Tesla Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever (thedrive.com)

In a blog post on Monday, Tesla said that the Model 3 has been deemed to have the lowest probability of occupant injury than any vehicle ever tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Drive reports: Since 1979, the regulatory body has implemented the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) which, through a series of tests, ultimately produces a rating for a new-to-market vehicle based on how well it performs in a variety of safety-related tests. Over time the test has evolved to assess the injury to occupants based on data gathered for front, side, and rollover crashes. During the NHTSA's previous tests of Tesla vehicles, the Model S and Model X, respectively, became the two vehicles with the lowest probability for injury, outpacing all other automakers. The Model 3 has now widened that gap as it takes the new number-one position on the leaderboard for the safest overall vehicle for occupants.

The California-based auto manufacturer acknowledges the car's low center of gravity as a major factor in its gracious performance in rollover tests. Similar to The Model 3 places its heaviest component, the battery pack, into the floor, so this helps improve the overall stability and rigidity of the car, making it perform excellently in rollover crashes. Additionally, the automaker gives a subtle nod to its engineering team for their design of the vehicle's crumple zones. Working in conjunction with airbags placed in the front of the vehicle and at the occupant's knees, the Model 3 was able to safely control the deceleration of passengers in frontal crash tests. The NHTSA's assessment involved the Model 3 Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive variant, however, Tesla states that it believes other trims will receive similar results when tested.

Comments

Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[AmiMoJo]

Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.

What do the accident stats say? Do we have per-model data on at-fault crashes?

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[Rei]

Turning on and off the headlights manually? Lol. And where's the handcrank for the engine too, right? ;) At least autowipers aren't perfect and occasionally people want to override them (in the Model 3, single swipes and cleaning can be done with the left stalk, this also and automatically brings up the general wiper control menu just to the side of your right hand). But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?

I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?

As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. Put your hands on your keyboard. Keep your focus straight ahead, not at the keyboard. Now lift your hands up so that your hands have to actually move to touch a key (go with, say, 2 finger lengths away). Now - still without looking at the keyboard - picture half a dozen random letters and try to type them, with your hands returning fully to that elevated position each time. How well did that go? If you're like a normal human being, the answer is "very poorly". You probably had better success with larger buttons (space, enter), but not with smaller ones. Now put your hands back down in a normal typing resting position (aka, touching the same solid surface as the keyboard) and try again. Trivial to type without looking, right?

The simple fact is, we can control things in immediate reach of our hands from a fixed reference frame without looking, but when it comes to trying to control "button sized things" that we have to move our hands to reach, it's far harder. Which is why we look. You may believe that you do it without looking in your car, but for most tasks, you don't - start paying attention to yourself when you drive. You look because it's much faster and more accurate to do so.

Another test. Picture an area about 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square somewhere on the edge of your screen (it helps to have a fullscreen graphic up). Let's even forget about keeping your hands two finger lengths away! Look somewhat the side of your screen so that portion of your screen is in your peripheral. Now try to press that point on the screen. Do this several times. You probably did better than you expected to - simply because that's such a large virtual "button" you were trying to press. Give yourself even a brief glance at your screen and your accuracy will be almost perfect (again, due to button size). However, trying to hit "buttons" toward the centre of the screen, you'll find you have much worse accuracy than on the edges. If you were being bounced around, the centre would be all the worse, even with such a large button size.

So what's the strategic takeaway from this, in terms of keeping people's attention on the road?

1) Automate everything you can, so that there's no need to fiddle in the first place.

2) Tie all settings you can into driver profiles, so there's no need for basic adjustments, only the things that vary on a ride.

3) Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.

4) Put all "semi-frequent" interactions as close to the wheel as possible, as close to something your hands can physically touch as possible, with as large of a button as possible. Example: against the left or bottom edges of a screen (screen edge acts as a guideline for your hand), with buttons 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square, so that they're very difficult to actually miss.

5) Put infrequently used / only used when stopped functionality in menus. Make any displays as large as possible so "always on" things such as nav or cameras can be seen easily in your peripheral and so that they're easy to interact with.

This is, in a nutshell, Tesla's design philosophy.

As for Tes

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[ThosLives]

Removing responsibility for driving functions comes with the cost of lost freedom of the driving functions. You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices.

It doesn't even matter if the automatic choices are statistically better (e.g., lower crash rates, more efficient driving, etc.); they still impose a loss of freedom.

Which is better - safer but less free, or more free but less safe? I suppose society at large will make an aggregate decision there, but I'm guessing it will be an emergent choice rather than an informed one.

