Tesla accident Netherlands / black box

[jitter]

Heavily featured on the news over here was the crash of a Tesla Model S, killing the driver.
The car hit a tree and caught on fire. When the firefighters arrived on the scene, the driver was already dead. They had a hard time getting the body out of the car, it reportedly took over eight hours and needed the help of Tesla technicians. One of the problems was that the firefighters feared electrocution. The burning battery took half an hour to extinguish.

This has me wondering about the safety of electric cars with all those dangerous batteries and high voltages...

Accusations that the autopilot was the cause were quickly proven wrong by Tesla engineers who downloaded the logs (I guess in a way this car has a "black box"), showing it was off and that the driver was doing 155 km/h (96 mph) on a road restricted to 80 km/h (50 mph).

Clearly human error with an unfortunate death. If we can log all that data, why can't (or rather: won't) we make cars intervene for the safety of the driver?
Surely it must be possible for a computer to recognize certain behaviours (like e.g. extreme speeding) and bring the speed down to a safer level?

[tggzzz]

This has me wondering about the safety of electric cars with all those dangerous batteries and high voltages...

Or the safety of volatile and highly inflammable liquids right next to hot pipes.

If we can log all that data, why can't (or rather: won't) we make cars intervene for the safety of the driver?

Because then you have to make sure the autopilot will make an ethical judgement and decision, e.g. should it kill the "driver" or kill 5 (1? 10?) pedestrians?

[b_force]

The last statement doesn't makes sense. If you have data you could for example kick in a limiter on the speed. Especially if you know what the maximum speed is on a certain road.

What I don't get is why they can't build in a mini active fire extinguisher or some system to keep the fire damage to a minimum/slow down.
(in general in cars)
And a (mechanical) system that immidiatly isolated the batteries from everything.
Lock them up in a air thight box. Without enough air there is also no fire.

[rstofer]

Clearly human error with an unfortunate death. If we can log all that data, why can't (or rather: won't) we make cars intervene for the safety of the driver?
Surely it must be possible for a computer to recognize certain behaviours (like e.g. extreme speeding) and bring the speed down to a safer level?

We have had the capability to install governors on cars since the early '60s.  The company I worked for had them installed on all their pickup trucks.

Where do you set the limit?  Our speedlimit might be 70 MPH but traffic is routinely running 10 over and to pass, you probably need to run 20 over or more.  On open country roads (no divider between opposing lanes) where the speed limit is 55, I routinely hit 80 or 90 when I pass.  I need to get it over with and it takes a while to get past a long truck.

So, maybe the limit should be 100?  That is just about workable but clearly a bit high for a 25 zone.

Maybe make the cars intelligent enough to know the speedlimit and perhaps allow 10 over?  That would be quite an infrastructure project.

People made decisions.  Some work out better than others.  So be it...

[Dave]

Here's the thing, nobody is going to want to buy a car that takes control out of your hands and makes the judgement calls for you. If I have a reason to drive fast, it better damn let me.

The person that died in the car crash is the only one responsible for driving that fast and he paid the ultimate price for it. It's a good thing that he didn't take someone else out along with him...

[stj]

What I don't get is why they can't build in a mini active fire extinguisher or some system to keep the fire damage to a minimum/slow down.

they can,
it's standard on buses and most military stuff, and on rally cars.
you can get a kit for a rally car and fit it yourself.

[b_force]

Well instead of using absolute numbers, you could work with relative numbers? Say no more than 1.5 times the normal speed limit.

It's not about the fact that people make the wrong decisions. It's about to danger of hitting someone else.
I don't care if you like to be stuntman, race on roads and kill yourself. I care about about the people, a family going out for a nice day and being killed by such a lunatic.
If you drive that fast you know the dangers and risks and if you hit and kill someone, I think it's pretty close to murder.

[PA0PBZ]

And a (mechanical) system that immidiatly isolated the batteries from everything.
Lock them up in a air thight box. Without enough air there is also no fire.

