While this is tragic regardless of who it happened to, I doubt we would have heard about it at all except that she is a billionaire and it was a Tesla. The article seems almost like click bait,...
While this is tragic regardless of who it happened to, I doubt we would have heard about it at all except that she is a billionaire and it was a Tesla.
The article seems almost like click bait, and I get a strong schadenfreude vibe off it, dwelling on her wealth by providing details like the ten bedroom guest house or her fancy new york apartment, then throwing out a line like:
When her car went underwater, all the power and status in the world were irrelevant.
As for mitigating this kind of accident, you'd have so little time to react to a situation that you likely have no training or preparation for, it seems like it mostly depends on being lucky enough to get the windows rolled down before the car submerges or having emergency services very close by. Even if you had a manual crank, you'd have to find it and operate it (again probably something you never do, so no practice), then be able to roll window down far enough to get out while it is flooding the car, all while you are panicking and before you run out of air. God help you if there is more an one person in the car and you have to coordinate all this. I've been sitting here thinking about what I would do if my daughter were with me, and its absolutely terrifying to contemplate.
All the other mitigations I can think of: a way to "blow" the windows, something that automatically rolls them down when the car is submerged, or (almost farcical) air bags that keep the car afloat have their own problems. They either would add risk if they malfunction or increase the severity of more common accidents, or they add weight which runs against ecological push toward more efficient vehicles.
I do think it being a Tesla is significant though: Iirc the Tesla uses it's touchscreen to go from forwards to reverse. One of the reasons I personally ended up getting a different car, I don't...
I do think it being a Tesla is significant though:
While making a three-point turn, she had put the car in reverse instead of drive, she said. It is a mistake she had made before with the Tesla gearshift.
Iirc the Tesla uses it's touchscreen to go from forwards to reverse. One of the reasons I personally ended up getting a different car, I don't think I could make that error with an actual shift, even on my electric Polestar 2.
Good point. I drive an 18 year old Honda, so it definitely doesn't have a touch screen. I've never even ridden in a Tesla, much less driven one. It's hard for me to fathom the driving controls...
Good point. I drive an 18 year old Honda, so it definitely doesn't have a touch screen. I've never even ridden in a Tesla, much less driven one. It's hard for me to fathom the driving controls being software based, but style over function seems to endemic with Tesla, no doubt a culture that has come down all the way from the top.
The problem is that even though it's form over function, Musk sees it as form following function. He seems to truly believe that these cars will be fully self-driving very soon (they won't) and so...
The problem is that even though it's form over function, Musk sees it as form following function. He seems to truly believe that these cars will be fully self-driving very soon (they won't) and so the cars are designed with that in mind. He's removing the physical controls off the steering wheel because he thinks the steering wheel will be obsolete soon. So even though the design is rather idiotic, he thinks it's great.
That said, even on a touch screen, R and D are nowhere near each other. I have a feeling she would make the same mistake with physical controls.
And Teslas with physical controls also have design issues. Cruise control and self-driving are turned on and off by moving the gear shifter into the D and R position, respectively (the shifter always returns to a central position). That's not so much an issue when turning them on because, of course, you already want to be in drive, but if you're at a stoplight and forget that you don't have self-driving enabled and choose to disable it with your hand (instead of the brake), you will end up putting the car in drive.
Similarly, the turn signal always returns to a neutral position after being pressed, so it's impossible to tell if the car is keeping the turn signal on or not.
So when the car is driving itself and uses a turn signal inappropriately, the only ways to turn it off often end up turning it back on. If you're lucky and reflexively disable the turn signal by pressing in the same direction it was already indicating, it will just look like your turn signal was on for a while. If you're unlucky and reflexively cancel the turn signal by pressing the other direction, you will look like a maniac indicating right then left, then maybe right again for good measure before (hopefully) getting the indicator turned off.
...my stepmother died this way thirty years ago in six feet of water, right down to the emergency response: she was driving a new oldsmobile 88... ...it's a common-enough class of accident that i...
...my stepmother died this way thirty years ago in six feet of water, right down to the emergency response: she was driving a new oldsmobile 88...
...it's a common-enough class of accident that i doubt the tesla design had anything to do with it...
Ah. Except model X none have emergency exit for rear seat. For model Y you've to check the user manual if your version has emergency exit or not. Linked YouTube demonstration video from Tesla...
Ah. Except model X none have emergency exit for rear seat. For model Y you've to check the user manual if your version has emergency exit or not. Linked YouTube demonstration video from Tesla users also recommend to keeps a window breaking hammer just in case like another comment here
And what is someone supposed to do in the Cybertruck, with its "bulletproof glass"? I'm genuinely surprised there's no legislation for safety measures of cars going into water, though I suppose...
