Most active commenters
  • OutOfHere(4)
  • speedgoose(4)
  • remus(3)

←back to thread

Four dead in fire as Tesla doors fail to open after crash

(myelectricsparks.com)
210 points json_bourne_ | 17 comments | 16 Nov 24 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
ndiddy ◴[16 Nov 24 19:25 UTC] No.42158554[source]▶
Another similar incident happened around a week after that one: https://www.channel3000.com/news/dane-county-sheriffs-office... .

One thing to note is that the car doors in Teslas are electrically controlled and a different failsafe method of opening the doors is required when the electrical system isn't working. Here's the steps for manually opening the Model Y's rear doors (car in the story the post links to): https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-AAD769C... and here's the steps for manually opening the Model S's rear doors (car in the story I linked to): https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-AAD769C... . Note that this involves removing the rear carpet in the Model S and the door pocket mat in the Model Y, and that the Model Y instructions note that some cars aren't even equipped with manual rear door releases. It seems like Tesla didn't account at all for what happens if passengers who aren't familiar with the car need to quickly exit in an emergency, especially if the driver's incapacitated and can't give them directions.

replies(11): >>42158636 #>>42158643 #>>42158647 #>>42158773 #>>42158779 #>>42158811 #>>42158867 #>>42159003 #>>42159246 #>>42159730 #>>42162066 #
rightbyte ◴[16 Nov 24 19:38 UTC] No.42158636[source]▶

     * Remove the mat from the bottom of the rear door pocket.
     * Press the red tab to remove the access door.
     * Pull the mechanical release cable forward.
It doesn't feel very panic friendly to have the emergency release hidden?
replies(4): >>42158677 #>>42158685 #>>42158853 #>>42160163 #
pininja ◴[16 Nov 24 19:44 UTC] No.42158685[source]▶
Every Uber I take in a Tesla would practically need an airline safety briefing for this. There’s no way I’d find it on my own.
replies(3): >>42158835 #>>42160346 #>>42160574 #
OutOfHere ◴[16 Nov 24 20:04 UTC] No.42158835[source]▶
Cancel and rebook (another brand).
replies(2): >>42158907 #>>42159151 #
speedgoose ◴[16 Nov 24 20:44 UTC] No.42159151[source]▶
Wouldn’t the average car safety be significantly below a Tesla Model Y anyway?
replies(1): >>42159167 #
1. OutOfHere ◴[16 Nov 24 20:46 UTC] No.42159167[source]▶
Tesla has the highest fatality rate, so that is ruled out! :)

Secondly, it is the coupling of electronic controls with unintuitive manual backups that create the danger.

replies(4): >>42159341 #>>42159348 #>>42159624 #>>42160256 #
2. viraptor ◴[16 Nov 24 21:07 UTC] No.42159341[source]▶
That statistic is not controlling for the drivers. It's interesting, but it may be biased by who buys Tesla and how they drive. Similar to likely "cars with aggressive custom paint jobs have higher fatality rate".
replies(1): >>42159368 #
3. remus ◴[16 Nov 24 21:08 UTC] No.42159348[source]▶
> Tesla has the highest fatality rate, so that is ruled out! :)

Do you have a source? Genuinely interested. From the little reading I've done Tesla seem to have put quite a bit of thought in to making their cars perform well in crash tests so it seems surprising that they'd have a high fatality rate.

replies(2): >>42159485 #>>42159752 #
4. JumpCrisscross ◴[16 Nov 24 21:10 UTC] No.42159368[source]▶
Doesn’t matter if you’re getting in someone else’s car.
replies(1): >>42159389 #
5. viraptor ◴[16 Nov 24 21:12 UTC] No.42159389{3}[source]▶
Maybe. Taxi drivers have different incentives/experience/routes than the other population. It may apply to them, or not. For ride share, the choice of Tesla may have been mainly economical for them.
6. atoav ◴[16 Nov 24 21:23 UTC] No.42159485[source]▶
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-ha...
replies(1): >>42159602 #
7. speedgoose ◴[16 Nov 24 21:42 UTC] No.42159602{3}[source]▶
Isn’t it missing the death aspect ?
replies(1): >>42163046 #
8. speedgoose ◴[16 Nov 24 21:45 UTC] No.42159624[source]▶
I would still favour the car that has good crash test safety scores and AI powered safety features that work relatively well according to independent tests, over the random taxi.

But otherwise I agree, the door opening mechanism should be improved.

9. OutOfHere ◴[16 Nov 24 22:04 UTC] No.42159752[source]▶
"Tesla Has Highest Fatal Accident Rate of All Auto Brands: Study" (2024)

https://autos.yahoo.com/tesla-highest-fatal-accident-rate-16...

replies(1): >>42160105 #
10. remus ◴[16 Nov 24 22:46 UTC] No.42160105{3}[source]▶
Interesting quote from that piece:

> The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024 Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.

> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report. “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”

replies(3): >>42160761 #>>42162662 #>>42194480 #
11. valval ◴[16 Nov 24 23:01 UTC] No.42160256[source]▶
The analysis you refer to isn’t super interesting as it’s not controlled.

You’d need to be able to prove that independent safety and crash testing organisations are pushing out faulty results, since Teslas are among the safest (if not the safest) cars by their standards.

12. OutOfHere ◴[17 Nov 24 00:11 UTC] No.42160761{4}[source]▶
I am going to look at the data, not at the subjective reinterpretation or subjective rating.
replies(1): >>42162559 #
13. remus ◴[17 Nov 24 07:28 UTC] No.42162559{5}[source]▶
A good instinct, but the point is it's important to think about what the data means. The authors of the paper are just saying that the populations of people driving each type of car are different so looking at a percentage of fatalities is not particularly informative. If you took all those people who currently drive 20 year old fords at 10 under the speed limit and put them in teslas, maybe the tesla fatality rate per billion miles would start to look a bit better.
14. figassis ◴[17 Nov 24 07:50 UTC] No.42162662{4}[source]▶
Sure, makes sense, but then we have the invisible, possibly non existent emergency door release. Do they also go through the effort of pointing this out as a factor in the statistics? Or is that not counted as a design flaw? Whether they’re saying the truth or not, i think in these roles, it’s very easy to omit damaging information while not outright lying. It’s also easy to be taken to lunch by a Tesla person to talk about how to cushion the reports impact.
15. atoav ◴[17 Nov 24 09:28 UTC] No.42163046{4}[source]▶
It is found straight at the source: https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-study#v=2024
replies(1): >>42167740 #
16. speedgoose ◴[17 Nov 24 22:04 UTC] No.42167740{5}[source]▶
Thanks. It's US data only but that's a fine source.
17. fennecfoxy ◴[20 Nov 24 15:02 UTC] No.42194480{4}[source]▶
So it's because irresponsible tech bros & the like are driving high performance electric cars at speeds and accelerations that they're not used to after the Toyota that they owned previously?

I feel like this gonna become a real problem as (any brand of) electric cars fill out the world's fleet.