Texas Tesla Tragedy

[LagerHead]

The vehicle logs showed that Autopilot was not engaged in this accident. Which makes it like thousands of other fatal auto accidents that resulted from driver error.

Sponsored

 

[LagerHead]

By your logic it is very clear that aliens were involved. They used a forcefield to make the Tesla go fast and drive directly into a grove of trees. The aliens then kept the people in the car until one of the aliens could ignite the Tesla on fire.

Great job Scooby Doo! You should stick to your cartoons. And you don't know whether Autopilot was engaged or not.

Who said anything about aliens using a forcefield to make the car go faster? All cars have accelerator pedals and people who have been drinking often don't have the best judgement. We don't need to invent alien forcefields to explain how drinking drivers end up in the woods!

It literally happens every day of every year!

 

[txaggies07]

Pretty much any pleasure boat of any size that you buy these days comes with a "real" autopilot. I've used 20 or 30 different marine autopilots. You still have to pay attention, most of them don't avoid other watercraft, logs, etc. All Autopilot does is hold a pre-determined course. If you tell Autopilot to drive you onto the beach, it will drive you onto the beach. An autopilot does not make the boat autonomous, not even close.

I'm tired of the fake outrage over the trademark name of Tesla's driver assistance system. Autopilots only assist the operator of the boat or plane, the operator is still 100% responsible. The name is 100% appropriate. Apparently, some of you are not familiar with what an autopilot actually is.

Autopilot is a perfect name for such a system if you look at the past and present usage of the word.

I agree. The outrage over the name is stupid. In airplanes autopilot gets to a desired altitude and then holds it, can do course corrections. It doesn’t take off and land, it doesn’t make it so the pilot and copilot can both leave and have a party in the main cabin. The stupid part isn’t calling Tesla’s system autopilot, it’s calling it Full Self Driving.

 

[LagerHead]

I agree. The outrage over the name is stupid. In airplanes autopilot gets to a desired altitude and then holds it, can do course corrections. It doesn’t take off and land, it doesn’t make it so the pilot and copilot can both leave and have a party in the main cabin. The stupid part isn’t calling Tesla’s system autopilot, it’s calling it Full Self Driving.

They don't call it that. That's a future feature you can pre-order if you want to lock-in the current price.

The Texas tragedy has nothing to do with either (because neither of those features were in use). The owner of the car had not even purchased FSD. It was pure human error in judgement. People shouldn't drive after they've been drinking.

Somehow this got turned into an anti-Tesla story.

 

[bluestarct]

Who said anything about aliens using a forcefield to make the car go faster? All cars have accelerator pedals and people who have been drinking often don't have the best judgement. We don't need to invent alien forcefields to explain how drinking drivers end up in the woods!

It literally happens every day of every year!

I am merely speculating like you.

Your quote says that there was a driver in the driver's seat. Not according to witnesses but you still spout such "theories".

You say Autopilot was not activated but yet you have no definitive proof. Just more speculation. You will say autopilot can't be engaged in neighborhoods without lines but there is plenty of video evidence that it can be.

You say the trees kept the doors from opening but again no proof just your speculation.

You even say that the more flexible trees caused the nose of the car to ride up the big tree and hang in the air.

So using your logic, I can speculate too that aliens did it. The aliens are shorting Tesla stock and trying to throw shade on Tesla.

It has become very obvious you are a fan of Tesla, a recent join and are here on the Mach E Forum to cause issues as you have done in multiple threads.

Maybe trutolife27 is correct and the best way is to put you on the ignore list even though it makes reading threads awkward.

It looks like you didn't know there was a driver in the driver's seat at the time of the accident and that Autopilot was not activated. There are a lot of Tesla hit pieces that are simply incorrect or misleading, all in the name of trying to throw shade.

The car drove into a thicket of trees at high speed and the trees probably kept the two occupants from opening the doors. If you watch the news video you will see the large tree that looks like the one that stopped the car has a large scape mark starting ten feet off the ground.

I theorize that running over the smaller, more flexible trees caused the nose of the car to ride up the big tree and get hung-up in a more or less vertical position by all the branches and smaller trees. Of course the heat of the fire burned everything out in a circle around the car so, by the time the first responders got there the occupants were dead and the car had slid back to the ground (causing the large scrape high on the large tree). But not before the driver managed to fall or climb into the back seat in an attempt to get out through a back door.

That's just a theory based on the observable evidence but what we know is Autopilot was not engaged. The officer who said "we are 100% sure the driver's seat was empty at the time of impact" was being irresponsible by making such a statement before the investigation was completed.

 

[LagerHead]

It's fake outrage over the name of Autopilot since autopilot had nothing to do with this accident. The evidence shows it wasn't turned on and there was a driver in the driver's seat at the time of impact.

 

[bluestarct]

It's fake outrage over the name of Autopilot since autopilot had nothing to do with this accident. The evidence shows it wasn't turned on and there was a driver in the driver's seat at the time of impact.

