Connect with us

News

Tesla and its peers are proving that EVs are inherently safer than combustion cars

Tesla Model 3 undergoes crash tests with the IIHS. (Credit: IIHS)

Published

on

An analysis of insurance data in the United States has shown that injury claims are notably less common among all-electric vehicles like the Tesla Model 3 and its peers. The findings were shared by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in a recent report, which followed the release of its safety ratings for the 2021 Volvo XC40 Recharge and the Ford Mustang Mach-E. 

The XC40 Recharge and the Mustang Mach-E were able to secure high rankings in the IIHS’ stringent safety tests, with the former receiving a Top Safety Pick+ award and the latter receiving a lower but still impressive Top Safety Pick rating. Other all-electric vehicles, most notably the Tesla Model 3, the Audi e-tron, and the Audi e-tron Sportback, have qualified for the 2021 Top Safety Pick+ award. 

Credit: IIHS

Interestingly enough, the release of the XC40 Recharge and Mach-E’s stay ratings coincided with a recent study of insurance losses for electric vehicles by the IIHS-affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute. The study looked at electric and conventional versions of nine vehicles produced from 2011 and 2019, and it examined collision, property damage liability, and injury claims. 

As per the study’s findings, the rates of injury claims related to drivers and passengers of electric vehicles were over 40% lower compared to their internal combustion-powered counterparts over 2011-2019. The IIHS notes that these results were quite similar to the findings of an earlier study from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) that focused on hybrid cars, which pointed out that the lower injury rates may be due to the weight of the vehicles’ batteries. 

As per the HLDI, the large batteries used in hybrids make vehicles substantially heavier than conventional cars. Occupants of heavier vehicles are exposed to lower forces in multi-vehicle crashes. Matt Moore, HLDI vice president, explained these findings in a statement. “Weight is a big factor. Hybrids on average are 10% heavier than their standard counterparts. This extra mass gives them an advantage in crashes that their conventional twins don’t have,” he said

Tesla Model 3 undergoes crash tests with the IIHS. (Credit: IIHS)

This weight advantage is even more notable in all-electric cars like the Tesla Model 3, on account of their substantially larger battery packs. This was true for the XC40 Recharge, which features a curb weight of 4,787 lbs, which is significantly heavier than the 3,811 lbs of its combustion-powered counterpart. Even the Mach-E, which is an all-electric model, is quite hefty at 4,516 lbs. 

IIHS President David Harkey is quite optimistic about the study’s findings. In a statement, he noted that the study further proves that all-electric cars are as safe or even safer than conventional vehicles. This means that a transition to sustainable vehicles would likely not require as many compromises on the part of consumers. “It’s fantastic to see more proof that these vehicles are as safe as or safer than gasoline- and diesel-powered cars. We can now say with confidence that making the U.S. fleet more environmentally friendly doesn’t require any compromises in terms of safety,” he said. 

Advertisement
-->

Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s warning to legacy automakers: Tesla FSD licensing snub echoes EV dismissal

Published

on

tesla interior operating on full self driving
Credit: TESLARATI

Elon Musk said in late November that he’s “tried to warn” legacy automakers and “even offered to license Tesla Full Self-Driving, but they don’t want it,” expressing frustration with companies that refuse to adopt the company’s suite, which will eventually be autonomous.

Tesla has long established itself as the leader in self-driving technology, especially in the United States. Although there are formidable competitors, Tesla’s FSD suite is the most robust and is not limited to certain areas or roadways. It operates anywhere and everywhere.

The company’s current position as the leader in self-driving tech is being ignored by legacy automakers, a parallel to what Tesla’s position was with EV development over a decade ago, which was also ignored by competitors.

The reluctance mirrors how legacy automakers initially dismissed EVs, only to scramble in catch-up mode years later–a pattern that highlights their historical underestimation of disruptive innovations from Tesla.

Elon Musk’s Self-Driving Licensing Attempts

Musk and Tesla have tried to push Full Self-Driving to other car companies, with no true suitors, despite ongoing conversations for years. Tesla’s FSD is aiming to become more robust through comprehensive data collection and a larger fleet, something the company has tried to establish through a subscription program, free trials, and other strategies.

Advertisement
-->

Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving

However, competing companies have not wanted to license FSD for a handful of speculative reasons: competitive pride, regulatory concerns, high costs, or preference for in-house development.

Déjà vu All Over Again

Tesla tried to portray the importance of EVs long ago, as in the 2010s, executives from companies like Ford and GM downplayed the importance of sustainable powertrains as niche or unprofitable.

Musk once said in a 2014 interview that rivals woke up to electric powertrains when the Model S started to disrupt things and gained some market share. Things got really serious upon the launch of the Model 3 in 2017, as a mass-market vehicle was what Tesla was missing from its lineup.

This caused legacy companies to truly wake up; they were losing market share to Tesla’s new and exciting tech that offered less maintenance, a fresh take on passenger auto, and other advantages. They were late to the party, and although they have all launched vehicles of their own, they still lag in two major areas: sales and infrastructure, leaning on Tesla for the latter.

Advertisement
-->

Musk’s past warnings have been plentiful. In 2017, he responded to critics who stated Tesla was chasing subsidies. He responded, “Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 and then crushed them in a junkyard,” adding that “they would be doing nothing” on EVs without Tesla’s efforts.

