I test-drove the only street-legal electric microcar in the US, and it’s wild
Electric microcars are a tricky to define subset of motor vehicles, especially in the US. Open-air neighborhood electric vehicles, fancy golf carts, and other small vehicles tend to blur the line, leaving microcars in that weird category of “I know it when I see it.” Now after recently test-driving one myself from the New York-based startup Wink Motors, now I definitely know it.
There are a few different street-legal microcar-style EVs in the US, but most take the form of golf cart-style buggies. Some are even actual golf carts that have been souped up with the required hardware to make them street legal. That leaves Wink as pretty much the only low-cost, car-like, and street-legal microcar in the US, at least for now.
What is a microcar?
To be more precise, these types of tiny electric vehicles aren’t actually “cars” in a legal sense. They’re street-legal motor vehicles in the US, but they actually fit into a different category in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s motor vehicle designations.
It’s a classification known as low-speed vehicles (LSVs), which have a reduced number of regulatory requirements compared to highway-capable cars. They are permitted to travel at speeds of up to 25 mph (40 km/h), and can travel on roads with posted speed limits up to 35 mph (56 km/h), provided they meet a shorter list of safety and manufacturing regulations.
However, it’s so difficult to actually meet those regulations that there just aren’t very many street-legal LSVs available in the US. We’re starting to see some new entries into the market such as interesting truck-like LSVs, though the pickings are still slim.
But if you want a fully enclosed car-like LSV with the type of accoutrements you’d normally find in a “real” car (A/C, power locks and windows, infotainment system, hatchback, etc.), then Wink Motors is basically the only street-legal option. There are some imported Chinese LSV-type vehicles starting to become available in the US (I imported one myself), but they aren’t street legal as they aren’t manufactured to federal standards nor are they registered with the DOT.
To actually get out on public roads as I did, that requires a street-legal LSV like the ones I tested from Wink. Check out what it’s like to drive one of these things in my video review below. Then keep reading for the entire experience.
Wink Motors test ride video
LSVs in the USA
I’ve actually watched Wink Motors grow over the last 18 months or so and even did some consulting during the design phase, giving me a unique look at the development process.
The company’s four models (Sprout, Sprout Solar, Mark 1, and Mark 2 Solar) are produced in Asia to US regulatory designs, and even exceed US regulations in several areas related to safety and ruggedness.
And when I climbed into one these vehicles for the first time last week in New York City, I was surprised to see just how much like a “real” car it felt. Considering they cost less than many golf carts (the Wink Sprout LSV starts at around US $9,000), there’s a surprising amount of car-like qualities.
While many cheaper Chinese micro-cars have a simple bench seat up front, Wink’s models have bucket seats that look more like you’d find in a conventional sedan. The paint is surprisingly high-quality metal-flake paint like you’d find on nicer cars, and they even have some cool features like an automatic parking brake that functions as a hill-hold feature. It engages after three seconds of holding the brake pedal, and automatically releases as soon as you touch the accelerator pedal.
The four different Wink models are fairly unique on the inside, with the lower-cost Sprout and Sprout Solar having a different body style from the more Mini-shaped Mark 1 and Mark 2 Solar. All the models are four-seaters, those the first three are two-door coupes that require you to tilt the front seat forward on either side to access the rear seats. The US $12,000 Mark 2 Solar is the only four-door model, and it’s interior was probably my favorite of the bunch. Though a quick word to the wise: You can save $150 on any of the models by using the discount code ELECTREK.
While the Mark 2 Solar had a nicer interior, the lighter Sprout model felt a bit peppier off the line, likely due to the smaller vehicle’s lower weight. They all share the same 3,500W motor, but the Sprout’s weight of 760 lb. (345 kg) compared to the Mark 2 Solar’s 1,250 lb. (567 kg) curb weight helps it squirt out even quicker.
Of course both models limited me to a maximum speed of 25 mph (40 km/h), but that didn’t really seem to be an issue 99% of the time. The average speed of traffic in Manhattan is 4.7 mph (7.5 km/h), meaning it doesn’t matter how much power your car has — everyone is crawling around like snails there.
I drove around Manhattan and Brooklyn, and in fact the only time I ever ran into the software-controlled speed limit was on the Brooklyn Bridge. With a posted limit of 35 mph (56 km/h) on the bridge, I was legally allowed to drive it in an LSV, but of course I had to stick to the right lane as most traffic moved faster than me.
