According to the Weibo message of the Tesla car roof rights defender, the owner of the rights defending car made a voice for the first time after his release to respond to the car roof rights protection incident. The full text is as follows:
Hello everyone, I am the owner of the Tesla roof rights defender at the Shanghai Auto Show. I’m sorry that my excessive rights protection actions have taken up public resources, and I apologize to everyone here. Thank you very much for the criticism and education of the Shanghai government and public security departments, and thank you for your attention and understanding. Rights protection itself is not illegal, but the methods adopted must be legal, compliant, sensible and reasonable. I am currently in good health, thank you for your concern. Regarding Tesla’s recent attitudes and practices, I have the following questions.

  1. Tesla mentioned in its statement at 3 pm on the 19th that in the past two months Tesla has been actively negotiating with car owners and proposing a variety of solutions. Car owners do not accept any form of third-party testing, and strongly Reject all proposals. In fact, from March 27 to this morning, Tesla has never actively communicated with us, let alone actively resolve the matter. I have never expressed that I do not accept third-party testing, but I do not accept the third-party testing agency designated by them.
  2. Yesterday Tesla privately released the data publicly. According to Article 8 of the Consumer Protection Law, the data belongs to our car owners and should be handed over to us directly. Tesla privately released the data without my consent. Acts that are disclosed to the public violate our personal privacy and violate the legitimate rights and interests of our consumers.
  3. Ms. Tao Lin, vice president of Tesla, publicly stated that we are asking Tesla for a huge amount of compensation, and she is asked to provide evidence for this remark, otherwise Ms. Tao Lin needs to apologize to us publicly, and I reserve the right to pursue her legal responsibility .
  4. Tao Lin said in an interview before: “I think she is also very professional, there should be (people) behind her.” How are we professional? Can’t car owners learn and grow? Tesla’s approach has trained us to learn about collecting evidence, learning automobile knowledge, and even some laws. Now we have to learn to study back-end data. As a car owner, how I hope I am unprofessional in protecting rights. Tesla has so many professional rights defenders. What are the underlying reasons? Regarding the claims made by someone behind it, I think this is a naked personal attack and malicious speculation. The Shanghai police have confirmed that my rights protection actions have not been instigated or manipulated by anyone. As a Tesla executive, Ms. Tao Lin, what is the confidence of your remarks? Coming? This baseless accusation hurt me and my family again.
  5. Regarding the data released by Tesla on the 22nd and the data sent to my mailbox by Tesla, I think this is not the original data of my vehicle. Please disclose the data source, extraction method, production method and selection principle of Tesla . As for the personal data that Tesla has provided to me, I have conducted a rough analysis. Please see Figure 1 for details.
    From the time I bought the car to the year and two months after the accident, I took good care of my car, waxed, drilled, and decorated meticulously. However, now I have become a loyal fan of a brand. Car owners who have radically defended their rights. In the past two months, my family and I have gone through all kinds of hardships due to rights protection. I believe that loving something is not just to condone its shortcomings, but to point out its shortcomings and make it more and more perfect. In a short period of time, domestic Tesla accidents have occurred frequently. Every time I see a suspected Tesla out-of-control incident where someone is hurt or even lost their life, I am heartbroken. I don’t want more innocent people to be hurt or bloodshed. The occurrence of, because every small probability event, for a family, means that it may be an extinction disaster. The safety of human life is above all else. I sincerely hope that the brand I have firmly chosen can do better, and truly take the responsibility and responsibility of a large company!
    Tesla: Strive to start the next mediation as soon as possible and promote third-party testing
    According to Tesla’s official Weibo news, Tesla responded to the “car roof rights protection incident” again late at night. The full text is as follows: Dear customers, netizens and media friends:
    At 11:02 am on April 25th, we have contacted the family of Ms. Zhang and conducted telephone communication. We expressed our willingness and sincerity to communicate further. The family of Ms. Zhang said that Ms. Zhang needs to rest for two days before contacting. We are very grateful for the response of Ms. Zhang’s family.

