Father of Driver In Violent Tesla Crash Blames Sedan's 'Rocket-Ship' Acceleration (autoweek.com)

"A Tesla crash that resulted in the deaths of the driver and a passenger in Indianapolis last November is drawing new controversy after the father of one of the victims made comments regarding the role of the Model S in the incident," Autoweek reports. "The crash occurred in downtown Indianapolis on Nov. 3, 2016, with the Model S driven by 27-year-old Casey Speckman striking a tree and catching fire. Speckman was pronounced dead at the scene while her passenger, 44-year-old Kevin McCarthy, succumbed to his injuries after being taken to the hospital." From the report: A report released last week by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department disclosed that Speckman had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21, almost three times the legal limit in the state of Indiana, The Indianapolis Star reports. Another new detail has emerged since the violent crash was first reported: The Tesla could have been been trying to maneuver around a vehicle traveling on the wrong side of the street, suggested by closed-circuit footage obtained by the attorney of the driver's father, Jon Speckman. The coroner's report cited blunt-force injuries caused by the crash as the causes of death for both victims, noting the vehicle's fire as a contributing factor, according to The Indianapolis Star. Jon Speckman recently made comments to the newspaper blaming the acceleration of the Tesla Model S. "Had she been in another vehicle, she would have been alive for me to yell at her for driving after drinking," Speckman told The Indianapolis Star in an interview at his attorney's office. "This is a vehicle that travels from 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds," Speckman also said during the interview. "She's clearly having to swerve to miss a vehicle going the wrong way on a one-way street. If her foot should happen to hit the accelerator, it's like a rocket ship. I don't know why they have to make a car that does that."

Comments

Uber?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the Tesla forced her to drive.

Re:Uber?

[TimeOut42]

And someone probably forced her to buy a sports car. Sorry, sympathy for losing his daughter, but there really is only one person to blame and we all know who it is.

Re:Uber?

[WheezyJoe]

There's a point where cars become too powerful. When Paul Walker died , it was discussed that the Porsche Carrera GT he was in (as a passenger) has three times the horsepower of the average car [and is] notoriously difficult to handle, even for professional drivers. Porsche was exonerated from blame in the crash, but when you put a car on the road that can blast to 80 at the slip of a shoe, then there's an accident waiting to happen.

In the instant case, if the driver had been in a base Ford Escort or Chevy Cruz, they'd probably be alive today.

I'm all for high-performance cars, and I love the pickup in my street-legal ride, but on the street there's a limit to what's practical and safe. Think real hard how you got your license... not that hard, right? All sorts of people you wonder whether they can tie their own shoes walking out with brand new licenses, thinking "great! now I can legally get alcohol!"

Now consider how tech is going to continue to advance until Tesla and those electric motors puts the power of a Veyron into the hands of anyone who can sign for a car loan but doesn't know that that kind of speed belongs only on the track. A 1979 Toyota Tercel has no business with a modern 5.2 L Flat Plane Crank V8 bolted onto it, particularly because the suspension and steering can't handle the power and the driver of such an abomination is probably a goddam fool, likely to pound down a few six-packs before heading out for Zombie night at Applebees. The only razor-thin silver-lining in the article reported by the OP is they didn't mow down a sidewalk-full of bystanders before the smeared themselves.

If tech advances until torque and horsepower become trivial, we will have to have governors built-in to cars because the road has to be shared and driving like an idiot will become not a matter of a broken leg but something a lot more permanent. On the track or the salt flats, do what you want. On the streets there's a point where basic transportation becomes a suicide machine, and I don't want to share those streets with overpowered idiots.

Re: Uber?

[Gription]

Yeah. I didn't guess that from the graduation photo in the article. They really pumped up the "daughter" relationship and then buried the "she is quite past the age of adulthood" detail way down in the article.
In this case there is really no reason for them to portray the incident in this light other than it is a more spectacular news-bite laid out this way.

Really this should have been reported as an irresponsible adult through their own stupid actions killing themselves and another person.

