Re: [新聞]Tesla安全聲明槓上NHTSA 兩邊都沒錯
爭論來源就是官方推特
"There is no safer car in the world than a Tesla"
https://reurl.cc/yAzaM
https://i.imgur.com/yCKh1fd.jpg
之後隔天就陸陸續續有NHTSA和美國政府出來澄清的新聞
https://reurl.cc/Rk5Lx
https://reurl.cc/oYWKv
https://reurl.cc/DOGY5
https://reurl.cc/vrGRN
簡單講,去年10月Tesla官推講沒其他車比model3安全,
NHTSA隔天馬上發澄清稿五星分級外沒有誰更佳的說法
因為NHTSA僅對測試結果評定星等1~5,同樣星等內沒有實際排名
但Tesla拿NHTSA資料去,弄個排名,說沒有車比Tesla安全
這也不是第一次,2013年Elon Musk講5.4星被NHTSA糾正過一次
※ 引述《hanchueh (RaidenHC)》之銘言:
: 富比士文章指出為何特斯拉跟美國國家公路交通安全局的雙方主張都沒錯
: 原文連結:
: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/08/08/tesla-and-nhtsa-spar-ove
: r-tesla-safety-claims-theyre-both-right/#51b8b4110388
: 原文內容:
: Last October, the NHTSA, the federal agency that (among other things) does saf
: ety crash tests wrote a letter to Tesla, telling them not to say things like
: “Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested
: by NHTSA” and “But when a crash happens in real life, these test results sh
: ow that if you are driving a Tesla, you have the best chance of avoiding serio
: us injury.”? Car companies who do the tests have to follow regulations about
: how they express the results, and NHTSA says Tesla’s marketing breaks those r
: ules, and ordered them to stop. Tesla said they won’t stop — I’ll get into
: why they would be this defiant below.
: When NHTSA does a test, they slam a car into walls and barriers.? They calcula
: te a score based on, among other things, how the crash test dummies come out o
: f it. The Tesla Model 3 did indeed get the best score ever, and this is part o
: f why I bought mine.
: NHTSA doesn’t want Tesla saying those claims because it declares that the num
: bers can’t be compared between cars that are very different in weight.? That
: even if the test did indicate that you would do better in a Tesla Model 3 than
: any other car hitting a wall, this might not be true if your Tesla crashes in
: to a safely designed Hummer or even an unsafely designed transport truck.
: In boxing, they sometimes try to judge boxers on what they call a “pound for
: pound” comparison, trying to score them independently of their weight. Mostag
: ree that Sugar Ray Robinson was, pound-for-pound, a much better boxer than Mik
: e Tyson. But if you had to bet on one in a fight, you would probably bet on Ty
: son.
: Tesla notes that the Model 3 is heavy as cars go, and it is, because of its ba
: ttery pack, but it’s still not a truck.
: NHTSA is not saying the Tesla isn’t the safest car ever.? Rather, they are sa
: ying, because their tests can’t be used to compare cars of very different wei
: ght, they don’t have the answer to that question, and Tesla should not imply
: they have said this. They’re right, and probably have the legal authority
: to demand this. But Tesla’s score is very impressive, and very likely means t
: hat “pound for pound” it is the safest car made so far, and the safest of an
: y car, regardless of weight, in a crash against a stationary object. That’s s
: omething to be proud of. And while NHTSA says their scores are not approved to
: be compared between weight classes, that doesn’t mean that it might be possi
: ble to do so.
: So why would Tesla defy NHTSA on this, and not simply come up with more subtle
: ways to say their message? I have a cynical suspicion that they don’t mind a
: ll the press this battle has generated; you’re reading some of that press now
: . It’s a nice thing to see tons of press about the very fine points of how yo
: u define “safest car ever” and who can say what, because the main thingleft
: in the mind of the public is a very positive message for Tesla.