At the same time, we actively communicate with competent authorities at all levels, strive to initiate the next mediation as soon as possible under the guidance and supervision of the government, and promote third-party testing. We will do our best to cooperate to solve the problem.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5 months ago

Personally, she feels that her appeal is reasonable. Her answer is divided into two parts, the first part is to win the support of public opinion, and the second part is the appeal part. Since everyone has their own opinions in the part of gaining public support, I won’t analyze it. Let’s analyze the appeal directly. Article 1, Article 2, and Article 4 In order to win the support of public opinion, we skip and go directly to Article 3 and Article 5. Article 3. Ms. Tao Lin, the vice president of Tesla, publicly stated that we are requesting huge compensation from Tesla. She asked her to provide evidence for this remark. Otherwise, Ms. Tao Lin will need to apologize to us publicly. I reserve the right to pursue her legal responsibility. This article has no problem with Tesla’s appeal, but the purpose of this appeal is also to win the support of public opinion. It is not important but it is also a legitimate claim. Article 5: Regarding the data released by Tesla on the 22nd and the data sent by Tesla to my mailbox, I don’t think this is the original data of my vehicle. Please disclose the data source, extraction method, production method and Screening principle. The fifth appeal is the core of this incident. In fact, I think the easiest way for Tesla to solve the problem is to use the data to characterize the incident as soon as it comes up. And Tesla’s series of twisting and pinching movements, it is inevitable that people will feel that there is no silver three hundred taels here. And this process made Tesla lose its credibility step by step. It is necessary for Tesla to verify the authenticity of its data. In order to win the support of public opinion, Tesla car owners forced the analysis of the rationality of the data to be superfluous.

5 months ago

I always thought how complete the 48 pages of data is. It turned out to be such a large blank form. No wonder others questioned you. There are people who question the owner of the car. So what are you talking about? This is the end of the matter, don’t I find someone who knows a little car knowledge to help me analyze it? Don’t talk about rights protection, I will ask others when I buy a car. Is there someone behind me? I really don’t know what some people have a guilty conscience suggest that Tesla first fill in the data and send it again.

5 months ago

Ms. Zhang said it was great, courteous and courteous. Tesla is just a few official words. It doesn’t feel like a level opponent. Everyone knows the difficulty of defending rights in China. The Samsung factories in China are all closed, and the old lawsuits have not been won. I just saw an official second-hand Tesla who bought an official second-hand Tesla, and Tesla used a faulty car. The lawsuit was won in the first instance, and the court awarded one compensation to three. Tesla said it would continue to appeal and stay with him to the end. If you don’t want to spend time and money, you should let go, and it is wiser to stop loss and leave the market. Give a suggestion. The faulty car can be auctioned off the whole network and continue to play for those who want to play it. It can be put in a museum to commemorate a meaningful Internet event. Can be given to friends and businessmen to humiliate opponents. You can protect Tesla’s face. Can give the media…

5 months ago

In fact, what I am most concerned about is. Has the rights defender ever asked Tesla a huge amount of money? This question is critical. Many people do this now, and many rogue manufacturers pour dirty water on defenders in order to guide public opinion. From this incident, we can clearly see the attitude of Tesla to deal with the problem. If the rights defender is asking for fees, it means that the blackmail motive is not pure. If the problem is not solved, first think about how to blackmail, and blackmail will not make you worse. If it is Tesla, it is to clarify the relationship between his own technical defects and deliberately create contradictions to pour dirty water on the defenders and stigmatize the defenders so that the public loses trust in this person. It’s useless to say what the car owner says, and Tesla has more say in the company as a company, which is terrible!