(A little secret I've learned is no matter how much power a car has it will still only accelerate as hard as you push down on the gas pedal!!!)

Re:Uber?

[Maury Markowitz]

> Ford Escort or Chevy Cruz, they'd probably be alive today

Driving when that drunk can be fatal in any car. ANY car.

Re:Uber?

[TWX]

Now consider how tech is going to continue to advance until Tesla and those electric motors puts the power of a Veyron into the hands of anyone who can sign for a car loan but doesn't know that that kind of speed belongs only on the track. A 1979 Toyota Tercel has no business with a modern 5.2 L Flat Plane Crank V8 bolted onto it, particularly because the suspension and steering can't handle the power and the driver of such an abomination is probably a goddam fool, likely to pound down a few six-packs before heading out for Zombie night at Applebees. The only razor-thin silver-lining in the article reported by the OP is they didn't mow down a sidewalk-full of bystanders before the smeared themselves.

If tech advances until torque and horsepower become trivial, we will have to have governors built-in to cars because the road has to be shared and driving like an idiot will become not a matter of a broken leg but something a lot more permanent. On the track or the salt flats, do what you want. On the streets there's a point where basic transportation becomes a suicide machine, and I don't want to share those streets with overpowered idiots.

You really don't have any idea how automotive history played out. The late seventies to the early nineties are an abberation where there were relatively few powerful production cars. From the thirties onward, the push was for ever increasing amounts of power. In the late sixties we hit the peak with American car manufacturers cramming well over 400hp into cars that had absolutely atrocious handling and road-grip. Take a Plymouth with a 426 Hemi, you had almost 70% of the mass over the front non-drive axle, you had skinny bias-ply tires, you had firm torsion bars because of the mass of the engine. For weight savings on cars like the Roadrunner and GTX you often had antiswaybar-delete, such that the cars really suffered body roll in turns.

Fuel availability problems from the manufactured oil crisis of the mid seventies, coupled with a slow ratcheting of environmental requirements and fuel economy requirements, forced horsepower down. This is certainly partially responsible for the American attempts with turbocharging in the eighties and early nineties and attempting to add power to the small FWD chassis despite initial development as economy cars, and it was only when automakers finally fully embraced symmetrical multiport fuel injection with computer control, multiple stages of catalytic conversion, and high-gear-count transmissions that power, fuel economy, and emissions were all achievable, albeit with cars that are significantly more complex and expensive.

Re:Uber?

[Anonymous Coward]

He even keeps repeating the same "0 - 60 in 3.1 seconds" over and over. If anyone bothers to Google it, that is only possible in Ludacris or Insane mode which isn't even available on all cars. You need to purchase it, install it, and enable it to get that close. Otherwise, it is no different than any other high end sports car.

It is sad, but drunk people die in car crashes. Don't drink and die. Its not more complicated than that.

Re: Uber?

[Archangel Michael]

You want "fake news" ? This is a great example of framing the story in such a way to cause distortion of emotion to elicit a particular result. Using words like "daughter / child" in combination is designed to make the person seem younger than 27 age that she was. Its like when we want to treat an 18 year old as an adult "Man/Woman" or as a child "Boy/Girl/Teenager". Man accused of murder .. one emotion, boy/teen accused of murder is quite a different one.

It is all about creating the correct sensationalism and it is all part of the "fake news" that people are complaining about.

Re:Uber?

[Joce640k]

And... don't you have to select a special "ludicrous" mode to get the car to accelerate that fast?

This guy is just after money. I hope the judge throws him out and makes him pay for wasted time.

Re:Uber?

[ranton]

To be fair, although she was drunk as shit and should have never been behind a wheel, it appears from camera footage that she was swerving to avoid ANOTHER car that was traveling the wrong way on the street.

Driving drunk is not much of a problem if nothing unexpected happens on your way home. Even though someone has a 2500% greater chance of having an accident with a .20 BAC, that only increases the chances of an accident on a 10 mile trip from 0.002% to about 0.04625% (or 1 in 2000 10 mile drunk driving trips). Nearly 100% of people who drive drunk don't get into an accident.

