Text/Wang Xinxi
The tragedy of the M7 crashing into a large truck and burning, resulting in the loss of three lives, triggered a huge tsunami of public opinion, and many people questioned the product safety of Huawei's M7. In particular, the article "Reflection on the M7 Accident in the Question World: "Exaggerated Propaganda" Was Counterattacked, and the Price of Being Far Ahead Should Not Be Life" quickly rushed to the hot search and became a controversial topic.
Questioning the world, not smearing Huawei, fans can't turn a blind eye to the problem
With more and more doubts from the media, consumers and other aspects, some fans can't stand it, and many users who maintain the M7 think that this is a smear against Huawei.
"Who wants to see Huawei fall", "Who is smearing Huawei", "After Huawei's accident, why are some people crazy and rhythmic?", "What is the bottom line of the media, who is far ahead of the way" and so on. Even the deceased car owner was subjected to cyberbullying: You deliberately hit it in order to discredit Huawei.
In the hearts of these fans, Huawei is a sacred enterprise, a company that dares to resist US sanctions with its own strength, and it cannot be slandered and smeared.
But this group of fans turned a blind eye to the many problems that existed in the accident in the world: one is that the customer service responded that the car did not have an automatic unlocking function, but the automatic unlocking after the collision was written in the manual and the national standard.
According to the national standard "Occupant Protection in Frontal Collisions" issued by Continental in 2015, it is stipulated that the door of the vehicle should be closed but not locked during the collision.
According to the GB20071-2006 Occupant Protection for Side Impacts of Automobiles, the vehicle must be able to open a sufficient number of doors after the crash test so that the occupants can enter and exit normally.
Secondly, Yu Chengdong once made a high-profile claim in the past that the AEB capability is very strong, and this AEB from Foretek, after the collision, the vehicle's own AEB is suspected to have not been triggered, and it has not achieved the braking ability of the new M7 at a speed of 120 kilometers per hour. Again, the hidden door handle did not trigger the opening, and judging from the video footage, the rescue was through the car door that opened inward after breaking the window.
In the past, AEB has been a core selling point of Huawei's cars. Last year, Huawei's executive Yu Chengdong promoted AEB active safety, which can brake at a speed of 90 kilometers per hour, and it is difficult to collide with it. Because of this technology, the M7 is out of the circle.
He Xiaopeng once questioned Huawei's AEB function, He Xiaopeng said that 99% of a friend's AEB technology is fake, and consumers are used as guinea pigs. And said that our people also went to ask, its AEB can't be opened at all, and there are too many cases of mistaken braking on the road.
In this regard, Yu Chengdong posted a rebuttal in the circle of friends, some car companies are busy doing intelligent driving all day long, and the AEB active safety test results are very poor. Either let the subordinates fool, or let the development of the automotive industry lack the most basic understanding.
At that time, the war of words, the vast majority of users supported Huawei, and He Xiaopeng was defeated, which also made most consumers believe that Huawei's AEB capability was far ahead among car manufacturers, but in this accident, AITO said that the model involved was an entry-level non-intelligent driving version, and it was not equipped with Huawei's high-end intelligent driving assistance system.
According to interface news reports, the entry-level M7 PLUS version adopts the Foretek intelligent driving solution. In September last year, the new M7 was officially launched, and the AEB forward braking speed of the new M7 was increased from the industry average of 60km/h to 90km/h. At the end of November last year, this capability was upgraded again to support emergency braking at speeds of 120 km/h. However, the accident vehicle M7 PLUS version, which is provided by Foretek with intelligent driving solutions, does not have the ability to brake at such a high speed.
But from the current point of view, since AEB is from an external supplier, in the eyes of fans, it is not Huawei's business, it is the supplier's problem. But the question is, according to Huawei's standards for the whole vehicle, how does the model that does not automatically unlock and does not achieve the AEB capability declared to the outside world pass the internal quality standards? As an automaker, does it not need to be responsible for the final product? Will the supplier's products that do not reach the publicity ability cause consumers to misjudge and trust the intelligent driving assistance system, thereby reducing driving safety?
