-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Owner robbed at gunpoint and Model S stolen while supercharging in Barstow...
- Thread starter AmpedRealtor
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
TM should indeed disable the 3 handle-motors by default. If handle remains retracted, door cannot be opened from the outside even tho unlocked. I moaned about this 4-handle absurdity from day 1, and looked into cutting some wires, but figured my handles would be replaced soon enough by the new improved type. But my originals have settled in and are now 100%. If I want to open the 3 doors I'll do it from inside the car. Currently only my driver's door and tailgate are 'touchable', thus only the driver's motor need activate (not the other 3).
Charged one night at Barstow with a day session going back. There are no eyes on the SpC and the convenience store is 1/8 mile away. The motel entrance is almost as far and around a corner. I remember the lighting to be very bright. A couple mock surveillance cameras would have been nice.
A pawl-driven Ejection-ChargePort should be developed by TM. Given that the charge plug does not hit ground if dropped (true?) this feature could even be used by luxury folk if getting out of the car to disconnect cable were to be viewed as 'too much of a hassle presently'. If you parked at a SpC and found the cable dangling, 'Oh, quality folk been here' (or a carjacking was foiled!). With at least two major constituencies making use of this feature how can TM say no?
--
Charged one night at Barstow with a day session going back. There are no eyes on the SpC and the convenience store is 1/8 mile away. The motel entrance is almost as far and around a corner. I remember the lighting to be very bright. A couple mock surveillance cameras would have been nice.
A pawl-driven Ejection-ChargePort should be developed by TM. Given that the charge plug does not hit ground if dropped (true?) this feature could even be used by luxury folk if getting out of the car to disconnect cable were to be viewed as 'too much of a hassle presently'. If you parked at a SpC and found the cable dangling, 'Oh, quality folk been here' (or a carjacking was foiled!). With at least two major constituencies making use of this feature how can TM say no?
--
You say "quality folk", I say "self-absorbed D-bag with an over developed sense of self importance." :wink:
Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Where would you put this on the list of all the other priorities? And would you then give them a pass on meeting other deadlines?
My point, of course, is there is a cost of continually asking for 'more'. It's not only the time spent doing what seems to everyone to be 'something simple' (and it's never simple), there is a cost to continually switching priorities.
Alternatively, owners could put cameras in their cars that upload continually to the cloud while parked. That's an option that everyone could pursue if they were truly worried about where they charge. And I guess we'd see how many people really ARE worried about stuff like that if the solution required action on our part.
- - - Updated - - -
fyi - when dealing with a *difficult* situation in the last year or so, I called a law enforcement neighbor on the phone each night as I was pulling into my drive. They stayed on the phone with me until I was in the house, confirmed things were normal (ie, dogs jumping excitedly to see me
), and there was nothing to worry about. (And they were on speed dial, since they could get here faster than a 911 call could respond.)And on a recent trip to London where the travel department had tried a new hotel, when seeing the neighborhood, I decided NOT to get out of the cab (it was around 2am and things looked completely unsafe). The driver said 'good idea, I'd prefer not to leave you here'. It was a huge hassle finding another place that hour of the night, but my radar was going off.
The point being that sometimes we need to take responsibility for our own safety. If a place to charge looked unsafe to me (unlit, no other cars around, no business to hang out at close by), I'd either keep an unlucky friend on the phone with me or just deal with the fact I didn't get to charge and find a place to spend the night.
I just hate seeing us immediately look to big overblown solutions to a problem that has occurred once and occurs in all sorts of scenarios, not just when charging. Sometimes we need to just use some common sense - and accept that sometimes things happen, no matter how many precautions are taken. imo.
islandbayy
Active Member
Where would you put this on the list of all the other priorities? And would you then give them a pass on meeting other deadlines?
My point, of course, is there is a cost of continually asking for 'more'. It's not only the time spent doing what seems to everyone to be 'something simple' (and it's never simple), there is a cost to continually switching priorities.
Alternatively, owners could put cameras in their cars that upload continually to the cloud while parked. That's an option that everyone could pursue if they were truly worried about where they charge. And I guess we'd see how many people really ARE worried about stuff like that if the solution required action on our part.
- - - Updated - - -
fyi - when dealing with a *difficult* situation in the last year or so, I called a law enforcement neighbor on the phone each night as I was pulling into my drive. They stayed on the phone with me until I was in the house, confirmed things were normal (ie, dogs jumping excitedly to see me
And on a recent trip to London where the travel department had tried a new hotel, when seeing the neighborhood, I decided NOT to get out of the cab (it was around 2am and things looked completely unsafe). The driver said 'good idea, I'd prefer not to leave you here'. It was a huge hassle finding another place that hour of the night, but my radar was going off.
The point being that sometimes we need to take responsibility for our own safety. If a place to charge looked unsafe to me (unlit, no other cars around, no business to hang out at close by), I'd either keep an unlucky friend on the phone with me or just deal with the fact I didn't get to charge and find a place to spend the night.
