Freelance writer Jennifer Sensiba nails it in an op-ed contribution written for CleanTechnica.
This article is a bit of an outlier for us. How do you reuse someone else's opinion piece? Well, that would be unfair, and, of course, that's not actually the plan here. Instead, we want to draw your attention to something we find enlightening, and we believe it's our job to give credit when credit is due, even if it involves sending you to a competing website.
If you haven't figured it out by now, InsideEVs is all about promoting EV news from all outlets. Much like Tesla and Elon Musk continue to say, we all need to promote EV adoption across all brands. This means working together as journalists and advocates.
Writers often spend a great deal of time on articles. This is especially true when it comes to well-researched long-form opinion pieces. Later, they may learn that all their hard work resulted in minimal website traffic. Meanwhile, another publication reuses the work without credit and steals their thunder (this happens to us almost daily). Or, a silly Tesla drag race or crash video gets attention across the globe and practically breaks the internet. It's really kind of sad how it all works sometimes.
With that said, we recently read a fascinating opinion piece posted on CleanTechnica. It was written by freelance journalist Jennifer Sensiba. It appears she's for hire, so if you appreciate her work, reach out to her.
The article is entitled "Safety Third: I Was Wrong To Fear The Tesla FSD Beta". Sensiba reflects on an earlier article she wrote about fearing Tesla's FSD Beta, which resulted in a lot of negative attention on social media. She was actually harassed on Twitter and had to block people. The situation moved Sensiba to spend some time learning about Tesla's FSD Beta to further reflect.
Sensiba points out that despite her worries, as well as the worries of many others, there's still no blood running in the streets as a result of Tesla's self-driving beta testing. She writes:
"It turns out that I was completely wrong, though. Blood isn’t running in the streets. While it seems unlikely that there have been zero crashes, there are no media reports I could find telling us about a crash while using the system. Sure, there was much hand-wringing about the possibility of a crash, but to date none of the people frightened by it have followed up with any “I told you so” stories. If anyone was seriously hurt or killed, we would have all heard about it, and that didn’t happen."
She goes on to talk about how safety actually shouldn't come first, that is, if we actually want to see progress. Safety should certainly be a priority, but not "THE priority." Sensiba points to Mike Rowe's "Safety Third" concept as a source. She says:
"Rowe didn’t say safety isn’t a priority, but we are deluding ourselves if we think it’s our highest priority. If it was, nobody would do anything. We wouldn’t drive, we wouldn’t eat fast food, and we wouldn’t send people to climb on suspension bridges or up antenna towers. We certainly wouldn’t do anything like mountain biking, competition shooting, or hiking out in the wilderness with no cell signal."
To take it all a step further, Sensiba visits another topic: "Nobody Else Is Responsible For Your Safety." In the end, she asserts that "Safety First," along with the whole responsibility factor, may be failing autonomous driving systems.
Honestly, there is really so much to take in and consider here. So, we're going to leave you to read the article by following the source link below. However, the most important thing we'd like to achieve – aside from getting the information out there and crediting Sensiba and CleanTechnica – is getting an in-depth conversation started related to this compelling topic. Have at it!