Slashdot Mirror


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."

23 of 641 comments (clear)

  1. Uber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Uber? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 5, Informative

      She was 3 times over the limit and the fuckwit father is blaming the car? Why is this even on SlashDot

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Uber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Uber? by TimeOut42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Uber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      George W. Bush

    5. Re: Uber? by tsqr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why would you give a child a super car?

      Good question, and one asked by lots of commenters. Of course, no one asking this question read TFA, because if they had they would have learned that the Tesla was owned by the passenger (who was her boss), and he was nearly as drunk as the girl. So you have an extremely high-performance car being driven by someone who is very drunk, and also unfamiliar with the car. What could go wrong?

    6. Re:Uber? by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Uber? by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Funny

      We don't measure BAC in percents around here but rather in permilles. That might have been the confusion.

      I think the confusion is US measures permiles and Germany does perkilometer

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:Uber? by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  2. Dont Buy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re: Dont Buy It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Father of the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

  4. Reverse logic by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Reverse logic by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Reverse logic by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Reverse logic by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speckman swerved to avoid another car going the wrong way down a one way street. I would not be so quick to put all the blame on her for driving drunk.

      It doesn't work that way. In the eyes of the law and insurance companies, if you're in an automobile accident while driving impaired, you're at fault no matter the circumstances. This is why we don't drink and drive.

      In this instance we have an inexperienced woman driver, high performance sports car and the driver's BAL was three times the limit. Perfect trifecta. I feel for the guy who got in the car with her.

    4. Re:Reverse logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  6. Sorry by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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."

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Sorry by Strudelkugel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
  7. Re:Idiot by jeremyp · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  8. Re:What's the emoticon for mouth hanging open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:What's the emoticon for mouth hanging open? by tflf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.