> Anton Korn 2 days ago
> I believe that there should be some sort of a software based limit on the maximum acceleration for new or unexperienced drivers.
> No 18 year old should be given the option to drive a supercar. it is just too dangerous.
>> Kerry Manning > Anton Korn 2 days ago
>> I believe that the software has been around for quite a while. It is an advanced neural network commonly referred to as "a parent". :)
>>> Going Knightly > Kerry Manning a day ago
>>> Said software, unfortunately, only controls the vehicle as long as the drivers are within observational range. Once the vehicle leaves said range, the software is defunct and is running on the backup operating system "Wishful Thinking 2.0".
>>>> Kerry Manning > Going Knightly a day ago
>>>> Actually parenting is more about teaching your kids to do the responsible thing when nobody is watching. Without that it's not "parenting" it's "babysitting"
Supervised learning with holdout data
That strikes me as a bad idea. There are scenarios where you need to accelerate your car as quickly as possible to move out of the way of danger or avoid an accident.
If I get in a car, I expect consistent behavior based on previous performance. If the car pulls a "I'm sorry I can't let you do that Dave" and arbitrarily changes behavior when it feels like it, bad things are going to happen.
In most cases, I'd rather lose control and slip and slide around on/off a road than get flattened by a long vehicle merging into my lane because my car limited my acceleration.
That is an absolutely insane position to take. How about instead of losing control and going off the road, you take the car off the road in a controlled manner. You're already okay with going off the road... so just do that in case you find yourself in an exceedingly unlikely situation in where it's needed.
Otherwise, I'm not buying the whole "pedal to the metal is going to save me" line.
Anecdotal as well, also with a huge grain of salt, considering that despite being somewhat old, I'm only allowed to drive since December. To other drivers I'm probably overly cautious, I guess.
I believe the limit is 660cc in other states too.
At any rate, it's a bit of a moot point because all electric motorcycles are LAMS-approved and their acceleration is absolutely ridiculous.
For "the best part," that was really disappointing.
No it does not. Once a car is off road, on non-level ground or as in this case flying, it can roll at any speed. Push a Ferrari off a cliff and it might roll, flip and do somersaults no matter its centre of gravity.
(2) That car shows a very bad sign: impacts on both front an rear. That means multiple impacts separated by some period of time. The problem with airbags is that they can only deploy once. Same too for crumple zones. What saved these kids was most likely the seatbelts, the only safety feature that remains functional after the initial impact. This is why I am against the new trend of shock-absorbing seatbelts with stitched expansion zones, what rock climbers might call screamers. They don't work twice.
Forget the fancy safety features. The humble belt is more important than all of them put together. If you are going to roll a car, A good seat and a 5-point restraint is better than a hundred airbags.
The front of that car is obliterated, but notice the damage ends where the cabin begins. New autos have been receiving upgraded crumple zones for decades because they work. And it looks like Tesla hasn't avoided the issue.
Crumple zones are directional, when you tweak them they lose effectiveness in their primary direction, that's part of why modern cars get totaled by less damage (your insurance doesn't want to pay big $ for medical when you crash again, with less effective crumple zones). The #1 purpose is to buy time for the airbag to explode before the occupant's faces are occupying the area it takes up once inflated. Acting as an energy absorbing barrier is second priority. It's perfectly possible to hit something hard enough that you only get the first functionality out of it. e.g you hit a brick wall so hard that the "oh the front of the car stopped quick, better explode now" logic has time to happen. Even at 100+mph, the time it takes to drive 4ft (the length of the hood) there's plenty of time for the airbag to explode. However, if the car is moving fast enough the "crumple zone" won't slow the car considerably. Imagine the difference between falling out of a second story window into a (freshly plowed) snow bank vs falling out off the empire state building into the same snow bank, sure it still decelerates you but not enough to matter. Based on the spot where the car wend airborne, it wouldn't surprise me if the crumple zone was tweaked making it easier to completely go though.
PS: Sure, there are a tiny fraction of edge cases such as falling off a cliff where it's a longer term problem, but it's reasonable to ignore them.
Totally agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. It's not like these features are just thrown in for fun; there is research and testing behind them, and they do save lives.
It's like that oft-misquoted statistic that you lose 50% of your body heat through your head. In reality that's only true if you cover the rest of your body with clothes, but leave your head bare. Obviously wearing clothes is going to keep you warmer than wearing a hat. But, if it's cold out, it does make sense to put a hat on too.
