Stolen Tesla Crashes, Splits in Half in Fiery Multi-Car Wreck(nbclosangeles.com)
nbclosangeles.com
Stolen Tesla Crashes, Splits in Half in Fiery Multi-Car Wreck
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Stolen-Tesla-High-Speed-Chase-Fiery-Crash-in-West-Hollywood-265813821.html
42 comments
> This has nothing to do with Tesla and EV fire concerns.
Exactly. There was a rash a year or two ago of idiots wrecking their high end sports cars, splitting them in half (and usually killing themselves in the process). The focus of those articles was on the driver and not the car (the titles reflected it too).
Curious that he managed to "significantly damage at least four vehicles." That should be a testament to the Tesla's build quality.
Exactly. There was a rash a year or two ago of idiots wrecking their high end sports cars, splitting them in half (and usually killing themselves in the process). The focus of those articles was on the driver and not the car (the titles reflected it too).
Curious that he managed to "significantly damage at least four vehicles." That should be a testament to the Tesla's build quality.
Surprise, cars break when you crash at 100mph, no matter the build quality or the brand.
If it wasn't a Tesla, it would just say "Stolen car". Why is the article so focused on it being a Tesla?
Because it's a TESLA and they're dangerous!! (sarcasm)
[deleted]
because News.
Rather than lamenting poor quality journalism people could be preparing for the obvious stories in the future.
eg A self driving car is going to crash and kill people. That will be reported, probably sensationally, by newsmedia.
Rather than lamenting poor quality journalism people could be preparing for the obvious stories in the future.
eg A self driving car is going to crash and kill people. That will be reported, probably sensationally, by newsmedia.
Wow, the driver (thief) appears to have survived (even if in critical condition at the hospital)?
Not sure if that's an endorsement of the Tesla's safety, quality of EMS in LA, or billions of years of evolution, but I wouldn't expect someone to survive an accident like that.
Not sure if that's an endorsement of the Tesla's safety, quality of EMS in LA, or billions of years of evolution, but I wouldn't expect someone to survive an accident like that.
The car split in half and the driver was ejected. It would be very difficult to make a case that the driver survived on the merits of the Model S's safety features. That is not an indictment of the Model S, however.
Automobiles are engineered for safety within an expected operating envelope. Automobile safety engineering is a compromise of three factors cost, weight, and safety. Tesla goes above and beyond in their engineering of their safety features, but they still target an operating envelope that is sane. The forces involved in a car accident increase rapidly with speed, so the compromises involved fail hard when you push well outside the envelope.
What is an operating envelope, exactly? Roadway speed limits are (ideally) set based on conditions. Things like the number of side streets, shoulder clearances, road quality, and even the design of road infrastructure (like guardrails) are taken in to consideration. Interstates are the only environment where an automobile should exceed 55 MPH (if you're obeying traffic laws). Roadside obstructions on an interstate are designed with this in mind. City streets are not. When you drive within the confines of traffic laws, you're within the operating envelope. Exceed these parameters, and you're pushing in to territory that was not explicitly considered when engineering the car.
Put more simply, there is no testing standard for impact with telephone poles at >55 MPH because that is never an expected outcome for accidents where operators are driving within an expected operating envelope.
Automobiles are engineered for safety within an expected operating envelope. Automobile safety engineering is a compromise of three factors cost, weight, and safety. Tesla goes above and beyond in their engineering of their safety features, but they still target an operating envelope that is sane. The forces involved in a car accident increase rapidly with speed, so the compromises involved fail hard when you push well outside the envelope.
What is an operating envelope, exactly? Roadway speed limits are (ideally) set based on conditions. Things like the number of side streets, shoulder clearances, road quality, and even the design of road infrastructure (like guardrails) are taken in to consideration. Interstates are the only environment where an automobile should exceed 55 MPH (if you're obeying traffic laws). Roadside obstructions on an interstate are designed with this in mind. City streets are not. When you drive within the confines of traffic laws, you're within the operating envelope. Exceed these parameters, and you're pushing in to territory that was not explicitly considered when engineering the car.
