Lately it seems a software update to Tesla cars has them abruptly “veering” into other cars and off the road into trees.
A half-dozen crashes recently have all the same hallmark of a serious AI/robot integrity breach, with most of them being fatal.
Here’s one that just killed a mother and daughter.
A Los Gatos mother and daughter died Wednesday when the Tesla in which they were riding crashed into a tree on the side of San Tomas Expressway in Santa Clara.
The woman, 44, and her 12-year-old daughter were traveling north in a white 2021 Tesla Model Y, approaching Forbes Avenue, when the car left the road and struck the tree about 2 p.m.
Technically it looks like the car “veered” abruptly just north of Forbes Avenue.
What kind of mother lets their daughter ride in a Tesla? Seriously. Did she not read the news?
To break this deadly fraud cycle, Tesla survivors need to speak ill of the dead. They need to say things such as, “I will never turn into my mother,” or “She was a terrible mother. I will never harm my children with a Tesla like she did.” Such verbalizations can help people foster awareness and accountability to help themselves avoid Tesla or break out of cycles of “Autopilot” trauma from deadly fraud.
You should never say anything bad about the dead, only good. A Tesla owner is dead. Good.
To understand our lives (to show consideration for the living), we have to know the truth. And this applies doubly for the next generation. If you protect your children from the knowledge that their mother owned a Tesla, how can they make educated decisions about their own vulnerability to fraud?
There are sweeping family patterns such as abuse, addiction, criminality, and mental illness that impact multiple generations and which can worsen if kept in secret. It’s most certainly time to overcome embarrassment, shame or fears of impropriety and address these head on through honest recall of people who’ve died from Tesla.
This is eye-opening. I had no idea about so much tragic death being caused by Tesla until someone forwarded me your blog. Why isn’t this being reported more so people stop driving Tesla right now? It’s like the press doesn’t care at all about these victims.
You bring much-needed attention here to the issue of misleading a 44-year-old woman regarding her vehicle’s capabilities and putting herself and her family in danger. Accountability is crucial in so many sudden “veered” cases as you point out, but was she really entirely to blame?
Tesla, as the car manufacturer, should be held responsible for any misleading information or misrepresentation of the car’s capabilities that may have contributed to the incident. Clear and accurate communication about the limitations and functionalities of the car’s features is vital to prevent accidents or misunderstandings. Empowering individuals, like this woman who was still driving a Tesla, with accurate knowledge about a vehicle’s limitations promotes responsible usage and enhances safety of everyone around them including their own family. By mandating accurate information dissemination and removing Tesla from the roads, we will target the real problem and should far more easily prevent such unfortunate incidents.
Tesla lies, another family dies.
Companies recklessly endangering the physical well-being of the public may be held criminally responsible for their conduct. When a pattern of fatal design flaws emerges, as seen in both GM and Ford’s infamous past and potentially with Tesla, it raises concerns regarding criminal liability. If investigations reveal that Tesla’s design flaws contributed to the loss of life, it should be carefully evaluated in the context of applicable laws and regulations. Holding companies accountable for potential criminal responsibility is essential in ensuring public safety and preventing further harm.
This is a good time to remember an American jury awarded $4.2 million in actual damages and $101 million in punitive damages to seventeen-year-old Shannon Moseley’s parents (a verdict eventually overturned by ex-government attorneys working for GM, ending with a settlement reached out of court).
If you look at some of the pictures of the accident, the whole rear end is torn upwards. That looks like some big impact. The car must have been going pretty fast to have hit the tree that hard to mangle the rear end. Wonder what the investigation will show in the tesla black box. The max speed on that road is 45 mph. I can’t think of a reason why this would happen and I think they had autopilot on. The one thought is that maybe the trees cast a shadow on the street and caused phantom braking. I’ve had that happen before. Maybe sudden acceleration ? I guess witnesses say they hit a tree. So weird.
I agree with Mel L autopilot was on
It is still too early to make any conclusions about BEV and spontaneity of fire. I just don’t think we have the sample size of data or the reporting structure for fires to say with any certainty. What is clear is that the BEV fire is more difficult to deal with, the energy release during the exotherm of the electrolyte takes a lot of cooling to extinguish.
The current NTSB data says that after 41 fatal collisions involving BEV, 1 caught on fire (2.44%). In the meantime the The tesla-fire (https://www.tesla-fire.com/) site shows 198 confirmed fire cases with 62 fatalities, based on independent reporting — a rate far higher than the 1 claimed by NTSB.
The NTSB data said that after 20,315 fatal collisions involving ICE vehicles, 644 caught on fire (3.17%). The NTSB data said that after 543 fatal collisions involving gasoline hybrid vehicles, 12 caught on fire (2.21%).
Bottom line is 41 crashes vs 20,315 crashes vs 543 crashes make it statistically irresponsible to compare the numbers. For example, if there was a 42nd BEV crash and it caught on fire then it would be 4.76% of BEV or double the rate of hybrids and far higher than ICE. Indeed, lately we see Tesla crashing and increasingly catching on fire at a rate that could completely change the numbers. Until these sample sizes are closer and significant the comparisons aren’t logical.