And what is someone supposed to do in the Cybertruck, with its "bulletproof glass"? I'm genuinely surprised there's no legislation for safety measures of cars going into water, though I suppose it's rare enough that the US' legislative body has no real push to remedy that.
And I just saw something about the “Cybertrunk tent” being literally nothing like was promised either, so we’re just having a deluge (er, bad word choice?) of unmet promises, yeah?
I’ve always read that you’re supposed to let water run into the car to ease opening the doors in vehicles with laminated glass… now I gotta go check if that’s actually true…
I’ve always read that you’re supposed to let water run into the car to ease opening the doors in vehicles with laminated glass… now I gotta go check if that’s actually true…
This kind of thing is why I keep a window breaker in the center glove box of the car. Tiny little thing with a spring loaded striker with a ceramic or tungsten point. Just put it to the window and...
This kind of thing is why I keep a window breaker in the center glove box of the car. Tiny little thing with a spring loaded striker with a ceramic or tungsten point. Just put it to the window and push, and the tempered glass window will completely shatter.
It's noted in the article but easy to miss, but lots of newer vehicles these days use laminated glass instead of tempered glass for the windows. They do not shatter and are not easy to break.
It's noted in the article but easy to miss, but lots of newer vehicles these days use laminated glass instead of tempered glass for the windows. They do not shatter and are not easy to break.
As a heads up, newer vehicles often use laminated glass in the driver and passenger side windows in order to prevent passenger ejections during a collision (source), so a tempered glass breaker...
As a heads up, newer vehicles often use laminated glass in the driver and passenger side windows in order to prevent passenger ejections during a collision (source), so a tempered glass breaker won't work (note that this is also commented upon in the article; the Tesla might've had laminated glass). Not sure what is recommended anymore, if anything.
Side glass is astoundingly strong. Ive taken a car to a wrecker and decided to smash the side windows for fun before they put it in the crusher pile. I took a heavy hammer, a 20 oz framing hammer...
Side glass is astoundingly strong. Ive taken a car to a wrecker and decided to smash the side windows for fun before they put it in the crusher pile. I took a heavy hammer, a 20 oz framing hammer and hit the window. Nothing. I swung a bit more. It bounced off. I gave it a hard shot. Nothing. I grabbed the hammer with both hands and swung as hard as I could and it still didnt break. I was quite amazed.
I have strong doubts that those window breakers would do anything at all.
You would be surprised how much more effective a proper window breaker is than a regular hammer. It's all about the hardness of the material and the size of the impact point.
You would be surprised how much more effective a proper window breaker is than a regular hammer. It's all about the hardness of the material and the size of the impact point.
I think there is mounting anger against the wealthy and these kinds of statements poll well with a lot of people on the internet, justified or not. See also: The submarine implosion last year.
I think there is mounting anger against the wealthy and these kinds of statements poll well with a lot of people on the internet, justified or not.
Archive Link
Kinda surprised that this wasn't bigger news, considering that this woman seemed pretty powerful.
Billionaires don’t need to make a fuss in the press when they want to change things.
While this is tragic regardless of who it happened to, I doubt we would have heard about it at all except that she is a billionaire and it was a Tesla.
The article seems almost like click bait, and I get a strong schadenfreude vibe off it, dwelling on her wealth by providing details like the ten bedroom guest house or her fancy new york apartment, then throwing out a line like:
As for mitigating this kind of accident, you'd have so little time to react to a situation that you likely have no training or preparation for, it seems like it mostly depends on being lucky enough to get the windows rolled down before the car submerges or having emergency services very close by. Even if you had a manual crank, you'd have to find it and operate it (again probably something you never do, so no practice), then be able to roll window down far enough to get out while it is flooding the car, all while you are panicking and before you run out of air. God help you if there is more an one person in the car and you have to coordinate all this. I've been sitting here thinking about what I would do if my daughter were with me, and its absolutely terrifying to contemplate.
All the other mitigations I can think of: a way to "blow" the windows, something that automatically rolls them down when the car is submerged, or (almost farcical) air bags that keep the car afloat have their own problems. They either would add risk if they malfunction or increase the severity of more common accidents, or they add weight which runs against ecological push toward more efficient vehicles.
I do think it being a Tesla is significant though:
Iirc the Tesla uses it's touchscreen to go from forwards to reverse. One of the reasons I personally ended up getting a different car, I don't think I could make that error with an actual shift, even on my electric Polestar 2.