Put more simply, there is no testing standard for impact with telephone poles at >55 MPH because that is never an expected outcome for accidents where operators are driving within an expected operating envelope.
I would be surprised if they actually use 55 mph as the cutoff, I would think they look at driving behavior rather than the legal limits, and the effective max speed in many areas is 60 or 65 mph.
It's also the case that states with a lot of rural roads have speed limits, on undivided highways, higher than 55 mph (Wikipedia seems to be fairly comprehensive on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Stat... ).
It's also the case that states with a lot of rural roads have speed limits, on undivided highways, higher than 55 mph (Wikipedia seems to be fairly comprehensive on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Stat... ).
Surprise! :) The bar is (literally, not figuratively) set by the crash test regulations in a given market. In the US, this is the NHTSA.
In the incident outlined in the article, the driver struck a pole orientated (roughly) perpendicular to the direction of travel. The testing standard for this type of impact is currently 20 MPH[1]. Why 20 MPH? Because, as you suggested, research [2] indicates that most accidents involving fixed poles don't occur at high speeds. Roadside hardware present on highways are designed to crumple and absorb impact, or are situated such that they would deflect the car, rather than cause it to stop abruptly. Yes, you can find exceptions to this rule, but they are exceptions, and would be considered a deficiency to be resolved, not an engineering standard.
Tesla exceeded the required criteria for this test by a sizable margin, but you've got to look at the physics of kinetic energy to understand why anything above 55 MPH is still wildly outside of the range considered in the safety engineering of the car.
In a crash, the kinetic energy of the vehicle must be dissipated somehow. This energy is governed by the formula (1/2)mv^2. The important part of that formula is the velocity-squared portion. The velocity coefficient impacts the kinetic energy as a square. Just have a look at a graph of that function:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F2%282100x%5E2%29+fr...
As much as I commend Tesla for their safety efforts, when you drive like this guy did, your only ally is dumb luck.
1: http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+FAQ#fifteen
2: http://www.nhtsa.gov/CARS/rules/rulings/SideImpact/index.htm...
In the incident outlined in the article, the driver struck a pole orientated (roughly) perpendicular to the direction of travel. The testing standard for this type of impact is currently 20 MPH[1]. Why 20 MPH? Because, as you suggested, research [2] indicates that most accidents involving fixed poles don't occur at high speeds. Roadside hardware present on highways are designed to crumple and absorb impact, or are situated such that they would deflect the car, rather than cause it to stop abruptly. Yes, you can find exceptions to this rule, but they are exceptions, and would be considered a deficiency to be resolved, not an engineering standard.
Tesla exceeded the required criteria for this test by a sizable margin, but you've got to look at the physics of kinetic energy to understand why anything above 55 MPH is still wildly outside of the range considered in the safety engineering of the car.
In a crash, the kinetic energy of the vehicle must be dissipated somehow. This energy is governed by the formula (1/2)mv^2. The important part of that formula is the velocity-squared portion. The velocity coefficient impacts the kinetic energy as a square. Just have a look at a graph of that function:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F2%282100x%5E2%29+fr...
As much as I commend Tesla for their safety efforts, when you drive like this guy did, your only ally is dumb luck.
1: http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+FAQ#fifteen
2: http://www.nhtsa.gov/CARS/rules/rulings/SideImpact/index.htm...
My point was more that if they are doing some design calculation, they aren't just going to plug 55 mph into the front of that calculation, they are going to use some consideration.
Shortly after posting my other reply, I was pondering how worthwhile it was and what prompted me to post it, and I decided that I found the 55 to be overly specific. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't see much reason to try to argue about it.
Shortly after posting my other reply, I was pondering how worthwhile it was and what prompted me to post it, and I decided that I found the 55 to be overly specific. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't see much reason to try to argue about it.
Then how do you plain that the car split in half in this incident? If the information presented doesn't change your mind, then maybe you're just more concerned with maintaining your point of view than you are understanding the matter.
I suppose the key point is that I over-read Interstates are the only environment where an automobile should exceed 55 MPH (if you're obeying traffic laws). (which is simply not true) and looked past there is no testing standard (which does a nice job of qualifying what you were saying).
