Hacker News Reader

From my standpoint, there is insufficient information to conclude what has happened. The police believe that no one was in the seat, but police also tend to be routine liars [1]. Without having the facts they used to draw that inference, I can't endorse their belief.

For my part, I'm also curious how easy it is to actually switch from the driver's seat to the backseat of this kind of car. I know in my personal car (a sedan), it is very difficult to move from the driver's seat to any other seat, which makes me discount scenarios that involve the driver quickly hopping in any other seat. But internal car layouts differ, and I don't know if this specific model is much easier to transfer.

Another thing that is woefully unclear to me is a) what Teslas actually do to make sure the driver is driving when using Autopilot/FSD/whatever, and b) what they actually do when they think the driver isn't paying attention. I've seen many contradictory reports on these topics, especially when some people say that Tesla says this is what they do yet videos seem to indicate that they aren't doing that.

[1] That said, this is also a case where I would have a priori expected the police to be lying to blame the driver instead of the car manufacturer itself.

There seems to be enough evidence that points to a fire problem. This is NOT the first Tesla fire, and it won't be the last.

There is plenty of evidence towards rich assholes driving fast in residential areas (Tiger Woods). Why didn't Tiger Wood's car catch fire? Or I'm sure we've all know our high school jock who was a bit dangerous with his own car (maybe died of a crash while young). In my case, they didn't burn to death either. Etc. Etc.

Option 2 sounds very plausible. It seems the authorities on the scene were pretty convinced no one was in the driver's seat when it crashed, so maybe there's some convincing evidence that they haven't divulged.

As far as exiting the vehicle goes, hand-crank windows seem like they'd be a lot safer, as they continue to function even if there isn't any power. I don't know if it would have mattered in this particular case, but I think it's a good idea to maximize the number of ways one could exit a potentially-burning car, whether it's powered by gas or batteries. Strange that society (car buyers, manufacturers, and regulators) make this trade-off of decreased safety because window cranks seem cheap, dorky, and old-fashioned.

The side windows in most cars can be broken easily with a punch tool. These really should be standard safety equipment in a known easily-reachable location (such as on the key fob).

The thrill-ride theory seems unlikely.

"The names of the two crash victims, a 69-year old man, and a 59-year old man, were not immediately released by authorities."

This was in a quiet residential cul-de-sac, too.

What can cause high acceleration with no one in the driver's seat?

> What can cause high acceleration with no one in the driver's seat?

Hypothesis: the driver stepping on the accelerator caused the high acceleration.

After crashing into the tree, the driver tries the front door (which was damaged and fails to open). When the fire starts, the driver then moves to the rear seats, hoping to escape through the back doors.

Then the driver dies to the flames, unable to open even the rear doors. (Either due to ignorance to the back-latch, or due to the damage the rear-doors took during the crash).

-------

Remember, the Model S is a complicated electronic lock on both the front and rear doors. The safety issues associated with messing with door handles are well known, but you know... Tesla's want to be special.

> This was in a quiet residential cul-de-sac, too.

EDIT: So was Tiger Woods's car. But rich people with fast cars like to go 87mph on residential roads. Its an unfortunately common situation.

Based on this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=9KtkIarbnMg it seems #2 is more likely scenario.

At least on my Model 3, the manual override is a literal handle that is easy enough to use that I have had unfamiliar passengers open the door with it accidentally more than once.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/opening-the-doors-in...

> The interior handles on the front doors electronically open the door; if you continue pulling them all the way, a cable engages and unlocks the door in case of power loss

> The rear door latch is in the body frame and not the door. Therefore, in the event of power loss, there's something to pull on under the seat which will open the door

That's from 2012, so things have probably changed for the S. The front door looks easy enough, but if the front door was damaged from the accident... the rear-manual open procedure looks complicated.

The rear manual on a 3/Y is a wire at the bottom of the map pocket on the door.

I teach new passengers about it like some kind of airline safety video, but I doubt all people do.

You could also fold down the rear seats and escape through the trunk (the seat folding latches are on the inside of the Model 3).

Car companies need to stop fucking around with door handles. All door handles should be physically connected to the latch mechanism.

The time someone really needs a mechanical door latch will be an emergency situation where they are not in the frame of mind necessary to understand why the handle they've successfully used a million other times is suddenly not functioning.

Imagine getting into a fist fight, only to realize that when you go to cover your face, your brain instead decides that your arms should cover your ass instead. "Well, the human manual says that during a fist fight, stomping your feet will cause your arms to cover your face." is hardly what someone wants to hear.

When you slam to tree, various bits are broken or moved. What was possible to open might not be anymore. It happens in other cars too.

> At least on my Model 3, the manual override is a literal handle that is easy enough to use

That's if you're conscious.

After an accident strong enough for the batteries to burst into flames, the manual override being on the inside of the car seems dubious.

Plus, as others have mentioned, it's very likely the same accident has wedged body panels together making opening of the door impossible, despite the manual override.

The potential for body panels wedging a door close after an accident is pretty much a universal automotive problem, no matter what the latch release mechanisms are. (though I'm sure some latch designs might independently be more or less likely to get stuck).

The problem here, is most cars don't spontaneously burst into flames upon impact... making getting out of the car in a real hurry non-necessary.