Driving drunk is mostly just a problem because something unexpected might happen, like another car driving the wrong way on a street. When drunk you don't have the necessary reaction time to adjust and an accident becomes very likely.

Dont Buy It

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dont want a car that accelerates quickly dont buy a car that accelerates quickly.

Re: Dont Buy It

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. He's had an extreme emotional experience and is now irrational, at least where this topic is concerned. It's too much to expect a parent to say "my daughter got blind drunk and crashed her car. She is solely responsible for her and her passenger's deaths."

So we should stop publicising his grief stricken grasping at justification.

Re:Dont Buy It

[tsqr]

Sure, he is now trying to find blame in others rather accept his daughter is entirely to blame for driving drunk and killing someone else.

Well, since the car belonged to the passenger and not the driver, I think it might be appropriate to say that the "someone else" in this case may have actually killed himself and the girl by saying, "I'm too drunk; why don't you drive?".

Re:Dont Buy It

[drinkypoo]

Well, since the car belonged to the passenger and not the driver, I think it might be appropriate to say that the "someone else" in this case may have actually killed himself and the girl by saying, "I'm too drunk; why don't you drive?".

Absolutely not. It was her responsibility to say "no". This isn't a fucking rape, this is something she chose to do. No one is at fault except the person who takes the action, or anyone who forces them into it. No, threatening their job is not forcing them; loss of job is less serious than loss of life. If you have become too intoxicated to make that call, then you have become too intoxicated and should not drink that much ever again. And she never will.

Father of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternative headline: father explains parenting strategy for raising irresponsible children.

"The key is to blame others," he said.

Re:Father of the year

[shakah]

Alternative headline: father explains parenting strategy for raising irresponsible children.

"The key is to blame others," he said.

Another alternative:"father begins laying the foundation for wrongful death suit defense" (for when Mr. McCarthy's estate sues).

Reverse logic

[mwvdlee]

"Had she been in another vehicle, she would have been alive for me to yell at her for driving after drinking"

LMFTFY

"Had she been drinking under the legal limit, she would have been alive AND still had her vehicle"

Count your blessings your daughter only murdered one passenger, and not more innocent bystanders.

Re:Reverse logic

[Jason Levine]

This doesn't remove the "driving drunk" as a blame factor, it just adds "car driving the wrong way down a one way street" to the list. Her being drunk likely contributed to poor reactions that led to the accident. However, this doesn't add "the car accelerates like a rocket ship" to the list of causes to the accident, despite what the father says.

As a father, I get the impulse to not want to blame your child. Not to mention that he just lost his daughter. That's not a time in a person's life when they are 100% rational. Still, the hard truth is that his daughter was at least half to blame (with the other half going to the driver going the wrong way). The car's acceleration wasn't the cause of his daughter's death.

Re:Reverse logic

[squiggleslash]

Moderate Drink driving is probably fairly safe in circumstances where nothing happens that would require you take action. Sure, if you're blind drunk to the point you can't even stay in your lane then an accident is inevitable, but if you're merely at the stage that your judgment is severely impaired, then the accidents will happen only if you actually have to use your judgment.

Which is probably why so many people drive drunk - they've driven drunk before, nothing happened, because nothing unexpected happened, so giving them a false sense of security.

Re:Reverse logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect.

Whether or not a totally sober person may have had exactly the same result can in no way COMPLETELY remove "driving drunk" as a blame factor.

She shouldn't have been driving drunk period. She drove when she she shouldn't have been, it's a factor in the deaths.

Alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the cause was a drunk driver not how fast the car accelerated. Could of done the same thing in any car.

Idiot

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

"This is a vehicle that travels from 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds," Speckman also said during the interview. "She's clearly having to swerve to miss a vehicle going the wrong way on a one-way street. If her foot should happen to hit the accelerator, it's like a rocket ship. I don't know why they have to make a car that does that."

