Expert prognosis for the planet

[soundman98]

all this talk about water, saw this next. this is just one EV crash. if we globally abandon combustion engines for EV's, it's only going to become more commonplace:

https://jalopnik.com/two-dead-after-...ton-1846708136

Two people are dead after their Tesla turned into a fireball upon striking a tree in Spring, Texas, a town just north of Houston, local news station KPRC 2 reports.

According to the report, authorities used 23,000 gallons of water to finally extinguish the Tesla’s flames because the battery kept reigniting no matter how hard they tried to get it out. It took over four hours. At one point, authorities attempted to contact Tesla for guidance on how to extinguish the flames.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by soundman98

all this talk about water, saw this next. this is just one EV crash. if we globally abandon combustion engines for EV's, it's only going to become more commonplace:

https://jalopnik.com/two-dead-after-...ton-1846708136

It's the autopilot failsafe. It fails and Tesla is safe because there's no evidence.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

all this talk about water, saw this next. this is just one EV crash. if we globally abandon combustion engines for EV's, it's only going to become more commonplace:

https://jalopnik.com/two-dead-after-...ton-1846708136

It should become more commonplace, but by the time it does, don't you think autonomous driving aids would dramatically reduce crashes? Don't you also think manufactures and fire departments will find better ways of managing EV fires? Ex:

https://cfpa-e.eu/container-puts-out...electric-cars/

While accidents can be a source of car fires, ICEs can also catch on fire from oil leaks, fuel leaks, overheating failures, other engine failures, indirectly from catalytic converters when someone pulls to the shoulder on top of grass, etc. I would guess that EVs will spontaneously catch on fire less often, but I don't have any sources. If water use did become an issue then I would imagine there would be steps to mitigate the use like in the example above.

On a side note: WTF. Either the driver fled, or there was no driver. What were they thinking?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It should become more commonplace, but by the time it does, don't you think autonomous driving aids would dramatically reduce crashes? Don't you also think manufactures and fire departments will find better ways of managing EV fires? Ex:

https://cfpa-e.eu/container-puts-out...electric-cars/

While accidents can be a source of car fires, ICEs can also catch on fire from oil leaks, fuel leaks, overheating failures, other engine failures, indirectly from catalytic converters when someone pulls to the shoulder on top of grass, etc. I would guess that EVs will spontaneously catch on fire less often, but I don't have any sources. If water use did become an issue then I would imagine there would be steps to mitigate the use like in the example above.

On a side note: WTF. Either the driver fled, or there was no driver. What were they thinking?

How much you want to bet autonomous driver aids were responsible for this one?

I put it at a 50/50 right now that it was "level 2" or a drunk driver that survived and ran off. I'm sure the authorities will get to the bottom of the matter eventually.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

How much you want to bet autonomous driver aids were responsible for this one?

I put it at a 50/50 right now that it was "level 2" or a drunk driver that survived and ran off. I'm sure the authorities will get to the bottom of the matter eventually.

Well, if it was a driver then it could have been that or anything. If it wasn't a driver, because the article says there was only a person in a passenger seat and rear seat, then the fault is in whatever idiot thought it would be ok to drive the car without being in the driver's seat. And if you subscribe to the idea that it is Telsa's fault to allow such a situation to be possible then it is also Tesla's fault.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well, if it was a driver then it could have been that or anything. If it wasn't a driver, because the article says there was only a person in a passenger seat and rear seat, then the fault is in whatever idiot thought it would be ok to drive the car without being in the driver's seat. And if you subscribe to the idea that it is Telsa's fault to allow such a situation to be possible then it is also Tesla's fault.

This seems real easy to fix. Tesla needs to do a software update that requires someone to be in the driver's seat, at very minimum. I know they have the whole "summon" thing, but they can program around that.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

This seems real easy to fix. Tesla needs to do a software update that requires someone to be in the driver's seat, at very minimum. I know they have the whole "summon" thing, but they can program around that.

It would be nice if they prevented people from being idiots, but they don't. It seems like Tesla could do such things. It also seems like manufactures could prevent us from accelerating too fast, going over 80 mph, lock the seat belt at speed, prevent airbag removal, or whatever, but they don't because they allow a degree of freedom in our personal possessions. I think it is clear from this video that someone would probably need to overcome several warnings and obstacles to successfully drive a Tesla without someone in the driver's seat. Maybe there is a different video that proves this one wrong.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It would be nice if they prevented people from being idiots, but they don't.

