EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: jitter on September 10, 2016, 01:59:47 pm
-
Heavily featured on the news over here was the crash (https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-driver-dies-burning-model-s-hitting-tree-tesla-investigation/) 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 (https://electrek.co/2016/09/08/tesla-autopilot-not-fatal-crash-netherlands-model-s-was-driving-at-over-96-mph/) 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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Crvghp8XgAQlwiz.jpg:large)
-
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Crvfm_9XYAA__Z4.jpg:large)
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
there are valid reasons for going faster than recommended on the road
Sure, but 75km/h over the limit? There is no valid reason.
-
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 (https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/first_responders/2016_Models_S_Emergency_Responders_Guide_en.pdf)
-
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.
(http://imgb.igcdn.nl/393c55904e5941ada64644f096247090/opener/De_auto_is_zwaar_gehavend_(Foto_Maickel_Keijzers__Hendriks_multimedia_).jpg)
(http://imgb.igcdn.nl/c9505e6075c74691b8fee6a55172f853/opener/De_auto_is_zwaar_gehavend_(Foto_Maickel_Keijzers__Hendriks_multimedia_).jpg)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.sciencealert.com/australia-s-about-to-move-1-5-metres-to-the-north)
-
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 (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.
-
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.
(http://imgb.igcdn.nl/393c55904e5941ada64644f096247090/opener/De_auto_is_zwaar_gehavend_(Foto_Maickel_Keijzers__Hendriks_multimedia_).jpg)
(http://imgb.igcdn.nl/c9505e6075c74691b8fee6a55172f853/opener/De_auto_is_zwaar_gehavend_(Foto_Maickel_Keijzers__Hendriks_multimedia_).jpg)
This is because the high impact has been received by the copilot side(Peugeot) while the driver cabin is intact.
If you see the second picture, you can observe that is the right side car,where is the copilot seat.
It is completly deformed and has invaded the copilot cabin and if would have had a person , he would have died or lost his limbs .
Other evidence , you can find at the first picture where it can see the impact zone. Here , we see that the impact force has opened the zone motor as the pages of a book.
And if you look out on the pilar of windscreen copilot is deformed by out( penetrated copilot cabin) while the pilar of windscreen driver is intact.
-
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 (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.
... real world gps is far more accurate than that.
-
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 (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.
... real world gps is far more accurate than that.
No it is not, I have based my numbers on thousands of kilometers worth of data collected from driving around with a car.
-
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 (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.
... real world gps is far more accurate than that.
No it is not, I have based my numbers on thousands of kilometers worth of data collected from driving around with a car.
Well, I can grab my location pretty damn accurately using the gps on my phone, and have multiple times, as do many other people.
-
Unfortunately that doesn't say anything about being able to always have location data which is very accurate. That is a subtle but crucial difference. GPS can be accurate but it can also be really inaccurate and you can't tell the difference from just the GPS data alone. Also note that your phone may augment the GPS data by guestimating your position using other data. It is likely you are not in a building (no GPS reception there) and when not moving fast you are likely on the sidewalk.
When using a navigation system try and pass an exit on purpose. You'll see it shows your car driving on the exit for quite a distance while you are still driving on the main road.
-
I think the pictures are not clear enough to judge how destroyed the car really is.
Most electric vehicles (like Volvo XC90 T8, which is *cough* very green) place their batteries as much in the center compartment as possible. You could argue that it must have been an almighty crash if the crash "reaches" that structure and demolishes it completely. Or there is of course a fault, which in that case Tesla has some explaining to do.
Either way, I think most people also forget that a car crash at speeds in excess of 130km/h are practically equivalent of being inside a soda can crushed by someone's boots. I am sure these luxury cars like Tesla and Volvo are safer than average, but they are not miracles. Unless we all want to drive in tanks. Which to be honest, the Volvo XC90 T8 in all practical terms is after I've had the opportunity to enjoy a ride in one..
I'm personally against machine limitations of car speeds, acceleration, etc. Aside from maybe an absolute limit like in Japan (which is set a OK 180 or so), I don't feel much for dynamic limits. I mean; there are still valid reasons to be speeding in limited amounts. Sometimes to make a pass on a B road, emergency situations or merging traffic lane (imagine you have a hard limit of 85 on a 80 road, so you can't allow someone to merge behind you).
In the netherlands your license is taken for a few months at 50km/h over or two-three 30km/h+ (these "B-roads") or 40km/h (highway) breaches. 155km/h on 80 road is practically double, and I'm sure an officer would confiscate that car at that moment in time, as well as the judge probably sanctioning a drive ban for a couple of years.
As for GPS: manufacturers like to boast excellent 'couple of meter' accuracy figures, but these are usually CEP50 or 1 sigma (68%) figures. If you know your probability theory, you know there also 2 sigma (95%) and 3 sigma (98 or 99% I believe), with said multifolds in error amplitudes.
Then there is multi-path signal reception.
And of course appalling solution quality because it's just about to tip at only 4 satellites...
You can use GPS pretty accurately in open fields (i.e. to calibrate your speedo needle), but that's way often not the case.
Sounds like fun.. at one moment you're driving on an urban highway. The next moment GPS thinks you drive in a car park. Sounds great if your car thinks the limit is 30 and slows down.
-
A few years ago, I had a hire car with a GPS fitted. It always assumed that I was on the motorway when I drove down the small lane beside it - even if I was driving the "wrong way" to the nearest traffic.
Cars can read road signs, my previous car did and displayed the speed limit. Fortunately it did not act on it.
