True, but you have to know about the emergency door pull mechanism and where that is to get out of the rear seat.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[UPDATED] 2 die in Tesla crash - NHTSA reports driver seat occupied
- Thread starter diplomat33
- Start date
Tam
Well-Known Member
The wives seem to support the numbers people in the car: 2 husbands of 2 wives.
They seem to confirm that it's a "test ride", and did not say other purposes such as suicide.
"...the two men who were found dead inside the car had dropped off their wives at a nearby home and told them they were going to take the car for a test ride."
LOL. OK, my bad. I'll withdraw my Q slander.
That's not what I said. I was simply responding to your saying you "can’t set tacc to faster than the speed limit from the start". You can. (Although I now suspecting there's a misunderstanding of what you mean by "from the start".)
I'm not suggesting TACC can be engaged while at a standstill. But you can start TACC at a set speed up to 30mph over the speed limit. And since TACC can be engaged as low as 5mph without a lead car, you could go from 5mph to 70mph in a 40mph zone, for example. (See below for a photo of a similar example, with a set speed of 60mph in a 30mph while going 5mph.)
Note that I'm not making any judgement about what might have occurred in this specific crash -- simply stating how the car is programmed and what it's capable of.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
I guess the colors emphasize what is important.
The uncolored fact that a tweeter user is better than a professional WSJ reporter may be ignored for the purpose of this thread.
The purple box is from Data Logs: Autopilot was not on. FSD was not bought (that doesn't rule out that the husbands want to test the FSD trial even when they didn't pay for FSD so they need to add "was not on" also).
The green box is the explanation of why the Data Logs say Autopilot was not on (no lane line road).
It's still a puzzle.
So how did the car accelerate?
A dumb cruise would do it but it's 2019 so the car does not have a dumb cruise (setting at 70 and it will collide with anything in front until it reaches 70). The only way for 2019 Tesla to turn on its cruise is TACC or "smart cruise" that knows to how to adjust its speed and brake as needed. But TACC is ruled out by the Data Logs that "Autopilot" was not on.
Since it's a 2019 Raven Tesla, it is almost like a one-pedal driving: as soon as the accelerator is let off, the car would slow down significantly to a stop.
-----------------
Edit:
Correction! 2019 Tesla S and X can be either newer Raven motors with one-pedal driving or still with the older motors that although they do slow down a littler bit but nowhere near the drastic degree of newer Raven motors with one-pedal driving. I assume it's the older 2019 Tesla and not the Raven.
So it's possible that the driver floored the accelerator to manually achieve his desired speed then moved away from the driver seat to a passenger seat. Non-Raven Tesla would have enough gliding power to hit a tree and burst into flames.
------------------
More detail of car logs would solve the puzzle.
Last edited:
I've heard three theories:
1) There was a third person driving. I find this theory silly for a number of reasons, most notably that the driver hasn't turned up. I'll just reject this one as below 1 in 1000 chance.
2) The car was somehow driving automatically. The only reason that this is remotely plausible is that the investigators say they are "100% sure" there was nobody driving. I will give it 1% chance.
3) Driver error, driver couldn't get out, investigators wrong (and likely biased by stories about self-driving cars). I'll give this one 99% chance.
1) There was a third person driving. I find this theory silly for a number of reasons, most notably that the driver hasn't turned up. I'll just reject this one as below 1 in 1000 chance.
2) The car was somehow driving automatically. The only reason that this is remotely plausible is that the investigators say they are "100% sure" there was nobody driving. I will give it 1% chance.
3) Driver error, driver couldn't get out, investigators wrong (and likely biased by stories about self-driving cars). I'll give this one 99% chance.
I have no idea what the probabilities would be but given that the two wives report two people in the car, I'd have to agree with your conclusion. Driver ended up in the back seat simply looking for a way out... and unfortunately didn't find it.
Mike
Silicon Desert
Well-Known Member
Well maybe I got this wrong and you can correct me. When I heard the police speaking, they said no one was in the driver seat. They didn't say no one was driving. They only know what they saw at the time they arrived. But yea, I see your point.
LOL. OK, my bad. I'll withdraw my Q slander.