Good point. I drive an 18 year old Honda, so it definitely doesn't have a touch screen. I've never even ridden in a Tesla, much less driven one. It's hard for me to fathom the driving controls being software based, but style over function seems to endemic with Tesla, no doubt a culture that has come down all the way from the top.
The problem is that even though it's form over function, Musk sees it as form following function. He seems to truly believe that these cars will be fully self-driving very soon (they won't) and so the cars are designed with that in mind. He's removing the physical controls off the steering wheel because he thinks the steering wheel will be obsolete soon. So even though the design is rather idiotic, he thinks it's great.
That said, even on a touch screen, R and D are nowhere near each other. I have a feeling she would make the same mistake with physical controls.
And Teslas with physical controls also have design issues. Cruise control and self-driving are turned on and off by moving the gear shifter into the D and R position, respectively (the shifter always returns to a central position). That's not so much an issue when turning them on because, of course, you already want to be in drive, but if you're at a stoplight and forget that you don't have self-driving enabled and choose to disable it with your hand (instead of the brake), you will end up putting the car in drive.
Similarly, the turn signal always returns to a neutral position after being pressed, so it's impossible to tell if the car is keeping the turn signal on or not.
So when the car is driving itself and uses a turn signal inappropriately, the only ways to turn it off often end up turning it back on. If you're lucky and reflexively disable the turn signal by pressing in the same direction it was already indicating, it will just look like your turn signal was on for a while. If you're unlucky and reflexively cancel the turn signal by pressing the other direction, you will look like a maniac indicating right then left, then maybe right again for good measure before (hopefully) getting the indicator turned off.
I'm still extremely fond of analogue controls whenever possible. I miss my crank windows :(
...my stepmother died this way thirty years ago in six feet of water, right down to the emergency response: she was driving a new oldsmobile 88...
...it's a common-enough class of accident that i doubt the tesla design had anything to do with it...
You say that, but: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-manually-open-tesla-door-if-battery-power-dies-2023-8?amp
Ah. Except model X none have emergency exit for rear seat. For model Y you've to check the user manual if your version has emergency exit or not. Linked YouTube demonstration video from Tesla users also recommend to keeps a window breaking hammer just in case like another comment here
And what is someone supposed to do in the Cybertruck, with its "bulletproof glass"? I'm genuinely surprised there's no legislation for safety measures of cars going into water, though I suppose it's rare enough that the US' legislative body has no real push to remedy that.
Just wanted to point out that in usual Tesla fashion, they promised that glass on the cybertruck but abandoned it before launching them.
And I just saw something about the “Cybertrunk tent” being literally nothing like was promised either, so we’re just having a deluge (er, bad word choice?) of unmet promises, yeah?
Water pressure makes opening the door of a submerged vehicle impossible regardless.
Fully submerged, yes. But it’s not like you have to go hunting for the manual to figure out how to open the door after losing power on a Camry.
I’ve always read that you’re supposed to let water run into the car to ease opening the doors in vehicles with laminated glass… now I gotta go check if that’s actually true…
Yes that’s how you equalize the pressure
This kind of thing is why I keep a window breaker in the center glove box of the car. Tiny little thing with a spring loaded striker with a ceramic or tungsten point. Just put it to the window and push, and the tempered glass window will completely shatter.
Not this exact model, but this kind of thing: https://adventureswithpurpose.com/products/window-breakers
It's noted in the article but easy to miss, but lots of newer vehicles these days use laminated glass instead of tempered glass for the windows. They do not shatter and are not easy to break.
Tesla uses laminated not tempered so ymmv.
Best off undoing your seat belt and rolling down the windows ASAP before the electrical system fails.
As a heads up, newer vehicles often use laminated glass in the driver and passenger side windows in order to prevent passenger ejections during a collision (source), so a tempered glass breaker won't work (note that this is also commented upon in the article; the Tesla might've had laminated glass). Not sure what is recommended anymore, if anything.
Side glass is astoundingly strong. Ive taken a car to a wrecker and decided to smash the side windows for fun before they put it in the crusher pile. I took a heavy hammer, a 20 oz framing hammer and hit the window. Nothing. I swung a bit more. It bounced off. I gave it a hard shot. Nothing. I grabbed the hammer with both hands and swung as hard as I could and it still didnt break. I was quite amazed.
I have strong doubts that those window breakers would do anything at all.
You would be surprised how much more effective a proper window breaker is than a regular hammer. It's all about the hardness of the material and the size of the impact point.
I think there is mounting anger against the wealthy and these kinds of statements poll well with a lot of people on the internet, justified or not.
See also: The submarine implosion last year.
I think people just enjoy being reminded that death—in all its mundanity—is the great equalizer.
Only tangentially related but it reminds me of a King Fantastic lyric: