Given that the driver managed to actually get the cyclist to hit them and pled guilty to a misdemeanor, I think it is safe to assume that they did in fact intend to cause an accident.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Road-rager's attorney mentions regenerative braking during case
- Thread starter yobigd20
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Given that the driver managed to actually get the cyclist to hit them and pled guilty to a misdemeanor, I think it is safe to assume that they did in fact intend to cause an accident.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Remember there are regulations as well when brake lights need to (or may) come on.
Interesting post related to manual mustang here: http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?25953-Brake-Light-Actuation&p=332929#post332929
As well the UNECE specification [ http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/R13hr2e.pdf ] which states:
Interesting post related to manual mustang here: http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?25953-Brake-Light-Actuation&p=332929#post332929
As well the UNECE specification [ http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/R13hr2e.pdf ] which states:
This is a terrible assumption. That's not how the american justice system works. His lawyer probably though the guilty plea had the best chances.
It's time to mention that the onset of regen has different profiles depending on whether or not TACC is engaged. I even posted a little video here on TMC about a year ago, shortly after getting my P85D, to show the differences. My older Sig S does not exhibit these differences, because it doesn't have TACC.
There may be some subtleties, but the basic difference can be seen by observing how long it takes to reach max regen in two difference cases:
Case 1: You are driving manually and simply lift your foot off the go pedal at, say, 40 mph. Regen ramps up quickly to the 60kW max.
Case 2: TACC is active and holding a constant 40mph and you disengage TACC by pushing the stalk away from you, without touching either pedal. Regen ramps up slowly to 60kW, taking roughly twice as long to reach 60kW as it did in Case 1.
Why Tesla chose to implement this difference is beyond me. It's been that way since the beginning of TACC and hasn't changed through any of the subsequent firmware releases. And it's caused me to have to use my brakes more often than I ever did in the Sig S because of the modal differences in regen onset ramp times.
Link to the earlier thread and video: Firmware 6.1 - Page 60
There is no way a Tesla can decelerate faster than a bicycle given proper passing procedures. I ride my bicycle 100-150 miles a week and drive a Tesla, so, I am a very experienced rider and know how standard regenerative decelerates. Either the driver did not pass correctly and cut in front of the cyclist too soon, or, brake checked the cyclist. You don't just not pay attention when a car is passing you. Cyclist flipped off his wife and you think he was being a courteous driver and accidentally caused a crash with his regen? Please stop making excuses for a road raging driver.
- - - Updated - - -
Are you suggesting he was using TACC while driving behind a bicyclist?
It's not a terrible assumption. It is a terrible deal -- two years probation on a reckless driving charge? This is the kind of deal you make when you are a dead certainty to be convicted on both reckless and hit & run. He didn't even get a nolo plea. Combine that with the lawyers statement "He had a temporary emotional lapse" and you get a pretty clear picture that this was an intentional act.
+1. This is why I doubt the regen only story -- I believe if he just took his foot off the gas, the bike would have been able to stop or avoid him easily.
Conviction has nothing to do with the truth, whatever that may be. Next you're going to tell me OJ didn't murder his wife.
- - - Updated - - -
Dude, you can't have it both ways... If a Tesla can't decelerate as fast as a bicycle, then the cyclist must have been doing something wrong to rear end a car.
Not at all, I was merely expanding on AWDtesla's statement: "The regen was actively engineered to not be responsive at certain times (i.e. rapid off the throttle), I'd guesstimate 500-750ms delay in some cases."
So, then, what was his "temporary emotional lapse?" That only makes sense if it was an intentional act. If he just eased off the pedal and regen kicked in and that led to accidental collision, how is that a temporary emotional lapse? I'm not sure how OJ's acquittal somehow supports your notion that an innocent man would plead out here.
The lawyer's statement pretty clearly indicates that he intentionally applied brakes, but perhaps with the intention of scaring the bicycle and not causing injury.
I'm starting to suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here. He said that it couln't have happened with a proper pass. Either he cut off the cyclist very close and slowed down moderately or he passed with sufficient room and braked hard.
He took a plea-bargain. This quite literally means a deal worked out behind the scenes and you plead guilty even if you didn't do it, in order for a speedy trial and reduced sentencing without the chance of greater peril should you lose the case. Everything else is icing.