I guess you didn't notice that half the battery pack was 10 meters away from the car? Must have been some crash...

[PA0PBZ]

The thing just right of the tree was a burning piece of the battery pack. The car is on the far right behind the screen.

[wraper]

Well instead of using absolute numbers, you could work with relative numbers? Say no more than 1.5 times the normal speed limit.

First of all, speed limit data in the maps is not 100% accurate at all, depends on the country of course. Secondly, there may be situations when you need to exceed the speed limit for safety purposes, like avoiding a collision. And the major one, no one wants to buy artificially limited car.

[nctnico]

According to other news sources the driver was doing 155km/h instead of 80km/h. Unfortunately these kind of roads are typical for the Netherlands: no side rails and big trees next to the road. If you lose control over your vehicle you are likely to hit a tree and get killed which happens very regulary (not just with Teslas). I recall there have been ideas to cut trees along roads and replace them with bushes but so far that idea is still an idea.

[JPortici]

If we can log all that data, why can't (or rather: won't) we make cars intervene for the safety of the driver?
Surely it must be possible for a computer to recognize certain behaviours (like e.g. extreme speeding) and bring the speed down to a safer level?

if i had such car the first thing i'd do is to disable such features. fuck you computer, i'm driving. i face a long, empty, straight road, i have 150,200,300 hp under the hood, i want to unleash them once in a while*
oh, and how many roads i have seen made to be run at 110km/h but you have to go at 70 with multiple velox because money from fines, nothing to do about security. you never see security measures where they are needed.

*this will surely have nothing to do about this accident. it is just an example.

[JPortici]

It's not about the fact that people make the wrong decisions. It's about to danger of hitting someone else.
I don't care if you like to be stuntman, race on roads and kill yourself. I care about about the people, a family going out for a nice day and being killed by such a lunatic.
If you drive that fast you know the dangers and risks and if you hit and kill someone, I think it's pretty close to murder.

and yet i totally agree with you. and i'm happy that a law was passed so that killing someone in a car accident can be sentenced as murder. i should only be responsible for my own death, but if i cause the death of another human being for being an idiot...

[Tinkerer]

Clearly human error with an unfortunate death. If we can log all that data, why can't (or rather: won't) we make cars intervene for the safety of the driver?
Surely it must be possible for a computer to recognize certain behaviours (like e.g. extreme speeding) and bring the speed down to a safer level?

Please dont ever wish for that. Thats a slippery slope. Eventually I expect someone to make a run on having cars completely automated in the name of safety. Yes people make dumb decisions but if you protect people from themselves in one area, whats to say you shouldnt everywhere? People should be free, even if that is the freedom to act dumb and kill themselves. Yes, there is a risk to other people, but I am willing to live with this risk so I am not limited in what I want to do.

[rollatorwieltje]

The last statement doesn't makes sense. If you have data you could for example kick in a limiter on the speed. Especially if you know what the maximum speed is on a certain road.

What I don't get is why they can't build in a mini active fire extinguisher or some system to keep the fire damage to a minimum/slow down.
(in general in cars)
And a (mechanical) system that immidiatly isolated the batteries from everything.
Lock them up in a air thight box. Without enough air there is also no fire.

Air tight box doesn't work, lithium batteries contain their own oxidizer. Once thermal runaway has started there's no stopping it. The battery of the Tesla is plenty armored to allow you to exit the vehicle in reasonable time.

Under "normal" conditions the HV battery is disconnected after a crash, but obviously that doesn't work when the car is completely obliterated.

[AntiProtonBoy]

One of the problems was that the firefighters feared electrocution. The burning battery took half an hour to extinguish.

This has me wondering about the safety of electric cars with all those dangerous batteries and high voltages...

I think the situation is more to do with fire fighters being not as prepared to deal with electrical fires as they are with combustibles. The two scenarios require different methods to combat, with the latter scenario being more common.