My current car reads road signs and often makes mistakes. There is a section of temporary restriction on the motorway near me that it reads at 10mph, not 50. It also has a habit of reading signs on the road parallel to the motorway - I don't particularly want the car to slam the brakes on slowing from 70mph to 30 because the car read the sign the other side of the trees
-
Unfortunately that doesn't say anything about being able to always have location data which is very accurate. That is a subtle but crucial difference. GPS can be accurate but it can also be really inaccurate and you can't tell the difference from just the GPS data alone. Also note that your phone may augment the GPS data by guestimating your position using other data. It is likely you are not in a building (no GPS reception there) and when not moving fast you are likely on the sidewalk.
When using a navigation system try and pass an exit on purpose. You'll see it shows your car driving on the exit for quite a distance while you are still driving on the main road.
I think I know what you mean. I used to have a car-gps that had a "keep on road" option that could be turned off. I think nowadays, that function is always on and can't be turned off (why would you).
That would make it possible to fit cheaper GPS receivers that need fewer received satellites and with it less precision, my Mio gets a pretty quick lock on the position.
I also have an outdoor GPS (Garmin GPSmap 62st) that has quite a big and sensitive GPS antenna/aerial. It can be very precise, within the couple of metres that GPS is actually capable since selective availability was turned off. The successor, the GPSmap 64st, can also use Glonass. But precision varies with where you are. Under a canopy, it's not so good. There can also be atmospheric distrubances which may not be visible. I once hiked under a clear blue sky, and even out in the open field the position would wander all over the place (10s of metres). The next time under heavy clouds, it was much better (the usual couple of metres).
However, despite the much better receiving parts, it does take longer to get a fix because it wants to see quite a few satellites before it will tell me the position.
On the topic of ethics and driver override systems:
If I see how aggressively many drivers behave on the road, I'm really starting to doubt that they are mentally suited to be driving what basically is a lethal weapon.
Speed limiting is one thing, but I'm also thinking of systems that recognize aggressive behaviour and systems that won't allow vehicles to approach vehicles ahead too closely.
I'm not talking about a complete take over from the driver but a system that warns the driver and then gently intervenes when he or she should choose to ignore the warnings for too long (yes, leaving room for escaping a dangerous situation).
-
Speed limiting is one thing, but I'm also thinking of systems that recognize aggressive behaviour and systems that won't allow vehicles to approach vehicles ahead too closely.
I don't know as you will design the system but i think that is very difficult determinate if a persons are aggresive or are unconscious,
because there are many people that think the car stops at same distance if runs 30km/h as if goes to 100km/h. They don't enter to head neither blow with a hammer.
The behavior more aggressive(almost suicidal) that i suffered , It was a dual carriageway ,i went by right lane(80km/h) and a car that went by my left he gave sudden swerve to me, he crossed me
totally horizontal at less of 1m of me and he crossed deceleration lane and he went by out at construction. The autoschool teacher stayed :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
[...] that doesn't say anything [...] GPS [...] location data [...] accurate [...]
We are talking about a car with serveral data sources to determine the speed it is traveling and also the location. There is the revolution of the wheels, a compass, the GPS and whatever build into a modern car.
To limit the speed, especially in a city, whould be ok in my optinion. I'm sick of these people driving more than 60 km/h in our 30 km/h limited street, with playing kids outside.
Even for such situations described, to pass a truck, it should be possible to implement some intelligence/fuzzy logic. If such a car can drive on autopilot, it can dectect such a situiation with all these sensors as well.
For other situations implement some intelligence to diffentiate between a situation like "It is a urgent situation" and "the driver is a lunatic idiot".
And if the speed is not hard limited, than the car should output warnings to the driver and the car horn should honk all the time continuously the driver is speeding for more than 2 minutes.
If some idiots want to speed, especially insite the city district, all should know! :-DD
:popcorn:
-
And for all these automated safety controls that add to the cost of driving, and absolve motorists of personal responsibility... we still sell little phones and plastic earbuds to pedestrians and cyclists - so they can stumble around like deaf and blind zombies.
Re-evaluate your lives people!
-
To limit the speed, especially in a city, whould be ok in my optinion. I'm sick of these people driving more than 60 km/h in our 30 km/h limited street, with playing kids outside.
Yes, but how many dickheads who drive like that would buy a car fitted with a speed limiter? And I don't think even the EU would be daft enough to mandate that every car be retrofitted with such a device...
-
How grown up of you JPortici. Yes, the roads across our planet have been laid down so that you, in you 300hp vehicle, can unleash and blast down it! Wow sir, do you read what you write before pressing the post button?
Public roads are there for public use. If you want a 300bhp vehicle, go for it. I applaud you. But - why not take it to track for a track day if you want to speed? You don't have the right to speed, how ever many bhp you buy.
As for this driver, they knew what they were doing. Their death has almost nothing to do with the type of vehicle and everything to do with their decision on how to drive at that point. It is unfortunate that due to poor driving like this, pressure will increase to automate driving to the point where our grandchildren will likely not be able to enjoy the 'real' sense of freedom that driving gives. This will also likely ensure that people like the driver mentioned in this article will just have to find other ways 'feel the rush' hopefully not endangering other members of society whilst doing it.
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.
-
The behavior more aggressive(almost suicidal) that i suffered , It was a dual carriageway ,i went by right lane(80km/h) and a car that went by my left he gave sudden swerve to me, he crossed me
totally horizontal at less of 1m of me and he crossed deceleration lane and he went by out at construction. The autoschool teacher stayed :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
The art of driving is to always watch out for idiots who can't drive (and speed really isn't a factor) or unexpected events.