I'm starting to suspect we're backing up the bicyclist no matter what. Here's an alternate version of events: a self-righteous biker flipping off and otherwise antagonizing a family in a Tesla probably got too close to the car in at attempt to pound his fists on the trunk and hit the car.
We had a similar situation happen in NYC, a guy called alexian lien. Except in his case nobody looked at the bikers as innocents because they were on motorcycles, must have been a gang of thugs. That dude ran over one of the bikers and paralyzed him for life. No charges pressed against him.
Scales of justice not working so well.
In any normal driving conditions, the vehicle who hits a driver in front of them is at fault for non compliance of proper following distance. In this case, his deceleration (regardless of how it happened) caused the rear vehicle to hit him from the rear. If he had passed properly, giving the vehicle behind proper stopping distance, as required by law, the vehicle in the rear would have been at fault. It was clear to everyone involved (and those who aren't biased against bicycles using the roadway) that the Tesla driver was aggressive in his maneuver to an extent to where, if the bicyclist hit the rear of his vehicle as a result of the brake regen, then it would suggest he cut in so close so as a bicyclist did not have sufficient time to react and stop.
Of course we are going to defend the bicyclist in this case as the driver is clearly at fault, regardless of how the deceleration occurred.
Scales of justice weighed on the Tesla driver in this case as using a 4,500 lb car to intimidate a bicyclist with deadly force is no different than pulling a gun on someone.
Of course we are going to defend the bicyclist in this case as the driver is clearly at fault, regardless of how the deceleration occurred.
Scales of justice weighed on the Tesla driver in this case as using a 4,500 lb car to intimidate a bicyclist with deadly force is no different than pulling a gun on someone.
At least we've declared our prejudices.
I on the other hand can do no more than speculate, since none of us will actually know what happened. But I can for sure contend the guilty plea is not linked to the truth.
Your understanding of the legal nuances is not very good here. This is a case with significant potential to lead to a civil suit -- any remotely competent attorney is going to try to get a nolo contendere plea here, because a guilty plea is going to be hugely prejudicial in the civil case. The police investigated the incident and charged the guy, the prosecutor pressed the charges and held out for a pretty tough deal and hos own lawyer said to the press that his client had "an emotional lapse."
It may well be that the bicyclist didn't make room for his wife to pass and made a rude gesture to her in the lead car. I'm not sure that a bicyclist has a legal obligation to let a car pass, in fact. In any event, driving his 4,700 pound car in way that led to a collision with a bicycle is beyond reckless and he is lucky that the bicyclist wasn't more seriously injured.
Personally, I have no axe to grind with regards to bicyclists, although it seems that you do. I don't ride one myself nor do I have much of a general opinion, but in this case you don't seem to need to read between the lines very well at all to see what happened.
The Lien case is a pretty ridiculous comparison. That whole incident was on tape with hundreds of witnesses and 11 people were convicted in that case. The facts are entirely and completely different -- with the only real similarity being that a motorcycle jammed on brakes and caused Lien to hit him and was also convicted of reckless driving.
We know exactly what happened: An impatient driver honked her horn at a pair of cyclists operating their vehicles in accordance with the law. Her honking of the horn violated CA law and a cyclist responded with a rude gesture. That driver's husband who was driving a Tesla behind her then made an aggressive pass around the cyclists. His pass did not leave sufficient room for the cyclists to react and stop when the Tesla driver decelerated. The cyclist hit the Tesla and the Tesla driver then violated CA law by driving off, leaving an injured cyclists on the side of the road. Police were called, sent to the house of the Tesla driver to arrest him.
Three laws were broken by the motorists in this incident while none were violated by the cyclists:
1. Honking horn for reasons other than emergency
2. Improper passing of a vehicle.
3. Hit an run and not reporting a vehicle crash.
Looks like no amount of facts are going to keep you from thinking the cyclists were at fault in any way here. People like you will perform whatever mental gymnastics you have to perform to solidify your position in that your use of the public good known as roads is more important than anyone else's. This whole thing could have been avoided had Tesla driver's wife followed the CA law against sounding one's horn for any purpose other than an emergency. Maybe she should have been ticketed as well as there is a record admission for that incident. Your argument is to blame regen brake lights and the cyclists. Shameful.
27001. (a) The driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary
to insure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn.
(The horn shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm
system which operates as specified in Article 13 (commencing with
Section 28085) of this chapter.
