A Public Letter to Mr. Musk and Tesla For The Sake Of All Tesla Driver's Safety

[Topher]

but threes times,

Well, I concede the point then. Saying it three times means it is true.

Thank you kindly.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm looking for the "obvious lies" that bhzmark is referring to (bhzmark stated "This isn't a translation issue. And it isn't that his perception is a bit off. He is lying."). Inconsistencies are extremely common after accidents. And you have to realize that Tesla is a multi-billion dollar company with a lot of money at stake that has PR people that get paid to do their job.

Tesla's PR folk are very good. Tesla did NOT say they contacted the driver. Tesla did NOT say there were any audible warnings. Tesla stated that the car DID detect the first impact, and presumably did nothing to stop the car. Yet most people read something completely different.

For #1, Tesla stated "we found a member of the Tesla team fluent in Mandarin and called to follow up. When we were able to make contact with your wife the following day." To me, that sounds like Tesla tried calling the driver, but were unable to reach him. They tried the next day and talked to his wife. Tesla never says they talked to him. That said, it does sound like Tesla certainly *tried* to contact him. But there is no indication that the driver is lying.

"We were sorry to hear about your accident, but we were very pleased to learn both you and your friend were ok when we spoke through your translator on the morning of the crash (July 9)."
I'm talking about this line. Tesla claims they were able to reach Mr. Pang through a translator the morning of the crash (I remembered the date incorrectly). Mr. Pang's letter said: "Tesla never contacted me after the accident." So one of them must be lying.

For #2, the driver did not say there were no warnings, just that neither he nor the passenger heard any. And sure enough, Tesla appears to have confirmed that. They state that there was a visual warning to keep your hands on the wheel when AP was engaged, and one other warning after that. From what I have read, that would be a visual warning. Again, the driver did not lie.

While his letter on 6/21 later only discusses "warning beeps," his statements in his interview with CNN on 6/12 said that there were no warnings at all:
"Pang said he did not receive any warning from the car that he was in danger and needed to act, adding that the warnings from his car were in English, and that he speaks Mandarin."
Driver in Tesla Autopilot accident would buy another Tesla
The note about English suggests to me that he likely did see the visual warning and that he was aware of it, but he doesn't want to acknowledge that it happened. His later change to explicitly talking only about warning beeps (rather than his original claim of no warnings at all) also suggests the same.

For #3, the driver said "autopilot continued to drive the car." It is unclear exactly what he means. I doubt he meant that he expected AP to "fix" the situation (drive back onto the road and pretend nothing happened). Tesla says that autosteer was disabled when the driver turned the steering wheel, and adaptive cruise control was disabled "Immediately following detection of the first impact." But that leaves room for [1] the car not detecting the impact right away, [2] the car taking a short time to disable the adaptive cruise control, [3] the car not alerting the driver that adaptive cruise control was disabled, or [4] (most likely) the driver was simply unaware that AP features had been disabled.

So I am not seeing any obvious lies (by the driver or Tesla), as bhzmark says.

If I were the driver, I would ask Tesla to release the log files. It would answer many of these questions. It would likely show that the driver should have done a better job, and that Tesla left out some facts that would have helped clarify what happened.

I'll give this last one as something the owner could have genuinely thought was the case given shock from the accident.

 

[rscott0]

"We were sorry to hear about your accident, but we were very pleased to learn both you and your friend were ok when we spoke through your translator on the morning of the crash (July 9)."
I'm talking about this line. Tesla claims they were able to reach Mr. Pang through a translator the morning of the crash (I remembered the date incorrectly). Mr. Pang's letter said: "Tesla never contacted me after the accident." So one of them must be lying.

Sorry, my mistake. I'm not quite sure how to account for that. Perhaps Tesla was talking mostly to the passenger (presumably the translator referred to).

While his letter on 6/21 later only discusses "warning beeps," his statements in his interview with CNN on 6/12 said that there were no warnings at all:
"Pang said he did not receive any warning from the car that he was in danger and needed to act, adding that the warnings from his car were in English, and that he speaks Mandarin."

Tesla did not state that there were any warnings that he was in danger (e.g. that he would need to take control). Specifically, Tesla said that there was [1] the standard visual warning when AP is engaged, and [2] the standard visual warning that his hands were not on the steering wheel. Unless I'm missing something from their statement.

 

[CuriousG]

You keep calling him a liar. But you have yet to show one of these "obvious lies." I have already refuted several of the statements that others have stated appeared to be lies. I haven't seen you post even one obvious lie.