Exactly, but some of them are designed to be paired with a seat belt - I've heard that airbags can make things worse if you don't buckle up.
(All just speculation.)
cars direction north east to the yellow street 11
this dead outlet
is this here
One of the best-known numbers in biology came about due to a similar confusion over significant figures:
> The first systematic measurements of human body temperature were performed by the German physician Carl Wunderlich. In 1861 he measured the temperatures of one million healthy individuals (a sample size that seems too large to be believed). The average value was reported as 37 degrees celsius. When converted this value becomes 98.6 degreed fahrenheit. So what's the problem? Wunderlich's value has only two significant figures while the converted value has three. The last digit (the "point six" at the end) should be regarded with great suspicion. Wunderlich's converted value should really be stated as "ninety eight point something" if one is being honest.
Actually, if one is being honest and respecting the usual rules, it should be stated as 99°F; that is, rounded to two significant figures.
(And, of course, we're not that simple: Core body temperature rises and falls naturally due to a number of factors even when we're completely healthy, so any single number as "the" healthy body temperature is, strictly, incorrect.)
98.6±0.2F (or whatever).
Especially with errors in the order of .1, you might even write out more than the traditional number of digits, e.g. 98.64±.10, as it might make a significant difference if you regard 98.54...98.64 or 98.5...98.6 to be within your confidence interval.
or we could, you know, agree on a standard and just use that...
People are going to be putting stuff into the frunk, even stuff that may be really solid and pointy and likely to breach into the cabin in the event of a crash.
Is it especially armored to deal with those situations? Or should Tesla owners generally keep it empty if they're concerned with safety?
Others may have different practices, but for my wife and I we put very little there. The trunk is quite spacious. We keep a small emergency kit and an autosock in the frunk but otherwise it's generally empty. On the rare occasions when we've used it on road trips the geometry has always made it most convenient to fill the frunk with winter coats and other soft goods that pack well into arbitrarily shaped spaces.
For the past couple winters conditions have not demanded anything beyond the AWD and the tires. This is also an unfortunate commentary on the snow situation for the last couple winters.
I picked the autosock over chains as the Tesla owners manual advises against most change due to risk of damaging the wheel wells and body. There is apparently at least one model they've approved, which I'll likely invest in the first time the autosock proves itself not up the task and forces me to turn back from a ski weekend.
This shows the various tests that they did, and the auto sock comes out of the tests very well.
On I-80, heading into Donner pass as you go through lake tahoe, CHP/Caltrans does indeed check every single car as it drives through ... during dangerous driving conditions, that is.
They usually funnel the interstate down to two lanes and have two guys waving cars through, one by one. They make sure that you either have a AWD/4WD vehicle or that you have chains on. Theoretically they are checking that AWD/4WD vehicles, without chains, also have snow tires, but that isn't really happening - they can't tell that at the 8-10 mph speed you roll through at.
It may also interest you to know that there is a lively cottage industry of chain rentals and installers just prior to these checkpoints. You can pull over just before the checkpoint and for $40 someone will quickly (and properly) install chains on your car, and then for another $20 at the other end of the pass, someone will quickly take them right back off.
This is regular and organized enough that you could absolutely drive through Donner pass in a blizzard, with no preparation whatsoever (other than $60 in cash).
It may also interest you to know (it interests me) that other, higher passes, with just as much potential for snow/blizard don't have any of these checks or precautions. You can drive yourself right over vail pass (I70, Colorado) with whatever drivetrain or tires you like.
Also, if you don't have them and you get into an accident, it's expensive fine time :P
Some provinces here in Canada have made winter tires mandatory AWD, 4x4, fwd or rwd it's not so people can go faster but to stop on ice and snow.
(Feet are warm, so going over ice will be different than going over polished wooden floor.)
Uh, how fast were you driving with chains? When you need chains it's a bit of an extraordinary set of circumstances that typically warrant doing significantly less than posted speed limits. I don't think I've ever seen anyone attempt to do hard cornering or anything that would be considered "spirited driving" with them on. That seems like the exact opposite of what you should do with any type of tire wrap that is meant to add traction to your vehicle.
At this point I got curious and I wanted to know under what condition the chains would stay on the wheels. I did some experiments and came to the conclusion that you can do what you want with theses chains as long as you're driving more or less straight but as soon as you start cornering you better be careful or you'll see the chain flying. They hate lateral force. Will try next winter with regular chains to see how well they do.