Advertisement
-->

Companies laughed off Tesla’s prowess with EVs, only to realize they had made a grave mistake later on.

It looks to be happening once again.

A Pattern of Underestimation

Both EVs and self-driving tech represent major paradigm shifts that legacy players view as threats to their established business models; it’s hard to change. However, these early push-aways from new tech only result in reactive strategies later on, usually resulting in what pains they are facing now.

Ford is scaling back its EV efforts, and GM’s projects are hurting. Although they both have in-house self-driving projects, they are falling well behind the progress of Tesla and even other competitors.

It is getting to a point where short-term risk will become a long-term setback, and they may have to rely on a company to pull them out of a tough situation later on, just as it did with Tesla and EV charging infrastructure.

Advertisement
-->

Tesla has continued to innovate, while legacy automakers have lagged behind, and it has cost them dearly.

Implications and Future Outlook

Moving forward, Tesla’s progress will continue to accelerate, while a dismissive attitude by other companies will continue to penalize them, especially as time goes on. Falling further behind in self-driving could eventually lead to market share erosion, as autonomy could be a crucial part of vehicle marketing within the next few years.

Eventually, companies could be forced into joint partnerships as economic pressures mount. Some companies did this with EVs, but it has not resulted in very much.

Self-driving efforts are not only a strength for companies themselves, but they also contribute to other things, like affordability and safety.

Tesla has exhibited data that specifically shows its self-driving tech is safer than human drivers, most recently by a considerable margin. This would help with eliminating accidents and making roads safer.

Advertisement
-->

Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans

Additionally, competition in the market is a good thing, as it drives costs down and helps innovation continue on an upward trend.

Conclusion

The parallels are unmistakable: a decade ago, legacy automakers laughed off electric vehicles as toys for tree-huggers, crushed their own EV programs, and bet everything on the internal-combustion status quo–only to watch Tesla redefine the industry while they scrambled for billions in catch-up capital.

Today, the same companies are turning down repeated offers to license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology, insisting they can build better autonomy in-house, even as their own programs stumble through recalls, layoffs, and missed milestones. History is not merely rhyming; it is repeating almost note-for-note.

Elon Musk has spent twenty years warning that the auto industry’s bureaucratic inertia and short-term thinking will leave it stranded on the wrong side of technological revolutions. The question is no longer whether Tesla is ahead–it is whether the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart, and Toyota will finally listen before the next wave leaves them watching another leader pull away in the rear-view mirror.

Advertisement
-->

This time, the stakes are not just market share; they are the very definition of what a car will be in the decades ahead.

Continue Reading

News

Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff

No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative.

Published

on

Credit: Alex Choi/Instagram

A video posted on social media has shown an occupied Waymo driverless taxi driving directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles. 

As could be seen in the short video, which was initially posted on Instagram by user Alex Choi, a Waymo driverless taxi drove directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles. 

The driverless taxi made an unprotected left turn despite what appeared to be a red light, briefly entering a police perimeter. At the time, officers seemed to be giving commands to a prone suspect on the ground, who looked quite surprised at the sudden presence of the driverless vehicle. 

People on the sidewalk, including the person who was filming the video, could be heard chuckling at the Waymo’s strange behavior. 

The Waymo reportedly cleared the area within seconds. No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative. Still, the video spread across social media, with numerous netizens poking fun at the gaffe. 

Advertisement
-->

Others also pointed out that such a gaffe would have resulted in widespread controversy had the vehicle involved been a Tesla on FSD. Tesla is constantly under scrutiny, with TSLA shorts and similar groups actively trying to put down the company’s FSD program.

A Tesla on FSD or Robotaxi accidentally driving into an active police standoff would likely cause lawsuits, nonstop media coverage, and calls for a worldwide ban, at the least.

This was one of the reasons why even minor traffic infractions committed by the company’s Robotaxis during their initial rollout in Austin received nationwide media attention. This particular Waymo incident, however, will likely not receive as much coverage.  

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y demand in China is through the roof, new delivery dates show

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla Model Y demand in China is through the roof, and new delivery dates show the company has already sold out its allocation of the all-electric crossover for 2025.

The Model Y has been the most popular vehicle in the world in both of the last two years, outpacing incredibly popular vehicles like the Toyota RAV 4. In China, the EV market is substantially more saturated, with more competitors than in any other market.

However, Tesla has been kind to the Chinese market, as it has launched trim levels for the Model Y in the country that are not available anywhere else. Demand has been strong for the Model Y in China; it ranks in the top 5 of all EVs in the country, trailing the BYD Seagull, Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, and the Geely Galaxy Xingyuan.

The other three models ahead of the Model Y are priced substantially lower.

Tesla is still dealing with strong demand for the Model Y, and the company is now pushing delivery dates to early 2026, meaning the vehicle is sold out for the year:

Tesla experienced a 9.9 percent year-over-year rise in its China-made EV sales for November, meaning there is some serious potential for the automaker moving into next year despite increased competition.

There have been a lot of questions surrounding how Tesla would perform globally with more competition, but it seems to have a good grasp of various markets because of its vehicles, its charging infrastructure, and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite, which has been expanding to more countries as of late.

Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October

Tesla holds a dominating lead in the United States with EV registrations, and performs incredibly well in several European countries.

With demand in China looking strong, it will be interesting to see how the company ends the year in terms of global deliveries.

Continue Reading