: 重點翻譯:
: NHTSA 的撞擊測試是用一面牆,然後根據撞擊的結果來算出一個分數。Model 3 的確拿到
: 了有史以來的最高分,那為什麼 NHTSA 不希望特斯拉主張 Model 3 是有史以來最安全的
: 車呢?因為實際車禍不會只是撞一面牆,有可能撞到一台安全性也高的悍馬,或是一台根
: 本不符合安全規定的改裝貨車,這都有可能讓 Model 3 撞擊結果不符合測試結果。
: 用拳擊來比喻的話,可能一個輕量級的選手擁有有史以來最好的數據,但對上一個數據稍
: 低的重量級選手,你可能還是想賭後者贏。
: NHTSA 並沒有直接否認「Model 3 是有史以來最安全的車」這句話,而是說他們的分數不
: 能拿來比較重量差很大的不同車款,所以他們不希望特斯拉這樣比較。
: 但是特斯拉也沒錯,不管是跟同重量級的車比較,或是跟不同重量的車只比撞牆,Model
: 3 的確就是最安全的車。
: 作者另外還懷疑,特斯拉刻意繼續這樣比較的原因是這類的報導讓 Model 3 跟「有史以
: 來最安全」這個關鍵字持續曝光,當作免費的正面宣傳。
: 心得/說明:(30字以上)
: 所以說 Model 3 是有史以來最安全的車並沒錯
: 但是以 NHTSA 的立場 應該要加上兩個條件
: 1. 只跟同重量級車比
: 2. 跟不同級車比 只比撞牆
: Model 3 如果撞上火車 當然還是火車比較安全
: 但是跟同級車比它的確是有史以來最安全
: *轉錄新聞/情報,必須附上原文及網址連結及心得或意見30字(不含標點符號)*
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 36.228.252.102 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/car/M.1565487126.A.C47.html
推
08/11 09:39,
4年前
, 1F
08/11 09:39, 1F
→
08/11 09:40,
4年前
, 2F
08/11 09:40, 2F
→
08/11 09:58,
4年前
, 3F
08/11 09:58, 3F
推
08/11 10:10,
4年前
, 4F
08/11 10:10, 4F
推
08/11 10:32,
4年前
, 5F
08/11 10:32, 5F
推
08/11 11:09,
4年前
, 6F
08/11 11:09, 6F
→
08/11 11:09,
4年前
, 7F
08/11 11:09, 7F
推
08/11 11:13,
4年前
, 8F
08/11 11:13, 8F
→
08/11 11:13,
4年前
, 9F
08/11 11:13, 9F
推
08/11 11:18,
4年前
, 10F
08/11 11:18, 10F
→
08/11 11:18,
4年前
, 11F
08/11 11:18, 11F
→
08/11 11:19,
4年前
, 12F
08/11 11:19, 12F
→
08/11 11:19,
4年前
, 13F
08/11 11:19, 13F
Tesla的推特是引用誰的測試報告,NHTSA的
那麼NHTSA有下最安全的車子這個結論嗎,並沒有!
既然沒有,那Tesla就不該拿著NHTSA的報告講出這一句
"There is no safer car in the world than a Tesla"
噓
08/11 12:26,
4年前
, 14F
08/11 12:26, 14F
→
08/11 12:26,
4年前
, 15F
08/11 12:26, 15F
→
08/11 12:28,
4年前
, 16F
08/11 12:28, 16F
→
08/11 12:28,
4年前
, 17F
08/11 12:28, 17F
Tesla可以說在NHTSA這項資料中,Model 3/S/X有相當低的乘客傷害率
而不是下結論說是NHTSA測試過最安全的車子,然後被NHTSA發澄清稿說誤導
沒法分辨其中差異,卻來質疑有沒有寫過論文? XD
推
08/11 12:36,
4年前
, 18F
08/11 12:36, 18F
→
08/11 12:36,
4年前
, 19F
08/11 12:36, 19F
→
08/11 12:38,
4年前
, 20F
08/11 12:38, 20F
→
08/11 12:38,
4年前
, 21F
08/11 12:38, 21F
推
08/11 12:43,
4年前
, 22F
08/11 12:43, 22F
→
08/11 12:51,
4年前
, 23F
08/11 12:51, 23F
推
08/11 12:53,
4年前
, 24F
08/11 12:53, 24F
→
08/11 12:54,
4年前
, 25F
08/11 12:54, 25F
推
08/11 13:04,
4年前
, 26F
08/11 13:04, 26F
→
08/11 13:06,
4年前
, 27F
08/11 13:06, 27F
→
08/11 13:06,
4年前
, 28F
08/11 13:06, 28F
The NHTSA didn’t directly respond to Tesla’s comments at that time, but
the agency did say that it “does not distinguish safety performance beyond
(a five-star) rating, thus there is no ‘safest’ vehicle among those
vehicles achieving five-star ratings.”
NHTSA就跟你說只按星等分級,也不會用到safest這字眼了,看不懂嗎.....