Most cars don't, but gas and electric cars both occasionally do so. I would guess that the rate of cars catching fire after an accident is actually higher for gas cars.

If one wants a more guaranteed way out - I advise buying a safety hammer for your car. They have a pointed impact head to shatter safety glass, as well as a belt cutter in case your seat belt is jammed.

There are still fewer than 2-million Teslas in existence.

And the Ford Pinto (yes, the Pinto. The "exploding car" that was the subject of "Fight Club" the movie) had 27 fire-related deaths around the 2.2-million car sold.

The number of Tesla-fires is quickly approaching Ford Pinto levels. (Mostly because the Ford Pinto fires were overblown: as a subject matter in a popular movie and pop culture, they really weren't much more explosive than other cars)

--------

Furthermore: the explosions of Tesla vehicles are requiring far more care. There needed to be over 20,000+ gallons of water over four hours to douse the flames in this very crash.

Only electric vehicles have that kind of sustained, multi-hour fire problem. Fire departments know full well how to put out a regular gasoline fire. But Li-Ion is kind of dangerous tech.

Gas cars and trucks can have multi hour accidents too. Here’s a seven hour accident.

https://www.wcax.com/2021/03/03/car-fire-closes-part-of-i-93...

Last time the stats were visited on this a couple of years ago it seems has cars catch fire about 10x more than electric cars.

There's a big difference between neglecting maintenance on a vehicle until it overheats enough to catch fire, and a vehicle which bursts into flames regularly upon impact while people are trapped inside.

We get you like Tesla... but that doesn't excuse being deliberately obtuse. You cannot hand wave away these people that were stuck inside a fire bomb of a vehicle which required about 20 fire trucks worth of water[1] to extinguish the flames... For what should have been a routine accident response. The people inside, if still alive, had no chance of survival. That's really bad...

[1] https://www.solonohio.org/203/Fire-Trucks#:~:text=Contempora....

Looking at the quantitative picture and thinking systematically is trying to be obtuse? I would also think about gas tanker fires and the systematic reduction of those on the types of vehicles on the road with more electric vehicles.

Many gas automotive fires don't have to do with maintenance either - that seems like a really odd assumption.

Do you have any evidence to backup your assertions?

You stated upthread that you'd guess gasoline fueled vehicles catch fire more frequently than EV vehicles... you're going to need evidence to backup such an outlandish claim, and the cause of the fire would also need to be an accident such as the one this Tesla was involved in.

It's actually quite difficult to ignite gasoline in liquid form (which is what is in the fuel lines and fuel tank of an automobile). It must be a vapor, and it must be in the presence of an ignition source. ICE vehicles have been designed over the last 100 years to precisely not explode upon impact.

Real life isn't hollywood... cars just don't explode because of an accident... you can even shoot a full gas tank with a high caliber rifle and it'll still not explode nor catch fire. The problem you are equating to vehicles just does not exist anywhere except electronic vehicles powered by these Lithium-Ion batteries... like what is found in your average Tesla.

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-st...

From the report:

"Vehicle fires accounted for 16 percent of the 1.3 million fires reported to US fire departments. Vehicle fires also caused 15 percentof all civilian fire deaths and 10 percent of all reported civilian fire injuries. In 2018, only fires in one- and two- family homes claimed more lives than vehicle fires. Vehicle fires caused 4.5 times the number of deaths as nonresidential structure fires and 1.6 times the number of apartment fire deaths."

From your own source:

> The leading causes of vehicle fires were mechanical failures or malfunctions and electrical failures or malfunctions. Older vehicles accounted for three-quarters of the highway vehicle fires caused by mechanical or electrical failures or malfunctions. Maintenance is important throughout the vehicle’s years of use.

So... no... not from accidents, but from maintenance neglect (as I already said). Not even remotely similar.

These Tesla's burst into flames upon impact, trapping the occupants inside and dooming them to death.

From your own source again:

> EV fires can occur:

> 1. When a vehicle is stationary. Extreme temperatures, high humidity, internal cell failure, and abuse of a LIB at some prior time can all cause such fires.

> 2. When the EV is charging due to overcharging or problems with the charging stations or cables.

> 3. After a traffic crash or other abuse does sufficient damage to cause ignition during or immediately after the crash.

> 4. When an LIB reignites after an initial fire has been handled.

> 5. Due to external factors, such as arson

So... what is the point you are trying to make here?

> Collisions were the leading cause of vehicle fires that resulted in death.

The very next sentence after your first selected quote.

You are picking an choosing data due to some very obvious bias. I don't think we can continue a productive conversation here. Bye.

Option 3: There was a third person who jumped before impact from the drivers seat.

> Option 3: There was a third person who jumped before impact from the drivers seat.

Interviews with the widows suggest there were only two people in the car. I don't see why the two men would lie to their wives about how many people would be in the car. If there was a mysterious 3rd person "driver", then that "mysterious driver" would be sued the ever living crap out of by the two widows.

> I don't see why the two men would lie to their wives

It wouldn't be the first time men have lied to their wives about what they are doing late at night. I'm just saying its a possibility.

Its looking like the 4 people (2 men + 2 wives) were originally in the car. The 2-wives got out, and watched the 2-men drive away. Minutes later, the car crash occurred.

I'm really not seeing how a 3rd person magically appears in this story.