Interestingly, traffic in the left lane wasn’t really moving that much faster than me, though I think it might have been because everyone was driving slowly past me while staring at my tiny car.
It’s a pretty strange sight, I’ll admit. But perhaps it won’t be that strange for long as more people begin adopting tiny cars.
As I experienced first hand during my NYC test driving, these are pretty much perfect vehicles for the city.
It was a cold and dreary winter day in New York, but I was comfortable in the climate-controlled cabin. It wasn’t raining, but if it was I would have been dry under a roof and behind automotive glass with windshield wipers (or rather a single wiper).
When it came to the chaotic traffic of NYC, I was able to slip around cars driving down the lane dividers and wiggle past double parkers without even leaving my lane.
And don’t even get me started on parking. The Wink Sprout is short enough to reasonably park perpendicular to the curb, nose in. But parallel parking is super easy too. I was able to wiggle in and out of parking spaces that were smaller than just the footprint of a typical sedan, let alone the extra space they would need to get in and out of the spot.
I don’t know exactly how much battery I actually used due to the rather simple pictographic display on the battery meter, but it didn’t look like I made much of a dent in the charge level of either vehicle as I still had full bars. With big (for a tiny car) 6 kWh LiFePO4 batteries, the Wink LSVs are said to have somewhere between 40-60 miles of range (64-96 km). And since two of the models include rooftop solar panels, the range is theoretically even higher.
The solar panels aren’t terribly high power, peaking at around 100-200W depending on how sunny it is. They’ll probably put around 5-8 miles (8-13 km) of range back into the battery each day. But for someone that parks outside and only drives 25-40 miles (40-65 km) per week in the city, that could mean that you never need to charge.
When it does come time to charge, the Sprout model has a charger similar to an e-bike. Basically, it’s a brick that plugs into a typical home 120V outlet and the other end plugs into the car’s outlet, which is hidden behind what looks like a normal fuel-door on a typical car. The Mark 1 and Mark 2 Solar models have on-board chargers, so you only need the connector and an extension cord, no off-board charger required.
How safe are LSVs?
There’s no beating around the bush here, LSVs are not as safe as conventional vehicles. They aren’t required to undergo crash testing, and thus they don’t have the same level of crumple zones or other crash-related safety design. They also aren’t required to include airbags.
At a minimum, they must have at least a DOT-certified lap-belt, though Wink built its LSVs with safer three-point seat belts used in traditional vehicles. They’re the same units you’d find in normal cars, and I even had that annoying situation where you lean forward quickly to reach something and the inertial lock kicks in, forcing you to sit back and more slowly leans forward again to allow the seat belt to spool out. Nothing screams “real car” like when the seat belt inertial lock activates.
Other areas are also above and beyond what you’d expect from a tiny car. There’s no regulation on the style or function of braking systems in LSVs – only that they have them and have a functional parking brake. Not only does Wink use oversized hydraulic disc brakes that belong on a much larger vehicle, but they use a dual-circuit hydraulic system that provides a redundancy even if there’s ever damage to one of the hydraulic lines. The parking brake is on an entirely separate mechanical system outside of the hydraulic system, offering yet another redundant braking backup.
At a certain point though it doesn’t matter how pro-level the seat belts are or how overbuilt the braking system is, since in a collision with a semi truck, my money isn’t on the Wink. But then again, my money wouldn’t be on the cyclist or the motorcycle rider either. And I commute on those two-wheelers daily. I’m also extra aware of my surroundings when I’m on a bike, which is how I felt when I was in a Wink. I was be extra cognizant of my surroundings, more than how many of us are guilty of almost getting on mental autopilot when behind the wheel of a car.
So I don’t mean to minimize the reduced safety aspect of LSVs. They don’t have the same impact resistance as cars. But we all take on a level of risk that we are comfortable with each time we enter the road. And since LSVs generally travel on lower speed roads (and at lower speeds themselves), airbags and crumple zones just aren’t as critical on an LSV as they are for highway-speed vehicles. Driving around NYC, I rarely saw myself or other cars reaching any speed that started with a “2,” and I never really felt like I was taking on any significant risk. I was at the same height as other drivers, in a brightly colored vehicle traveling the same speed as them, and none of us wanted to pay for damage to each other’s cars, so we all basically respected each other’s fenders and agreed to not swap paint.
What’s the use case?
As someone who mostly gets around by e-bike and e-motorcycle, driving any form of car is foreign to me – even a tiny electric car. But if I had to be stuck behind glass in a four-wheeler in a city, an LSV seems like the best way I’d want to do it.
