I'm sure you're probably joking, but the part about someone intentionally crashing the car needs a little explanation. I think that's a challenging thing to do.
-
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
I'm sure you're probably joking, but the part about someone intentionally crashing the car needs a little explanation. I think that's a challenging thing to do.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
There was a change in one of the recent releases to lower this to 0 mph (IIRC).
Tesla Software Updates - April 2024
Get the latest Tesla software update information for your Model 3, Model S and Model X in one spot, including the firmware version numbers and features.
www.autopilotreview.com
Sadly this seems more plausible than anything else I've read thus far in this thread.
Look. If you find a crushed and burned car with two men, none in the driver seat, what should be the first logical thought? Either the driver escaped the car after the crash non-intentionally killing the two men or someone intentionally killed the occupants of the car and set the car on fire. "Investigators", who are clearly unqualified to investigate Tesla crashes based, for one, on their statement that Li-Ion battery had flammable acid, rush to a conclusion that Tesla was driving itself, which is, of course, more convenient than to run a real investigation. Now, when it finally seems to be true that there was no FSD and that the AP is unlikely to be involved, there are VERY few other options left. Basically, the only two other options are: 1) "Investigators" screwed this up completely, and the now-dead driver was in the driver's seat or 2) The guys setup the Tesla TACC, tricked the safety systems intentionally and this is a double suicide (or maybe a murder-suicide). This is highly unlikely as you don't need to get in the back seat for that, other than to manipulate the Tesla stock on the next day and make your widow rich, which I admit is the totally crazy scheme.
And I came up with one more [crazy] version: someone with a recognizable name (Hunter Biden, for example) was driving the car killing the men and then running away, and the cover up is now in progress.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I think the most initial important question is who drove the car: The automation system or a human driver?
There was still 12V battery from the driveway when husbands told their wives that they would go for a test drive and the 12V would still be alive all the way during the test drive until it hit the tree and the front of the car was damaged and maybe the 12V would be scattered on the ground after the impact.
While the 12V was still alive, it would record the weights of the seats to spell out whether there were 2 occupants or 3 occupants and which seats.
There's no need to verify after the 12V is dead whether there were 2 or 3 occupants.
About whether the car logs could report on the door status after the crash, it depends whether the 12V was still alive or not. If there's no 12V then the data logs would stop at that time.
So many "facts" coming out in various "news" sources. Let's guess here since this was a "test drive" per the two wives (hadn't heard this before) and the owner of the car was not in the car (maybe selling it?), it would not be uncommon for a new driver unaccustom to the instant power of an EV to get surprised by the forward power and then certainly it would not be unheard of for a new driver to depress the accellerator pedal instead of the brake pedal in that split second (seems like the unintended accelleration crashes we hear about are from fairly new drivers).
I read a comment from one of the investigating people on the scene (not sure what department) they said they didn't think anyone could climb from the driver's seat to the back. If this was the 59 year old, maybe more likely. Especially assuming you found yourself alive in a car that just head on crashed into a tree and saw smoke starting to come up, I think you'd do everything you could to move and escape further from the front of the car. That flight instinct can push the adrenaline. Also possible the front passenger was either unconcious from the car hitting the tree and unable to move himself or had passed away already.
I don't believe the batteries will immediately burst into flames from the thermal runaway, that it takes a number of minutes or so. That was the situation when the Model X driver in Mt. View, Calif. hit the attenuation barrier head on at 60+ mph. There were witnesses who were able to pull him out of the vehicle before the batteries started popping and catching fire. So based on that accident I think it's possible a driver in this case could either exit the vehicle if the driver's door was openable or could climb to the rear to try to exit that way. Is there any statistical data on how soon the batteries would catch fire in an impact like this?
I will be anticipating hearing down the road what really happened.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Since its Texas, I bet its Ted Cruz.
Yuri_G
Member
Except as I understand it the owner was not in the car. Probably let the two guys take it out for a drive (wives apparently stated they were on a test drive from what I read). So two guys in an EV that they weren't familiar with would be my guess and likely would alter your theory.
In any event my heart goes out to those wives standing back where the guys departed from, waiting for them to come back. I can't imagine my husband going on a test drive in a nice suburban gated neighborhood late at night and ending up dead like they did. Reports say it happened at 11:25pm so presumably quiet night with no traffic on the cul de sac road.
I don’t see how you’d be thrown in the backseat in a front end collision unless the car spun around on impact and hit the rear.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Can we atleast settle this ? Was the owner one of the dead or not ?
From the first post report ...
Despite your quoted "Investigators" calling it "acid" rather than electrolyte, this is what BatteryUniversity says about Li-Ion batteries:
A failing Li-ion begins to hiss, bulge and leak electrolyte. The electrolyte consists of lithium salt in an organic solvent (lithium hexafluorophosphate) and is highly flammable. Burning electrolyte can ignite combustible material in close proximity.
Doesn’t Model S have mechanical front doors from the inside? Like any other car in the market, they are subject to jamming in an accident but they are not super complicated electronic devices.
The external handles require electricity to operate. But is that any different from other cars that render the outside door handle inoperable by something called a lock.?
I have an S and a 3. Pretty sure the S pulls are strictly mechanical.
The external handles require electricity to operate. But is that any different from other cars that render the outside door handle inoperable by something called a lock.?
I have an S and a 3. Pretty sure the S pulls are strictly mechanical.
Looking at the burnt out crash photos and video, the front seats were in the upright position. Probably why someone responding to the scene stated that they don't believe given the space with the seats that anyone could have left the drivers seat and crawled in the back seat. I assume the rear seat person did not have a seat belt on. So he either crawled into the back seat if he was the driver or there was a driver who was able to leave the scene and at this point was looking to avoid any punishment by not coming forward.
alstoralset
Man from another place
Yes, to me this seems like an actual report. I see no reason not to believe this. It's too bad the reporter didn't follow up with "what do you think happened?", or at least didn't put it in the report if he did ask. It should settle the speculation that there were only two people in the car one of which was the driver. As to why the brother-in-law felt the owner "MAY have hopped in the back seat", rather than DID or DID NOT, I guess he didn't personally witness it. As to why the owner would have gone in the back seat, the question was not asked, answered or recorded. Perhaps the brother-in-law doesn't know what the two were doing on the drive.
In my life experience, somebody who is 100% certain is most probably wrong, and most definitely not impartial. Somebody who reports somebody else as 100% certain is probably misinterpreting what they've heard.
Agree. I hadn't seen this account earlier, and I would question the narrative that it was impossible to get into the back seat.
Also, the article in the first post says the brother in law saw the owner drive off in the front seat, but was found in the back seat. I am now switching to team "tried to escape out the back but didn't make it."
I keep an easily accessible glass breaker in all my cars. Worst case he could have used that to break the pano roof and get out the top.
Similar threads