I precise that I did that during the night and the road led to village that has at most 100 inhabitants. I didn't expect to see anyone going up or down the mountain and you can see car lights way before crossing an other car. I wasn't reckless driving
The entire passenger compartment is completely intact. All doors still opened, front-end was completely destroyed, everything worked as it needed to. The engine dropped, the transmission shot underneath the car, drivetrain collapsed, front crumpled, dash shifted up and out of the way, airbags deployed, seatbelt caught me. But everything from the A frame to the C frame was completely intact. Doors opened without issues, and if you looked from the back you'd almost say it was a minor accident.
I walked away from the accident, much to the surprise of first responders that arrived on the scene and saw the carnage of my cars front-end.
I went back and bought another one, just a model year newer as soon as insurance sorted everything out. Modern cars are cages designed to protect their occupants, and I am very happy that is the case!
2. Reinforced pillars. Their strength is such that they damaged the device used to test roof failures  (I believe the force the roof was subjected to was equivalent to 5 Model S' atop the test vehicle). I'm confident that in the extremely unlikely event the vehicle was upside down, you would walk away from the vehicle, roof intact.
3. A tweet describing the safety of Tesla vehicles: https://twitter.com/NickatFP/status/706845770486407168
Tesla should start doing ads like this:
That doesn't mean you "wouldn't be caught upside down in it" unless it can literally flip itself back over after every possible roll.
I would still prefer to crash a Model S than any other car
I don't think this is really unique to Teslas at all.
I'm genuinely curious.
I can't zoom in because I'm on a mobile but the final picture looks like it has the vehicle off in the distance. If so, I can't believe how far off the road it is - it must have really been moving at the time. Does it have telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds and things?
I would be surprised if not.
The problem is that unlike years ago, the cops can now use the data of your own car to screw you over for speeding, improper turns, running red lights... and insurances already offer heavy discounts to those who let themselves be data mined for every meter they drive.
even if there is something like a chilling effect, if it prevents people from speeding and running red lights, that sounds pretty cool to me.
insurances are another matter. although we probably disagree over that as well, it's certainly (even) more debatable.
How do you distinguish between reckless speeding and overtaking a slow-moving vehicle by using the fast lane? What about real emergencies where you speed to get your wife to the hospital because her water just broke, she is in pain and there is no time to wait for an ambulance?
There are many variables to consider. I hope such omni-present telemetry never comes to pass. I'd rather people have more freedom than for the state to try and create a rubber-covered world where everything is safe. Heck, I'm even worried about self driving cars because I know someone with good intentions will propose we outlaw manual driving "for the greater good".
If people want higher speed limits, they should use the normal political processes to get the laws changed; not rely on arbitrary enforcement only on people the police want to pull over.
And outlawing human-driving (outside of race tracks) _is_ the way of the future. Cars are just too damn dangerous---especially to people not inside the car.
Automatic fining, best not, but alternatively as a driver you should be able to automatically limit your speed, especially in a car like the Tesla where speeding is very easy.
Wouldn't you agree that preventing an accident is better than finding out who is to blame, or survival chances, etc? Speeding is still one of the main causes of traffic accidents, and even if it's not the cause, it's the primary factor in the amount of damage caused.
Overtaking a slow-moving vehicle does probably not allow you to ignore speed limits. And I'm pretty sure you are allowed to ignore speed limits to a certain extend in case of emergencies. I don't want the car to enforce the speed limit by itself, and even if, you could solve that by an "emergency button" of some sort. You'd need to justify it's use when asked by the cops of course.
I also do value freedom and think that absolute safety is not something desirable, but considering the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, people apparently abuse their freedom in traffic and we do need more safety there.
In a multi-car crash, I'd like to see this: all data is available for defense in court. For offense, you get your own data and you also get the common subset of data from every car. If somebody's car provides nothing, then nobody's data can be used for offense.
Example why: Suppose your car records that you are going 20% too fast. The other person was going 150% too fast, but his car didn't record anything. It's not fair that he can use your evidence to prove that you are at fault. His failure to provide evidence lets him get away with much worse.
Same with the insurances bit. Allowing yourself to be held accountable for your driving habits creates a safer world. There's a fad saying that traffic will be safer with more self-driving cars; it'll be safer with people being held accountable for their driving habits, too. Driving would already be 90% safer if nobody was speeding, driving drunk or running a red light; if telemetry and financial advantages (i.e. insurance) can help with that, then by all means. Much cheaper than self-driving cars, too.