Because some people WANT a car that does that. There's no reason you had to buy it though. Entirely your fault. Blame yourself. Every single day of the rest of your life blame yourself.

Re:Idiot

[jeremyp]

Maybe her foot wouldn't have hit the accelerator if she wasn't drunk.

Re:Idiot

[esposed]

Woah. I felt like this was way passed the line. Blaming a grieving father for words that come from a place we can only hope we will never understand is pretty lame. There's few things in life you get a pass on, but the death of a child is certainly one of those things. Relax.

Re:Idiot

[phayes]

No. A "grieving father" doesn't get a free pass to blame others for his daughter's (and his own) responsibilities in the accident.
- Drinking 3 times over the limit and then _driving_.
- Purchasing a vehicle that is beyond your capacity to handle (at least while drunk).

Who exactly was it that _didn't_ sufficiently ingrain into his daughter that drinking and driving is lethal?

Re:Idiot

[dwillden]

Agreed, and is he suing the bar that served the drinks? Or perhaps the drink manufacturers themselves. After all if they hadn't made and sold the booze, she wouldn't have drank so much that she couldn't react safely to the wrong-way driver.

Sigh

[ledow]

They're over the limit?

Sorry, whatever the ultimate cause of the accident, they were unfit to drive, thus pontificating over what they "would have" done in another is absolutely pointless. This driver got into a car and drove off when there was even a RISK of being near or over the limit and never questioned it.

They are, therefore, a BAD DRIVER. The cause of their death - whether that's a guy on the wrong side of the road, unintended acceleration, a fire, etc. is incidental to their decision to drive. That's why we make brakes and steering wheels and train people to pass a test to ensure they're fit to drive, so you can avoid obstacles, stop the car, press the right pedal and not lose control if you're being a driver of even satisfactory driving skill.

Yeah, it's sad. Yeah that kind of acceleration is unnecessary. Yeah, maybe there was a guy on your side of the road - it happens, there are idiots everywhere and people use the other side for overtaking, manoeuvres, etc. all the time. But the driver drove a car without knowing its capabilities, or feeling discomfort at it themselves enough to NOT drive it, or without taking "due care" (a phrase that will come up a lot) to ensure they didn't accelerate unintentionally no matter the situation. And they chose to do so while their judgement was impaired beyond legal limits.

Contributing factors are the least of your problems, compared to telling your OTHER sons and daughters, and their friends and family to NEVER DRIVE DRUNK if they don't want to kill themselves and others.

That you have to state that to an adult is really a sad state of affairs.

If it had been on a Harley (there are electric Harley's now too!), and they'd done the same, would you be calling for motorbikes to be outlawed where you weren't saying that before? The device is not the problem - someone pressing the throttle when they mean the brake is never going to end well, even for a fraction of a second. The problem is that you have allowed yourself to bring up your children to think that drink-driving is fine and acceptable, even if you know it's illegal, and then blame others when your KILLER of a child takes someone else out too by driving drunk.

Fuck, I don't even let work colleagues do that. I have literally removed people's keys and they've started fights with me over doing so. If your own child did it, fix that problem before you look at ANYTHING else.

Sorry

[argStyopa]

...as much as I'd like to strongly disagree with him, I'm simply not going to go after something a parent says after losing a child. No matter how dumb or self-destructive the child was, etc.

That person is grasping at whatever straws they can to maintain their sanity. They're out of bounds.

Now, I would take to task the editor(s) of the Indianapolis Star for printing that shit. At a certain point, morally, one would have to say "You know, maybe that doesn't need to be in our article."

Re:Sorry

[haruchai]

...as much as I'd like to strongly disagree with him, I'm simply not going to go after something a parent says after losing a child. No matter how dumb or self-destructive the child was, etc.

That person is grasping at whatever straws they can to maintain their sanity. They're out of bounds.

Now, I would take to task the editor(s) of the Indianapolis Star for printing that shit. At a certain point, morally, one would have to say "You know, maybe that doesn't need to be in our article."