-
All vehicles should have a speed limit to the maximum allowed for the specific part of the road. The technology is there.
Alexander.
-
All vehicles should have a speed limit to the maximum allowed for the specific part of the road. The technology is there.
If my wife is in labour at 3AM in the car, I'm going to want to go at more than 20mph/32km/h to get to the hospital. Wouldn't you?
-
I'm not so sure it's just the speed but more so the torque that is so much different in electrics that drivers don't have the experience. I've been in electrics and the difference is incredible; sudden turning with that much torque and the vehicle acts so much differently to petrols.
I sense that eventually there may be another class added to UK driving licences for electrics, certainly sports cars, like we have for automatic/manual.
For those outside the UK, if you take your licence in an automatic you can't drive a manual, and I would think one should be made for electric over a certain torque.
-
I can opt for a system that basically blocks throttle if you try to close the gap to someone's bumper too much. Something like adaptive cruise control does automatically. An old colleague of mine could use this system - his highway driving style was to close each gap between cars on the left lane as much as possible. This was quite uncomfortable to observe at first, although I guess you can get used to everything.
Unfortunately you see this kind of aggressive driving quite often. But I'm afraid cutting throttle doesn't always cut it. A driver can also sway to the left lane right near someone's bumper. This is not at all unusual in Amsterdam/Rotterdam/urban highways, or like the A1 which is a highway from Amsterdam to germany, filled with convoys of trucks (like half a dozen together), with mix of slow/fast traffic that in rush hour is a PITA.
I have been taught this "2 second follow distance" rule thing (actually 3 for trucks and bad weather), but I see very little people sticking to it. Because if you do people usually jump the gap you leave which means you have to lift or brake again, which is annoying. People usually follow the car in front at like ~ 1 second, so that doesn't happen.
Well doesn't happen... there are still the people that squeeze their car/van from the right lane into these gaps. Which is probably not the situation where I would want to see an "highway emergency braking" system overreacting, because I would like to emphasize "squeeze" (i.e. there is a whole train of cars on the left lane following closely).
I think these systems are quite hard to tune, especially if other motorists need to deal with it. The systems can react faster than humans, which means humans cannot always react to these systems.
Also, admitted I am now putting a tin foil hat on, I am sure insurance companies would love to get their hands on numeric facts about "aggressive driving" of their customers. Oh, so your car registered 5 anomalies this week? Insurance rate x2 for you!.
And who knows what it could be.. maybe even hard accelerating. Which in city traffic make sense, but on the entry lane of a free highway.. not so much.
-
The behavior more aggressive(almost suicidal) that i suffered , It was a dual carriageway ,i went by right lane(80km/h) and a car that went by my left he gave sudden swerve to me, he crossed me
totally horizontal at less of 1m of me and he crossed deceleration lane and he went by out at construction. The autoschool teacher stayed :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
The art of driving is to always watch out for idiots who can't drive (and speed really isn't a factor) or unexpected events.
Exactly.
As a cyclist it is necessary to realise that everybody else is out to kill you, and therefore to anticipate how to stay out of their way.
The two times I have been in an accident, it has been in a traffic queue. I stopped, but the person behind didn't. Clearly speed was not an issue.
-
I'm not so sure it's just the speed but more so the torque that is so much different in electrics that drivers don't have the experience. I've been in electrics and the difference is incredible; sudden turning with that much torque and the vehicle acts so much differently to petrols.
A good point.
I can't ever remember *any* driving instructional material that mentions vehicle balance or centre of gravity... both fundamental to simple car control.
-
All vehicles should have a speed limit to the maximum allowed for the specific part of the road. The technology is there.
Alexander.
Would you care to consider what will happen when all drivers must do the same speed?
1) They will switch off even more. Just put foot on floor, leave it there, after ll car will sort the speed out
2) They will have no way of changing their road position without dangerous acts such as tailgating / late braking etc
3) They will be driving with massive frustration, where they feel the car is limiting their decisions.
imo, either we give Drivers MORE responsibility (and put in place suitably serious penalties for failure to drive in an appropriate manner (not just speeding, but penalising aggressive and careless behavior too!) or we take it away completely, ie full autonomy!
-
All vehicles should have a speed limit to the maximum allowed for the specific part of the road. The technology is there.
Alexander.
Would you care to consider what will happen when all drivers must do the same speed?
That sucks and results in total chaos. Over here there are stretches of road where the government checks your average speed and you get a fine for speeding. Because everybody is travelling at the same speed it is hard to get to an exit because many people are idiots which just drive behind the car in front of them blocking the first lanes of a road completely.
-
If my wife is in labour at 3AM in the car, I'm going to want to go at more than 20mph/32km/h to get to the hospital. Wouldn't you?
There is no need to keep the limit so low. All those cases can be solved. The vehicle computer could be informed for the time, the location, the traffic etc, and set the limit accordingly.
-
If my wife is in labour at 3AM in the car, I'm going to want to go at more than 20mph/32km/h to get to the hospital. Wouldn't you?
It depends. Who is the father?
-
Would you care to consider what will happen when all drivers must do the same speed?
1) They will switch off even more. Just put foot on floor, leave it there, after ll car will sort the speed out
2) They will have no way of changing their road position without dangerous acts such as tailgating / late braking etc
3) They will be driving with massive frustration, where they feel the car is limiting their decisions.
In a highway yes. But in a highway the limit will still be high enough.
But speeding with 155 km/h in a road with 80 km/h as a limit? Why?
-
Would you care to consider what will happen when all drivers must do the same speed?