As an aside - those crash statistics aren't really comparable because there is inherent selection bias among the drivers. The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[AmiMoJo]

Turning on and off the headlights manually?

The auto lights aren't perfect, on any car. It's not just a simple on/off with light level detection, it's the high/dipped beams.

I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?

Well in Tesla's case it's because the door locks are not very secure so they had to add a PIN to start the car as a second layer of defence. The less snarky answer is so that you can sit in the driver's seat with no possibility of accidentally moving the car due to stuff like mode confusion.

As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. ...
Trivial to type without looking, right?

Most keyboards have little ridges on the F and J keys so that you can locate your fingers correctly without looking, and then touch type. Similarly my car radio has a little nub on one of the channel favourite buttons. I never need to look at either.

But that's only half the problem with touch screens. With buttons you can locate them by feel, and they require a moderate amount of pressure to press down so you can run your fingers over them, use them for a bit of support as the car bounces around etc. Try operating your phone when it is held in a mount and you are in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle, it's not easy. You really need to cup the phone in your fingers to steady both your hand and the display and then carefully hit large touch points. Stuff like swiping is doubly hard. And the Model 3 touch screen is 15" diagonal so you all the touch points need to be near the edges to give you something to grip.

The same design constraints are evident in things like Android Auto.

Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.

That's a pretty complex set of steering wheel controls. And what about climate control? Tesla doesn't even have an auto-demist function.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[Rei]

You know you can look at quarterly reports, right? Tesla does have one of the highest gross margins in the industry, far higher than most automakers. Tesla's normally runs around 25%, although it was dragged down by Model 3 in Q4 '07 to (GAAP/non-GAAP) 18,9%/13,8%, rose in Q1 to 19,7%/18,8%, then again in Q2 to 20,6%/21%, and will be even higher in Q3 when we get the report. Ford, by contrast, has a gross margin of 8.64%.

Now, a fair criticism is that since Tesla bears the cost of running its stores (rather than passing the costs off to dealerships), it needs higher gross margins. But bears often vastly overestimate this aspect, pretending that running Tesla stores makes up 100% of SG&A, and as if stores scale linearly with volume (as if they were dealerships) - ignoring that they demonstrably don't, and haven't.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[Type44Q]

This is the first "pro Tesla" bit you've written that I don't disagree with, so that's definitely saying something. Your conclusions reveal that you've spent a lot more time thinking about driving that actually doing so; if you were a "driver among drivers," you'd instinctively know that headlight controls (among other things) should never be relegated to the touch screen.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[cascadingstylesheet]

I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving.

Until driving is fully automated, we need "busywork".

We are generally pretty terrible at needing to be on standby to leap into action and prevent a crash, but not actually doing anything 99.99% of the time.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[omfglearntoplay]

Well hang on... this other discussion says you can do high/low beams with a "stalk" on the 3-series at least. This sounds pretty decent to me:

https://forums.tesla.com/forum...

If you need to flash your lights a few times to warn oncoming cars of an emergency or hazard that you just passed by, you can do it... at least on the 3-series. It turns off the auto-beam option, but you can enable it again by pushing the stalk forward. That is unless another update has changed this feature, I gather.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[drinkypoo]

I've never, ever paid a dealer list price for a car, there are always discounts to be had and sweetners like free servicing and accessories.

It's normal for people to pay above list price for vehicles which are in extreme demand... like the Model 3 is. It's common for high-end sports cars, for example, where demand significantly outstrips production.

Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[whoever57]

Well in Tesla's case it's because the door locks are not very secure so they had to add a PIN to start the car as a second layer of defence.

Not the Model 3. The problem only affects cars with key fobs, so the Model S and X.

Re: Does it measure driver attentiveness?

[whoever57]

Every car I've driven built since the late 90s has had a lever on a spring to temporarily turn on the high beams.

Just like the Model 3.

The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 is 0

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm poor.

Survival of the Fittest

[mentil]

This means that natural selection will weed out all the ICE vehicles' drivers over time, right? Electric car master race!

But...

[RobinH]

If you have to be in a crash, that's a good car to be in. However, they're not really taking into account the tendency for anyone to drives one to mash the accelerator (which is very fun) or be distracted by the huge iPad in the middle of the dash. On the other hand, I assume it handles quite well in the snow, both because of the low center of gravity and the full ESC and Traction Control capabilities. Overall it's a great car, but there's more to the safety of a vehicle than how it handles an accident. Probability of accident is a factor too.

