Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tesla, Inc.' started by Cosmacelf, Oct 4, 2016.
Guess we need to do a better job of toughening up our kids and pets
I remember one summer in Bakersfield that had 45 straight days over 100 with an average high of 106. Children and dogs were dropping dead every day - not.
Millions of people live in the Central Valley of California where afternoon temperatures routinely run 105ºF or more in summer shade. I must have missed the news stories about generations of dogs and kids in The Valley routinely dying every summer.
It's a safety feature to prevent a tragedy, not a comfort feature for routine use.
Guidelines from OSHA for employers regarding heat-stroke and temperature guidelines. Seems 103-104 is the cut-off for starting to get into more dangerous temperature ranges for heat stroke, but all related to relative humidity. So conceivably since the AC is kicking in to maintain the temp at a max of 105, it could be keeping it "bearable" so to speak since AC will remove humidity as well.
You must have missed my post above referencing the 2003 heat wave in France where it got to a measley 104 and over 14,000 people died. It's all about acclimation. And those types of temperatures can kill if it's humid out. (Which is not in the Central Valley)
Tesla's PR implies that the Cabin Overheat feature allows you to leave pets and children in the car. 105 degrees (and by the way, AC is likely not on, only the fan assuming it isn't really hot outside too) is possibly dangerous (think fur coats and swaddled infants) and at the very least, a cruel temperature to leave pets and children in.
People pointing out that adults can withstand that temperature are completely missing the point.
It's a last resort safety feature. Anyone that doesn't understand this probably would have left their kid or pet in the car, regardless. The simple question is would you rather have a forgotten kid sit in a 150 degree car or a 105 degree car? The next iteration will let you lower the max temp, no need to grab your pitchfork.
I think it's just a given that you never intentionally leave a child or pet in a hot car.
Does every safety device require a disclaimer that one shouldn't intentionally subject oneself to the harm that the safety device is designed to protect against?
No, it isn't a given. People do it all the time. Here's a baby that was recently rescued from such a car:
Retired Officer Uses Sledgehammer To Rescue Baby From Hot Car
Tesla's press release is irresponsible.
So you guys that are defending Tesla think there is no need for better clarification from Tesla? Are any of you lawyers?
The mother in that story was was arrested for child endangerment. Lots of crimes happen "all the time" but it's still a given that you're not supposed to commit them.
Are the people accusing Tesla on this thread lawyers? Are non-lawyers not allowed to post their opinions on a forum?
Surely you're not reading before replying. The key word is "intentionally," and I'm pretty sure it's a given people don't intentionally leave their child in a car.
105ºF is right at the borderline for some people to handle it fine and others not. I assume animals are the same. Variables have to do mostly with recent acclimation, health (how well your body's temperature conditioning works, probably cardio-vascular related; also, people with more "insulation built in" (heavier weight) can hold in more heat), activity during that day (such as water, energy input, energy use, time to cool off, etc.), genetics, etc. For many people and animals, 105ºF is a good emergency save-their-life level. For some people and animals, this may be OK during hot season for regular use, but I think that for others, this would not be a good regular use temperature setting.
Soon, Tesla is going to have the feature temperature-settable. This should help you adjust the temperature for different climates, acclimations, and things such as that. I work sometimes in construction, and they have safety meetings, and one of the topics is heat. Their current information is that different people acclimate to heat faster than other people, and that generally speaking, about 5-15 (from my memory) days of acclimation is needed to increase your ability to handle higher heat; good health, constant exposure to incrementally higher heat, the requisite activities that you expect to be doing in heat also being done in that heat, good proper sleep, eating, and especially drinking, and general overall health, as well as proper clothing, and shade when you can get it (and air conditioning) are all parts of this process. People have been naturally acclimating in this manner for millennia. Now, we have enough enumerated data to know how it generally works, so we can force it in our own bodies, but keep in mind, it is not an overnight thing. The safety meetings talk about becoming aware of future temperature changes and practicing in those temperature ranges on purpose, such as wearing more clothes to keep in more heat when the temperature is currently lower but it will be going up in the next few weeks or days rapidly, or even the opposite for colder weather (but in both cases be careful not to over-do it). Also, they said it can take as few days as 5 (from my memory) to loose your acclimation to high temperature.
Finally, I have to say, I have measured temperatures of 140ºF in my black car sitting in the sun. 105ºF is 35ºF lower than that. That has to count for something, even if it is not the end-all and be-all of target temperatures. (For instance, the human body's temperature floats around 98.6ºF, so cooling off from something near or above that is more difficult for it. When I'm forced to deal with this and for whatever reason nothing else is working, I usually carefully and slowly dump regular water on myself. My logistical planning is generally so good that I rarely resort to this, but I'm not afraid to do it when it will increase my health.)
Less than two weeks ago, it was at least 103ºF in much of Central Valley, California. Take someone out of Pacific Grove or Pebble Beach and bring them to Central Valley, and put them in the direct sun, and it could actually hurt them. After posting, I read the full thread, and I saw examples of whole populations in Central Valley who do fine in very hot temperatures, and somewhat lower temperatures in cooler climates where lots of people die due to an unusual temperature. I agree, and this is consistent with what I said.
When this feature comes out that you can set the temperature, do yourself a favor and adjust it every season change to be appropriate for your health.
I think it is just as important for cold temperatures. People die "due to exposure" to the cold weather all the time. And all the same issues with acclimation, health, recent activity, clothing, etc. count, too. I hope Tesla has a cold temperature minimum, too.
When I was a child, where I was born and grew up, it was temperate climate (never got hot), legal, normal, moral, ethical, common practice, and expected for many parents to leave their children in their car while they did errands. In this time, children were expected to be strong enough to open and close windows and doors. There were no electric windows, and precious little crime (at least anywhere in any of the areas we ever went to, with the rare exception of travel, during which times we went by completely different and more careful well thought out and discussed case-by-case rules). The window roller handle knob things worked well. This was not a problem. This is before air conditioning was widespread anywhere I knew of (although it was pretty common in the newly built up inland hot areas). It was common and happy to see children sitting and playing in cars while parents did errands. 70ºF was a heat wave, and 105ºF never ever ever happened; above 90ºF was twice a decade. Logic ruled the day, so I'm sure people would have figured out how to deal with it. (These days, in the same area, 80ºF is a regular summer day, and we had two days at 98ºF less than two weeks ago. Also, local governments have mandated diverse income housing, so crime is comparatively rampant in an area that used to only have one law enforcement person for 20,000 people, and that was excessive law enforcement back then. Sirens are heard regularly now, maybe twice a month back then.)
Tesla likes to live at the edges. Some of us who want it to succeed kind of wish they would ... refine their rough edges better ... but I think many of us have hope it will work out, somehow. And yet, sometimes it just reminds us how much times have changed, and how standards have swept by so quickly.
I read that as a safe temperature (as in one where the pet/infant won't die if left at that temperature) not something that you want to leave a child or pet in for hours purposefully (for that I would expect the wording to be "comfortable temperature" not "safe"). Would hope people have more common sense than that. And given it uses AC, it won't be humid, so it's a lot less dangerous.
It never says it uses AC, it could just blow cooler outside air into the cabin.
No, I'm not. Introducing the feature with a limit of 105F was better than what we had before.
What if someone leaves their child or pet in the car because of the feature who otherwise would not have done it?
For dogs 105F is at the border of being lethal. Dogs shouldn't be exposed to such high temperature.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not a great, or at least a good feature. It's Teslas description of the feature that is being questioned. To me it seems like Tesla could add a few words of caution and limit their liability a lot more. I think the way it is written could set them up for some unnecessary lawsuits.