1) They will switch off even more. Just put foot on floor, leave it there, after ll car will sort the speed out
2) They will have no way of changing their road position without dangerous acts such as tailgating / late braking etc
3) They will be driving with massive frustration, where they feel the car is limiting their decisions.
In a highway yes. But in a highway the limit will still be high enough.
But speeding with 155 km/h in a road with 80 km/h as a limit? Why?
Being able to accelerate and reach such a speed can be safer.
-
If my wife is in labour at 3AM in the car, I'm going to want to go at more than 20mph/32km/h to get to the hospital. Wouldn't you?
There is no need to keep the limit so low. All those cases can be solved. The vehicle computer could be informed for the time, the location, the traffic etc, and set the limit accordingly.
The speed limit across a wide part of my nearest city is 20mph at all times.
So, which do you want? You have made two diametrically opposed statements in two messages. Make up you mind!
-
Please stop forcing all the "blame" to the drivers, it is misleading and does not help to fully comprehend risk of driving. Road safety is dependant on many factors, which can be broadly described as roads, cars and drivers. Driver is not always 100% responsible for accident due to many reasons. For example, there some ways roads/cars/drivers create a dangerous situation be default:
- roads
- bumpy/slippery/steep/narrow roads create a danger
- big trees/road signs/billboard can block view of road/oncoming traffic/traffic lights
- sometimes situation demands extreme braking but road surface is too slippery. Even with perfect driver accident can be inevitable.
- steep hills/descends, roads in forest, etc. leave "blind zones" on the road. You drive at legal speed limit with assumption that road is empty while it could be not empty. Maybe some car broke down in the middle of corner. Anything can be right after the top of the hill and you do not know what (but mentally expect to drive through empty road).
- city driving with right angle bends, fences, etc. are full of blind spots with potential child/bicycle/other vehicle to come out.
- strong wind gust may cause a problem
- cars
- failures can happen (tyre burst, brake failure, etc.)
- cars have massive "blind spots" - all of them! Some cars are half decent at this, but still - this is by design. Most cars leave driver half blind in steeper corners because of front pillars and rear view mirror. Trucks are horrific in this aspect - other cars/pedestrians can hide in front, sides or back, with no visual indication! Military/armoured vehicles and tanks are the worst - they are 99% blind to surroundings. Do not walk around moving tanks/trucks or reversing cars!
- cars behave very unpredictably in extreme situations. Drive over a bump at higher speed and you lose control.
- drivers
- Humans have poor reaction time, especially in case of unexpected situations. Because of this, human can perceive a new information only with some lag. This makes humans essentially "blind" to a current situation. In other words, drivers base their driving on expected/predicted situation. Expectations != reality. For example, nobody expects a stationary car in the leftmost lane
- other traffic make a blind spots to driver as well. When driver is behind the truck, he/she is blind to events in front because view is blocked by truck/big car. Anything can be in front - truck may suddenly jerk to left/right and you will drive into somebody.
- There is a big difference in danger when there is one driver on the road vs many drivers. More cars -> more danger -> more crashes
- mistakes happen - drivers fail to judge distance/speed for overtaking or take too much risk with aggressive driving.
- sleep deprivation
- not looking to the road (because of smartphone/radio/etc.). Reaction time goes through the roof, driver is blind for the whole time of inattention!
- combination of factors, other dangers, etc.
In short, drive very cautiously (3 second rule, lower speed, brake in advance) and make conservative assumptions (assume there maybe is a stationary car in blind corner). This will give more time to react. In EE terms, driving conditions have too much "bandwidth" for a driver to handle - only application of "low pass filter" can help.
In particular case with Tesla crash, it seems that the accident happened on road which is very narrow with trees standing right beside it. One small mistake or accidental turn of a steering wheel to wrong direction (for whatever reason) constitutes a massive or even fatal crash. Such road is very dangerous because of this. Problem is that there is almost no margin for error - either one drives without an accident or crashes in a horrific way. There seems to be very little opportunity for a moderate or small crash. It is like walking on a narrow bridge over steep valley - either you go over it or you die.
I am not a fan of such road to say the least.
Thus, it seems that combination of road design (too narrow with big trees close to road) and driver decision to drive fast lead to a fatal crash (with slight possibility that car handled unexpectedly at those speeds and become uncontrollable). Crash aftermath is a different matter - car was too severely mangled for fire-fighters to provide quick service.
-
I can't possibly imagine any political movement daring to publish the idea of mandatory speed governors for normal cars.
But speed restrictors were easily included with the standards and laws for motorised bicycles because they were killing so many innocent people? The car lobby and public support for private motoring is wildly strong.
there may be situations when you need to exceed the speed limit for safety purposes, like avoiding a collision.
And you've got some research to show that the incidences of speeding in the interests of "safety" save more lives than restricting vehicles? Its not clear either way but the cases for speeding in the interests of safety are very narrow, while slowing down vehicles is well known to reduce their incidences of accidents and reduce negative outcomes when they do occur.
Many "performance cars" have a limit somewhere around 160-200km/h for safety of the cars components (tires need to be suitably rated).
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.
Different countries have different tolerance for exceeding the speed limit, I know someone who tried that excuse in Australia and the cops laughed at them and cancelled their license even though they had run out of "safe" options as they realised there was a second truck in convoy and a car was approaching from the other direction. The police decision was that if they got into an unsafe passing that required them to exceed the speed limit, they didn't have enough information to safely start the pass in the first place and should not have been overtaking.
