Sichuan asked the world to burn to a fire ball, and the "salent bottle" to a fire to explain: Who will hold China responsible for security under the halo?

A dark SUV parked by a rural road in Sichuan, the front of which was swallowed by fire and rolled up into the sky with black smoke.October 22nd, X account number: "Sere Miss Lee is not your teacher."The video was transmitted allegedly released by the owner of the Quasi border in a tremor. The owner said that in May this year, without collisions, the car suddenly started fire, which was fired from the side of the co-pilot; He added that the test report interpreted the reason as “sample bottles reflect sunlight”. And he said, "What can I say?" The blogger adds:

It's not a web section that can be light-skinned. The video recorded a serious fire that could threaten the lives of the crew; The owner of the car presented a test finding that was not available to the public for public review. The specific model of the vehicle, the frame number, the location of the incident, the complete identification report, the original vehicle data and the wreck survey records are not currently identified from the publicly available material. Because of the gaps in the chain of fact, it is even more important for Cyrus and Hua to know who investigated the fire, who had physical evidence and vehicle data on the ground and who was explaining the cause of the fire to consumers.

If the fire is really caused by the bottle, take out the experiment instead of a sentence to the owner of the car to close the case. Transparent glass containers may indeed be concentrated, but they must be specific shape, angle, distance, light strength and duration to ignite surrounding materials. How can a bottle of perfume form a sufficiently stable focus in a moving car? Where's the bottle? What's the temperature of the cabin? Are the earliest areas of charcoal responding to the focus? Are electrical control modules, wires, relays, power systems and vehicle-loading equipment excluded item by item? These are basic questions that must be addressed in order to identify fire technologies, rather than deliberately harassing businesses. Any attribution should be based on a chain of evidence, and it cannot automatically be authoritative by the inclusion of an alleged report.

The more acute problem is the inequality of data on cars. Producers and technology suppliers may have configuration lists, software versions, failure codes, remote logs, maintenance history and safety tests, and the owner usually does not have equal access capability. To identify who commissioned it, who paid for it, whether the agency had a relationship of cooperation with the manufacturer? Do you keep a complete record of the sealing? Can the owner be reported and attached, and can the independent laboratory re-engineer the key experiment? If only one conclusion is ultimately made that responsibility is attributed to the contents of the vehicle, without any factual basis being given to the owner of the damaged vehicle, the incident is handled in a manner that is less concerned about the consumer ' s right to know and his personal security. The attribution of which agency had submitted the claim should still be confirmed in the original report.

The sharing of the technological prestige of the car when it is sold cannot be allowed to disappear in cooperation agreements in case of an accident. The questions were made by Cyrus and worked with China in depth. In 2024, China continued to cooperate with the transfer of the Quasi series trademarks and related design assets to Cyrus.15 September 2026The new division of labour between Hong Moon and Cyrus was announced, with the definition, design, marketing, channels and services of the product being dominated by Cyrus, and China continuing to provide technological empowerment for the terminal, and making it clear that the existing user interests were not affected. This public commitment should be tested in practice: which of the pre-reorganization batches was the Sichuan accident? What are the plans in the car? Who has the software and the data? What safety clearances and accident investigations have Hua-Cailys and Syriss been involved in? Legal whole-car producer responsibility has its own defined subject, but technological information, as well as the actual participation, cannot be made unchallenged by a “partnership”.

The question interface has a painful precedent for life safety challenges.26 April 2024Three people were killed when a suspect M7 Plus hit a fire in a road maintenance vehicle in the western city of Mount West. The initial data on speed and batteries were then disclosed by the Queries; At one point, the incident was reported by a source who claimed that the vehicle was using the Bosta-AEB programme, which was followed by a public denial that the vehicle was carrying its smart driving system, including AEB. Such open information conflicts themselves have shown that consumers cannot rely on the fact of the moment of crisis alone, on the fragments released by the manufacturer and the supply chain. Accurate equipment lists, accident data and final investigations should be more significant than brand PR.

17 OctoberA car from Shaanxi Shigeki struck a traffic light and set fire to it, and the driver died. The preliminary statement of 21 October, stating that the incident was being conducted manually at 139.1 km/hour, speculated that a severe collision had caused short circuits and leaks of oil and said that the final conclusions were pending investigation. The logs and the west of the mountain were involved in the impact, while the owner of the Sichuan vehicle was described as non-confluence; The three incidents cannot be codified as the same proven type of failure. But they have been looking at the same public questions over and over again: are post-crash flight and rescue sufficient, what kind of tests can the cockpit fire and electrical safety withstand, and can the technical data published by the car company be verified by a third party?

The political and governance structure of the Chinese should not be banned under the light of the “national technology brand”. Article 18 of the Companies Law in force in China(b) Provides for the establishment and operation of the organization of the Party by the company in accordance with the CCP Charter; Articles 19 and 20 also require companies to be good in their laws, subject to social oversight, take into account consumer interests and assume social responsibility.Wing has recognized China as a party memberThe party committee is also said not to be involved in operational decision-making.The official website of the Chinese government.Board of directors are listed as the highest responsible body for corporate strategy, business management and client satisfaction. Since the business itself declares its responsibility to its clients, the question to the public should be specific: Who monitors the actual boundaries between the party organization and the company ' s business decisions? How does the Board of Directors monitor disclosure of information in the case of serious product safety complaints by its Automobile Technology Department? Who has the responsibility to promote external independent investigations between the party committee, the board of directors, the technical business department and the after-sales service system?

In order to publicly disclose that shareholders are trade unions and business, the rights of the holding employees are exercised through representatives.2019, the scholar Christopher Baldin and Donald Clark.Who owns the fragrant? In the study, systematic challenges were raised to trade union ownership, the absence of direct legal ownership of employees and the lack of transparency in the process of trade union governance. The allegations of State control were denied by China. What is really worth continuing is how much oversight space is given to ordinary consumers by this highly concentrated property rights and governance arrangement? Is the accident investigation body, regulator and public opinion sufficiently independent to ask a firm that is considered a symbol of national technology to answer the negative questions when brand influence, industrial policy and internal power is highly centralized? This is a challenge to the searchable institutional structure and not a political label as a substitute for fact-finding.

The most dangerous course of a public security incident is the burning of cars, while technical evidence is always locked in documents and systems in the hands of all parties and, finally, the ordinary owner himself proves that he was not guilty. Enterprises are given a technology-leading market premium and must be held accountable for technology with equal intensity; The State should describe progress in science and technology as an achievement, and it should give administrative regulation the capacity to independently correct business mistakes. Whether Wigand, Cyrus or other enterprises, they should not be given a special position to avoid external challenges because of brand size, policy resources or the mobilization of public opinion.

Therefore, in response to the Sichuan incident, it is not only a conclusion that needs to be made public: it is necessary to confirm the identification reports actually obtained by the owner and the issuing agency, to preserve and independently test the original wrecks, the bottles and the materials in the vehicle, to retrieve the logs and maintenance records of the vehicle, to indicate, in accordance with the law, the progress of China ' s specific technical responsibilities with Cyrus and the consumer relief, and to verify whether there are any similar security risks. Without an independent check of the findings, the “frozen bottles” should not be considered the final cause; In the event of a safety defect, the modification, warning, recall and compensation must be initiated in accordance with the law.

A car can burn to ashes, but the evidence of the accident cannot follow. The harshness of the security incident is not an attack on technology, but rather a requirement that enterprises with capital, data and institutional resources assume responsibilities commensurate with their impact. If there is a real basis for claiming safety and quality, the evidence should be removed from the technology box and the owner ' s life and property placed in front of the brand name.