The vehicle is small, nimble, easy to maneuver and best of all, it’s pretty darn cheap. At between US $9K-$12K, it’s the price of a nice golf cart, yet offers so much more (and don’t forget that $150 discount with the code ELECTREK).
And they even feel almost like a real car, despite some fit and finish shortcomings (the panels on the interiors of the doors look and feel fairly cheap, as does the funny little accessory plastic fan on the passenger A-pillar). Another area that removes you from feeling like a real car is the lack of sound-proofing. You hear the outside world nearly as well whether the windows are up or down. For example, the pedestrian warning noisemaker, which is an annoying external noise that is projected to warn blind or smartphone-blinded pedestrians of an electric vehicle’s presence, is quite audible even inside the car.
I know that the device is required by law and is part of what makes the vehicle street legal (in fact, electric LSVs without noisemakers aren’t in compliance with federal standards). But if this were my personal car, you can bet I’d be crawling under the chassis with a wirecutter looking for that speaker.
But despite those shortcomings that remind you of how this isn’t a real car, there are so many other aspects that try to convince you otherwise.
I was even unlucky enough to somehow get a flat tire halfway through my test drive – I blame all those construction trucks in NYC dropping nails and other crap on the roads. As annoying as it was, it was a chance to test the cute little jack and lug wrench that comes in the car’s tool kit. The whole vehicle almost feels like you could just have a buddy lift up the corner while you swap the tire, but the adorable little scissor jack had a similar effect and ensures a single person can change a wheel by him or herself. A few minutes later, the equally adorable spare tire was on and I was back in action.
I don’t expect that millions of Americans are going to switch to tiny cars overnight. But after testing a pair of them on the streets in real everyday driving scenarios, I can see how they’d work for a lot of people.
I still prefer the open air feeling of a bike, but there are times where it’d be nice to take three friends somewhere, and my bike can’t do that. It also doesn’t have a hatchback with a flip-down rear bench seat for cargo storage. Nor does it have locking doors if I want to leave stuff in the vehicle. So yeah, I can see some advantages.
If you live off of a 50 mph (80 km/h) road, then an LSV probably isn’t for you. Bummer.
But if you live in a city, a suburb or a beach community, I can definitely see the use case. I can even imagine sharing one with friends in a city. Even $10K is a bit rich for my blood when I probably wouldn’t use the vehicle all too often. But if I shared it with a friend or two for those times that we simply needed more space for cargo or people, now that’d be an interesting proposition.
Is it worth it?
At between $9K to $12K depending on the model, Wink Motors is one of the most affordable LSV options in the US. It’s priced similarly to a golf cart, and when you consider that comparison, it sounds like a steal.
Of course the flip side to that argument is what I like to call the “Used Nissan Leaf Case.” This is a fun little game that my readers like to play in the comment section of my articles where for nearly any type of e-bike, e-moped, or e-microcar I cover that is priced over a few thousand dollars, they counter with “I could buy a used Nissan Leaf for that much.”
And that’s fair. But I’d counter back that a used Nissan Leaf isn’t nearly as useful in a city. Sure, it can go faster and marginally farther (or maybe not, depending on how old it is). But it can’t charge from the sun like these. It can’t fit into the same tiny parking spots (or into areas that aren’t technically parking spots but you can still get away with). It uses significantly more energy to drive around. And it’s kind of a depressing vehicle instead of a fun one. You get a very different reaction when you roll up in a used Nissan Leaf compared to when you roll up in a Wink.
There’s a reason they named the company Wink. These microcars are fun. They don’t take themselves too seriously with aggressive names and misleading “the freedom of car ownership” marketing. Instead, it’s a fun little barely-car that gives you just enough of what you need for transportation: essentially, a small yet comfortable box on wheels.
Would I buy one?
If I lived in the US and spent most of my time in a city, I’d probably buy an electric microcar if I needed a car. Having tried several of them by now, their convenience and fun factor is just hard to resist, and they’re a great way to get an EV without paying a typical EV price.
But I don’t live in the US, and so I can’t buy a Wink. Instead, I recently bought a less attractive version: an electric rickshaw. It’s not nearly as cool, doesn’t have the A/C, locking doors, nicer suspension, or fancy brakes. There’s no backup camera like in the Wink and there are no seat belts either. But it solves the occasional need I have of carrying lumber, a pile of groceries or multiple passengers, something my bikes just can’t do as well.
