicle, then they can't claim their car is 'safer'. By the criteria used in the rating they can only claim their vehicle is 'as safe' as the others.

 

[Tondelaya Shillyshally von Brainstorm]

The clear issue here is that Musk is attempting to use an official source as a citation while arguing that the official source is wrong.

He could have said, according to an independent analysis of NHTSA data, the Model 3 is the safest car in its class, and probably been okay.

Instead, he wanted to use the reputation of the NHTSA as a reliable agency, so he said it was according to the NHTSA, and then, he compared to all cars, not just cars in the same class.

When the agency told him he was using the data in an unsupported manner, he said they were wrong.

If they are wrong, why refer to their numbers at all? Are they right on everything else, and just wrong on how to read their own tests? That would be odd, would you agree?

Musk is just showing he is really not fit to be in the position he has.

I'm doubtful it would have been OK. If the highest rating is 5 stars and if there is more than one 5 star rated vehicle, then they can't claim their car is 'safer'. By the criteria used in the rating they can only claim their vehicle is 'as safe' as the others.

I believe the problematic term in the statement was 'achieves.'

Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA

The word 'achieves' indicates that the NHTSA itself acknowledged the injury probability. The entire structure of the headline is somewhat problematic, as it does not specify the source of the claim as someone other than the NHTSA. However, I believe if we replace the word 'achieves' with the two words 'data indicates' the entire thing would have just gone by barely noticed.

You can independently analyze government data improperly and then tell people the result of your improper analysis, and as far as I am aware, that is covered by freedom of expression. You can release bad science and stamp it with the Tesla symbol and you did not break a law. The problem comes when you start pretending the source of your improper analysis is some other entity, such as a government agency.

If you said, according to an analysis done by my seventh grader during recess, using NHTSA data, the Model 3 would win in a crash with a Cadillac Escalade, you would be okay. You labeled the source. You did not imply that the NHTSA endorsed the claim.

The content of his claim was fine, but the wording was inappropriate.

 

[WXW]

[Offtopic blah]

At what point should a "Doesn't contribute" downvote be changed to a spam notification? Or maybe the "Sponsored comment" note is missing from that post due to a bug?

 

[Deleted member 221201]

[Offtopic blah]

At what point should a "Doesn't contribute" downvote be changed to a spam notification? Or maybe the "Sponsored comment" note is missing from that post due to a bug?

How is voicing an opinion “spam” ?

I’m not sponsored by anyone, least of all Tesla or any publication and simply putting my 2c
as a subscriber

You, Sir are free to ignore opinions that do not match your worldview.

 

[traumadog]

Probably, we'll see. Lawyers will stand ground if they think they are in the right & its too early to tell where this goes

If audi/vw, porsche etc start using the same metrics then it puts the NHSTA in a bit of a bind, if there was no legalese prevent such use in the first place.


Model 3 owners will be ok regardless, myself included. This car has already saved my life twice with auto braking & the sensors, so no complaints in that dept

I did get an email offer from Tesla to upgrade from EAP to FSD for $3,000 which I passed as I don't drive very long distances & I do enjoy driving the model 3 for short distances.

You do realize that there's a large difference between Model 3 buyers being happy with their car (for which there is nothing wrong), and Musk claiming it is the "safest car made". Especially since the data doesn't compare the Model 3 to every other car directly, and the source of the data is actively saying as such.

 

[LosAngelesPandas]

Any auto manufacturer in the history of the world playing fast and loose with the things it claims in its marketing? Shocked /s

FTFY

You can only make fun of Tesla around here with meaningless garbage like DAE conman, amirite?

 

[LosAngelesPandas]

The NHTSA would have liked Tesla to stop there. Instead, Tesla dug into the NHTSA's data and spotted an opportunity to further toot its own horn. As part of its evaluation process, the NHTSA calculates a number called a vehicle safety score, which the agency has characterized as “relative risk of injury." The agency then awards each vehicle a star rating based on VSS ranges.

Tesla noticed that the Model 3 had a better VSS score than any other vehicle on the market. That, in Tesla's view, means that a Model 3 driver is less likely to be injured in a crash than a driver of any other vehicle.

It's truly strange until it's something you like and then it's not strange anymore, is it?

What exactly did NHTSA think would happen, if they butt heads with a team of nitpicky software/hardware engineers, hell bent on proving a point

NHTSA cannot hand wave this away, just because they are a gov't agency.
Either clean up their own ratings or face the result

If Tesla is correct on what they did in court, it will be egg on the agency's face
& they will have opened up the possibility of digging thru stuff like this for other car makers, who will also be "technically correct"

Is there anything Tesla related you won't aggressively defend on Ars? Like Tesla is being dishonest here, there is no 'gotchya!' with government agencies. The cult of personality around Elon and luxury goods people buy is truly strange.

Edit: Typing is hard I guess.

It's bizarre until it's something you like, then it's not so weird anymore is it?