5 months ago

Tesla’s public relations have begun to change. On the bright side, it’s starting to distract customers. It looks like it’s letting go of its lofty position. In the dark, the navy has also begun to brush up. The following are the high praises I found casually on Weibo. comment. Let’s take a look at these two high praise replies. They are obviously not alone, but why are they not bad even in punctuation? The expression is the same, is it a coincidence or a navy? I don’t want to pretend that I am taking care of the customer, I will just talk about my own views from these few replies. First, when Tesla communicated with the car owner in the early stage, there was obviously a problem, and the attitude and service awareness were obviously wrong. From the point of view, if you don’t believe in the words of the car owner, you can also see what the so-called vice president’s reply is. Related attitudes. Second, on the issue of testing, Tesla pointed out that the owner rejected all the plans, and the owner stated that he just did not accept the plans specified by Tesla. I think there is nothing wrong with this. Tesla did specify a company that only has annual inspection qualifications. The agency went to do a fault analysis for the car owner. Third, with regard to data, this is the focus of the current controversy. The most important one is whether the owner did not apply the brakes hard or applied the brakes. Due to hardware or software reasons, the power is not transmitted in place. This is the responsibility of the judgment. The key, but the data given by Tesla this time does not explain this problem. I believe Tesla also understands that this question is the key, so why not give this data? Everyone should not think that the car owner is making trouble unreasonably, thinking that Tesla has already given the data, and the car owner questioning it is a problem. If the data you give does not solve the problem, then of course it can be questioned. There is also an important premise, that is, Tesla has done the data manipulation before. Among them, the most terrifying Hangzhou car owner is looking at his own The background data is deleted. This is a very bad thing. If you have done this kind of operation before, don’t blame everyone for questioning you. There are cases in which data has been deleted multiple times, in my previous answer. There is also the problem of driving speed. On the one hand, it is 118km/h. Is this data true? Under the driving conditions at the time, would a normal person drive so high. In addition, even if it is true, there are still two problems. The owner clearly stated that the car was out of control and could not brake. Is this high speed caused by loss of control? In addition, even if it is 118km/h, why the brakes do not work, this is still back to the above question, what is the reason that the brakes do not work. Or ask Tesla to provide relevant data to see if people didn’t step on it, or if it didn’t work, this is the key to the problem.

5 months ago

I think the car owner has been driven by a crooked rhythm, and has been beaten by public relations. There is no one behind the car owner, no sponsor, otherwise it is impossible to raise these questions, just an ordinary person, it is a pity that ordinary people are destined to suffer in the matter of rights protection, because you are unprofessional, you are weak, you If you are right, as long as one thing is wrong, the other 10 will not be reported or read. This is part of the difficulty of defending rights. It is difficult. Your opponent is extremely professional, and your opponent is rich in resources. If you are an opponent of a professional legal person, and you are just a person who is helpless and does not know whom to trust, you will find an opponent if you look for an appraisal, and then you will find an opponent. If you find ten experts, there are nine ways to say. To be honest, if possible, you should hire a legal adviser to help. Most ordinary people do not have this ability. I think the best way for her now is to not speak for the time being, as an excuse to spend time researching the data, she is not the most urgent now.