We haven’t seen electric microcars take off in the US yet, and I think this is largely because there just haven’t been any reasonably affordable options yet. There are cool vehicles like the Waev GEM (formerly the Polaris GEM), but a four-seater with doors costs closer to $20K, or $35K with a lithium battery, which has limited their purchases to mostly commercial use like hotels and airports.
With a new wave of $10K electric tiny cars like these, I can see the case for electric microcars to finally succeed in the US. But it requires someone who doesn’t take the appearance of their car too seriously.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
China’s Dongfang Electric has installed a 26-megawatt offshore wind turbine, snatching the title of world’s most powerful from Siemens Gamesa’s 21.5 turbine in Denmark.
The Chinese state-owned manufacturer announced today that it has installed the world’s most powerful wind turbine prototype at a testing and certification base. This turbine, the world’s largest for capacity and size, boasts a blade wheel diameter of more than 310 meters (1,107 feet) and a hub height of 185 meters (607 feet). Dongfang shipped the turbine’s nacelle earlier this month – the world’s heaviest – along with three blades.
This offshore wind turbine is designed for areas with wind speeds of 8 meters per second and above. With average winds of 10 meters per second, just one of these giants can generate 100 GWh of power annually, which is enough to power 55,000 homes. That’s enough to cut standard coal consumption by 30,000 tons and reduce CO2 emissions by 80,000 tons. Dongfang says it’s wind resistant up to 17 (200 km/h) on the extended Beaufort scale.
In May, Dongfang said it had completed static load testing on the turbine’s blades, and the turbine is now undergoing fatigue testing, which could take up to a year before the turbine is fully certified.
Read more: Trump just killed all offshore wind zones as US power needs surge
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The autonomous ag equipment experts behind the GUSS robotic sprayers have been developing their AI tech as part of a JV with John Deere for years — and now, that marriage is official. John Deere has acquired 100% of GUSS, and has big plans to pick up that tech and run with it like a … well, you know.
The latest battery-powered GUSS autonomous sprayer made its debut at the 2024 World Ag Expo show in Tulare, California, last summer, where executives from Deere called it, “the world’s first and only fully electric autonomous herbicide orchard sprayer.”
Since then, interest in automated ag equipment has only grown — fueled not just by rising demand for affordable food and produce, but by a national labor shortage made worse by the Trump Administration’s tough anti-immigration policies as well. It’s specifically those challenges around labor availability, input costs, and crop protection that GUSS and John Deere have been spending millions to address.
“Fully integrating GUSS into the John Deere portfolio is a continuation of our dedication to serving high-value crop customers with advanced, scalable technologies to help them do more with less,” explains Julien Le Vely, director, Production Systems, High Value & Small Acre Crops, at John Deere. “GUSS brings a proven solution to a fast-growing segment of agriculture, and its team has a deep understanding of customer needs in orchards and vineyards. We’re excited to have them fully part of the John Deere team.”
About GUSS
The GUSS electric sprayer is powered by a Kreisel Battery Pack 63 (KBP63), which has a nominal energy capacity of 63 kWh, enabling the machine to operate for 10-12 continuous hours between overnight (L2) charges.
The GUSS electric sprayers feature the Smart Apply weed detection system that measures chlorophyll in the various plants it encounters, identifying weeds embedded among the crops, and only sprays where weeds are detected. The company claims its weed detecting tech significantly reduces the amount of chemicals being sprayed onto farmers’ crops, resulting in “up to 90% savings” in sprayed material.
John Deere’s deep pockets will support GUSS as it continues to expand its global reach, and help the group to accelerate Smart Apply’s innovation and integration with other John Deere precision agriculture technologies.
“Joining John Deere enables us to tap into their unmatched innovative capabilities in precision agriculture technologies to bring our solutions to more growers around the world,” says Gary Thompson, GUSS’ COO. “Our team is passionate about helping high-value crop growers increase their efficiency and productivity in their operations, and together with John Deere, we will have the ability to have an even greater impact.”
GUSS-brand autonomous sprayers will be sold and serviced exclusively through John Deere dealers, and the GUSS business will retain its name, branding, employees, and independent manufacturing facility in Kingsburg, California.
More than 250 GUSS machines have been deployed globally, having sprayed more than 2.6 million acres over 500,000 autonomous hours of operation.
Electrek’s Take
Population growth, while slowing, is still very much a thing – and fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to do the work of growing the food that more and more people need to eat and live. This autonomous tech multiplies the efforts of the farmers that do show up for work every day, and the fact that it’s more sustainable from both a fuel perspective and a toxic chemical perspective makes GUSS a winner.