And for all these automated safety controls that add to the cost of driving, and absolve motorists of personal responsibility... we still sell little phones and plastic earbuds to pedestrians and cyclists - so they can stumble around like deaf and blind zombies.
Re-evaluate your lives people!
Except there have been quality studies and they found that car drivers have less auditory awareness than pedestrians or cyclists who are using ear buds, as with helmet laws they would be more effectively targeted at car drivers than those outside the cars.
https://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/an-ear-on-the-traffic/
Unfortunately that doesn't say anything about being able to always have location data which is very accurate. That is a subtle but crucial difference. GPS can be accurate but it can also be really inaccurate and you can't tell the difference from just the GPS data alone. Also note that your phone may augment the GPS data by guestimating your position using other data. It is likely you are not in a building (no GPS reception there) and when not moving fast you are likely on the sidewalk.
When using a navigation system try and pass an exit on purpose. You'll see it shows your car driving on the exit for quite a distance while you are still driving on the main road.
I've worked with "GPS" systems and the people making vehicle navigation systems jokingly call them "map correlators" rather than GPSs since so much of the fix is based on other information, vehicles with dead reckoning integrated are much better of course. There aren't good ways to implement dynamic speed limiters that know the local limit.
Please stop forcing all the "blame" to the drivers, it is misleading and does not help to fully comprehend risk of driving. Road safety is dependant on many factors, which can be broadly described as roads, cars and drivers. Driver is not always 100% responsible for accident due to many reasons. For example, there some ways roads/cars/drivers create a dangerous situation be default:- roads
- bumpy/slippery/steep/narrow roads create a danger
- big trees/road signs/billboard can block view of road/oncoming traffic/traffic lights
- sometimes situation demands extreme braking but road surface is too slippery. Even with perfect driver accident can be inevitable.
- steep hills/descends, roads in forest, etc. leave "blind zones" on the road. You drive at legal speed limit with assumption that road is empty while it could be not empty. Maybe some car broke down in the middle of corner. Anything can be right after the top of the hill and you do not know what (but mentally expect to drive through empty road).
- city driving with right angle bends, fences, etc. are full of blind spots with potential child/bicycle/other vehicle to come out.
- strong wind gust may cause a problem
- cars
- failures can happen (tyre burst, brake failure, etc.)
- cars have massive "blind spots" - all of them! Some cars are half decent at this, but still - this is by design. Most cars leave driver half blind in steeper corners because of front pillars and rear view mirror. Trucks are horrific in this aspect - other cars/pedestrians can hide in front, sides or back, with no visual indication! Military/armoured vehicles and tanks are the worst - they are 99% blind to surroundings. Do not walk around moving tanks/trucks or reversing cars!
- cars behave very unpredictably in extreme situations. Drive over a bump at higher speed and you lose control.
- drivers
- Humans have poor reaction time, especially in case of unexpected situations. Because of this, human can perceive a new information only with some lag. This makes humans essentially "blind" to a current situation. In other words, drivers base their driving on expected/predicted situation. Expectations != reality. For example, nobody expects a stationary car in the leftmost lane
- other traffic make a blind spots to driver as well. When driver is behind the truck, he/she is blind to events in front because view is blocked by truck/big car. Anything can be in front - truck may suddenly jerk to left/right and you will drive into somebody.
- There is a big difference in danger when there is one driver on the road vs many drivers. More cars -> more danger -> more crashes
- mistakes happen - drivers fail to judge distance/speed for overtaking or take too much risk with aggressive driving.
- sleep deprivation
- not looking to the road (because of smartphone/radio/etc.). Reaction time goes through the roof, driver is blind for the whole time of inattention!
- combination of factors, other dangers, etc.
In short, drive very cautiously (3 second rule, lower speed, brake in advance) and make conservative assumptions (assume there maybe is a stationary car in blind corner). This will give more time to react. In EE terms, driving conditions have too much "bandwidth" for a driver to handle - only application of "low pass filter" can help.
Alomst universally around the world its the drivers responsibility to drive at a safe speed/distance/direction, if there are factors impacting the ability to drive quickly the simple solution is to slow down. Possibly the only example you note which isn't foreseeable is a major mechanical failure of the vehicle. Its entirely the fault of the driver, I can drive a 60 year old vehicle that doesn't have power assisted brakes or steering and would need to adjust safety margins to suit, the driver is given the control but won't accept the responsibility.
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.
Unfortunately? The entire environment should be changed so cars can drive faster on this stretch of road? Its somewhere in the middle of the intersections of the A27, A1 and A28 all roads with high speed design including barriers and run off space, so the driver already has the fast roads provided but chooses to drive fast in an inappropriate area. The roads are well connected in the area and it would be interesting to see the route the driver was taking.
If trees are close to the road its a strong indication that the driver needs to drive slowly and carefully, the Dutch are pioneers in road safety and still don't go down the path the British/US/Australians are of putting "crash" barriers everywhere to keep stupid drivers from coming off the roads.
-
Please stop forcing all the "blame" to the drivers, it is misleading and does not help to fully comprehend risk of driving. Road safety is dependant on many factors, which can be broadly described as roads, cars and drivers. Driver is not always 100% responsible for accident due to many reasons. For example, there some ways roads/cars/drivers create a dangerous situation be default:- roads
- bumpy/slippery/steep/narrow roads create a danger
- big trees/road signs/billboard can block view of road/oncoming traffic/traffic lights
- sometimes situation demands extreme braking but road surface is too slippery. Even with perfect driver accident can be inevitable.
