-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I recall Elon Musk making the ascertation that all automobiles store energy in some form. Thus the possibility of fire exists in the event of any automotive collision. The Tesla Model S is no different in this respect. This safety claim is entirely germane in regard to this accident.
The Tesla Model S poses no greater fire risk than any other vehicle when involved in high speed/high impact force collisions. It is nearly impossible to determine the outcomes of accidents involving speeds and forces of this magnitude.
Sadly, Paul Walker's Porshe accident is evident of this fact.
It could have been a Ford Pinto then. Being ejected from the car means you are no longer in the car so how safe the structure of the car is really doesn't impact you as you have broken the windshield with your forehead and are now landing on concrete. If you are still in the car and wearing your seatbelt then yes, it matters. How does flying out of the car and not being in it mean the car is safer than any other car? Very confused by this. We know the Model S is probably the safest car on the road. I'm not saying it isn't.
Of course the driver was alive on impact but he immediately flew out the windshield and wasn't still in the car for the rest of the crash. If he had remained in the car during the entire event then it says something about how safe the car is.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
For people arguing about the driver being ejected and how that disqualifies the Tesla from any safety claim, keep in mind that the car also had a passenger (at least according to this video). If the driver was not ejected (from not wearing his seatbelt), he probably wouldn't be in critical condition.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-hollywood-building-following-police-pursuit/
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-hollywood-building-following-police-pursuit/
pz1975
Active Member
If he was wearing his seatbelt he would probably be in much better condition. The screen in the car was still working after the accident (see pictures) so that immediate area obviously wasn't destroyed or burned up and he probably could have gotten out before the fire got to him. Just speculating obviously.
Pilot_51
Member
So, from what I gather, there are some things that show how safe the Model S is and others that show how lucky the driver is.
The driver was ejected from the vehicle very likely because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt and supposedly ended up between the synagogue door and the rear of the Model S. Since the major impact was on the side of the vehicle and his body went in the same direction as the rear even though he apparently flew through the windshield, it seems most likely that the centrifugal force of the vehicle bending and breaking is what launched him. He is incredibly lucky that he didn't smash his head on one of the many very hard objects in the immediate vicinity and that the rear of the Model S didn't crush him or catch on fire, as he certainly would have died (permanently). The car has nothing to do with safety once ejected and cannot be blamed for injuries sustained when not wearing the seatbelt. Though, if he was wearing the seatbelt and it failed, it's a different story. However, the vehicle probably still can't be blamed due to the extreme circumstances created by the driver, who seems to have wanted to die spectacularly that night.
There was supposedly another thief in the passenger seat who was wearing a seatbelt and survived. If that is the case, it supports the safety claims of the vehicle when the seatbelt is used even in extreme circumstances (at least this one). It also suggests that the passenger was the less stupid of the thieves, yet still very stupid to be participating.
The driver was ejected from the vehicle very likely because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt and supposedly ended up between the synagogue door and the rear of the Model S. Since the major impact was on the side of the vehicle and his body went in the same direction as the rear even though he apparently flew through the windshield, it seems most likely that the centrifugal force of the vehicle bending and breaking is what launched him. He is incredibly lucky that he didn't smash his head on one of the many very hard objects in the immediate vicinity and that the rear of the Model S didn't crush him or catch on fire, as he certainly would have died (permanently). The car has nothing to do with safety once ejected and cannot be blamed for injuries sustained when not wearing the seatbelt. Though, if he was wearing the seatbelt and it failed, it's a different story. However, the vehicle probably still can't be blamed due to the extreme circumstances created by the driver, who seems to have wanted to die spectacularly that night.
There was supposedly another thief in the passenger seat who was wearing a seatbelt and survived. If that is the case, it supports the safety claims of the vehicle when the seatbelt is used even in extreme circumstances (at least this one). It also suggests that the passenger was the less stupid of the thieves, yet still very stupid to be participating.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Though I quoted and linked the article that claimed the driver was stuck between the rear half of the car and the building I can't reconcile the physics involved. I assume that the car was traveling somewhat sideways when it hit the light poles and split in two, how does the driver go forward through the front windshield while the rear half travels the same trajectory and pins him against the building? Also, how did they extricate him without moving the rear half of the car?
From that article: "Video of the crash showed that the other half of the of the car crashed into the side of a synagogue, ejecting the driver, who ended up wedged between the wall of the synagogue and the piece of the Model S."
"Video"? I have seen no other reports stating there was video of the crash, or stating where the Tesla thief ended up after being thrown for the car.
If he was thrown that far from the car into the wall of the building, he would likely have died on impact.
I doubt that article's accuracy.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Here's a Google street view of the area, you can see the first of the two poles is pretty beefy, holding both a traffic light and a street lamp:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.092515,-118.344063,3a,75y,16h,90t/data=!3m3!1e1!3m1!2e0!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.092515,-118.344063,3a,75y,16h,90t/data=!3m3!1e1!3m1!2e0!6m1!1e1
You made your post in a thread of well over 200 posts about that crash.
Was your post intended as a joke?
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
No, it was a separate thread to start. Trust me, moderators have been very very busy today merging together all the *new* threads about this event.
Every time I stop by, there's more to merge. Same for the other mods.
agree.. Imagine driving for several miles while the car keeps making noise because you're not wearing a seatbelt.
Chrisr400cc
Member
weird how there looks to be 2 light poles right next to each other. The street lamp all by itself seems pointless because the traffic light that is about 10 feet away also has a street light on it.
Maybe the street lamp all by itself is old and they never removed it. It is cemented in the ground and the traffic light with the street lamp is bolted down. I thought someone said the new traffic poles are meant to brake in a collision. Maybe that old street lamp that is cemented down was never meant to brake and ended up braking the back of the Model S
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Could be, but I'm not so sure of that. Is it better over all to have a pole stay upright, or come crashing down on anything nearby? Also, those poles with lamps and traffic lights on arms sticking out have to be able to take some pretty high wind loads. Obviously this particular event was beyond the design loads of both those poles.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I have seen no reports of a video either (otherwise I expect it would have been posted everywhere already). No one knows for sure how the crash went down.
Chrisr400cc
Member
I did a quick google search and it seems all new poles need to have a breakaway feature. Which I think are the poles that are bolted down. That one street lamp was not bolted down so I'm assuming it did not have a breakaway feature and it probably should have been removed. Here is a link about the breakaway features.
Breakaway Features for Sign Supports, Utility Poles and Other Roadside Features - FHWA Safety Program
GasDoc
Member
Similar threads