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a
bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a
safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the
overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and
exceptions hereinafter stated. Article 3. Overtaking And Passing :: Vehicle Code :: 2010 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
Driver Responsibilities
When a driver is involved in an accident, state law imposes certain legal responsibilities on the driver to ensure that the accident is handled properly. A driver may be required to take several important steps before leaving the location of the accident. These include:
- Stopping the vehicle and moving it to a safe location;
- Evaluating the damage that has occurred to all involved properties or individuals;
- Exchanging necessary contact information;
- Seeking medical assistance if any person has been injured; and
- Calling the police, if necessary.
OMG, now cars can't even honk their horns? I'm the one doing mental gymnastics? The only thing going on here is I'm detecting typical cyclist mentality.
You want to honk your horn to aggrevate someone, startling them, and potentially cause them to make unexpected movements? You just glossed over all the facts and narrowed in on the "injustice" that you are suffering. I'm the one with a skwewed mentality?
To answer your question, no, you may not use your horn in California for any reason other than an emergency situation. No, you may not pass aggressively and cause a crash. No, you may not cause a crash and drive off.
Why is it so hard for you to recognize the motorists were at fault here? It wasn't the regen brake lights and it wasn't the cyclists who were at fault. It was the motorists. I know it, the cyclists know it, the judge knows it, the defendants' lawyer knows it and, I suspect, by now the driver knows it. Everyone knows the motorists were at fault except you - The one who would like to blame reasons other than the real reasons.
Last edited:
I used to believe in the legal system somewhat similar to LetsGoFast. But I know someone who was forced to take a plea deal, because even though they were innocent, they didn't have enough proof, and a trial could have gone either way...
So basically, I 100% agree with you. The fact that he plead guilty doesn't guarantee that he is guilty.
Not noticing a silent 5000lb machine is directly behind you is not an "emergency"? According to you horn use has basically been outlawed. But apparently no one including the cops or the judge or the prosecution cared.
You have no idea what actually happened. You're just drawing conclusions based on a news article.
Do they? Then why is it necessary to reach for this ridiculous horn argument? Mental gymnastics indeed... The phrase "thou dost protest too much" comes to mind, especially given what I said post #72.
No, it's not an emergency. If the car slows down and passes legally, there's no reason to use a horn. Do you ever honk at a car you are passing? It was an obvious attempt to aggrevate the bicyclists. Bicycles are legally allowed to ride two-wide. They don't need to notice a car any more than you do and certainly don't need to be honked at. Just because a driver is impatient and willfully ignorant of the law does not give them the right to honk, pass aggressively and cause a crash.
Have you ever noticed that when you stop at a stop sign you are waiting for other traffic to pass safely? Why wouldn't you give the same courtesy to people on bicycles? Relax, wait until it is safe to pass, and then pass safely. No need to honk, no need to pass closely, no need to pull so closely in front of them that any deceleration causes a collision.
Regardless of the way the driver of the Tesla decelerated, and by how much, they pulled so closely in front of the cyclist as to cause a collision. Had there been any evidence to the contrary, the cyclist would have been ticketed and held liable for damages to the Tesla. Further, a hit and run is a very serious offense. Had he been truly afraid, he could have at least called the police and made a report.
The horn argument is relevant to the incident as it was one of the THREE laws that were broken by the two motorists that CAUSED a crash.
There's no speculation here. Based on the admission of the defendant's attorney, his wife honked, he passed, decelerated and caused a crash, then drove away.
You don't like facts? Here are some physics: A bicycle can stop from 20mph in 15 feet or less, 15 feet per second. A car takes 40 feet to stop from that speed, or, 15 feet per second. Given that the Tesla was passing, he was likely going at least 10mph faster than the bicycles as he passed them. Even with one second delay in reaction time from the cyclists (which is the accepted reaction time for humans) you're arguing that regen decelerated the Tesla from 30mph to 20mph in less than a second, as fast as a car slamming on its brakes decelerates? Either the driver cut in too close or he hit his brakes. That's physics.
You keep conveniently ignoring the two other laws that the Tesla driver broke. Had he passed legally, regen would not have caused a cyclist to rear-end his car. Further, the guy caused a vehicle crash and drove off without reporting it to the police. He's guilty of at least one serious crime.
- - - Updated - - -
The jails are full of 100% innocent people.
Similar threads
- Article
