SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Forbes reports on Tesla's reaction to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's crash test safety rating for the Tesla Model S:
Tesla does not take criticism well. Tesla has long had an attitude that anything said about the company, its products or CEO that isn't absolutely hagiographic is tantamount to heresy and anyone who disagrees hates humanity and the planet. Thus I was disappointed but not at all surprised to see the company's official, dismissive response this morning to the latest batch of crash test results from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which didn't reinforce the company line that everything it does is the best ever.
The Tesla Model S received only an "acceptable" rating from IIHS on its small overlap frontal crash test, a notch below the top rating of "good," with slack in the seat belt allowing a crash test dummy's head to hit the steering wheel despite the cushioning of the airbag. The less than optimal result comes after Tesla had said it had corrected the problem in the wake of a similar result in an earlier test.
A Tesla spokesperson's response was to besmirch IIHS. "IIHS and dozens of other private industry groups around the world have methods and motivations that suit their own subjective purposes." Yes they do. IIHS's purpose is to protect drivers and of course, in turn, reduce the payouts for insurance companies.
Also at CNET and Business Insider.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:21PM
They quoted it correctly word-for-word. You have included additional words, both before and after the part that Forbes quoted. But those additional bits don't change the meaning of the bit they did quote. The simple fact is, Tesla's response to a safety test has been to state that the testing organization has "methods and motivations that suit their own subjective purposes". Now, in the same sentence, Tesla is also claiming the U.S. government is the most objective and accurate, but I don't see how that mitigates what they've said about IIHS - especially talking about their "motivations" and "purposes".
Do you still stand by your claim of "dishonest reporting" and that a "liar at Forbes intentionally misquoted Telsa"?