The automatic unlocking of collision is an explicit requirement of national laws and regulations, and it is also written in the user manual. Now the media is reporting this fact, but fans ignore the facts and pursue the motive of the report, believing that it is smearing Huawei.
Fans don't understand: only reasonable questioning and public opinion supervision will make manufacturers better
A car company that has long preached that it is "far ahead" and is called a benchmark for intelligent driving, in this accident, was found to have no ability to realize its self-declaration, can this situation not be questioned? This kind of questioning is a smear? If such a life-threatening event cannot be questioned, then who will protect the rights and interests of consumers?
If this kind of doubt is intolerable to its fans, more consumers will have product problems in the future, who will speak for them, who can hear their voices, who will dare to help them defend their rights, who will dare to speak for them?
The growth of an enterprise should break the doubts in the questioning, and make continuous progress in the supervision of public opinion, right and wrong, the final product reputation will speak, and the market will be swept away, if an enterprise is under a variety of halos from the beginning, it is preferential treatment and protection, which is not a good thing for the growth of the enterprise, and it is unfair to other manufacturers in the industry, and it is a harm to the long-term interests of consumers.
No matter whose product accident involves human life, what enterprises should do is to face the problem realistically, honestly respond to the doubts of the outside world, and what the company should do in the follow-up is to make timely improvements in the blind spots and weaknesses of the product and the product strategy to avoid the recurrence of the tragedy.
For example, in this accident, Wenjie emphasized that the model is a non-intelligent driving model, and in the automotive industry, intelligent driving is the core advantage of consumers to recognize it. If no one questions it, the tragedy that happened to the non-intelligent driving version of the car in the future may be repeated.
And now,Huawei in the latest release of the Zhijie S7 and Wenjie M5 two cars,has been fully equipped with HuaweiADS intelligent driving system,If there is a similar situation,There is no way to shake the pot,Under the pressure of this question,Huawei may need to be more rigorous and serious about future products,Ensure foolproof,This is for consumers,Buy Huawei's products,There will undoubtedly be more security,Isn't this a good thing?
This kind of public opinion supervision is of great significance to the progress of the industry. I believe that more manufacturers will also devote their energy to car safety in the future, especially to ensure that consumers pay attention to the collision automatic unlocking function, the foolproof pop-out of the hidden door handle, the AEB ability and the safe escape of collision fire, industry manufacturers will further strengthen quality and quality control, because they know that negligence and loopholes in product quality, once an accident occurs, the consequences are very serious.
This is the meaning of public opinion supervision - it is related to everyone's safety, and will eventually make the entire industry better, only reasonable supervision can promote the progress of car companies, so that all companies dare not take the safety of consumers' lives seriously.
Why do many people question the world, because they understand that fighting for the rights of consumers for others is ultimately for themselves. They know the truth of "for whom the bell tolls".
If in this case, the company is dumping AEB is not its own, and you, as a fan, also help the company to clean up the responsibility, the result of this is that if the same thing happens to you, no one will speak for you, because in the future, your fans may be you in the previous stage.
Huawei, as a Chinese technology, The benchmark of national enterprises, naturally has greater attention, but also on the product has been placed greater hopes and the trust of the people, ordinary people trust Huawei more, the natural requirements for Huawei are higher, product problems will be magnified, for Huawei, when shouting far ahead, you must know the price of this sentence, because consumers really believe that you are far ahead, if you do not achieve what you say in the product, then the price behind it is very heavy, because many people feel deceitful.
The ultimate purpose of public opinion questioning Huawei is to avoid the recurrence of the tragedy, and in order to better protect the rights and interests of consumers, manufacturers will be more motivated and pressured to improve their products under the pressure of this strong public opinion, avoid the occurrence of the next accident, and be more restrained in marketing. If there is a problem with an enterprise's products, no one dares to question it, and once it is questioned, it will be labeled as a smear, then who will dare to supervise this enterprise in the future? If there is a problem with the company's products, who will protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers?
In a car accident that resulted in the death of 3 people, questioning Huawei is asking the truth, and in the end it is to make Huawei better, and the favoritism and protection of Huawei just hinder Huawei's progress and hinder Huawei from becoming more perfect.
Author: Wang Xinxi, Senior Reviewer of TMT This article is not reproduced without permission