Are you a Tesla owner? Sure it's not relevant but the timing seems suspicious that you just joined yesterday and already in the meat of the discussion. Your responses in post #343, while not wrong, speak like an attorney trying to weasel his way out of an argument. While I think most of us have tried to be fair, people have called out Mr. Pang when warranted. I think bhzmark has been the exception in his exuberance.

 

[rscott0]

Are you a Tesla owner? Sure it's not relevant but the timing seems suspicious that you just joined yesterday and already in the meat of the discussion. Your responses in post #343, while not wrong, speak like an attorney trying to weasel his way out of an argument. While I think most of us have tried to be fair, people have called out Mr. Pang when warranted. I think bhzmark has been the exception in his exuberance.

No, I am not a Tesla owner. I bought a Volt in 2011, before they were sold in Massachusetts. I've been following Tesla closely since around 2008 or so, and put down a deposit on a Model 3, and am expecting to buy a MS very shortly. I have spent a lot of time analyzing OBD2 data on the Volt (and helped some people with analyzing Roadster data), and I am also an avid seeker of the truth. Hence my interest in the log files (which I personally would love to see).

I find this case particularly interesting as it says a lot of about the forum members. 47 dislikes to the post and only 3 likes. Tesla has made a statement that appears to have been very carefully worded (as one would expect given the circumstances), and I'm guessing many forum members were lured into believing something other than what really happened. And lots of people seem to think that the driver is intentionally providing misinformation, but I do not see that.

From what I read, it sounds like the driver is looking for explanations as to what happened, and stated at the end of his public letter that "Mr. Musk should stand up as a man, face up the challenge to thoroughly investigate the cause of the accident, and take responsibility for the mistakes of Tesla product." I'm sure behind the scenes Tesla is thoroughly investigating this. However, they have responded by placing blame on the driver (violating the terms of use), while neither saying this was an expected eventuality (as I believe most Tesla AP drivers believe: using AP in locations where it is not designed to be used, it may not behave as intended), or that it was a true error (e.g. steering when it should not have).

In any case, I'm going to try not to beat this to death (although still would like to see if bhzmark can come up with a single obvious lie to back up his many defamatory statements). If the driver wants, he can try contacting Tesla, who offered to review detailed log files with him, and he can choose whether to request copies of the log files.

 

[msnow]

Pang states, not once, not twice, but threes times, that the car "veered SUDDENLY" to the right. He could have said the car merely "veered" or he could have said the car "drifted." But he didn't. He said, three different times, that the veering was SUDDEN. He is stating that the AP veered the car suddenly to the right into the wooden posts. He is not to blame, because the car drove into the posts.

Silly Driver posits that driving straight ahead, when the road curves, can give a misperception of veering. But from the google maps, there are no sudden curves, and thus no sudden curving of the road which can give a misperception of veering, or at least certainly not SUDDEN veering.

But those who want to traffic in misplaced charity towards an obvious liar will choose what words of his they want to recognize or not so should conveniently, but politely and kindly, not notice the word "suddenly".

The Pang statement is packed with lies to those who are used to seeing dissembling by people aiming to shift blame. The manufactured outrage. The challenge to "be a man." All marks of lying. That is my evidence-and experience-based infererence.

Also note, stating that he is lying in this case, is not at all a personal attack against Mr. Pang. To Americans, claiming that you are lying is a personal attack, but in other cultures, that have a very different relationship with truth-telling and deception, pointing out lies is not a personal attack, but merely the normal back and forth of conversation -- largely because the opportunity to call out lies is so frequent.
Amazon.com: Lies That Bind: Chinese Truth, Other Truths (9780742554054): Susan D. Blum: Books "Blum points to a propensity for deception in Chinese public interactions in situations where people in the United States would expect truthfulness, yet argues that lying is evaluated within Chinese society by moral standards different from those of Americans. Chinese, for example, might emphasize the consequences of speech, Americans the absolute truthfulness."

Nitpick. Distinction without a difference. Your "cultural" comments are also wrong and borderline inappropriate. I respectfully ask you to stop with comments like that and stay OT.

 

[bhzmark]

Well, I concede the point then. Saying it three times means it is true.

Thank you kindly.

? That doesn't make sense. It was Pang that said it "suddenly veered" three times. Just because Pang said it, even three times, doesn't make it true. In fact just the opposite in this case.