While I wouldn't cut him any slack for such a stupid statement, I don't hold it again anyone who would.
But if he files a lawsuit against Tesla because of this, then both he & his lawyer are a$$holes$

Re:Sorry

[mysticgoat]

If in fact this was a father's grieving rant, then I agree with your sentiment. Give him space.

Unfortunately there are features in this story that suggest that this might be the beginning of a wrongful death suit against Tesla. The mention of a lawyer being involved, and therefore presumably advising the "distraught" father about what to say in public. How big a settlement might be squeezed from Tesla? If you are going for a fat settlement, then you don't need a winning case, you don't have to be able to prove anything. You just need to demonstrate that you can be a massive pain in the butt until you are paid off. Will we next be hearing comparisons between Tesla's acceleration pedal and the Ford Pinto's gas tank?

People who are truly grieving usually don't make such a public spectacle of it.

Re:Sorry

[Strudelkugel]

What's truly disgusting about this tragic situation is the the attorney. A good attorney would let the client know that given the circumstances, odds of winning in court are minimal and the pain of going through the pretrial procedures will be painful. Tesla might settle to make the case go away, but the client will still have to go through discovery and depositions. A settlement wont bring the people back, and it won't be that The defense will be all over the daughter's "lifestyle choices", the relationship with her boss, etc. The family of her boss will be forced to endure the same interrogation. The client's attorney doesn't care - He just sees easy money, no matter how much pain it causes everyone including his client. This is the kind of case that gives attorneys a very bad reputation.

Captain Obvious police report.

[geekmux]

"...A report released last week by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department disclosed that Speckman had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21, almost three times the legal limit "

As a parent, I cannot imagine the grief this father is dealing with right now, but I certainly I hope this lapse of common sense in a desperate attempt to blame the car is temporary, given this report released by Captain Obvious.

Unfortunately, the cars performance is not the main factor that caused a loss of life. One must not only be sober, but capable of handling a car that can deliver Fast and Furious performance. While I don't agree with this stupid and pointless race to ludicrous speed in the EV market right now, if you can't handle a car, then don't drive the fucking thing, no matter what technology is powering it.

Re:What's the emoticon for mouth hanging open?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we should not expect distraught parents to STFU after a child dies. We should expect reporters to leave them alone and not take statements at such a trying time when they aren't thinking clearly. In this case, he gets swarmed because there was a Tesla involved. Had it been any other vehicle, he would have been left alone to say whatever irrational things might come out of any distraught parent's mouth after death of a child.

The reporters should STFU and leave the guy alone.

Re:What's the emoticon for mouth hanging open?

[omnichad]

What, are you wanting ethics in journalism now? We haven't had that for a long while.

There's a lesson here

[Opportunist]

Don't drive rocket ships when you're drunk.

Sorry, buddy, but your little precious is to blame here. I know that isn't what you want to hear after she eliminated herself from the gene pool by her own stupidity, and if it makes you feel better, blame the world, the powers that are, the car and whatever else you could come up with, but in the end, what we have here is someone who was drunk and lost control over the vehicle. Even whether she had to avoid collision with another car isn't really established as a fact by now. So what's left is that your daughter's drunk driving killed herself and murdered her passenger.

All I can say is that at least she didn't take any innocent bystanders with her. With her passenger you can at least say "well, stupid enough to get into the car of a drunk driver", something you could not claim if she had killed someone by driving over them.

Re:What's the emoticon for mouth hanging open?

[tflf]

Appears Mr. Speckman had a lawyer lined up before he talked to the press. The news article (an exclusive) reads more like well-coached groundwork for a product-liability lawsuit than the outburst of a grieving distraught parent after the senseless, needless (and self-inflicted) death of a child.

Good

[krray]

Good. I'm glad she's dead. Stupid is what stupid does.
One less drunk on the road that could kill me sober.
Why not blame those who made the alcohol? They're more to blame IMHO. Dumb ass lawsuit.