Because that's exactly what insurance companies are doing with cars nowadays - there's a lot of factors that can contribute to increasing your premium, like....driving at night for example. Or accelerating quickly from traffic lights, or driving fast on a country road(even if within a speed limit).
As long as I can afford to, I will always chose insurance policies without telematics boxes, for the same reason why I will always pay more to have unmetered and non-monitored internet, to the extent that is possible in the current world.
I'd love to see the crash data on aggressive versus docile driving, I think the results would be very interesting as to who is the root cause of the majority of wrecks.
And yes aggressive driving causes a lot more accidents. What you are doing is blaming defensive drivers for the accidents caused by others. If I overtake a slow car the responsibility for the outcome is solely on me. Don't blame people "for being there".
It doesn't really mean anything, but as someone who has been in a bad crash into a concrete barrier in a Volvo (all four doors able to open and everyone walked away); comparing how that front-end looked to the Tesla, I got the feeling the Tesla would do well.
> the Tesla S doesn't look that special
As someone who always drove Volvos when I owned a car, and knowing---as some in this thread have pointed out---that some cars don't fair as well in accidents, to me this article didn't point out that the Tesla S is "special" but I was glad to see it is in the class of cars where you can crunch the front end and have an intact cabin. Makes me feel better about my feeling that if I ever buy a car again it might be a Tesla not a Volvo.
Why is that unrelated to the car? People are people and worth protecting, no matter whether they sit in the car or outside.
"In 1968, United States regulations (FMVSS Standard No. 204) were implemented concerning the acceptable rearward movement of the steering wheel in case of crash. Collapsible steering columns were required to meet that standard."
Perhaps Tesla could offer some innovation in the form of a de-tuned mode that triggers in the absence of a certain set of keys or pin entry.
That hints the car might have been taken without the parents knowledge. Then again this happened near München, so it might have been some overaffluent teens in their usual ride paid by daddy. It's not uncommon to see rich college students in a Porsche around there.
Our 85D does 0-60 in 3.9s and that's more than enough power to get you in trouble quickly.
That mindset strikes me as completely insane to be honest (btw, I damaged my parent's car as well in my first year of driving).
Why not something like that you have to start driving for a few years with a small car (like a kei-car of some sorts), and then you can graduate to a compact. And then after six years or so, you can drive something heavy and/or fast. I would be so much more at ease in traffic, knowing that those deathtrap crossovers, trucks, and SUVs around me aren't piloted by a texting teenager.
I actually learned to drive first on a ride-on lawn mower when I was barely heavy enough to keep the dead man switch active: hit a bump and the mower would switch off. Then I graduated to ATVs and finally to the farm pick-up truck when I was 12 or so. By the time I had a license, I was a quite capable and reasonably safe driver. Honestly, I think it may be best to learn before you are a teenager when you are still scared of the big machines.
My first car cost my £50 (and £1100 to insure..). As it was 20 year old heap of junk, every other month something would break, and I'd have to look up how to fix it and then go down to the scrap yard with a socket set, £20 in my pocket and pull that part off a scrapped car.
I learnt how to fix cars and I never had a crash because I knew it would mean certain death in that danger machine.
If you have the money for a Tesla then you would be crazy not to put your kids in one. Ideally you would want to put it in some sort of valet mode to limit the performance.
That's quite a bit below best in class: http://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/best-in-class-car...
If you have the money for a Tesla you then you would be crazy not to put your kids in a Volvo (if safety is your priority).
An accident as this is likely the cause of driving too fast for the conditions, so that'd probably require attending such a seminar.
However, in my subsequent two cars I was rear ended and in both cases, while the cars were pretty ugly, they were driveable.
Also, the front ends on Chrysler 300s, Chargers, and Challengers have an enormous amount of empty space if you have a v6 model. XD
As far as I'm concerned, the second-generation Corvair was considerably safer than typical small cars of the era; the trunk was large, the gas tank was behind the front axle, and the first-generation Corvair's swing axle rear suspension was superseded by a fully-independent design.
I'd feel safer even in a first-generation Corvair than in a classic VW Beetle. F*ck Nader.
Tesla should make a "teenage driving mode" the parent can set.
So if there had been a huge heavy engine in the front, they probably would have been eating it with a front impact that hard?