Re:Shorters

[Rei]

Tesla lives and dies on Musk's cult of personality

No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacturer, overwhelmingly positive reviews, top notch safety, and margin expected to be already up to about 15% (and growing) this quarter, production rates growing faster than Panasonic can keep up with cells, with ample reservations (Tesla hasn't even opened sales to most of its global market), SR not being available yet, non-PUP not being available yet, air suspension not being available yet, tow package not available yet, leases (how most people acquire cars) not available yet, only one model year old (most people prefer to wait for at least 2-3 years old) and surrounded by FUD, sparse store network, no advertising budget, and about a dozen things.

Tesla's fundamentals are rocking.

There's this common notion that Tesla has a "Musk premium". Quick question: whenever you hear TSLA bulls talking about Tesla, are they predominantly talking about how awesome Musk is? No, of course not; they're talking about how awesome the company and its products are. Tesla's value is as high as it is because TSLA bulls love its fundamentals, and these fundamentals exist with or without Musk. Contrary to this popular belief, Musk is generally a drain on Tesla's stock price, because he's such a polarizing figure who's always saying polarizing things. We like having him at the helm because we like his aggressive moat-bridging strategies, but he is not a boost to the stock price. Wall Street would love it if he packed his bags and moved to Mars and left JB in charge of the company (yes, there would be a short term freakout, as always happens when there's change and uncertainty, but then the story would go back to the fundamentals - without the distractions of random tweets)

Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i

[Rei]

You mean like this? ;)

Re:Shorters

[Anonymous Coward]

I just... WOW. Tesla trades on its fundamentals? Are you kidding me? Its cash flow negative, has a sky high PE, and has a huge load of convertible debt maturing that isn't going to reach its conversion price, resulting in either the issuance of more stock, or rolling over of the debt (in a rising rate environment, not a great plan). You don't even understand what "fundamentals" means. Tesla trades on many things, but its fundamentals is unequivocally not one of them.

Re:biggest selling point

[Rei]

Lol, a Battery Fire Truther ;)

Yes, you tell 'em, statistics be damned, EVs catch fire way more often than the designed-to-burn-easily hydrocarbon in ICE vehicles that you store in big tanks, with lines of the stuff reaching around a hot engine.

With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s so far has been.... zero. For gasoline cars, it's one every 20 million miles. So far the only evidence of a Model 3 fire of any kind was one in a salvage lot in Fremont with 1 mile on the odometer, aka, not a customer car. And the fire damage was heaviest on the front bumper, not around the battery.

Re:Shorters

[110010001000]

Considering the stock is under the price it was 4 years ago and the overall market is up over 40% since then, I would say the short sellers are doing pretty well.

Re:Shorters

[Sique]

Yes, TSLA currently trades at its lowest level since April 2018. But tell you what, GM does also, and Ford trades even lower than that. So whatever the Shorteners are trading, they would gained the same by shortening GM, and they would actually be better off, had they shortened Ford.

Re:Shorters

[JaredOfEuropa]

The demand for Tesla vehicles is not going to be an issue for the foreseeable future. The "fundamental" issues are supply (can they source or manufacture enough batteries, something many EV makers struggle with), and manufacturing (can they make these cars fast enough, reliably, without running at a loss). At a glance, the answer to those questions would seem to be Yes, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is Musk tweeting some rubbish and going one toke over the line, no fundamental stuff.

The big worry, as GP pointed out, is Tesla's current debt structure and cash flow. Not necessarily an issue if your stockholders have an unwavering trust in the company and the way it's being run, but Musk seems to be doing everything in his power to shake that trust.

Re:Shorters

[Joce640k]

Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.

Sure, just like Apple ran out of people to sell their vanity phones and laptops to!

Re:Shorters

[110010001000]

Not sure what you are talking about. Tesla is trading under what it was in 2014, GM and Ford are terrible stocks as well. The auto business is a terrible business to invest in. I am sure the Tesla shorts are doing just fine, which is why Musk has his panties in such a twist.

Re:Shorters

[Joce640k]

No one gives a shit if your car is 0.3% safer than a Toyota when the Camry costs 30 grand less.

Really?

You haven't been paying attention.

PS: It's not just safety, Teslas excel in almost every other way. They're fast becoming the 'Apple' of the auto industry - nobody thinks Apple are good value for money but Apple is now the biggest company on the planet thanks to selling "overpriced" goods.

Re: Shorters

[c6gunner]

You think only 700,000 people can afford a $40,000 vehicle?

Well you're obviously retarded.

Re:biggest selling point

[Rei]

Article Topic: "Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever"

GGP: "...either way, the tesla 3 goes on my list of 'cars to buy'..."