推
08/11 13:42,
4年前
, 29F
08/11 13:42, 29F
→
08/11 13:42,
4年前
, 30F
08/11 13:42, 30F
推
08/11 13:42,
4年前
, 31F
08/11 13:42, 31F
→
08/11 13:43,
4年前
, 32F
08/11 13:43, 32F
→
08/11 13:43,
4年前
, 33F
08/11 13:43, 33F
推
08/11 13:45,
4年前
, 34F
08/11 13:45, 34F
→
08/11 13:45,
4年前
, 35F
08/11 13:45, 35F
推
08/11 13:49,
4年前
, 36F
08/11 13:49, 36F
還有 125 則推文
還有 16 段內文
→
08/12 16:02,
4年前
, 162F
08/12 16:02, 162F
推
08/12 16:06,
4年前
, 163F
08/12 16:06, 163F
→
08/12 16:06,
4年前
, 164F
08/12 16:06, 164F
→
08/12 16:07,
4年前
, 165F
08/12 16:07, 165F
所以NHTSA特地大動作發新聞澄清沒有更進一步的安全等級分級
用NHTSA的資料,又不遵守NHTSA訂的規則過度解讀
推特那前後語句搞得好像NHTSA幫背書Tesla最安全勒
推
08/12 16:11,
4年前
, 166F
08/12 16:11, 166F
→
08/12 16:12,
4年前
, 167F
08/12 16:12, 167F
→
08/12 16:13,
4年前
, 168F
08/12 16:13, 168F
NCAP規章:評鑑不會提到"safest" "perfect"
你就繼續盲目挺Tesla說法吧
※ 編輯: chandler0227 (36.224.240.145 臺灣), 08/12/2019 16:17:39
推
08/12 16:19,
4年前
, 169F
08/12 16:19, 169F
推
08/12 16:23,
4年前
, 170F
08/12 16:23, 170F
推
08/12 16:25,
4年前
, 171F
08/12 16:25, 171F
→
08/12 16:26,
4年前
, 172F
08/12 16:26, 172F
不是某星級,是"特定"星級
即便是五星級的車也不能用到safest很難懂?
→
08/12 16:26,
4年前
, 173F
08/12 16:26, 173F
→
08/12 16:27,
4年前
, 174F
08/12 16:27, 174F
→
08/12 16:27,
4年前
, 175F
08/12 16:27, 175F
→
08/12 16:27,
4年前
, 176F
08/12 16:27, 176F
→
08/12 16:28,
4年前
, 177F
08/12 16:28, 177F
→
08/12 16:28,
4年前
, 178F
08/12 16:28, 178F
推
08/12 16:30,
4年前
, 179F
08/12 16:30, 179F
推
08/12 16:41,
4年前
, 180F
08/12 16:41, 180F
→
08/12 16:41,
4年前
, 181F
08/12 16:41, 181F
→
08/12 16:42,
4年前
, 182F
08/12 16:42, 182F
那請Tesla自己建一套評鑑制度啊,要用NHTSA的資料又不照NHTSA的解釋XD
→
08/12 16:43,
4年前
, 183F
08/12 16:43, 183F
→
08/12 16:43,
4年前
, 184F
08/12 16:43, 184F
→
08/12 16:44,
4年前
, 185F
08/12 16:44, 185F
→
08/12 16:44,
4年前
, 186F
08/12 16:44, 186F
推
08/12 17:13,
4年前
, 187F
08/12 17:13, 187F
推
08/12 17:51,
4年前
, 188F
08/12 17:51, 188F
只能說能信仰到這樣地步真不簡單
※ 編輯: chandler0227 (36.224.240.145 臺灣), 08/12/2019 18:33:00
推
08/12 18:39,
4年前
, 189F
08/12 18:39, 189F
→
08/12 18:40,
4年前
, 190F
08/12 18:40, 190F
推
08/12 18:46,
4年前
, 191F
08/12 18:46, 191F
推
08/12 18:56,
4年前
, 192F
08/12 18:56, 192F
推
08/13 09:56,
4年前
, 193F
08/13 09:56, 193F
→
08/13 09:57,
4年前
, 194F
08/13 09:57, 194F
→
08/13 10:07,
4年前
, 195F
08/13 10:07, 195F
→
08/13 10:07,
4年前
, 196F
08/13 10:07, 196F
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容:
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 2 篇):