Pang lied when he said (three times) the car [not he, but the car] veered suddenly into the posts

Pang lied when he said (twice) the car did not slow down.

Pang lied when he said the enging was running at high speed into more barrier posts.

Pang lied when he said "the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

Pang lied when he said "autopilot continued to drive the car with the speed of 55 to 60 mph, and crashed another 11 posts. "

Pang lied when he said "Autopilot did not slow down at all after the crash, but kept going in the original speed setting and continued to crash into more barrier posts in high speed."

Pang lied when he said "the sound was the engine were still running in high speed."

Pang lied when we said "Apparently "the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

Pang lied when he said "Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash."

Pang lied when he said "Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. "

Pang lied when he said "Tesla never contacted me after the accident. "

In fact what the logs show is:

Logs show: "after you engaged Autosteer, your hands were not detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes."

Logs show: "No steering torque was then detected until . . . "

Logs show: "Autosteer was disabled with an abrupt steering action."

Logs show: "Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow,"

Logs show: "the rotating motors may have been disconcerting, even though they were only powered by minimal levels of creep torque."

And Tesla did contact him numerous times.

In his own words: Mr. Pang should stand up as a man, face up the challenge to thoroughly understand his own negligence in the cause of the accident, and take responsibility for his own mistakes. Mr. Pang, you should immediately stop trying to cover up your own negligence and stop blaming the technology that you misused.

 

[msnow]

? That doesn't make sense. It was Pang that said it "suddenly veered" three times. Just because Pang said it, even three times, doesn't make it true. In fact just the opposite in this case.

Pang lied when he said (three times) the car [not he, but the car] veered suddenly into the posts

Pang lied when he said (twice) the car did not slow down.

Pang lied when he said the enging was running at high speed into more barrier posts.

Pang lied when he said "the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

Pang lied when he said "autopilot continued to drive the car with the speed of 55 to 60 mph, and crashed another 11 posts. "

Pang lied when he said "Autopilot did not slow down at all after the crash, but kept going in the original speed setting and continued to crash into more barrier posts in high speed."

Pang lied when he said "the sound was the engine were still running in high speed."

Pang lied when we said "Apparently "the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

Pang lied when he said "Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash."

Pang lied when he said "Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. "

Pang lied when he said "Tesla never contacted me after the accident. "

In fact what the logs show is:

Logs show: "after you engaged Autosteer, your hands were not detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes."

Logs show: "No steering torque was then detected until . . . "

Logs show: "Autosteer was disabled with an abrupt steering action."

Logs show: "Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow,"

Logs show: "the rotating motors may have been disconcerting, even though they were only powered by minimal levels of creep torque."

And Tesla did contact him numerous times.

In his own words: Mr. Pang should stand up as a man, face up the challenge to thoroughly understand his own negligence in the cause of the accident, and take responsibility for his own mistakes. Mr. Pang, you should immediately stop trying to cover up your own negligence and stop blaming the technology that you misused.

Just because you keep copying and pasting the same exact thing doesn't make it true. Give it a rest, this has already been debunked here in post #320:

A Public Letter to Mr. Musk and Tesla For The Sake Of All Tesla Driver's Safety

 

[rscott0]

Pang lied when he said (three times) the car [not he, but the car] veered suddenly into the posts

Tesla did not refute this. Unless you can show otherwise, doesn't that make you the liar?

Pang lied when he said "the autopilot system malfunctioned and caused the crash."

He said "apparently", and Tesla has not refuted it. Misquoting him doesn't help with your credibility.

Pang lied when he said "Tesla autopilot did not slow down the car at all after the intial crash."

From what I have heard from Tesla, that quote is accurate.

Pang lied when he said "Even after I stopped the car, it was still trying to accelerate and spinning the engine in high speed. "

Tesla confirmed that the car was trying to go forward with creep, which would be the car trying to accelerate.

Yes, there are some conflicts (e.g. Tesla saying that spoke to him through his interpreter around the time of the crash, and the driver saying he was not contacted by Tesla), but to be honest, I see more lies from you than him. And you don't have the drawback of needing to use an interpreter or having been through a traumatizing incident.

 

[bhzmark]

Just because you keep copying and pasting the same exact thing doesn't make it true. Give it a rest, this has already been debunked here in post #320:

A Public Letter to Mr. Musk and Tesla For The Sake Of All Tesla Driver's Safety

The only thing that debunked was pointing that Pang said he didn't "hear" a warning. quibbling with his attempt to make the point that he wasn't sufficiently warned, when we all know that the warning are borderline burdensome and evident to any sober person paying attention. But I deleted that one. Otherwise all the rest stand.