I just hate seeing us immediately look to big overblown solutions to a problem that has occurred once and occurs in all sorts of scenarios, not just when charging. Sometimes we need to just use some common sense - and accept that sometimes things happen, no matter how many precautions are taken. imo.
Very VERY well put Bonnie!
M67v
I just work here
HEY! IF I HAVE TO PAY TO GET A MODEL S (which I currently do not own, but want to own), EVERYBODY DOES!
Where would you put this on the list of all the other priorities? And would you then give them a pass on meeting other deadlines?
My point, of course, is there is a cost of continually asking for 'more'. It's not only the time spent doing what seems to everyone to be 'something simple' (and it's never simple), there is a cost to continually switching priorities.
Alternatively, owners could put cameras in their cars that upload continually to the cloud while parked. That's an option that everyone could pursue if they were truly worried about where they charge. And I guess we'd see how many people really ARE worried about stuff like that if the solution required action on our part.
- - - Updated - - -
fyi - when dealing with a *difficult* situation in the last year or so, I called a law enforcement neighbor on the phone each night as I was pulling into my drive. They stayed on the phone with me until I was in the house, confirmed things were normal (ie, dogs jumping excitedly to see me
And on a recent trip to London where the travel department had tried a new hotel, when seeing the neighborhood, I decided NOT to get out of the cab (it was around 2am and things looked completely unsafe). The driver said 'good idea, I'd prefer not to leave you here'. It was a huge hassle finding another place that hour of the night, but my radar was going off.
The point being that sometimes we need to take responsibility for our own safety. If a place to charge looked unsafe to me (unlit, no other cars around, no business to hang out at close by), I'd either keep an unlucky friend on the phone with me or just deal with the fact I didn't get to charge and find a place to spend the night.
I just hate seeing us immediately look to big overblown solutions to a problem that has occurred once and occurs in all sorts of scenarios, not just when charging. Sometimes we need to just use some common sense - and accept that sometimes things happen, no matter how many precautions are taken. imo.
I agree 100% The only caveat is that this is a "one off"... If it started happening regularly TM would be forced from a PR and functionality standpoint to do something about it.
Simply adding bright lighting to a location will not prevent crime. It doesn't help at all if there's nobody there to witness anything. Criminals also need light just as much as everyone else.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Lights are cheap. Video surveillance is not tremendously costly, and both may be necessary for those SCs that are isolated.
I'd rather see Tesla take a proactive approach in partnership with their lessees - especially instead of doing nothing because of the perception that 'life happens'.
Tangentially, red paint is cheap (see Culver City SC stalls), yet makes a ton of difference to reduce ICEing.
Taking responsibility does not have to be expensive - nor should it be deprecated away. Deal with the issue now so that it does not become an issue later.
Crime, and as importantly, the perception of crime, is in nobody's interest - not ours, not Tesla's, and not the lessees. You can bet that Westfield (Culver City), Hilton (Redondo Beach), and Marriott (Buellton) understand this.
Would lights and video have dissuaded the inhabitants of the shallow end of the gene pool who carjacked in Barstow? We'll never know.
I'd rather see Tesla take a proactive approach in partnership with their lessees - especially instead of doing nothing because of the perception that 'life happens'.
Tangentially, red paint is cheap (see Culver City SC stalls), yet makes a ton of difference to reduce ICEing.
Taking responsibility does not have to be expensive - nor should it be deprecated away. Deal with the issue now so that it does not become an issue later.
Crime, and as importantly, the perception of crime, is in nobody's interest - not ours, not Tesla's, and not the lessees. You can bet that Westfield (Culver City), Hilton (Redondo Beach), and Marriott (Buellton) understand this.
Would lights and video have dissuaded the inhabitants of the shallow end of the gene pool who carjacked in Barstow? We'll never know.
Rather than a Valet Mode you select through a menu, could Tesla just provide a "valet fob" in addition to the real one(s). It could have limited functionality to give the impression it's genuine (locking doors) and it would be the one you always keep in the car, while the real one stays in your pocket/purse. It would normally be the one used in valet parking situations but would also limit the car if stolen
If Tesla "take the proactive approach" it should make it possible to call SC. The SC then confirms that it is the owner by some code. When its confirmed the SC send an SOS signal to the police (map coordinates) and one to the car which locks the doors flashes lights and honk the horn and start a countdown with every second it will get a km/h slower to allow for a safer stop. The thieves will never steal a Tesla again.
Or they'll just shoot the owner proactively so they can't make the call in the first place...
- - - Updated - - -
Anyone remember the South African anti-carjacking flamethrower?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(flamethrower)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Looks like these guys were arrested last week: http://www.barstowca.org/Home/Components/News/News/1176/
Similar threads