That's not what I said. I was simply responding to your saying you "can’t set tacc to faster than the speed limit from the start". You can. (Although I now suspecting there's a misunderstanding of what you mean by "from the start".)
so how is that relevant to the discussion we are having about this incident?
the car has a drivers seat...
If we are to believe the corroboration of the two wives that there were only two people in the car, this is pretty straightforward. AP was not used so there was a driver when the car hit the tree (barring any sort of insane move like the driver entering the back seat while moving and not even using AP). So the car hit the tree with the driver in the driver's seat, was unable to open the driver's door so moved around the car ending up in the back seat looking for a way out. The status of the front passenger is unknown: possibly incapacitated or was also trying to get out. Unable to get out, the fire overcame them.
Mike
Mike
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
These descriptions are close to exactly what I believe happened.
1. Owner + passenger go for test drive.
2. Owner hammers it at the end of the street to show acceleration.
3. At curve, car understeers and starts to drift right.
4. Driver possibly tweaks wheel to the right to avoid parked car (see post #194)
5. On the grass, car's left wheels hit and run over large manhole at high speed (see post #194). This may result in enough damage to the left side of the car to jam left-hand side doors.
6. Car crashes into trees, but impact is not enough to intrude much into passenger compartment (see post #86). Airbags likely deployed and protected the driver and passenger.
7. Fire begins, prompting driver and passenger to exit.
8. Due to 12V failure due to crash or physical jam condition, doors cannot be opened with electronic push buttons. Driver is owner, possibly knows and/or tries mechanical door release but with door jammed, can't get out. Passenger likely has no idea about mechanical door release.
9. Driver climbs to back to try to exit rear doors, again cannot open door either due to 12V failure, jam, or unable to access (or no knowledge of) rear door mechanical releases.
10. Driver and passenger become unconscious due to smoke inhalation.
11. Fire consumes car. Removes evidence of airbag deployment and seat belt use, leading to incorrect conclusions by first responders.
Autopilot / FSD / TACC had nothing to do with this accident.
One more tidbit: Why does driver's rear tire not burn? Because it's the closest part of the car to the firefighters (nearest to the hydrant, the fire truck's parking place, and the access path that the firefighters would have taken), thus it's getting the most water sprayed on it or near it. This is also further evidence that the fire developed a lot slower than the media is reporting. The tire survived from time of impact to the time that the firefighters got water onto the car, that's several minutes.
Yes, this is all pure speculation on my part. But I believe it to be the most likely and plausible scenario that fits the facts.
Tam
Well-Known Member
That's very plausible. It's possible that the driver was still in the driver's seat after the accident and due to the damage, both front doors were jammed and might need jaw-of-life from first responders to pry them open. So, it's plausible that the driver then moved to the back to open the rear doors except that like the front doors, they could have been jammed or the driver didn't know how to manually open them when the 12V battery was dead after the accident.
The data logs would clear this up as it records the weight of each of the seats.
Looks like this is the quote everyone is picking up on the the various media articles that "no one was driving":
"They are 100 percent certain that no one was in the driver seat driving that vehicle at the time of impact. They are positive," Herman said. "And again, the height from the back seat to the front seat, that would be almost impossible, but again our investigators are trained. They handle collisions. Several of our folks are reconstructionists, but they feel very confident just with the positioning of the bodies after the impact that there was no one driving that vehicle.”
PCT 4: Two killed when Tesla catches fire after crashing into tree
Constable Mark Herman said his accident investigators are confident no one was in the driver's seat when the car hit a tree.
www.khou.com
Although you CAN get from the front seat to the backseat (I have done it), so that kind of clouds this statement.
Why do you say that? Looking at video of the crash scene, it looks to me like the car hit the tree head on. There's a lot of crumple zone i in the Model S in particular and I'm not seeing the driver's area pushed back into the seat area.
I think that someone killed the men, put them in the car, crashed it, set it on fire, and blamed Tesla.
Whoever told the police (an eyewitness) that the driver started the car and jumped in the back seat should be a potential suspect in this murder case.
The wives did it knowing Elon would get the blame and they could cash in on the fat life insurance policies and move on with the pool boys
Similar threads
