Tesla has been proven safer in crashes, and less likely to be in a crash in the first place. The driver crashed into a stationary object, sue the driver, not the car company.
Tesla has been proven safer in crashes, and less likely to be in a crash in the first place. The driver crashed into a stationary object, sue the driver, not the car company.
The "reasonable expectation that a door will open if it is not visibly damaged" applies no matter what the underlying mechanism of the door is.
> but thats an RTFM problem, not a car problem.
Even if people did read the manuals for their cars- which no one does- people frequently forget things like this in emergency situations when they need to get out quickly. Hence things like big red signs for fire doors. Passing the responsibility onto them for doors that don't work is absurd.
In this case, the passengers were able to display adaptability and get out, but had they been physically disabled or had there been clutter inside the vehicle, the two front doors and rear door might not have been viable options.
That these people were able to escape before the battery fire is, of course, a good ending, but it's not a positive statement on the engineering decisions made.
More apt would be "The main doors are manual, but the electric garage doors will not function" ... which is actually a common case in buildings...
I'm curious if we're only seeing these stories because Tesla is such a hot topic.
At least the car world is more sane than the aviation world. Here's a fun little side story.
Piper aircraft company - they make small general aviation planes - have been out of business a few times from being sued into the ground over absurd stuff. Here's the best one...
Drunk guy shows up to a glider airfield. Hes been banned from said field already, but hes drunk so who cares, right? SO he jumps in a plane, a piper, and starts it up. Owner of the field parks a truck on the runway to prevent a drunk person from taking off... drunk guy proceeds to attempt to take off with predictable results... smashes into the truck.
Then he sues piper and wins enough to bankrupt the company. Because the plane, which was made in the 40s, did not have a shoulder harness, just a lap belt. Because there are laws that say if someone is hurt in something you make, you are liable. This applies to cars too, but the absurdity of it seems to prevent it from taking hold there... Thats why aside from Cessna, there are very few plane manufacturers on the GA level anymore who deliver fully built planes. Most now, sell "kits" which you can assemble yourself (with their help) on-site at their facility. This way, you build 51% of your aircraft, and its not their liability.
This also leads to some crazy stuff. Like, pilots who have done a 51% build and a few years later becoming medically disqualified to fly, DESTROY their plane rather than selling due to the liability since THEY made it...
Gotta love the world we live in sometimes...
Ralph Nader made a name for himself writing a book about car companies selling death-traps.
This is how the industry changes — Tesla is not the first.
Or maybe their owners, paying $100K or so a car, feel a little more entitled to receive a safe car for all that dosh?
Does liability law sometimes cause bad collateral damage (like you mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14187563 with general aviation)? Yes. But that doesn't mean that every lawsuit over a vehicle is inappropriate.
Tesla vehicles are safer than most other vehicles but that isn't an excuse for sub-par design around emergency egress. This story have been "my Tesla crashed and has battery fire but the conveniently-located door override nevertheless let me get out fast" -- I'm disappointed because Tesla could have done better.