Bronco involved in head-on collision with Tesla in Arizona

[Bob Blaylock]

While I agree with you the irony of all of these 'alternative energy' sources is that there is no carbon reduction only carbon offset. So while we get rid of the pollution in our city cores by driving electric cars we will be creating a lot more pollution from the power plants (wherever clean energy isn't available) and most often these power plants reside near farms, water bodies, and other places we also don't want pollutants. Not too mention batteries are just not sustainable in any way shape or form. Perhaps in the distant future we will figure out how to fully recycle them and not have to mine extensively but I don't see that day.

I'm still fully onboard with fossil fuels. Until people stop shopping at Wal-mart, the dollar stores, and just buying plastic items in general including Teslas - fossil fuels are here to stay. Our governments however seem hell bent on electricity as if it will save the planet and hydrogen seems to be what will become mainstream eventually.

There is something that an amazing portion of people do not seem to get, no matter how anyone tries to explain it to them.

What makes fossil fuels so valuable is that they contain a lot of stored energy. It takes a lot of resources and energy to mine for fossil fuels, and to refine them into the forms that we use. But once all that is done, what we have has enough energy in it to make it more than valuable enough to have been worth what it took to obtain it. When we burn a gallon of gasoline, the energy that we can get out of it is much more than what it took to produce it.

Hydrogen is a perfect example of what would appeal to an ignorant environmentalist. We're told that it burns so cleanly that the only exhaust product is water. That's not completely true, but close enough.

But what too many people do not seem to be able to understand is that to produce hydrogen, we have to put more energy into it than we can get back by burning it. That's hard physics, and no technology will overcome it. For this reason alone, hydrogen will never be as practical as fossil fuels.

There are other issues, as well, relating to storing any usable amount of hydrogen, safety, and the effect it has on engines used to burn it.

Hydrogen actually does beat petroleum by a wide margin, as far as how much energy you can get from a given mass of it, but hydrogen is extremely light, so it takes a huge volume to store a reasonable mass of it by any normal means.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the Apollo program, where we sent men to the Moon, perhaps remember the vivid, paradoxical imagery we saw on TV, of these huge rockets taking off, on a tail of fire, with ice falling from their sides. These rockets used hydrogen as fuel. The hydrogen had to be pumped in at an extremely low temperature, to keep it in liquid form, and once the hydrogen was in, the rocket had to be launched right away before it had a chance to warm up. and turn back to a gas.

Some fuels that are gaseous at standard temperature and pressure (STP) can be liquified at room temperature, under moderate pressure. Propane, for example. Not hydrogen. Compared to STP, it takes either extreme pressure, or extremely low temperature, or both, to liquify hydrogen and to keep it liquid.

Sponsored

 

[omega145]

This thread really is another instance of human beings being actual garbage. Lets take an instance of a car crash involving a death because it has a Bronco to trash Tesla. People make me sick.

 

[Phil]

Tell that to the family of the woman killed in this mishap, and to those otherwise affected by it.

That blood is on Elon Musk's hands.

OK, and the stupid woman who though she could get away with not paying attention to her driving. But you know that if she were driving an older vehicle, without any of these stupid and dangerous autonomous features, she'd still be alive.

"stupid dangerous autonomous features" my lord nobody has even indicated that she was using auto pilot or FSD not sure why you wont let go of this bone Elon doesn't have any "blood on his hands" as you say they haven't even released any details or investigation and you are spreading FUD all over maybe relax and wait to see what comes out? you clearly fear what you do no understand human nature tho

 

[Phil]

With an older vehicle, and even most newer ones, unless you are really, really, really stupid, you know that you have to pay attention to where you're driving it. There's no autonomous feature to give you a false and dangerous sense of being able to let the vehicle pay some of the attention that you really need to be paying.

I guess we won't even know for certain, but indications seem to be that that's what happened here, that this stupid woman thought she could trust her car to do the driving for her, and it failed to properly negotiate a simple curve that, if she was paying attention, she would have negotiated with no problem. As a result, she's dead, another person or two hospitalized, and two very expensive vehicles are destroyed.

what indications ?? lordy

 

[Axe]

Depressing thread is depressing.