SOURCE I IMAGES: John Deere.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Lawyers for Tesla filed a motion asking a court to throw out a recent $243 million verdict against the company related to a fatal crash in Florida in 2019. The case is the first instance of Tesla being ruled against by a court in an Autopilot liability case – previous cases had ended up settled out of court.
To catch up, the case in question is the $243 million Autopilot wrongful death case which concluded early this month. It was the first actual trial verdict against the company in an Autopilot wrongful death case – not counting previous out-of-court settlements.
The case centered around a 2019 crash of a Model S in Florida, where the driver dropped his phone and while he was picking it up, the Model S drove through a stop sign at a T-intersection, crashing into a parked Chevy Tahoe which then struck two pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring the other.
Tesla was also caught withholding data in the case, which is not a good look.
In the end, for the purposes of compensatory damages, the driver was found 67% responsible and Tesla was found 33% responsible. But Tesla was also slapped with $200 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the driver separately.
Tesla said at the time that it planned to appeal the case, and its first move in that respect happened today, with lawyers for Tesla filing a 71-page motion laying out the problems they had with the trial.
In it, Tesla requests either that the previous verdict be thrown out, that the amount of damages be reduced or eliminated, or that the case go to a new trial, based on what Tesla contends were numerous errors of law during the trial.
The table of contents of Tesla’s filing lays out the company’s rough arguments for why it’s requesting the verdict to be thrown out, with Tesla seeming to throw several arguments at the wall to see what sticks:
- I. Tesla Is Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law (or at Least a New Trial) on Liability.
- A. The Verdict Is Unsupported by Reliable Expert Evidence.
- B. Plaintiffs’ Design-Defect Theories Fail as a Matter of Law.
- 1. Tesla’s 2019 Model S Was Not Defective.
- 2. McGee Was the Sole Cause of Plaintiffs’ Injuries.
- C. The Failure-to-Warn Claim Fails as a Matter of Law.
- 1. Tesla Had No Duty to Warn.
- 2. Tesla Provided Extensive Warnings.
- 3. The Asserted Failure to Warn Didn’t Cause the Crash.
- D. Tesla Is Entitled to a New Trial If the Record Cannot Sustain the Verdict as to Any Theory on Which the Jury Was Instructed.
- II. Highly Prejudicial Evidentiary Errors Warrant a New Trial on All Issues.
- A. The Improper Admission of Data-Related Evidence Prejudiced Tesla.
- B. The Improper Admission of Elon Musk’s Statements Prejudiced Tesla.
- C. The Improper Admission of Dissimilar Accidents Prejudiced Tesla.
- III. This Court Should Grant Tesla Judgment as a Matter of Law on Punitive Damages or at Least Significantly Reduce Punitive Damages.
- A. Florida Law Prohibits the Imposition of Any Punitive Damages in This Case.
- B. Florida Law Caps Punitive Damages at Three Times the Compensatory Damages Actually Awarded Against Tesla.
- C. The Due Process Clause Limits Punitive Damages Here to No More Than the Net Award of Compensatory Damages.
- 1. Tesla’s Conduct Was Not Reprehensible.
- 2. A Substantial Disparity Exists Between the $200 Million Award of Punitive Damages and the $42.3 Million Award of Compensatory Damages.
- 3. Comparable Civil Penalties Do Not Justify the Punitive-Damages Award.
- IV. This Court Should Reduce the Grossly Excessive Award of Compensatory Damages to No More Than $69 Million.
In short, Tesla blames the driver (who was found 67% liable) fully for the crash, says that the Model S and its Autopilot system were state-of-the-art and not defective because “no car in the world at the time” could have avoided the accident, that it provided proper warnings even though it didn’t need to, that evidence was improperly admitted to prejudice the jury against Tesla, and that the punitive damages are excessive.
After looking through the document, Tesla’s main contention seems to be with the admission of various evidence that it says prejudiced the jury against Tesla.
Indeed, the only exhibit attached to the filing is a transcript of a podcast episode where one of plaintiffs’ experts talks about evidence that Tesla withheld data, which Tesla says should have been inadmissible and prejudiced the jury against it.
The plaintiffs repeatedly asserted that Tesla had deliberately withheld or tried to delete data, which required them to bring in third party experts to discover and examine the data.