- steep hills/descends, roads in forest, etc. leave "blind zones" on the road. You drive at legal speed limit with assumption that road is empty while it could be not empty. Maybe some car broke down in the middle of corner. Anything can be right after the top of the hill and you do not know what (but mentally expect to drive through empty road).
- city driving with right angle bends, fences, etc. are full of blind spots with potential child/bicycle/other vehicle to come out.
- strong wind gust may cause a problem
- cars
- failures can happen (tyre burst, brake failure, etc.)
- cars have massive "blind spots" - all of them! Some cars are half decent at this, but still - this is by design. Most cars leave driver half blind in steeper corners because of front pillars and rear view mirror. Trucks are horrific in this aspect - other cars/pedestrians can hide in front, sides or back, with no visual indication! Military/armoured vehicles and tanks are the worst - they are 99% blind to surroundings. Do not walk around moving tanks/trucks or reversing cars!
- cars behave very unpredictably in extreme situations. Drive over a bump at higher speed and you lose control.
- drivers
- Humans have poor reaction time, especially in case of unexpected situations. Because of this, human can perceive a new information only with some lag. This makes humans essentially "blind" to a current situation. In other words, drivers base their driving on expected/predicted situation. Expectations != reality. For example, nobody expects a stationary car in the leftmost lane
- other traffic make a blind spots to driver as well. When driver is behind the truck, he/she is blind to events in front because view is blocked by truck/big car. Anything can be in front - truck may suddenly jerk to left/right and you will drive into somebody.
- There is a big difference in danger when there is one driver on the road vs many drivers. More cars -> more danger -> more crashes
- mistakes happen - drivers fail to judge distance/speed for overtaking or take too much risk with aggressive driving.
- sleep deprivation
- not looking to the road (because of smartphone/radio/etc.). Reaction time goes through the roof, driver is blind for the whole time of inattention!
- combination of factors, other dangers, etc.
In short, drive very cautiously (3 second rule, lower speed, brake in advance) and make conservative assumptions (assume there maybe is a stationary car in blind corner). This will give more time to react. In EE terms, driving conditions have too much "bandwidth" for a driver to handle - only application of "low pass filter" can help.
Alomst universally around the world its the drivers responsibility to drive at a safe speed/distance/direction, if there are factors impacting the ability to drive quickly the simple solution is to slow down. Possibly the only example you note which isn't foreseeable is a major mechanical failure of the vehicle. Its entirely the fault of the driver, I can drive a 60 year old vehicle that doesn't have power assisted brakes or steering and would need to adjust safety margins to suit, the driver is given the control but won't accept the responsibility.
I have to agree. "Drive to the conditions".
Trees don't cause accidents. Wet roads don't cause accidents**. Vehicles rarely cause accidents (and, even then, are most likely the result of improper maintenance.)
What causes accidents by far and away the greatest margin are road users that don't behave appropriately.
** The fact that accidents increase on wet roads illustrates the very argument about drivers being 'disconnected' from their environment. All too many rely on the grip of their tyres, active suspension and ABS - but forget about the fundamental physics.
-
All vehicles should have a speed limit to the maximum allowed for the specific part of the road. The technology is there.
If my wife is in labour at 3AM in the car, I'm going to want to go at more than 20mph/32km/h to get to the hospital. Wouldn't you?
Yes, I probably would. But I would also try to keep in mind that a couple of years ago just this situation, a man rushing his pregnant wife to hospital, got someone killed. Is one life worth another?
How about that for ethics?
There's a reason why ambulance drivers slow down on intersections, despite their blazing blue lights and blaring sirens...
I'm not so sure it's just the speed but more so the torque that is so much different in electrics that drivers don't have the experience. I've been in electrics and the difference is incredible; sudden turning with that much torque and the vehicle acts so much differently to petrols.
I sense that eventually there may be another class added to UK driving licences for electrics, certainly sports cars, like we have for automatic/manual.
For those outside the UK, if you take your licence in an automatic you can't drive a manual, and I would think one should be made for electric over a certain torque.
Here's a good point, but I guess the Tesla already poses a limit on how much torque it will put on the road by default otherwise they'd all be doing unintended burn-outs all of the time when the light turns green... ;)
Yes, in that respect the internal combustion engine really is quite poor, but I wonder how much different low speed torque is between a Tesla and, say, a Dodge Viper...
-
- Humans have poor reaction time, especially in case of unexpected situations. Because of this, human can perceive a new information only with some lag. This makes humans essentially "blind" to a current situation. In other words, drivers base their driving on expected/predicted situation. Expectations != reality. For example, nobody expects a stationary car in the leftmost lane
- other traffic make a blind spots to driver as well. When driver is behind the truck, he/she is blind to events in front because view is blocked by truck/big car. Anything can be in front - truck may suddenly jerk to left/right and you will drive into somebody.
- There is a big difference in danger when there is one driver on the road vs many drivers. More cars -> more danger -> more crashes
- mistakes happen - drivers fail to judge distance/speed for overtaking or take too much risk with aggressive driving.
- sleep deprivation
- not looking to the road (because of smartphone/radio/etc.). Reaction time goes through the roof, driver is blind for the whole time of inattention!
In short, drive very cautiously (3 second rule, lower speed, brake in advance) and make conservative assumptions (assume there maybe is a stationary car in blind corner). This will give more time to react. In EE terms, driving conditions have too much "bandwidth" for a driver to handle - only application of "low pass filter" can help.