 

[msnow]

Unsubscribed.

 

[bhzmark]

Tesla did not refute this. Unless you can show otherwise, doesn't that make you the liar?

He said "apparently", and Tesla has not refuted it. Misquoting him doesn't help with your credibility.

From what I have heard from Tesla, that quote is accurate.

Tesla confirmed that the car was trying to go forward with creep, which would be the car trying to accelerate.

Yes, there are some conflicts (e.g. Tesla saying that spoke to him through his interpreter around the time of the crash, and the driver saying he was not contacted by Tesla), but to be honest, I see more lies from you than him. And you don't have the drawback of needing to use an interpreter or having been through a traumatizing incident.

Tesla did not confirm that the car maintained speed. In fact they said "Immediately following detection of the first impact, adaptive cruise control was also disabled, the vehicle began to slow, and you applied the brake pedal."

But I quoted this in my post which you failed to read.

He lied about the "accelerating at high speed" part. Creep is not accelerating. it is not high speed. Tesla reported on a manual steering input that veered the car. Prefacing a lie with "apparently" doesn't make it not a lie.

And all the ones that you failed to respond to are lies as well.

Calling out lies is not really a big deal. In the US it may considered fighting words. In other cultures, lying, and then being called out on it, is just conversation. It's not really a big deal nor a personal attack. But it is useful in this context to understand what happened and what didn't happen and that the self-serving testimony, and appeals to Musk's manhood and a request to a face-to-face talk are really just ordinary inflated street talk in a certain context to try to save face after an embarrassment. His family will help him save face and all agree to what he asserts and speak ill of the bad Tesla car, to restore his place after an embarrassing incident. That is as it should be. But in this forum, where we speak with engineering precision about what these cars do and don't do, Pang's letter should not be taken as an accurate report of facts. It is not.

 

[CuriousG]

No, I am not a Tesla owner. I bought a Volt in 2011, before they were sold in Massachusetts. I've been following Tesla closely since around 2008 or so, and put down a deposit on a Model 3, and am expecting to buy a MS very shortly. I have spent a lot of time analyzing OBD2 data on the Volt (and helped some people with analyzing Roadster data), and I am also an avid seeker of the truth. Hence my interest in the log files (which I personally would love to see).

Thank you for the transparency. As you can guess the crazies are out in droves and want blood especially the media if you can generate some type of click bait article. New members are especially susceptible to being attacked.

I find this case particularly interesting as it says a lot of about the forum members. 47 dislikes to the post and only 3 likes. Tesla has made a statement that appears to have been very carefully worded (as one would expect given the circumstances), and I'm guessing many forum members were lured into believing something other than what really happened. And lots of people seem to think that the driver is intentionally providing misinformation, but I do not see that.

It doesn't help the OP hasn't responded but has logged on based on looking at his profile page. I suspect anything else moving forward will be going through his attorney. Tesla owners you'll find in this forum can also be critical of Tesla and their products. As long as you present your opinion without sounding like an ass people will listen. I hope this doesn't deter you from continuing to contribute to this forum as you've been very civil.

 

[RogerHScott]

you've been very civil

Even so, we'll still try to take you seriously

 

[ohmman]

I find this case particularly interesting as it says a lot of about the forum members. 47 dislikes to the post and only 3 likes.

I'm not sure if that says more about the forum members or the content of the original post.

My experience here, and it's limited to just a couple of years, is that there's a pretty normal distribution of opinions. For the most part, people lie in the centrist camp, but there are outliers on the anti-Tesla and pro-Tesla sides that can be quite vocal. When you learn to parse them appropriately (or use the ignore feature, if you wish), you'll find that this is one of the more thoughtful communities around.

 

[Topher]

Just because Pang said it, even three times, doesn't make it true. In fact just the opposite in this case.

If you thought I was serious, you should probably take a break from this thread. Come back in a few days, would be my advice.

Thank you kindly.

 

[ecarfan]

If you thought I was serious...

It can be very difficult to convey sarcasm or irony in a plain text communication. That is in part why emoticons and emojis were invented. They can be a useful aid in communicating subtext. I recommend using them judiciously, as needed.

 

[3Victoria]

@Topher Very OT: Is the '3 times' quoting Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark?
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."