You: "Except for your extremely high probability of burning to death in a battery fire."

Me: "With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s..."

You: "Go to Youtube and you will see plenty of videos of Tesla's on fire"

Notice how everyone else was talking about the Model 3 but you.

Why are you so intensely interested in a car that only 0.001% of the planet can even afford?

Wrong.

The top 5 cars people are trading in to buy Model 3s are: Toyota Prius, BMW 3-Series, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Leaf.

It isn't "green". No personal car is "green"

That's like saying about rhubarb vs. water hemlock, "It isn't nontoxic. No food is devoid of toxic compounds". While true, people need cars and not all cars are equal.

Are you getting paid to shill for Tesla?

My Shill Check strangely hasn't arrived! Do you know where it might be? Does this mean that they've gone Bankwupt?! ;)

What is it?

Um, exactly what it says on the tin? I like the cars, I like the tech, and I like the company.

Re:Shorters

[Joce640k]

Apple's hitting a limit because they put the price up every time.

Tesla is the opposite. Each generation of Teslas is cheaper than before.

Re:This might be a problem for short sellers

[ledow]

Because almost all modern cars are pretty good in this regard?

The 2014 Tesla Model S EuroNCAP tests (equivalent of this test, but only done on certain years, not EVERY possible year of model) actually put it below the Ford Mondeo (called a Fusion in the US) - all the scores are lower except the driver assist tech available on the Mondeo.

But they both score 5 stars. I'm sure in the 4 years since then the newer Mondeos probably score higher still, and the Tesla as well. As does pretty much every decent car - Ford Focus, Nissan Leaf, Kia Stonic, Honda Civic, Subaru Impreza.

It's the ones that DON'T pass with 5 stars that stand out. Pretty much they kill people and they are quickly resubmitted for testing after a redesign.

Do you really think that, in subjective tests, the difference between 5-stars and 5-stars being a small handful of points in things like "how many safety gadgets does the software boast" really make a difference?

I'm no Tesla fan. But I'm a massive safety fan. Safety is incredibly important to me - that's why I own a Mondeo and checked it first. But this is *one* factor - the question of "how much control do I have of the vehicle" is actually a bigger question for me. But orders of magnitude. Hence I don't have all the lane-assist junk on my car deliberately - I refused the option. Because I intend to drive it, not put software in the path of the steering wheel direction.

As one small factor, congratulations, it's a win for Tesla on a subjective test and may / may not actually be repeated around the world with stricter safety requirements on vehicles. In terms of "being a mass market car manufacturer", that puts you firmly in the... well... kinda "damn well expected" section of the statistics.

Congratulations. Tesla *isn't* shit at basic safety tests over a small portion of their cars, testing a small subjective portion of their ability to survive head-on/side collisions.

Go you.

Re: Shorters

[LazarusQLong]

order a $40,000 one, and post the date you make the order. then post the date they deliver it. If the two are closer together than 3 months, I will pay your car payment for those three months.

Re:Shorters

[110010001000]

Ford is a terrible stock to own, as are all automakers. You shouldn't be investing in any of them. It is a terrible industry and you can't afford to lose your money.

Re: Shorters

[c6gunner]

Another person out of touch with reality. What Tesla is $40k?

The Model 3. But we've already established that you're a liar, so I don't expect you to acknowledge that fact. No, in your world every Tesla costs 50 bazillion dollars.

You guys need to get out an travel and see the world. The vast majority of the planet lives in poverty.

I'm actually posting from a third world country at the moment.

You guys sit in your office jobs and think everyone can just go out and buy a $65,000+ car

Nah, we just aren't retarded enough to believe that only 700,000 people can afford to do so.

Agree 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

A touchscreen in a car is a shitty design

For the driver, that is exactly right. A touchscreen has no place in the business of actually driving the car. Maybe for the passenger it's fine, but for the driver, a touchscreen is a solution looking for a problem, and a dangerous one at that. And realistically, the passenger already has a large smartphone, which means the touchscreen is redundant.

Of course the real reason they are replacing standard controls with a touchscreen is so they can wring out a few more dollars in profit. Touchscreens are cheaper to implement than physical controls.

Now if we're talking about self-driving cars, then sure, bring on the touchscreen and the 100 other gimmicks. They can't get in the way of driving if you're not actually driving.

Re: Shorters

[c6gunner]

The Model 3 is not $40k. You are simply ignorant.

Corect, the base Model 3 is actually $35,000 but I was trying to be generous to you.

