-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla head on collision with a Honda
- Thread starter mcskks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
The driver of the vehicle is responsible.
Period.
Even if it was an "accident" it was his actions that caused the collision: moving into the opposite lane.
He and he alone turned the steering wheel.
There is no right side damage to the Tesla. He was not slammed into or physically pushed over.
It was exactly his action of moving the car into the opposite lane that caused the accident. Nobody else was behind the steering wheel.
You are SPECULATING, that's the point. You are making assumptions based on no evidence (as there hasn't been any). You don't know the circumstances, only what you are hearing in the reports.
My mum for example, was driving along one day, and had an epileptic fit, whilst driving. Fortunately she wasn't going at speed and ended up a bank, no-one was injured. However, would it be her fault if she had injured someone? No. You cannot blame someone for something they couldn't have avoided. Without the facts, how do you know the driver of the Tesla could have avoided the accident? We don't know any of the situation. For all we know, the car that has driven off, pushed the Tesla into oncoming traffic. The other car (from reports) said something may have been thrown at the car. If the Tesla had something thrown at him, he wouldn't have been able to avoid the crash. We don't know anything so it's impossible to say whether the driver is at fault. You cannot say he killed anyone.
We don't know any facts so don't make presumptions about the driver. It is wrong.
I agree with most of what you said, but to take it on a slight tangent, I do believe she would have been considered "at fault" in this case. She didn't intend to do anything wrong, and she certainly made no conscious effort to do anything wrong, but should anyone have been hurt (or if she hit a pole or other property), I'm pretty sure her insurance would have had to foot the bill. Being "at fault" doesn't always mean you're a bad person or even negligent in some cases. It just means you were or were responsible for the cause of the incident.
My 2¢ anyway.
mknox
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for every jurisdiction, but in many, the answer is actually yes. When you sit behind the wheel, you assume all responsibility for your actions, whether accidental, intentional or even health-related. I read of a case a while back of a situation where a driver had a heart attack and died behind the wheel. His car struck (I believe) a pedestrian and the driver was charged posthumously. I believe his family had to endure a civil suit. Someone (i.e. the insurance company) has to pay for damages, and to do that, they need to assign blame. The bottom line, though, is it really is a matter for the courts to sort out, and all of this here is just speculation at this point.
(At the risk of being charged by the snippiness police in my first such offense) Thank you Judge (and jury) Kaivball. Do you also handle the job of executioner? Ever hear of "Due Process"
In what universe is a driver not responsible as the vehicle operator when something goes wrong when a) the operators car was not physically impacted by a third party and b) there was no vehicle defect?
Did god move the steering wheel to the left?
But there is a big difference between them. Kaviball here is saying that as the driver he is ultimately responsible whatever happens, which is untrue. You cannot be responsible for something you cannot control. You can be at fault yes, responsible no.
Although in your example, I think it is very wrong that the driver was charged. But that's just my opinion.
I don't think it matters either way, because the news reports said that the driver of the Tesla was admitted to the hospital with minor injuries, if something had happened medically to make him swerve over into the other lane, it would have been reported.
This driver did not have a heart attack or an epileptic fit.
This driver did not have a heart attack or an epileptic fit.
Folks, I suggest that we should stop debating matters of jurisprudence, especially if we can't do so civilly.
You do not know what happened and what is visible doesn't back up your assumptions.
1) Visuals on the passenger side of the car are sketchy at best.
2) The front passenger corner of the vehicle DOES look damaged from the photos. It's almost certainly from the collision with the Accord, but you can't say that definitively; it's entirely possible it was clipped by the rear of the Mercedes, pushing the Tesla into oncoming traffic.
I personally do not think the Tesla was pushed, but I'm not going to sit here and claim that I KNOW that for a fact.
Well, since this is an Internet forum, I guess I am supposed to add IMHO after each paragraph.
My take on it: I'll assume, for this argument, that the Tesla and the Mercedes were both trying to be ahead of the other when the lanes merged. You can call it racing if you like. The general rule, which would seem to apply here, is that the driver in the lane that continues has right of way while the driver in the lane that ends has the obligation to safely merge. It seems that the guy in the right lane violated the right of way rule by attempting to merge where there wasn't space.
That said, both drivers engaged in reckless behavior (see my assumption, above) and should face the appropriate consequences.
Also, the fact that Model S is heavy is nothing new. I've got a 6400lbs Suburban that's a 2012 model year.
That said, both drivers engaged in reckless behavior (see my assumption, above) and should face the appropriate consequences.
Also, the fact that Model S is heavy is nothing new. I've got a 6400lbs Suburban that's a 2012 model year.
^^^what he says. This thread is getting silly, people are making judgments based on fuzzy pictures and wildly diverse speculation from media and (maybe) witnesses. People have people been killed, and at least one other has had his life changed forever, so lets let it lie until the authorities work out what happened.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I am a mod ... but respectfully, won't lock the thread. I am encouraged by how many forum members have asked that others rein it in. Let's see if we're capable of being adult and doing exactly that.
Until we have the facts, the responsible action is to not speculate. The kind of speculation I see here could be hurtful to the wider circle impacted by this tragedy, regardless as to who is at fault. And yes, it could easily happen. ( ... anyone here still think those in the media don't cruise TMC looking for a juicy quote?)
Until we have the facts, the responsible action is to not speculate. The kind of speculation I see here could be hurtful to the wider circle impacted by this tragedy, regardless as to who is at fault. And yes, it could easily happen. ( ... anyone here still think those in the media don't cruise TMC looking for a juicy quote?)
You are right. It's not new. But it is relevant. Someone noted the S driver was not seriously injured and congratulated Tesla
for their safety design. I just noted that a big part of the safety is weight. The more than 2x greater weight means that
(to first order) the acceleration on impact for the S driver will be less than twice that of the Accord. Or to put it another way,
the heavier S caused the Accord to accelerate more than twice as much as it would have if it had say hit another Accord. Extra vehicle
weight is a zero sum game - it helps one party and hurts the other. This is relevant because as drivers of a heavy vehicle we should
think about this every time we might feel the urge to do something reckless. Someone else may very well end up paying the price.
Similar threads