Tesla says that the only reason these arguments were brought into court was to make the jury feel like there was a coverup, even though Tesla claims that there was no coverup. By repeatedly mentioning this, Tesla says the jury had a more negative view of the company than was fair.
It also says that Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s statements about Autopilot shouldn’t have been admissible, and that they prejudiced the jury against Tesla. Tesla says that the statements by Musk shown at the trial were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ case, exceeded the limits the court had set on which statements would be admissible, and that the admission of these statements “would disincentivize companies from making visionary projections about anticipated technological breakthroughs.”
You can read through the full filing here.
Update: After this story was published, plaintiffs’ attorneys reached out with their own statement
“This motion is the latest example of Tesla and Musk’s complete disregard for the human cost of their defective technology. The jury heard all the facts and came to the right conclusion that this was a case of shared responsibility, but that does not discount the integral role Autopilot and the company’s misrepresentations of its capabilities played in the crash that killed Naibel and permanently injured Dillon. We are confident the court will uphold this verdict, which serves not as an indictment of the autonomous vehicle industry, but of Tesla’s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system.”
–Brett Schreiber of Singleton Schreiber, lead trial counsel for plaintiffs Dillon Angulo & Naibel Benavides.
Electrek’s Take
Reading through the filing is persuasive at first, but remember that this is only one side of the story – and Tesla is well-known for never budging an inch in legal or reputational matters. (Update: for a quick reaction from “the other side,” see the statement by plaintiffs’ attorneys directly above).
Thinking a little deeper, the filing does rely on a similar “puffery” argument which Tesla has used before. The idea here is that Musk’s statements should be ignored because he, as the CEO of the company, has an incentive (and well-known tendency) to overstate the capabilities of its vehicles.
Lawyers did not use that exact word here, but they do claim that Musk’s statements are “forward-looking” and “visionary.”
But, for a guy who talks so much that he wasted $44 billion on a $12 billion social media site (twice) so that he could force his words in front of every user every day, denying that his words have an effect is a strange legal argument.
Indeed, Tesla has a history of not doing paid advertisements in traditional media, and has relied on Musk, and specifically Musk’s twitter account, to be the company’s impromptu communications platform. Musk even closed the company’s PR department, instead taking on the full burden of that himself.
So to argue that Musk’s statements shouldn’t be admissible, or that they didn’t set the tone for the organization, is more than a little silly.
While Tesla and Musk did state many times that Autopilot was not full self-driving (although, neither was the feature they marketed under the name, ahem, “Full Self-Driving”), the balance of Musk’s statements describing Tesla’s features definitely could have led a driver to think that the vehicles were more capable than any other vehicle on the road.
This is why it’s strange that Tesla also argues that “no other car” could have stopped in the situation of the crash. If your company is constantly claiming that you have the best, safest, most autonomy-enabled vehicle in the world (including in this filing, where it is referred to as “state of the art”), then who cares whether other cars could have done it or not? We’re talking about your car, not anything else.
Further, Tesla said that admitting these statements will put a chilling effect on every corporation’s ability to project anticipated breakthroughs in tech. To this I say, frankly: good. Enough with the nonsense, lets focus on reality, and lets stop excusing lies as corporate puffery, across all industries.
But this is an example of Tesla trying to have it both ways, to pretend that Musk’s statements are just puffery but also that they are important to breakthroughs and that silencing Musk would harm the company. Yes, it probably would harm Tesla’s outreach – because Musk’s statements are roughly the only source of Tesla’s advertising, which is why they ought to be heard to establish what the public thinks about the capabilities of Teslas.
And while Tesla says that cases like these would “chill” development of safety features if manufacturers are punished for bringing them to market, the punishment here isn’t for bringing the feature to market, it’s for overselling the feature in a way that set public expectations too high. Other features have not received this sort of scrutiny because other features don’t get pumped up daily with ridiculous overstatements by the company’s sole source of advertising.
On the other points, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not up to date on the specific limits to punitive damages in Florida. But on the surface, it seems fair to me that if a company was found to withhold data in an important case, after declining a settlement, that some level of significant punishment is fair.
After all, withholding data in a single non-fatal crash that wasn’t even their fault is what led Cruise to shut down operations everywhere. That may have been an overreaction and would certainly be an overreaction in this case with Tesla, given the driver’s responsibility for the crash. But in this case, the damage done to people (a death) was greater, and the damages Tesla is being told to pay ($243 million) will not lead to a shutdown of the entire company. Especially considering this is the same company that just managed to find tens of billions of dollars to give to a bad CEO.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024