In particular case with Tesla crash, it seems that the accident happened on road which is very narrow with trees standing right beside it. One small mistake or accidental turn of a steering wheel to wrong direction (for whatever reason) constitutes a massive or even fatal crash. Such road is very dangerous because of this. Problem is that there is almost no margin for error - either one drives without an accident or crashes in a horrific way. There seems to be very little opportunity for a moderate or small crash. It is like walking on a narrow bridge over steep valley - either you go over it or you die.
I am not a fan of such road to say the least.
Thus, it seems that combination of road design (too narrow with big trees close to road) and driver decision to drive fast lead to a fatal crash (with slight possibility that car handled unexpectedly at those speeds and become uncontrollable). Crash aftermath is a different matter - car was too severely mangled for fire-fighters to provide quick service.
I agree with you that almost all humans are really not equipped with what's needed to safely travel at the speeds we do, perhaps those that can fly fighter planes and F1 cars...
To your list should be added that humans also have a poor ability to judge situations. Our brains basically constantly fills in blanks with expectations based on previous experiences, which may not be the case in the actual situations.
Also, a human's state of mind highly influences his/her driving style, and this is where I think most of the problems really lie. And this gets really obvious in an overcrowded country like mine. The roads are congested, but most people still want to fly over it at 130 km/h as if it's their right. When someone then pulls into the left lane (we have a "keep right unless to pass" system) accellerating from a somewhat slower speed to pass a lorry, it's sadly a common occurrence that someone else in the left lane wants you out of the way in a hurry and then starts to tailgate in an aggressive manner (which can lead to very hefty fines over here).
This is why pile-ups are becoming common.
On country roads over-confidence in one's abilities leads to accidents like with this Tesla.
-
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.
... real world gps is far more accurate than that.
No it is not, I have based my numbers on thousands of kilometers worth of data collected from driving around with a car.
Your data will be contaminated by readings obtained just after position lock or when lock was marginal (<5 sats).
A GPS signal locked with 9+ sats is an order of magnitude more accurate that +/- 80meters.
When the gps module first gets enough sats to lock and starts providing coordinates the accuracy is pretty terrible but as more sats are found the accuracy improves drastically.
You can fix this by manually configuring the GPS modules to not produce data unless 7 sats have been found for example.
However this really extends the initial time to lock at power on, which is what most people look for in a GPS. So most gps modules have the setting default to 3 or 4 for a fast lock.
-
I will never forget this bit in Top Gear's India special:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ8SxeL2CmA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ8SxeL2CmA)
Basically, it shows that road safety is almost completely a human factor. And in India the death toll apparently is a staggering 196,000 a year... :scared:
-
Just like driving in South Africa, just with extra cows, and drunk pedestrians thrown into the mix to boot.
Now, as to driving like an idiot, on a narrow twisting road, in poor weather, I would squarely blame the nut behind the wheel. Death by misadventure is the likely outcome here. The driver is responsible for his car moving when behind the wheel.
-
Final stages of investigation and clean up of the wreck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgmyE5qA2yY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgmyE5qA2yY)
In some of the shots a thick orange cable is visible, It's part of the HV system.
Given how many pieces the car is in, there is no doubt the driver was killed on impact.
From the look of the wreckage, it's clear the front of the car has been completed demolished. At a guess the front left corner of the battery pack was also torn off.
-
Less than 5% of car incidents have a mechanical or technical failure. There is a reason there are TV spots telling you not to:
- Drink and drive.
- Drive fatigued.
- Drive and text.
Please take a look on ochevidets.ru (http://www.ochevidets.ru/) to view how many dashcam crashes involve a breakdown of the car before the crash.
Also, if your car needs two recovery vehicles, one for "the car" and one for loose parts you should significantly reconsider your driving style if you're still able to.
-
Final stages of investigation and clean up of the wreck.
Given how many pieces the car is in, there is no doubt the driver was killed on impact.
From the look of the wreckage, it's clear the front of the car has been completed demolished. At a guess the front left corner of the battery pack was also torn off.
Look at the soot on the tree, it's over the scars the car made. Something (the battery?) blew on impact... Or was this caused by a HV flash?
The car was in many parts, but that has me wondering what the body looked like and what the firefighters were forced to view. Might have been traumatic...
-
Good thing the tree survived, here there are a lot of older roads as well, where the road widening took place decades ago, and the existing tree line is now in the road, and the trees were never removed as they have historical value. thus there are plenty of places where the tree has a set of chevrons on it, reflective tape bands wrapped around it, a road narrows sign before the kilometer or three of tree, and the first tree has the war wounds of a multitude of inattentive drivers.
But you have those special snowflakes who will miss the first tree and hit the third one along..........
Across the road from me, in the park, there used to be, 2 decades ago, a public toilet, built in the one corner. After it had been demolished ( very hard to figure out what speed he was doing to demolish 4 English Bond walls, a concrete cast roof slab, 4 concrete bollards, and the whole interior, in going through the one time) 4 times in one year, and been rebuilt, only to be demolished a week later again in one case, the Municipality decided to simply remove it, and not build again. Now the trees 30m in the park are the ones to bear the scars of drunken idiots who do not take the slight turn in the road.
11 year old girl was killed down the road last week, crossing at the pedestrian crossing, on her way home from school.
As to the firefighters trauma, they always have some counsellors on standby 24 hours just for this type of accident. It does help a little to talk about it to a sympathetic ear within a very short time after the trauma, and to have help with the PTSD it entails.
-
- steep hills/descends, roads in forest, etc. leave "blind zones" on the road. You drive at legal speed limit with assumption that road is empty while it could be not empty. Maybe some car broke down in the middle of corner. Anything can be right after the top of the hill and you do not know what (but mentally expect to drive through empty road).