 

[Stache12]

Depressing thread is depressing.

This whole thread can just be deleted. Just ridiculous.

 

[Efthreeoh]

With an older vehicle, and even most newer ones, unless you are really, really, really stupid, you know that you have to pay attention to where you're driving it. There's no autonomous feature to give you a false and dangerous sense of being able to let the vehicle pay some of the attention that you really need to be paying.

I guess we won't even know for certain, but indications seem to be that that's what happened here, that this stupid woman thought she could trust her car to do the driving for her, and it failed to properly negotiate a simple curve that, if she was paying attention, she would have negotiated with no problem. As a result, she's dead, another person or two hospitalized, and two very expensive vehicles are destroyed.

I agree with your post other than calling the dead woman "stupid"; considering she's dead, that's pretty brutal to say since she was killed. As worst, is our fellow Forum member could have been killed or severely injured as well.

I've been in a Model 3 under the provision of the autonomous driving function. This was, now 3 years ago, when our chief scientist who is a serious Tesla-head was demonstrating the system. I was unimpressed with the automation tech at that time, and NFW I'd ever use the Auto Pilot function. Perhaps in very slow heavy stop-and-go traffic, where the speeds are such the system's sensors and computational abilities can effectively control the car. But then, even with the low risk of injury, the personal liability aspects of an accident in Auto Pilot mode, would keep me from using it. He's since told me he has the most recent download of Tesla's automated driving software, which is supposed to be far better than 2019. Let the Tesla rip down the highway at 70 MPH? Nope not me.

But the obvious problem is Tesla's use of the term "Auto Pilot". Most people are not familiar with aircraft and believe aircraft fly themselves without pilot intervention under the auto pilot system. As pilots know, this is not true, pilots while not in direct control of the aircraft flight mechanisms have to WATCH the aircraft fly itself and resume control of the aircraft flight mechanisms in case the flight deviates from the intended flight path. This is also true of Tesla's Auto Pilot system, which operating manual states the driver must maintain a hand on the wheel and watch the Tesla drive itself, ready to take over the controls to avoid a collision. Planes have a lot of space to fly in, on purpose, as controlled by the FAA and other world-wide ANSPs. Ground vehicles do not have lots of space to drive in, which makes use of an Auto Pilot system incredibly less safe. If there is stupidity in any of this, it is allowing Tesla to beta test its autonomous technology on public roadways.

I'll give the dead woman the benefit of the doubt that she just made a driving error that cost her her life and was at the controls of her Model 3 but failed to keep it from colliding with the Bronco, regardless if the Model 3 was in or not in Auto Pilot mode at the time of the accident. A sad situation, but perhaps only stupid because we accept Tesla beta testing its systems on public streets.

As for me, if I have to watch the car drive itself, I'm just going to drive the effing thing; it's not that hard when properly trained.

 

[Seanette]

My biggest concern about "autonomous" vehicles that hasn't already been covered is what happens when the software crashes while the car's in heavy traffic or at highway speed and if the human "driver" is even paying attention, they simply may not have time to go through whatever process is involved in assuming manual control.

 

[andrusoid]

I hope no one was hurt!

If you don't mind my asking, did you mean Sacramento, CA? I ask because that doesn't look like one of our Regional Transit buses behind the wounded Bronco.

Not actually the same bus. It was some specially purposed metro ride.

 

[BP Bronco]

This is sad.
What most don't realize is the crash test ratings are based on vehicle classes. Tesla (compact or mid size passenger car) 5 star rating is based on a crash with another vehicle in it's class (similar size and weight). The Bronco is a much larger and heavier than a compact passenger car and therefore the Bronco test is a more severe impact which may result in a lower impact rating..... But as demonstrated here the higher rated car didn't fair as well as the lower rated larger SUV.

Size does matter, just because a vehicle has a 5 star rating doesn't mean it is safest than that full size pick up or cement truck heading toward you.

Sponsored