Axa Switzerland was probably not expecting the media frenzy that their staging video aroused. After simulating a fire on a burning Tesla, the insurer apologizes.
Axa insurance finally apologizes. In a post titled “AXA apologizes for the 2022 crash tests “, the company returned to the controversy, which arose after it had distorted a crash test with a Tesla.
In wanting to demonstrate the risk of electric vehicle conflagration, the insurer was overtaken by the facts. For the filmed and broadcast demonstration, the Tesla was devoid of a battery and the fire that followed the crash test was staged with pyrotechnics. Caught in the act of manipulation and lying, the insurance group finally reacted and apologized awkwardly.
Apologies, yes, but the damage is done
Whether we are talking about the video simulating an accident, or the survey carried out among Swiss customers, nothing goes in the communication of Axa Switzerland. The insurer may well apologize, the damage is of course already done. The anti-electric vehicles will have every opportunity to recover the images of the insurer to continue to explain that the electric vehicle would be dangerous…
In its message, the company AXA Switzerland indicates that it did not want to harm electric vehicles: ” We regret that the 2022 edition of the crash tests may have conveyed a bad impression of electromobility or created misunderstandings about it. We are convinced that the switch to electric will play a central role in the future of automobile traffic. That is why we believe it is important to take a close look at electromobility and the safety it offers. »
The brand also recognizes for itself that the test was very distorted: ” In addition, the crash test carried out with a model of the Tesla brand did not cause damage to the underbody of the car likely to trigger a battery fire, contrary to what the recorded images could suggest.. In its study, Axa Switzerland wanted to challenge the population on the fact that the underbody was a particularly sensitive area of electric vehicles.
Finally, is it necessary to specify that a thermal vehicle can very well leave its oil sump in similar conditions? On the contrary, the battery packs are much better protected than the mechanical parts on many internal combustion cars.
Axa still justifies its study
Rather than stop acknowledging its error, Axa Suisse tries all the same to justify its statement: “ AXA Switzerland statistics show that, compared to drivers of traditional combustion vehicles, owners of electric cars are responsible for 50% more collisions causing damage to their own vehicle. They also show that drivers of powerful electric vehicles are more likely to cause damage to their own vehicle or to third-party vehicles. It is to these statistical results that we wanted to draw attention during this year’s crash tests, while presenting the dangers that can arise in accidents involving electric cars. »
“ Electric cars are no more prone to fire than conventional combustion vehicles »
A way of wanting to save face that risks exacerbating grudges. On several Tesla communities, and more broadly of electric vehicles, we have seen comments from customers of the Axa group shocked by the method, saying they are ready to change insurers.
You have to go to the end of the long message to read an important element: ” We made it clear in our press release that, according to statistics from AXA Switzerland, electric cars are no more prone to fire than conventional combustion vehicles. Nevertheless, we must recognize that the published images give a different impression when taken out of context. »
So why did you want to carry out a crash test that would have demonstrated the opposite? Wanting to play with fire, sometimes we get burned.