Only because CA is standardizing to double parallel lines. The law seems a little ambiguous:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21655.8. but IANAL.
"...entrance or exit may be made only in areas designated for these purposes or where a single broken line is in place to the right of the exclusive or preferential use lanes"
My understanding is that unless the line is broken, you cannot move into or out of the lane. I mean, people do this all the time (myself included), but it's not legal, per my understanding. The CA code does specify double lines, but my understanding is that is an artifact of not all the roads being standardized yet.
I could certainly be wrong, and some of the internet seems to think it is 'discouraged, but not illegal,' but I have not been able to find a primary source for that. Seems to me that the best you can say is it's ambiguous, but again - not a lawyer and might simply be looking in the wrong place.
That seems to be relevant for HOV lanes. One thing that struck me when I first got a license in CA was that the DMV handbook explicitly stated that crossing a solid white line must be done with extra caution, since it was illegal where I had lived before. I was under the impression that it was illegal overall, but California showed me otherwise. The problem with the CA DMV handbook at the time, which might still be true, it that it talked a lot about what you should do, and didn't distinguish between good practices and legal requirements. For example, at the time, I should have used my headlights when it rained, and years later, it became the law that I must do so. Cars will need to conform to best practices, as well as the law.
But even that can be problematic. For example, the DMV manual in CA says that if you want to change lanes, you should signal and check to make sure there's sufficient space to do so before starting a lane change. The vehicle code explicitly says that it can be done in that situation if doing so won't create a hazard. But the vehicle code does not explicitly require other drivers to slow down to let you in. They are not allowed to obstruct traffic, or maintain an unsafe following distance, as would be the case if they zoom forward and tailgate the car in front. A vehicle in front has the right of way, and once you cross over when changing lanes, you are the vehicle in front. But this has nothing to do with typical driver behavior. Vehicles going straight have the right of way over vehicles in adjacent lanes, but it's a question of whether the vehicle in the adjacent lane is the vehicle in front, especially after it starts to change lanes. The CHP leans toward the person already in the lane not having to yield. But the DMV manual says that person should slow down to let the person change lanes. So it's not always a case of "the law allows it" or "it's best practice" but of whether the other vehicle can or will do something.
Does anyone have a sense whether the Gravity or the X is the safer car in a crash? We bought an X a couple years ago partially because it had gotten very positive crash test reviews, but recently I've come to find out that the Tesla model Y has a much higher fatality rate than normal (possibly due to speed & clientele, or FSD mistakes), whereas for awhile I thought it was supposed to be pretty safe in a crash (the story about the family surviving the cliff-drop). Something about the doors not being able to be opened after a frontal crash, if the car catches on fire.
As far as rattles go in an X, I just got one fixed in our front suspension... bolt was loose.
NHTSA started grading vehicles for safety because there was no such scale. It provided useful data since some cars got low grades and others got high grades. Over the years, manufacturers changed designs to conform to specific tests, making the tests essentially meaningless with respect to the original purpose, which was to tell you which car is safer. They really need to update the requirements to go beyond demonstrating whether a vehicle conforms to requirements, and come up with something that shows what's safer. For now, just about all vehicles get an A, so the tests don't tell you anything.
EV fires tend to spread slowly, giving people more than enough time to get out, assuming the crash is survivable. A PCFFF can be far more dangerous, and was a particularly high risk when fuel tanks were in the rear. As far as doors getting stuck, it's a thorny issue. There are crumple zones, which could result in doors getting jammed, or being forced open. Back in another century when I was professionally involved with these sorts of investigations, there were lawsuits if the doors didn't stay intact. I don't know about the Cybertruck, but with the Model X, it should be easy enough to break a window. And if the owner has the child safety feature, the back seat passenger might not be able to get out anyway.
Given all the people claiming that the Gravity isn't an SUV, I've been surprised at not hearing pushback on the X and Y being called SUVs. The Y in particular just strikes me as being a bloated sedan. Or to put it another way: if the Gravity isn't an SUV, then neither is anything Tesla makes. Of course, the whole debate about labels is ultimately pointless.
I'd call it a crossover vehicle. I'd also say that that's what people need, even if they don't want to admit it. I might even go so far as calling it a station wagon, in the sense of the original ones that took people to and from train stations. I don't mean that at all in any pejorative sense. The design is optimal for what most people need. But station wagons became uncool because they were "mom's cars." I see nothing uncool about women or mothers. Minivans overcame the stigma since they had the machismo of vans. Si calling it a minivan should not have been pejorative, except that over time, minivans became known as soccer moms' cars. Again, I see nothing wrong with soccer, moms, or women.
So now we have crossovers. The idea of a classic SUV with a truck suspension doesn't even make sense with respect to an EV, since there's no drive shaft and wheels have to have independent suspension anyway. So what would constitute an SUV is pretty much meaningless. Whether it's good for off road or has ground clearance is another matter, and one that few people care about.