What evidence?

 

[LagerHead]

Your quote says that there was a driver in the driver's seat. Not according to witnesses but you still spout such "theories".

The crash was not witnessed until approximately 15 minutes after it crashed and two people reporting a car engulfed in flames. Anyone who has taken witness statements can tell you how unreliable witnesses are. Always go with direct physical evidence over witness statements.

You even say that the more flexible trees caused the nose of the car to ride up the big tree and hang in the air.

Somehow the car got off the ground to expose a fresh, white strip of the cambium layer under the bark of the tree 10 feet off the ground. If the car didn't travel up the tree then how did the bark get scraped 10 feet off the ground?

So using your logic, I can speculate too that aliens did it. The aliens are shorting Tesla stock and trying to throw shade on Tesla.

But there is zero physical evidence aliens had anything to do with this. Don't be silly.

It has become very obvious you are a fan of Tesla, a recent join and are here on the Mach E Forum to cause issues as you have done in multiple threads.

It's true I'm an EV fan and own two Tesla's for the last three years. My wife likes them too. There is nothing wrong with liking things that have served us well, cost $0 beyond electricity and tires, and are a joy to drive on a daily basis. I'm not going to apologize for being a fan. I'm also a fan of being rational. And those talking about this car being driverless are not being rational.

I mean, the steering wheel was even found bent from driver impact. What more do you want to know that there was a driver in the driver's seat?

You should be criticizing the elected official who said they were "100% certain" there was no one in the driver's seat at the time of impact. There is no way they could know that in the first few hours of the investigation and it was extremely unprofessional to leap to conclusions before all the evidence was examined. Instead, you criticize a system that wasn't even activated simply because it's named "Autopilot". It's just ridiculous.

 

[LagerHead]

What evidence?

Whenever a Tesla detects a crash it immediately transmits pertinent data over the cell network to Tesla servers. That is evidence that can be used in a crash investigation. Instead, without looking at the evidence, the elected official jumped to a false conclusion that was later directly contradicted by the actual data.

 

[LagerHead]

Pay attention! I already disclosed that as soon as a Tesla detects a crash it instantly sends relevant data over the cellular network. This includes speed, force of impact, mode of operation, seatbelt status, airbag deployment, etc, etc, etc. All this data is encoded to a very compact size so it can be transmitted nearly instantly.

Elon knows the investigators can subpoena these records so he's not going to make it worse by saying Autopilot was not engaged if the data showed otherwise. The data that may have burned covers a longer timeframe than that of the moments before impact but investigators are trying to recover that also.

The irresponsible officer, Mr. Herman, took a witness statement that indicated the owner was going to give his friend an Autopilot demonstration of how the car could drive itself and turned it into "we are 100% sure no one was in the front seat" was stepping well outside the boundaries of what a responsible and impartial investigator would do.

Plenty of stuff has been "made up" in this thread, including the original statement of the irresponsible officer, but I simply followed the actual evidence.

 

[Regularmache]

It looks like you didn't know there was a driver in the driver's seat at the time of the accident and that Autopilot was not activated. There are a lot of Tesla hit pieces that are simply incorrect or misleading, all in the name of trying to throw shade.

The car drove into a thicket of trees at high speed and the trees probably kept the two occupants from opening the doors. If you watch the news video you will see the large tree that looks like the one that stopped the car has a large scape mark starting ten feet off the ground.

I theorize that running over the smaller, more flexible trees caused the nose of the car to ride up the big tree and get hung-up in a more or less vertical position by all the branches and smaller trees. Of course the heat of the fire burned everything out in a circle around the car so, by the time the first responders got there the occupants were dead and the car had slid back to the ground (causing the large scrape high on the large tree). But not before the driver managed to fall or climb into the back seat in an attempt to get out through a back door.

That's just a theory based on the observable evidence but what we know is Autopilot was not engaged. The officer who said "we are 100% sure the driver's seat was empty at the time of impact" was being irresponsible by making such a statement before the investigation was completed.

That's true and you know what, I'm disappointed in myself for jumping to conclusions.

I think we sometimes fall into Conclusions based on various information. It's speculation completely based on little bits of info and the company and the dead occupants deserve better.

 

[Regularmache]

By your logic it is very clear that aliens were involved. They used a forcefield to make the Tesla go fast and drive directly into a grove of trees. The aliens then kept the people in the car until one of the aliens could ignite the Tesla on fire.

Great job Scooby Doo! You should stick to your cartoons. And you don't know whether Autopilot was engaged or not.

I am so glad you are not an investigator.

Hey, this is the MachE forum, we're all into debate but we have to pull ourselves back when we start flaming each other.(pardon the pun)

 

[MachE1977]

Have any of you guys tried this:

I guess everyone conveniently skipped over this post.

Sponsored