still not the reason for the crash. A tree is both a stop sign and not a stop sign.
-
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
still not the reason for the crash. A tree is both a stop sign and not a stop sign.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
People are attributing this incident to either drunkenness or even stupidity, but it almost looks like a suicide by motor vehicle. As more facts become available it's clear that original news story, sad as it may be, was fraught with misinformation.
I quoted from several news articles. It's not my fault that the news articles explain the events in different ways. A blazing fire is a blazing fire regardless of how long it goes. Initially that's what it was. They were extinguishing it for four hours as needed. They used a large amount of water estimated by some at ~30,000 gallons. I'm not disagreeing with news reports, I'm quoting from them.
Why would either be “lying”? From the reports I have seen the relatives have stated what they thought and the investigator has stated what the facts have revealed. Nothing more or less as far as the reports I have read. What are you basing your “lying” comment on? Genuinely curious
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Well, I'll have to look for other videos, then. AP engages without marked center lane for me near my home. Basically where there is a seem between the two asphalt sections - AP thinks is the center lane.
Right. This is what I pointed out on the previous page in Sergio's video where there is a clearly visible "line" in the center (seam combined with reflection from the wet road) just after he says "this road has no lines": you have to cherry pick these situations. In your case, there is a center line! It's just not a marked/painted line. We know that because we are human and have context. An AI just sees a line. And in some cases, it can even be difficult for a human to detect whether it's a faded lane marking or a seam in the road.
Mike
Well, now there is a discussion on what "it" is? Go argue with the news then. There was an initial large fire that was put out in a few minutes. It reignited periodically and needed to be kept cool with ongoing water for four hours. It's not a huge conspiracy you know. That's just what happened.
Nope. The fireman who was there putting out the fire said 3-4 minutes.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Yes - if you search my old posts (from a year or two back) there are some discussions about this.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Because everyone has prejudices and preconceived notions - that can color reality for them. For others it looks like a lie.
"Haven't you heard - this Tesla is a fraud and their self-driving kills people all the time." (ps : left out political inclinations here ...)
scottf200
Well-Known Member
FYI, quotes from fire chief below:
Woodlands fire chief says Tesla fire example of new technology causing issues
JEFF FORWARD APRIL 19, 2021
Palmer Buck, fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Its possible they are using "fire" to mean different things.FYI, quotes from fire chief below:
Woodlands fire chief says Tesla fire example of new technology causing issues
JEFF FORWARD APRIL 19, 2021
Palmer Buck, fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department
For fire chief - it means something specific. Others might use a generic meaning - where some sparks that fly now and then - cooled by water over 4 hours, is called "fire".
from ‘No one was driving the car’: 2 men dead after fiery Tesla crash near The Woodlands, officials say
1) "Harris County Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman told KPRC 2 that the investigation showed “no one was driving” the fully electric 2019 Tesla when the accident happened." .... He said he believes it wasn’t being driven by a human.
We know that 1) is highly improbable considering a <400 ft overall distance, high speed, and no lane marks. What this actually shows is that Constable Herman has a personal belief involved in this investigation.
2) KPRC 2 reporter Deven Clarke spoke to one man’s brother-in-law who said he was taking the car out for a spin with his best friend, so there were just two in the vehicle. The owner, he said, backed out of the driveway, and then may have hopped in the back seat only to crash a few hundred yards down the road. He said the owner was found in the back seat upright.
The brother-in-law claims he hasn't actually seen the owner "hopping" in the back seat, but apparently makes this suggestion based on what the police (Constable Herman?) told him.
3) The brother-in-law of one of the victims said relatives watched the car burn for four hours as authorities tried to tap out the flames.
Authorities said they used 32,000 gallons of water to extinguish the flames because the vehicle’s batteries kept reigniting. At one point, Herman said, deputies had to call Tesla to ask them how to put out the fire in the battery.
Now these are, at minimum, the statements of questionable validity by both the brother-in-law and Herman, considering the following:
In a statement to the Houston Chronicle, Palmer Buck, fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department, noted that contrary to some reports in the media, the Tesla Model S fire did not burn out of control for four hours.
Interestingly enough, Buck remarked that his team actually managed to put down the fire within two to three minutes, which was enough for authorities to see that there were occupants in the vehicle. After these first two to three minutes, it was only a matter of keeping the batteries as cool as possible by pouring small amounts of water into the damaged battery pack. Buck described the fire department’s strategy in the following statement.
“With respect to the fire fight, unfortunately, those rumors grew way out of control. It did not take us four hours to put out the blaze. Our guys got there and put down the fire within two to three minutes, enough to see the vehicle had occupants. After that, it was simply cooling the car as the batteries continued to have a chain reaction due to damage.
“We could not tear it apart or move it around to get ‘final extinguishment’ because the fact that we had two bodies in there and it was then an investigation-slash-crime scene. We had to keep it cool, were on scene for four hours, but we were simply pouring a little bit of water on it. It was not because flames were coming out. It was a reaction in the battery pan. It was not an active fire,” Buck said.
“We did not (call Tesla), and I do not know where (that rumor) came from. There is a chance someone else did, maybe the Harris County Fire Marshal, but we did not call (Tesla). Tesla has an emergency manual for first responders,”
And now this from Texas police to demand Tesla crash data as Musk denies Autopilot use | Reuters
"We have witness statements from people that said they left to test drive the vehicle without a driver and to show the friend how it can drive itself," Herman said.
So, if Herman refers to the brother-in-law as a witness then either one of them is lying or both lie. I'd ask the question if they know each other. There could be other witnesses of course but we haven't heard anything about them. I think I remember the victims wives were mentioned along the same indecisive witness account as the brother-in-law.
There are dozens of news reports from all over about this accident. At some point it becomes like the game Telephone, as info gets passed on it gets tweaked and the meaning or statements get skewed. Without a reporter re-interviewing some of these people who were at the scene that Saturday night or unless they offer up statements to the press like that one Woodlands Township Fire Department person did clarifying things, I suspect some witnesses have been told because this is a fatal accident and investigation not to speak about it unless to officials and we won’t be getting some of our questions answered anytime soon.
A good interviewer will know which questions to ask and seek to clarify any ambiguities that are foreseen ahead of time. Don’t always have a second chance to talk to someone.
A good interviewer will know which questions to ask and seek to clarify any ambiguities that are foreseen ahead of time. Don’t always have a second chance to talk to someone.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
In Austin you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Tesla. I pass at least 3 just driving out of my neighborhood.
That said, Spring, TX is a long way from here lol
I think you wanna try a dead armadillo. I hear that works better in Texas.
Similar threads