5 months ago

As a person who has also prepared for rights protection, I feel that things are not right. I now have a question: Tesla owners have obtained driving data that at least seems to be okay. Why should we care who Tesla designates to appraise? Legally speaking, consumers don’t need to pay attention to the “designated appraisal” of the merchant at all, but they can find a trusted organization to appraise themselves. If the appraisal finds a problem, whether it is prosecuted, or requesting Tesla to supplement the data, that’s all. It’s a real hammer, and Tesla certainly can’t delay it anymore. There is no need to “research the data by myself” as she said in her response. In fact, I don’t believe in any reliable research for non-professionals who can study the data. It is just a subjective guess. Not long ago, I was inexplicably assigned a number in the permanent black house in Bilibili. Asked the customer service why the permanent small black house, the customer service said “violation of community regulations.” I repeatedly asked “what exactly is it, and how does it violate the community regulations”. The customer service was silent, claiming that “in order to prevent the secondary dissemination of the illegal content, it will not be provided”, and repeated communication to no avail. It’s not uncommon to be confused in a small black house, but if you don’t tell others “what is the illegal statement” after the small black house, this kind of operation is purely bullying by the shop, and it is obviously a deliberate increase in the cost of user complaints. So the first thing I thought of was to make a complaint through a third-party agency, and at the same time study the Consumer Protection Law to prepare for a lawsuit. This is a very natural process-since the merchants are unable to get through, they rely on third parties to protect their rights. From 12315 to the Industrial and Commercial Bureau and then to the court, so many efficient ways do not go, instead they sit at home and try to replace professional analysis agencies. It was confusing to fire a cannon on the line mouth with Tesla. And precisely, the blogger questioned the data of 819.9° on the steering wheel, which fully shows that he does not have enough professional analysis knowledge (819.9 seems to be the default value). When data analysis encounters difficulties, normal people’s thinking should be to find professional institutions for themselves. Analyze, rather than slowly learn. At least, even if you know that “professionals” have no credibility, it is better to announce it and let everyone help analyze it than to do it behind closed doors. In fact, I originally wanted to analyze the content of the response one by one like the last time, but after writing it, I found that there was no substantive content at all. They were all aligned online, which was not helpful in judging the truth of the matter. As for the critical 118 and brake issues, I haven’t analyzed it yet. Of course, I’m all unreliable supervisor speculations above. After all, there is no way for no one to verify the data. Finally, let’s put Tesla’s argumentation duty limit as an appendix. Appendix: The discussion on the limits of Tesla’s obligation to provide evidence prevents some people from talking halfway through. First of all, the conclusion is: 1. Under normal circumstances, who advocates who provides evidence 2. In the case where the ability to provide evidence is not equal, the ability to provide evidence is stronger The party to bear the part of the burden of proof that it can complete. Initially, Tesla may indeed be obliged to provide various data to prove its innocence, but when the data is provided, the authenticity of the data is not what Tesla needs to prove. The logic is very simple: 1. Under ordinary circumstances, who advocates and who provides evidence. Here is a classic example: proving that “there are no ghosts in this world”. This is an impossible task at all, because no matter how much evidence you show that “xxx has never seen a ghost”, it may be because the evidence you show just skipped the part where the ghost appeared. Therefore, in fact, this topic should first be given by the opponent who proposed the “ghost” to give evidence that “there are ghosts in this world”. Similarly, regardless of the strong and weak relationship, before Tesla can prove “I have no problem with the brakes”, the owner should first produce evidence to prove “there is a problem with your car.” 2. But for Tesla, the situation is slightly different. Because Tesla and the car owners are not equal in strength, Tesla does have incomplete evidence that can portray “there are no ghosts in this world”, so in order to clarify the truth, Tesla is indeed obliged to show the data. But we need to understand that the data here is given by a stakeholder, Tesla as one of the parties, so Tesla is fully motivated and capable of falsifying the data without being discovered. Therefore, the data given by Tesla cannot be the decisive evidence to prove the ultimate truth of the quality problem. (Conclusion A) So, when you ask Tesla to provide data, you acquiesce in a big premise-you believe that Tesla will not falsify. Otherwise, the act of requesting data is meaningless. Therefore, Tesla has no obligation to prove the authenticity of the data, because the task of “proving the data is true” is impossible to complete. The data is in Tesla’s hands from the source, and Tesla can modify it directly if it wants to change it. Server data source, and leave no trace. (I want to be clear here: the modification time and record of any document in this world can be artificially tampered with, and there is no data that cannot be modified. So far I have not seen any reliable evidence that Tesla has the ability to reliably prove the authenticity of the data. There is a national monitoring platform, but it can only be determined that Tesla uploaded gps data in order to obtain subsidies) That is, as long as Tesla gives the data, and the data seems to have no problems with Tesla, then Tesla has completed All his obligations. At this point, based on the above conclusion A, things have returned to such a state-there is no evidence to prove that Tesla has a problem, and there is no evidence that Tesla is okay. In this state, Tesla no longer has the ability to conduct further demonstrations, and the asymmetry in the ability to provide evidence between the car owner and Tesla has disappeared. At this time, if you still insist that Tesla has a problem, it should be left to the car owner. Complete proof-either a tire print or a video of anyone on the side of the road. If no evidence is available, then it should be assumed that Tesla does not have any problems. Otherwise, the thing will be like this: Anyone who has an accident, the imprint on the scene disappears, and there is no surveillance video, you can directly ask the depot for compensation, “I am sorry I have no evidence, your depot must prove innocence” “What?” You give me evidence? I’m sorry, the evidence you gave me may be false, I don’t believe it, it’s not convincing.” This is similar to my suspicion that anyone on the street has stolen something. If he can’t show evidence to prove his innocence, I will send him to jail. At this time, if Tesla is required to provide evidence when it comes up with the data, then it is not called rights protection, this is called Porcelain. Therefore, if you don’t believe in Tesla’s data at the beginning, then use your own evidence to prove that Tesla has a problem; if you choose to use Tesla’s data to judge the truth of the accident, then don’t question the authenticity of the data. Of course, the current data may not be sufficient, and you can continue to look forward to more data (Unfortunately, given that the owner believes that his privacy has been violated, it may be difficult for Tesla to continue to publish the data)