[amyk]

According to other news sources the driver was doing 155km/h instead of 80km/h. Unfortunately these kind of roads are typical for the Netherlands: no side rails and big trees next to the road. If you lose control over your vehicle you are likely to hit a tree and get killed which happens very regulary (not just with Teslas). I recall there have been ideas to cut trees along roads and replace them with bushes but so far that idea is still an idea.

If you decide to drive at that speed in such an area, it's not the fault of the trees if you hit them and kill yourself. I say let Darwin take care of the idiots...

[daqq]

Clearly human error with an unfortunate death. If we can log all that data, why can't (or rather: won't) we make cars intervene for the safety of the driver?
Surely it must be possible for a computer to recognize certain behaviours (like e.g. extreme speeding) and bring the speed down to a safer level?

While I'm all for the option to turn such behavior in a car on by the user/owner, there are valid reasons for going faster than recommended on the road - if no other example comes to mind, the car has no way of knowing whether you are speeding because you are a drunken asshole or whether you are speeding because there's a murdering lunatic chasing after you in an armored jeep. Also, there are many situations where you have to exceed some limit to avoid an accident.

Note that this would assume that the car positioning system is quite accurate and that the documentation for said roads is accurate and up to date.

[PA0PBZ]

Note that this would assume that the car positioning system is quite accurate and that the documentation for said roads is accurate and up to date.

Cars can read road signs, my previous car did and displayed the speed limit. Fortunately it did not act on it.

[AntiProtonBoy]

there are valid reasons for going faster than recommended on the road

Sure, but 75km/h over the limit? There is no valid reason.

[Jeroen3]

I can't possibly imagine any political movement daring to publish the idea of mandatory speed governors for normal cars. It's about as controversial as tax-by-mile (kilometerheffing) which would require a gps logger.

But, in modern cars you can already:
- Set limiting with your cruise control stick.
- Set hard speed limit you can't change while driving (150-ish and above) for safety. ^{(90 freedom miles per hour)}
- Get a warning that you need to rest.
- Get a warning when you're leaving the lane.
- Get a warning when you're almost crashing/approaching an object.
- Have automated brakes for pedestrians.
- Have Navigon beep at you when speeding.
All of the above erode away driving skill and attention span.

Meanwhile the car that crashed showed:
- It's not safer than a normal car. It will still burn, and the fuel can still create a hazardous environment.
- It's not safer than a normal car. You can still lose control.
- It's not safer than a normal car. You can't randomly cut open the chassis.
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/first_responders/2016_Models_S_Emergency_Responders_Guide_en.pdf

[nctnico]

Still the Tesla's body look remarkably intact after such a high speed collission. Maybe that is what attributed to the driver's death because the body of the car didn't crumble enough to absorb the impact.

This car is completely destroyed from crashing into a tree but the driver (litterally) walked away.

[tggzzz]

The last statement doesn't makes sense. If you have data you could for example kick in a limiter on the speed. Especially if you know what the maximum speed is on a certain road.

I wish I lived in a world that simple.

Google for "ethics driverless cars" and you will see that many people and organisations are seriously studying the ethical issues. As yet they know they don't understand them, and obviously there is no consensus.

[tggzzz]

Note that this would assume that the car positioning system is quite accurate and that the documentation for said roads is accurate and up to date.

And the continent is in the right place and doesn't lurch around
http://www.sciencealert.com/australia-s-about-to-move-1-5-metres-to-the-north

[nctnico]

Note that this would assume that the car positioning system is quite accurate and that the documentation for said roads is accurate and up to date.

And the continent is in the right place and doesn't lurch around
http://www.sciencealert.com/australia-s-about-to-move-1-5-metres-to-the-north

It doesn't really matter. For any real work GPS isn't better than +/- 80 meters accurate so using GPS for determining the position on the road is a no go. Navigation systems use GPS for an idea about the position but guestimate the actual position based on the heading and the most likely road fitting the heading.