 

[Deleted member 221201]

The gov has no leg to stand on, they have to prove there's a blatant lie taking place, otherwise it runs against the first amendment..

Don’t worry, Red Bull will give them Wings

 

[jock2nerd]

Thanks

None of the FSD payments have been realized on teslas books, which means they cant use them or call it profit or whatever, close to $2bn from memory.

So you’re claiming that if you buy a Tesla car and get the FSD option, they set the money you paid for the option aside and don’t count it as income?

Interesting take...

That's the way accounting rules work.

It's an "advance payment" so it's held on the balance sheet as an asset until the income can be realized:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ad ... ayment.asp

Edit: Add link and better description.

 

[numerobis]

Thanks

None of the FSD payments have been realized on teslas books, which means they cant use them or call it profit or whatever, close to $2bn from memory.

So you’re claiming that if you buy a Tesla car and get the FSD option, they set the money you paid for the option aside and don’t count it as income?

Interesting take...

That's the way accounting rules work.

They don’t count it as income, but it’s cash; it’s not in escrow or anything, they can spend the cash. In effect it’s a zero-interest loan.

 

[jock2nerd]

Ha... my worry about being in a Tesla has less to do with crashing and more to do with a nasty electrical fire.

But I realize that's just a result of media reporting, quite frankly I'm well aware a short in the car stereo is just as dramatic in a regular ICE.

There has not yet been a serious fire in a Tesla Model 3.

Yes, fine, Tesla go overboard protecting the battery, but that pays off.

 

[Bush Ranger]

Technically right or technically wrong we can even argue punctuation, get English university professors lawyers and judges to tell us what the words mean or don't mean and its all technically pointless.

Go to a shopping mall in suburban America let 1000 people read the claims made and ask them what they think it means and would they buy the car based on said claims, and there is the true meaning of the words.


STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: THE MEANING OF MEANING
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ ... 011/3.html

 

[Kruskal-Szekeres]

[Offtopic blah]

At what point should a "Doesn't contribute" downvote be changed to a spam notification? Or maybe the "Sponsored comment" note is missing from that post due to a bug?

You, Sir are free to ignore opinions that do not match your worldview.

That is either satire at its finest, or you have a clinically significant lack of insight. Either way, you are a drag. When you’re not defending the indefensible, you’re accusing Ars authors of racism/misogyny on the flimsiest premises.

Spam is a bad term for this, trolling is not.

 

[Spackler's Bent]

Technically right or technically wrong we can even argue punctuation, get English university professors lawyers and judges to tell us what the words mean or don't mean and its all technically pointless.

Go to a shopping mall in suburban America let 1000 people read the claims made and ask them what they think it means and would they buy the car based on said claims, and there is the true meaning of the words.


STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: THE MEANING OF MEANING
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ ... 011/3.html

Except that the application of that idea, at least in the US, is generally by determining what "a reasonable person" would believe. While one side may try to use surveys as evidence, this ultimately ends up being determined, subjectively, by the judge or other authoritative body.

On top of that, for false/deceptive advertising claims, you have to provide evidence that the statement in question are "material" meaning that they result in altered behavior (buying the product typically) from the consumer. Plus deceptive comparisons in this country are notoriously hard to make a case for unless there is a specific metric that contradicts the claim.

I'm reminded of the Pizza Hut v Papa John's lawsuit regarding Papa John's slogan of "Better ingredients. Better Pizza." Papa John's won that lawsuit because the statement wasn't an objectifiable statement of fact, even though the implication was patently obvious.

I think the biggest thing Tesla has going against them is that they specifically defied the guidance in their claim. I suspect that is more likely to get them in trouble than any of the semantic arguments about being the "safest" and whether the appropriate context was used or even how the average joe perceives the word.

 

[AugustEllison]

It's as if the libertarians all bought Teslas.

Not sure if I got that joke

 

[Tondelaya Shillyshally von Brainstorm]

Tesla noticed that the Model 3 had a better VSS score than any other vehicle on the market. That, in Tesla's view, means that a Model 3 driver is less likely to be injured in a crash than a driver of any other vehicle.

So would I. If NHTSA thinks the VSS isn't sufficient for such comparisons then the solution isn't to hammer Tesla's use. NHTSA needs to fix VSS then publish the scores.

This sort of thinking led to the oft-mocked 100-point video game review scores and the like.of yesteryear. As if the subjective reviewer could really draw a meaningful distinction between, say, a 93-point score and a 92-point score.

The position of the NHTSA, which knows a lot more than you or me about crashworthiness and auto safety, is that crash dynamics are so complex that there is no utility in offering more than a five-level (six? I don't know if there's a zero-star rating) scoring system. More verbose information is not necessarily better, especially when attempting to communicate to non-experts.

"People are too stupid to understand more data" is a pretty poor excuse for not having a more informative safety scoring system than 1-5.

It is already pretty useless in a lot of ways anyway, but I am unsure a more descriptive scoring system would really help.