5 months ago

Tesla’s public relations are finally the same. The public relations department of Tesla has contributed to the fact that the issue of excessive rights protection can be so popular. Before Tesla rushed to the front line, a piece of data directly led public opinion to the climax. Now I finally replied in a light way like boiled water. But now that the data has been received. If you want to defend your rights, you have to take advantage of the current situation and just check whether the data is that of excel. If the original data is received, publish it. Naturally, there are countless people who help with the analysis. It’s not the original data, but when it’s announced, Tesla claims to provide the original data, but the data is still abridged. This heat can continue for some time. It’s not that it caused everyone to analyze that the data was okay and the problematic ones were sprayed against each other. It is to question Tesla’s failure to provide raw data and sophistry that the voices and special fans who provided the raw data are spraying. In short, it is estimated that there will be a wave of small climaxes. You said that you have been in for 5 days anyway, so just do things directly and thoroughly. In the end, even if the rights protection fails, at least it will open a way for other Tesla owners, so that Tesla can’t easily perfuse the owners, isn’t it?

5 months ago

The female car owner is a gang of mobs. The following content is not instigation, but only provides personal suggestions and ideas for future rights defenders. The first statement she made when she came out of the detention center was supposed to make a fuss about the fact that Tesla has not contacted her because of such a big trouble. Just one arrogance can crush Tesla underground. After Tesla contacted her, he questioned why Tesla leaked her privacy without her consent. This is the second wave. After Tesla explained to her why he would hand over the data, he then asked Tesla to explain the behind-the-scenes man, asking Tesla to publicly state that it did not ask for high compensation. And asked to apologize to him, this is the third wave. Then you can also discuss whether Tesla will upload user data, whether it will collect video, whether the data is stored within or outside the country, how the data will be post-processed, and whether it will be used by others. I think this is not only the following netizens and self-media, but also many higher-level organizations will be concerned. In this process, don’t mention us, don’t mention national security, just talk about yourself. You just care about the security of your personal data. In fact, there is no need to discuss professional data at all, and only to guide public opinion can call Tesla a father. As soon as anyone comes up, he will show all his card demands. Seeing how many appeals are made, I spit out a lot of words, thinking that I am rationalizing, and often lose in the end. Because if you speak too much you will lose. Of your ten appeals, nine of them are reasonable and reasonable. As long as one point is wrong, you will be caught and counterattacked. What people fear the most is to feel that they are good at it. Don’t say it thoroughly. There are more people smarter than you in the world. You just need to click and someone will understand and follow up. Play with data, play with law. You have played professionally. For a company as big as Tesla, whether it is to find an expert to endorse, or to interpret it by yourself. Have you ever made a professional by a non-professional? Don’t be drawn into the battlefield where others are good at. And most importantly, you have to know where Tesla’s pain points are. 1% of Tesla’s share price is more than 40 billion yuan. It’s a pity, in such a good situation, a good hand of cards was played so badly.

5 months ago

The five-point doubt is basically a unilateral statement, so the question is a question, and you can only listen to it as a question. It is meaningless to really solve the problem. It is like a bargaining chip… I personally suggest that car owners should resort to it. The legal approach is based on facts and the law as the criterion, so that the incident can be handled in an open and transparent manner. During the litigation process, several queries of the car owner will definitely be verified or falsified by a more credible institution, rather than separated like the present one. The empty shouts have their own words. After all, if the two parties finally reconcile in private, the truth may be covered up forever. This is not necessarily a good thing for society or even for car owners. People who can afford Tesla can’t afford to hire a lawyer, and there must be a lot of lawyers queuing up to pick up this kind of lawsuit… As for Tesla, I suggest you fire Tao Lin first. Coordination has dragged its feet…Finally, is there any problem with asking for high compensation? Why is there still controversy on this point? It is true, and the risk is not small. The most recent one is the Huawei 251 incident. Everyone knows: Those who are interested can also go to jail on Baidu, or the father of a melamine victim has been in jail for 5 years. In this regard, the car owner is indeed more professional… Forget it, do the good thing to the end, and help you find it out together: What do you think of the father of a child victim of “melamine” who was sentenced to blackmail and was not guilty in the second retrial? ​The claim is risky, please be cautious when you prosecute…Finally, it is difficult to believe that a layman can write the description of the questioning about the vehicle data. At least my lawyer friend said he could not write it…Of course I don’t stand on either side of the matter. I just hope that the facts can be spoken in the end instead of quietly reconciling it in private~

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x