Agree. It's not like Tesla disabled the air bags or traction control, etc.,. I can't think of any other mass market car that has a limiter as an option. Regardless, Tesla has no obligation to meddle in family matters. If I ask my brother-in-law to take my Tesla in for service, it would be ridiculous for Tesla to call my wife and I (the registered owners) for permission.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Agree. It's not like Tesla disabled the air bags or traction control, etc.,. I can't think of any other mass market car that has a limiter as an option. Regardless, Tesla has no obligation to meddle in family matters. If I ask my brother-in-law to take my Tesla in for service, it would be ridiculous for Tesla to call my wife and I (the registered owners) for permission.
I think that the parents are claiming that Tesla turned off the speed-limiter setting without anyone associated with the car asking Teslato turn it off (ie since normally the limiter is only turned on for loaner and test drive vehicles, a tech just assumed the limiter was on by mistake and turned the limiter off). I doubt they're arguing that Tesla had a duty to provide the speed-limitation feature, more likely, they are arguing that once it was turned on Tesla had no business turning it off (and especially turning it off without letting anyone know).
Merrill
Merrill
Honestly if you have to have the speed limited that is a problem and the parents know that so if it was that important they should have told the service center to make sure not to turn it off.
I 100% agree that it's ridiculous for parents to be using the speed-limiter as a baby sitter.
The problem is that Tesla shouldn't have agreed to turn it on for them in the first place. Since that was, as far as I now, a totally non-standard service, I doubt there was any good way for Tesla to mark that the limiter was on-at-customer-request rather than just left-on-by-Tesla-staff-by-mistake. That made it almost inevitable that some service tech would eventually turn it off and not tell anyone it was turned off. And since this is a hidden (accessable-to-techs-only) option, it wouldn't be immediately obvious to drivers that the setting had been reset.
The problem is that Tesla shouldn't have agreed to turn it on for them in the first place. Since that was, as far as I now, a totally non-standard service, I doubt there was any good way for Tesla to mark that the limiter was on-at-customer-request rather than just left-on-by-Tesla-staff-by-mistake. That made it almost inevitable that some service tech would eventually turn it off and not tell anyone it was turned off. And since this is a hidden (accessable-to-techs-only) option, it wouldn't be immediately obvious to drivers that the setting had been reset.
I would counter that the parents failed to properly monitor and exercise parental control over their children. The parent could have looked at their Tesla app and determined that the Valet mode was not in place, and the speed that the car was driving. Tesla is not responsible for their children's bad and improper behavior.
Merrill
Merrill
It seems like people do not want to be responsible for there actions and look to blame others for them. I remember a long time ago that someone fell off there ladder and sued the ladder manufacturer. So now when you see decals all over about do not step on the last step, this ladder could be dangerous if not used properly etc. you know why that happened. People do stupid things and will not admit they were wrong.
85 MPH limiter is Demo Mode that can only be done by Tesla. The protocol is: Demo mode should be removed if it is no longer owned by Tesla.
However, Valet Mode with a maximum speed of 70 MPH, can be done by any owner since 5/2016 firmware update.
Valet Mode with a maximum speed of 70 MPH should be parents' choice in this case but I guess they don't want to deal with the hassle of doing password themselves.
I interpreted it a different way. To me, the article implied that Riley asked the service center to remove the limiter. From several prior threads here, it takes a lot of effort to get Tesla to remove or add the limiter. It’s not something they would do without being asked.
jeffro01
Active Member
This is appalling... Blame everyone but the actual driver who had already shown wasn't responsible enough to begin with... This family is a real piece of work...
Jeff
Jeff
Pluto
is a Planet
I read that there were witnesses who saw people moving in the car after the impact but couldn't help them because of the flames: 2 teens dead after Tesla crashes into wall in Fort Lauderdale
My opinion: the battery was obviously the cause of death, but safety features are designed to a limit and that limit was clearly breached. An impact with a fixed object at 86mph should be outside the minimum limit imo.
I do have to wonder about the amount being sued for--$15,000? Even I could come up with that. From a business standpoint, Tesla should probably settle. Will they though?
RossBrindleyAU
Member
At that speed what are the odds that an ICE car would catch fire? Obviously it depends on a lot of other factors but ICE cars burn multiple times every day somewhere in the world and such an event is extremely rare in a Telsa.
If this was an ICE car would they have sued if it had burnt to the ground?
Even if it was still limited to 85mph there is NO CHANCE that the driver could have made it around a 25mph rated corner without losing control. He was doing 116mph while unlimited so you can guarantee he would be doing the full 85mph if it was limited.
I do not believe there is a driver on the planet that could get around that corner at 85mph.
I just did a quick bit of research and discovered that this crash would most likely have resulted in at least 100 g's deceleration. Survival is very unlikely at 50 g's so both of these teenagers would most likely have died regardless of the fire.
If this was an ICE car would they have sued if it had burnt to the ground?
Even if it was still limited to 85mph there is NO CHANCE that the driver could have made it around a 25mph rated corner without losing control. He was doing 116mph while unlimited so you can guarantee he would be doing the full 85mph if it was limited.
I do not believe there is a driver on the planet that could get around that corner at 85mph.
I just did a quick bit of research and discovered that this crash would most likely have resulted in at least 100 g's deceleration. Survival is very unlikely at 50 g's so both of these teenagers would most likely have died regardless of the fire.
Last edited:
Similar threads