Not sure why you insist on Tesla being faultless in this situation, but they are not. Are these people idiots, yes. Is Tesla encouraging it, also yes.

Look, I could get in my Suburban right now, set the cruise control, tie off the steering wheel so it would go straight, and climb into the passenger seat on the highway. The difference is GM isn't providing me the rope.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not sure why you insist on Tesla being faultless in this situation, but they are not. Are these people idiots, yes. Is Tesla encouraging it, also yes.

Look, I could get in my Suburban right now, set the cruise control, tie off the steering wheel so it would go straight, and climb into the passenger seat on the highway. The difference is GM isn't providing me the rope.

You could drive the car from the passenger seat without the rope, steering only when necessary, which will be far more often than a Tesla, especially if your car doesn't drive straight and the road is not straight, so how is Telsa worse in this situation? Because you have to be more engaged to stay alive, or said differently, because your death is more imminent in the Suburban if you don't?

I already said they could do more. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make the system fool proof. In general, I don't think manufactures have a duty to prevent people from being idiots with their possessions. I don't understand why you or others are special pleading about Tesla. I can get in my car right now and ram it into anyone and Subaru isn't doing anything to stop me. Just because they can act doesn't mean they are obligated to act, no different than how manufactures aren't mandated, nor do they voluntarily limit speed limits to something reasonable or put driver monitoring into cars or make cars safer at following distances or many things they easily or expensively could do. Why can cars continue to be operated with seatbelts not engaged or allowed to drive away or operate with a door open or ajar? In fact, no one is complaining that Tesla allows the car to go over 100mph or that it will accelerate in 3 seconds to 60 or that it might follow too close to a car in front of it. Should gun manufactures be required to have finger sensors or combinations on the guns, so an unintended user can't use it? Should sugar packets have diabetes warning labels on them?

[soundman98]

well, eventually with autonomous systems, the manufacturer does need to take on more responsibility. what we're seeing with tesla is the middling ground where they're attempting to have the best of both worlds, where they decrease driver involvement, but also remain no more liable than before.

the reality is that driver replacement systems of any level actively shift liability towards the designer of the system, but they've got bigger lawyers than little old me or you.

[Spuds]

Tesla has a "full self driving capability" package. Any other manufacturers have such a package?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You could drive the car from the passenger seat without the rope, steering only when necessary, which will be far more often than a Tesla, especially if your car doesn't drive straight and the road is not straight, so how is Telsa worse in this situation? Because you have to be more engaged to stay alive, or said differently, because your death is more imminent in the Suburban if you don't?

I already said they could do more. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to make the system fool proof. In general, I don't think manufactures have a duty to prevent people from being idiots with their possessions. I don't understand why you or others are special pleading about Tesla. I can get in my car right now and ram it into anyone and Subaru isn't doing anything to stop me. Just because they can act doesn't mean they are obligated to act, no different than how manufactures aren't mandated, nor do they voluntarily limit speed limits to something reasonable or put driver monitoring into cars or make cars safer at following distances or many things they easily or expensively could do. Why can cars continue to be operated with seatbelts not engaged or allowed to drive away or operate with a door open or ajar? In fact, no one is complaining that Tesla allows the car to go over 100mph or that it will accelerate in 3 seconds to 60 or that it might follow too close to a car in front of it. Should gun manufactures be required to have finger sensors or combinations on the guns, so an unintended user can't use it? Should sugar packets have diabetes warning labels on them?

Ummm...

https://www.subaru.com/engineering/eyesight.html

Subaru EyeSight
AN EXTRA SET OF EYES ON THE ROAD AND, IF NEED BE, AN EXTRAFOOT ON THE BRAKE WHEN YOU DRIVE.

And, while not the same thing as diabetes...

https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/

Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other
reproductive harm.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

well, eventually with autonomous systems, the manufacturer does need to take on more responsibility. what we're seeing with tesla is the middling ground where they're attempting to have the best of both worlds, where they decrease driver involvement, but also remain no more liable than before.

the reality is that driver replacement systems of any level actively shift liability towards the designer of the system, but they've got bigger lawyers than little old me or you.

Until it is explicitly expressed that a person can be in the passenger seats without a driver, or until there is no steering wheel, then it is not the manufacture's responsibility. As long as they stipulate that a driver is needed, then all the systems will be is a driver's aid.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Tesla has a "full self driving capability" package. Any other manufacturers have such a package?

Yes.