Tell me more about how only 700,000 people "in teh whole wide worlds!" can afford to buy one, oh wise and completely unignorant retard! I'm sure that the 1,200,000 Americans who made over $500,000 last year would get a great laugh out of that one.

Re: Shorters

[c6gunner]

Nobody; the rich customers are snapping up all of them with extra features, at a premium. The fact that Tesla is unable to make enough vehicles to meet demand is a completely separate thing from how many people can afford the base model.

Re:biggest selling point

[drinkypoo]

You technocrats are so out of touch with reality. Who the hell can afford a $65,000+ car? Only the 0.001%.

False. Any working couple with full-time employment should be able to get a loan for that kind of money, unless they live someplace where rents are ridiculous.

How the fuck is that going to save the planet?

It's a step in the right direction. How the fuck is your complaining about it going to help anything? You're changing no one's mind, and it requires energy to make your comment go 'round.

They are the scourge of the Earth, no matter where they get their energy from.

They're an improvement over what came before, and you can't just wave a magic wand and do things intelligently. You have to work with reality. you know, where the rest of us live?

Re: Shorters

[haruchai]

"They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars, and $1,000+ phones. Eventually you run out of people to sell shiny things to. And it ain't doing nothing for the environment. Just high-end consumerism to fulfill their pathetic lives."

The trickle-down from expensive phones brought instant telecommunications to billions who mostly still don't have electricity and the demand for solar panels from those high-end consumerists brought the price down enough that many of those same people living outside the bubble can afford small panels to power necessities, from disconnected villages in India to nomadic herders in Mongolia.

Re:Shorters

[WindBourne]

Yes, yes, yes.
Musk has broken YOUR ideas of "fundamentals". However, your idea is based on short-term profits.
Musk, and Rei's, along with others such as myself, is based on GROWTH and getting the company to be able to add a factory and have its lines up to maximum production in under 6 months. M3, like MS/MX, has relatively low production costs (compared to other companies), and all of the money is going into R&D (hignest % in the industry; most are around 3-5%; Tesla is something like 20%) as well as building out a massive EV charging system (way ahead of anything else). However, yes, if has been failing your GAAP for short-term profits. But, I will guess that the bleeding stops by end of year.
So, yeah, Rei is right that Musk has the fundamentals down. Oddly, prior to 1980, Musk would be held in the highest accolades in America. Now, we have nothing but multiple monopolistic companies, a bought political party (the GOP), and a large number of trolls that run around denigrating the man and his companies.

Re:Shorters

[MachineShedFred]

They've sold every single Model 3 coming out of the factory for a year and they haven't even covered the demand from two countries.

The premise of your statement is incorrect, as well as the statement itself being incorrect. Your premise states that one must be "rich" to buy a Tesla, yet it's the 3rd highest selling sedan in the US right now. Does that mean that everyone in the US that is buying a car is "rich"? Or are you playing the game where you say that they're all rich because you are comparing their income in a post-industrial nation with a pre-industrial economy in a nation locked in civil war for 20 years 6,000 miles away?

Second, if they were "running out of rich people" in North America, they'd start loading cars onto boats destined for Europe. Or Asia. Which they aren't doing. Are you saying there aren't rich people in Europe and Asia, and that somehow all the rich people are in the US and Canada? Or that there aren't any boats available? Or that they can't figure out how to drive the trucks carrying them to a dock?

I know your thing is to troll people, but you really can do better than that.

Re: Shorters

[Joce640k]

You must be joking. Every Tesla generation is CHEAPER? Only the rich can afford a Tesla you dunce

Does that mean every generation of Tesla isn't cheaper? You lost me with your amazing logic.

Tesla Roadster: From $112,000
Tesla Model S: From $74,500
Tesla Model X: From $79,500
Tesla Model 3: From $49,000

Damn those pesky facts!

Re:Shorters

[thegarbz]

The stock has collapsed lately. Is it because the "fundamentals" have changed somehow?

If you need that question answered you should re-read the post you're referring to.

Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.

And when they do, an EV that is smack bang in the middle of the average new car sales price is there to take the company the next steps. Not that they have a shortage of "rich" (reads middle class) people.

Re: Shorters

[rogoshen1]

Good thing random slashdot user is here to tell acura, lexus, bmw, audi, mercedes, land rover, aston martin, jaguar, lincoln, infiniti, porsche, ferrari, bugati, etc etc that the market for cars north of 35k USD is a losing proposition. He might just save the whole industry!

Re:Shorters

[LynnwoodRooster]

And the top selling EVs in East Asia - are not Tesla. And Nio already outsells Telsa in the high-end/luxury market in China.