Huawei asks the M7 or Tesla self-driving accident, who is safer?
Beginning:
Recently, two serious accidents involving intelligent driving cars have sparked widespread public concern and heated discussions about vehicle safety. On the one hand, on April 26, a Huawei Wenjie M7 Plus caught fire after being rear-ended on a highway in Shanxi, killing three people, and the cause of the accident and the safety of the vehicle were questioned. On the other hand, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the United States released the results of its investigation, pointing out that Tesla's Autopilot self-driving system had "critical safety flaws" that led to multiple accidents and casualties.
These two incidents have undoubtedly cast a shadow on the development of intelligent driving cars. As an emerging technology, autonomous driving systems are expected to significantly improve traffic safety and reduce human error. However, the reality does not seem to be satisfactory, and both accidents have exposed that there are still many safety risks in the practical application of autonomous driving technology.
Details of the accident and car company explanation, whose pot?
Let's take a look at the details of the accident with the Huawei M7. It was reported that the vehicle was traveling at a speed of up to 115 km/h at the time of the incident, which was well beyond the operating range of the automatic emergency braking system. Although the airbag was deployed, due to the violent collision, the door was severely deformed and could not be opened, and three passengers were trapped in the car and unfortunately died.
In this regard, Huawei explained that the cause of the fire was not the spontaneous combustion of the battery, but the short circuit of the wiring harness caused by the collision. They also said that although they had been "far ahead" of safety publicity, they never exaggerated the publicity, but only the advantages of their own products.
Such an explanation did not fully convince the public. A speed of 115 km/h is high but not unusual, and the automatic driving assistance should be applied in such cases. Even if there is a rear-end collision and the door cannot be opened to affect the escape, it is worth thinking about whether the vehicle design is reasonable.
On the other hand, Tesla's Autopilot system has been accused of having "critical safety flaws". The U.S. Transportation Safety Administration's investigation found that the system was flawed in its design to ensure that the driver was always focused and that the driver misunderstood the system's functionality, which led directly to a number of serious accidents.
Safe, rational view of intelligent driving
Obviously, whether it is Huawei or Tesla, there is still a lot of room for improvement in the safety of intelligent driving. Both companies have more or less shirked some responsibility when explaining the cause of the accident, but as consumers, we should be more concerned about how to prevent such accidents from happening again.
Intelligent driving technology is in the right direction, and it is expected to significantly reduce the rate of traffic accidents and save more lives. However, at this stage, autonomous driving is still an assistance function, and the driver's role is crucial. We can't rely solely on the system, but we need to be on high alert and ready to take over control of the vehicle at any time.
Car companies should also work technology and hardware design to truly achieve "safety". There should be no obvious "blind spots" in the autonomous driving system, and it should be able to operate normally in all possible extreme situations; The design of the body and doors should also be strong enough to ensure that passengers can escape safely in the event of a violent collision.
The role of government regulators is also indispensable. They need to set stricter safety standards and conduct a thorough review of car companies' claims and actual products to avoid misleading consumers. At the same time, it is necessary to increase the punishment of those who deliberately exaggerate the propaganda and conceal the defects of the product.