- city driving with right angle bends, fences, etc. are full of blind spots with potential child/bicycle/other vehicle to come out.
- Humans have poor reaction time, especially in case of unexpected situations. Because of this, human can perceive a new information only with some lag. This makes humans essentially "blind" to a current situation. In other words, drivers base their driving on expected/predicted situation. Expectations != reality. For example, nobody expects a stationary car in the leftmost lane
I came up with a system to avoid these problems (you forgot to list fog): I adjust the speed so I can stop on the bit of road ahead I can see is clear. If I can't see what is ahead I just assume there is an obstacle requiring a full stop.
-
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.
Unfortunately? The entire environment should be changed so cars can drive faster on this stretch of road? Its somewhere in the middle of the intersections of the A27, A1 and A28 all roads with high speed design including barriers and run off space, so the driver already has the fast roads provided but chooses to drive fast in an inappropriate area. The roads are well connected in the area and it would be interesting to see the route the driver was taking.
Those highways are usually congested and in many cases they don't offer the best way from A to B. I'm using country roads a lot because they are shorter, equally quick and offer a much better view but I also respect the danger.
Looking at the city where the driver was from (Hilversum) and where he crashed (a road directly from/to Hilversum): I think he was going in a direction where it didn't make sense to use the highways.
-
Final stages of investigation and clean up of the wreck.
Given how many pieces the car is in, there is no doubt the driver was killed on impact.
From the look of the wreckage, it's clear the front of the car has been completed demolished. At a guess the front left corner of the battery pack was also torn off.
Look at the soot on the tree, it's over the scars the car made. Something (the battery?) blew on impact... Or was this caused by a HV flash?
The car was in many parts, but that has me wondering what the body looked like and what the firefighters were forced to view. Might have been traumatic...
Sorry ,but i beleave that a firefighter wouldn't traumatize for seeing a mutilated corpse since it is a normally part of his job(unpleasant). And if he can't to overcames i think that he must give up this job for avoiding to aggravate his mental healthy.
This would be as a neuro-surgeon traumatize for seeing to pacient with cranial burst
-
Sorry ,but i beleave that a firefighter wouldn't traumatize for seeing a mutilated corpse since it is a normally part of his job(unpleasant). And if he can't to overcames i think that he must give up this job for avoiding to aggravate his mental healthy.
*Crap*
I have a relative who was a Paramedic for 30 years, he attended all sorts of incidents deaths, suicides, people cremated in cars.
One day he had a relatively simple but traumatic incident. The next day he couldn't walk through the door of the station. It's not that they don't get traumatised, they just lock it away, sometimes the archive overflows!
-
I think that is nonsense. Police officers and such also get/need post traumatic/stress help for example when they had to shoot someone for real. Is it part of their job? Yes. Are they trained for it? Yes. But is it a fun sight? No. You choose the emergency services to help people and serve the public, but in the end they are still human beings with feelings and emotions. I am sure it will grow on them over time, and you probably also should have a thick skin to begin with, but I don't think they have to be immune for it.
Seeing the picture of that tree, it must have been an almighty shunt. But as I said earlier, something with a soda can and a big boot given highway speed limits and (much) above plus a direct impact with a wall/tree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o)
Those highways are usually congested and in many cases they don't offer the best way from A to B. I'm using country roads a lot because they are shorter, equally quick and offer a much better view but I also respect the danger.
Looking at the city where the driver was from (Hilversum) and where he crashed (a road directly from/to Hilversum): I think he was going in a direction where it didn't make sense to use the highways.
Maybe he was routed around some traffic jam near Baarn on the A1. There have been some jams in the last week. I don't know anyone who would drive so fast on B roads not even to speak unknown roads, so I think he must have been familiar and "in a hurry" (or just 'enjoying' his car).
I guess we will never know.
However, I personally never pick B roads if there is an A road just as fast. I rather drive the extra few km's in favour of the wider and usually safer roads, etc. In my region of the country B roads have lots of agriculture traffic and/or school cyclists so this could make more sense than e.g. just B roads used by cars.
-
Trees are unforgiving, hit a tree and the outcome is not going to be good. Lost my younger brother in a car crash about 35 years ago, when seat belts were not mandatory, driving on a narrow country road at night and some idiot comming the other way had parked up in the middle of the road with his lights off, saw my brother coming and turned his lights on, my brother swerved to avoid him hit a tree and went through the windscreen. He was probaby only doing 30 to 40mph, but at least his two passengers survived.
As for trauma, firefighters have the worst job of all out of the three emergency services, they are the ones who end up cutting bodies out of cars, buses, coaches and sometimes trains. They've got to deal with putting out fires, cleaning up chemical spills, the occasional nuclear reator, Chernobyl, and probably a whole lot of other things.
-
Chris, very sad to hear about your brother. Yes, trees are very unforgiving in a crash.
With regard to the emergency services, I agree, the Fire service are often first on scene and they're the ones who get the 'nasty' jobs involving the cutting, shovels and bags! (edit: the paramedics are usually the ones squeezing into confined spaces to assess and stabilize the patient though). The one thing they have in their favour is that they are in crews, they have a 'gallows humour' between them, they can talk about jobs together, they can support each other, they go through things together. The big problem these days is that they put Paramedics out single-manned on response cars, they are on their own after jobs no matter how traumatic, they are stuck alone with critical patients (and their families) while waiting for ambulance transport to turn up. Gone are the days of crews and crew room banter. Even more surprising, the service are only very recently acknowledging that PTSD actually exists let alone providing appropriate support!