9 ms·

Why do people keep expecting Tesla to pay for crashes when the vehicles perform better than the average other vehicle on the road? I was involved in a crash, a

Why do people keep expecting Tesla to pay for crashes when the vehicles perform better than the average other vehicle on the road? I was involved in a crash, a drunk pulled in front of me, and the chassis bent a bit and i could open either front door, and had to crawl out the back... thats just a normal thing in car accidents, and it cant be avoided... and there is room to get out of the vehicle from the front. 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.

chc 9y ago
In this particular case, they are suing because the door wouldn't open, which is a pretty reasonable expectation of an undamaged door.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  The door was damaged... no physically, but if it were a hydraulic door and the hydraulic motor was destroyed in the crash, it would be reasonable to expect it to be unable to be opened by hydraulics, right? Same for electric. And there is a latch to get out (and i've heard about this latch before from Tesla owners, so maybe its not made 100% super clear, but its not an unknown either). I know I'm going to sound like I'm being a dick, but thats an RTFM problem, not a car problem.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    > but if it were a hydraulic door and the hydraulic motor was destroyed in the crash, it would be reasonable to expect it to be unable to be opened by hydraulics, right? Same for electric. 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.
    - sfilargi 9y ago
      [deleted]
      - Analemma_ 9y ago
        Done.
        sfilargi 9y ago
        Thanks :D
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    If it were the only door, that would make sense... with 2 working doors and third rear door, i think its a little bit of a stretch...
    - zkms 9y ago
      Not every person will be physically capable of manoeuvring over the seats to a working door (especially after an accident). 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.
  - 21 9y ago
    So if I design a building and make all doors electric, you would be ok to have a small manual release lever hidden behind the middle hinge, as long as it is written in the building manual.
    - jmcdiesel 9y ago
      Thats a bad analogy. 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...
      - 21 9y ago
        How are the doors that these passengers used to enter the car not the main doors, but the "garage door" of a building?
      - zkms 9y ago
        The common case in buildings (the ones that aren't prisons) is that anyone, without any knowledge of arcane emergency procedures, and in a power failure, should be able to exit via the door they came in, regardless if that door is latched and locked. :)
        lostmsu 9y ago
        Not true with any elevator.
  - threesixandnine 9y ago
    They were passangers at the back as far as I understand. And after a crash there is much confusion and is hardly surprising that the driver didn't have time or simply in shock and forgot about the latch and in a few seconds car was on fire.
juice_bus 9y ago
The allure of a big payout seems to cloud a lot of people's judgement. Do people try to sue/demand money from Ford/Honda/etc the same way these stories are popping up for Tesla? I'm curious if we're only seeing these stories because Tesla is such a hot topic.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  Im sure some have, but probably not to the extent. 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...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 9y ago
  IDK, the Ford Pinto got handed it's ass some decades back. 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?

chc 9y ago

In this particular case, they are suing because the door wouldn't open, which is a pretty reasonable expectation of an undamaged door.

jmcdiesel 9y ago
The door was damaged... no physically, but if it were a hydraulic door and the hydraulic motor was destroyed in the crash, it would be reasonable to expect it to be unable to be opened by hydraulics, right? Same for electric. And there is a latch to get out (and i've heard about this latch before from Tesla owners, so maybe its not made 100% super clear, but its not an unknown either). I know I'm going to sound like I'm being a dick, but thats an RTFM problem, not a car problem.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  > but if it were a hydraulic door and the hydraulic motor was destroyed in the crash, it would be reasonable to expect it to be unable to be opened by hydraulics, right? Same for electric. 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.
  - sfilargi 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - Analemma_ 9y ago
      Done.
      - sfilargi 9y ago
        Thanks :D
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  If it were the only door, that would make sense... with 2 working doors and third rear door, i think its a little bit of a stretch...
  - zkms 9y ago
    Not every person will be physically capable of manoeuvring over the seats to a working door (especially after an accident). 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.
- 21 9y ago
  So if I design a building and make all doors electric, you would be ok to have a small manual release lever hidden behind the middle hinge, as long as it is written in the building manual.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    Thats a bad analogy. 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...
    - 21 9y ago
      How are the doors that these passengers used to enter the car not the main doors, but the "garage door" of a building?
    - zkms 9y ago
      The common case in buildings (the ones that aren't prisons) is that anyone, without any knowledge of arcane emergency procedures, and in a power failure, should be able to exit via the door they came in, regardless if that door is latched and locked. :)
      - lostmsu 9y ago
        Not true with any elevator.
- threesixandnine 9y ago
  They were passangers at the back as far as I understand. And after a crash there is much confusion and is hardly surprising that the driver didn't have time or simply in shock and forgot about the latch and in a few seconds car was on fire.

juice_bus 9y ago

The allure of a big payout seems to cloud a lot of people's judgement. Do people try to sue/demand money from Ford/Honda/etc the same way these stories are popping up for Tesla? I'm curious if we're only seeing these stories because Tesla is such a hot topic.

jmcdiesel 9y ago
Im sure some have, but probably not to the extent. 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...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JKCalhoun 9y ago
IDK, the Ford Pinto got handed it's ass some decades back. 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?