So EVs are good enough for Los Angeles high speed chases now... does this mean they've finally arrived?
I wonder what would've happened if Tesla both had the ability to remotely shut the car down AND then shut it down in compliance with the police involved. Less people would be hurt, a synagogue would not have those damages, a whole lot of people with less stress.
Precedent from 2009 with OnStar: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/10/onstar-gp...
Precedent from 2009 with OnStar: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/10/onstar-gp...
Not sure why that is Tesla-specific, since most cars don't have this functionality anyway. The only reason why this article was even written is because it involved a Tesla, and readers love hearings stories about accidents involving Teslas.
Yea.... No.....
That is one of the reason I will not own a Car with OnStar, nor would I own a Telsa is they start doing that
Sure in this instance it may have saves lives but giving the government that kind of power is .... scary....
No, just no.....
That is one of the reason I will not own a Car with OnStar, nor would I own a Telsa is they start doing that
Sure in this instance it may have saves lives but giving the government that kind of power is .... scary....
No, just no.....
What if it required a passcode you held?
It should really work off of an account (similar to how Apple ID works), where the owner can remotely shutdown a car.
I'm surprised it doesn't work like this.
I'm surprised it doesn't work like this.
and the government can call up Apple and have them do anything.....
So no is should not work like an Apple ID...... I do not want the government to even have the ability to access it is even with a court order. I do not want it to even be technically possible....
So no is should not work like an Apple ID...... I do not want the government to even have the ability to access it is even with a court order. I do not want it to even be technically possible....
I think at some point, this will be impractical and you will have to either commit digital suicide, or accept it. This is really sad, but I see it as inevitable. Governments will always have the power to pull this stuff off without our consent. If they can't get these things their way, then they will (or maybe already have) localized EMP charges that can disable targets. With the police force that is becoming increasingly militarized, I can see a car chase ending differently in the future. I don't support it, and yes we should do something about it. But what? Do the people really need to wait until it's at the brink?
Replace "localised EMP" with "HERF" and you're spot on.
Took me a while to figure out what HERF stood for, but eventually lead to this article on Wikipedia[0]
Yeah. 50s, 60s, and the 70s sounds like an amazing time.[1]
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Microwav...
[1]: Minus the wars.
Yeah. 50s, 60s, and the 70s sounds like an amazing time.[1]
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Microwav...
[1]: Minus the wars.
Ideally, I'd like to to be me and whoever I delegate it to. Again ideally, permitting N of K kinds of requirements.
i wonder if its safe to shut down or slow down a vehicle remotely because speed & approach judgements are best left to drivers of the vehicle unless of-course its remotely driven.
Probably dangerous, but probably safer than a high-speed chase.
Yes you are right , for the resultant set of safe times and coordinates to slow-down/shutdown should be algorithmic derivations; given fast computing and enough data-gathering.But am wondering if modern GPS remote mechanisms do these ?
It seems like you could probably do pretty well by 1) alerting the driver, and 2) gradually reducing the max speed.
What OnStar did is disable the gas pedal. Brakes still worked, and steering still worked. Imagine if you had run out of gas.
Real criminal genius - steals a car that is constantly connected to the mothership and can't be chopped up for parts (hardly think there could be a market for that).
Why was there a high speed chase, anyways? Don't most police departments have rules that high speed chases should only proceed when lives are endangered?
I've seen plenty of pictures on the internet of supercars sliced in half and burned after crashes at that kind of speed. For example the Paul Walker crash. From the picture of the Honda I assume the Tesla broadsides the Honda whiched caused it to spin, slide, and strike the pole.
It would be great for Tesla if first person to die in a Model S was a car thief.
Someone is going to be the first. Lets hope is not a child :S
Someone is going to be the first. Lets hope is not a child :S
This reeks of a smear campaign for Tesla Automobiles. A regular petrol car would have exploded and hurt much more people.
This has nothing to do with Tesla and EV fire concerns. Try doing this with an internal combustion engine car and see what happens.