People often forget that humans differ from each other. Safe for you is not guaranteed to be safe for me. If Jamie is 400 lb 5'6" and Sandy is 150 lb 6'4" they will have different safest vehicles. They certainly have different vehicles they simply cannot safely operate.

Aside from the fact that obese people are eighty percent more likely to die in an accident and more likely to get into an accident at all, there are certain cars which will not safely seat a 400 lb person. Seat belt extensions reduce safety on three point systems and seat rail modification can change the occupant position from where the crash test devices were placed during testing. On the other hand, some convertibles have such low tops that in the event of a rollover, Sandy will have his head crushed instantly. They may be perfectly safe for someone else, but not for Sandy.

The idea of one safest car is actually a bit silly, which is why they stick with a vague system like this. Five stars means it is good enough for a safety conscious consumer to look at up close, not that it is a guarantee the human who decides to buy it will be safe in it. Some consideration needs to be given to the driver, the environment, the amount of maintenance funding available, and the activity expected of the car on a regular basis. The rating only counts for a small bit, so there is no point in making it super specific.

 

[gg555]

I used to like Tesla as a company and be excited by their products. Now between the marketing lies, the total disregard for human life in promoting their cruise control as "auto-pilot," the mistreatment of female employees, the manipulation of their stock value through illegal statements by their CEO, the necessity to agree that they can track your car at all times for usage data and product development, it just seems like a sleazey company that I don't trust. Is this what Musk is going for?

 

[Deleted member 221201]

I used to like Tesla as a company and be excited by their products. Now between the marketing lies, the total disregard for human life in promoting their cruise control as "auto-pilot," the mistreatment of female employees, the manipulation of their stock value through illegal statements by their CEO, the necessity to agree that they can track your car at all times for usage data and product development, it just seems like a sleazey company that I don't trust. Is this what Musk is going for?

Data stats sent is opt-in. You can enable/disable that at any time you like

 

[Deleted member 221201]

[Offtopic blah]

At what point should a "Doesn't contribute" downvote be changed to a spam notification? Or maybe the "Sponsored comment" note is missing from that post due to a bug?

You, Sir are free to ignore opinions that do not match your worldview.

That is either satire at its finest, or you have a clinically significant lack of insight. Either way, you are a drag. When you’re not defending the indefensible, you’re accusing Ars authors of racism/misogyny on the flimsiest premises.

Spam is a bad term for this, trolling is not.

When I post satire, I usually put an emoji at the end
Never cared to troll. I stayed my opinion and thought it made an interesting case and that was that

You are entitled to your opinion.
May I suggest subscribing and supporting Ars ?

You will feel a lot better when you are equipped with an ars T-shirt and
have an ars coffee mug within reach, the prose will flow easier

Kind regards

 

[Glicker]

Come on. If you’re going to detail the points of the agency, and then only link to Tesla’s reply only citing their conclusion, at least mention that they rebut every single point with data and good faith, not shortcutting the data like implied.

Also link to Teslarati’s more detailed analysis of that exact situation showing also that the agency back down from its claims afterwards when faced with Tesla’s arguments. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3 ... deep-dive/

I come here for good analysis. I have other sites for one-sided views from both perspectives. Raise the bar.

 

[grstanford]

If Tesla has said "lowest probability of injury in the NHTSA tests of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA" then I think they'd be on pretty firm ground. The NHTSA probably still wouldn't like it because it's not how they want their data to be used, but it seems like a pretty factually solid claim.

Isn't the NHTSA a goverment body? and aren't government bodies supposed to make their data and research publicly available (because it is publicly funded) for others to analyse unless it contains private details on citizens or pertains to national security?

So, what precisely is the NHTSA's problem here?!

 

[Jim Z]

Thanks

None of the FSD payments have been realized on teslas books, which means they cant use them or call it profit or whatever, close to $2bn from memory.

So you’re claiming that if you buy a Tesla car and get the FSD option, they set the money you paid for the option aside and don’t count it as income?

Interesting take...

That's the way accounting rules work.

It's an "advance payment" so it's held on the balance sheet as an asset until the income can be realized:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ad ... ayment.asp

Edit: Add link and better description.

How about you show evidence Tesla is actually doing this instead of just barfing up generic crap from investopedia?

 

[Jim Z]

The gov has no leg to stand on, they have to prove there's a blatant lie taking place, otherwise it runs against the first amendment.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/07/br ... next-week/

The real problems are the tests and the reporting are designed to let everyone have something good to say about their cars so they can sell them. Tesla wants to disrupt the apple cart and show that it has cars that are safer than anything ever sold.

Maybe the IIHS test will help here. Tesla's EVs - and any similar EV implementations - are by design, that skateboard has many advantages in terms of rigit structure, large crumple zones, and low center of gravity, that are not applicable to ICE car designs, it's not really a surprise.

The Model 3 is not a “skateboard.” It’s a conventional monocoque (unit body) with the battery as a subassembly which bolts under the floor pan.

I guess expecting Tesla fans to actually know what they’re talking about is expecting too much.