Tesla concealed fatal accidents to continue testing autonomous driving
rts.ch
rts.ch
Too bad that project failed.
Airline pilots aren't supposed to take a nap, and there are occasionally articles about the various things that have gone wrong because the pilots weren't paying attention.
If you don't pay constant attention, you will never notice when it slips in a bug or security issue
I’m in left lane on highway. Tesla ahead of me but quite a ways away.
I realize as I’m driving that the Tesla is moving quite slow for the left lane driving. And before you say it, yes there are lots of people speeding in highway left lanes too.
So - I passed on the right rather than tailgate. Look over and see a guy leaning back in his seat. No hands on wheel. Could’ve been asleep. And driving 10-15 mph slower than you’d expect in that lane.
To your point about using it FSD the way you do, makes total sense to me. Which implies you would also cruise at the right speed depending on the lane you are in, unlike my example.
I wonder what's taught to new drivers about this sort of situation. My intuitive feeling (driving for almost 30 years) is you drive with the flow of traffic when traffic is present. I don't see too many left lane drivers glued to speed limits, but it's obvious when someone is a fast or slow.
Is that code for "the Tesla was following the law by driving within the speed limit and I don't find that acceptable" or what?
> I passed on the right rather than tailgate.
... right, since those are the only two options. Tailgating is just one of the potential valid options to choose from after all.
> And driving 10-15 mph slower than you’d expect in that lane.
So not "slower than the speed limit", but rather "slower than you'd expect". Sigh.
Most highways I drive on exhibit a predictable pattern. Slower folks in right lane. Faster folks in left lane. Maybe those slower folks are at the speed limit, or above, or below. Left lane folks somewhat faster.
Should everyone obey the speed limit? Sure! Hard to argue that point.
My observation was a Tesla driving at - let's call it "right lane speed" in the left lane. Maybe slower. Slow enough that you'd soon see a predictable back-up behind the car - some tailgating, brake usage, etc. The stuff that in my view leads to more accidents, swerving, and phantom traffic that occurs when people pile on each other, use brakes excessively, and end up slowing to a crawl.
FWIW: The "is speeding acceptable" question is somewhat resolved by police. I rarely see people pulled over for speeding within the flow of traffic, vs. somewhat swerving in/out or just driving much faster than everyone.
Don't remember the last time I saw an officer pick a car out of a normally flowing left lane to issue just that one driver a ticket.
I'm asking because I feel I must be missing something, inasmuch as to have my hands on the wheel while not controlling the car is an experience with which I'm familiar from skids and crashes, and thinking about it as an aspect of normal operation makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. (Especially with no obviously described "deadman switch" or vigilance control!)
It's just nice having a 'second set of eyes' in a sense. It's also very useful when driving in unfamiliar cities where much of my attention would be spent on navigation and trying to recognize markings/signs/light positions that are atypical. FSD handles the minutia of basic vehicle operation so I can focus on higher level decisions. Generally, at inner-city speeds, safety and time-to-act are less of an issue and it just becomes a matter of splitting attention between pedestrians, obstacles, navigation, etc. FSD if very helpful in these situations.
I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response. I'll need to think about it for a while, too. It had not occurred to me to consider the possibility that someone else's FSD might protect me from the general incompetence and unreliability of amateur motor vehicle operators.
(Jumping a light in the dark? Not thinking or learning to navigate by verbal instructions from your satnav or phone, instead of compromising the primary sense you must constantly use to drive without risking manslaughter? I'm sorry, but if this is the standard, I really can't describe it other than it is...to say nothing of your considering safety less important, as you say, in the "inner city" that is my home.)
I don't know what this means.
> Not thinking or learning to navigate by verbal instructions from your satnav or phone, instead of compromising the primary sense you must constantly use to drive without risking manslaughter?
Navigating involves reading street signs, block numbers, and traffic markings. These are all visual elements that can distract from safety monitoring. How many minor accidents result from driver's trying to figure out where they are, or need to go?
> I'm sorry, but if this is the standard, I really can't describe it other than it is...to say nothing of your considering safety less important, as you say, in the "inner city" that is my home.
My claim isn't that safety is less important in city driving, it's that driving is far safer due to lower speeds. There's more time to react and lower risk of catastrophic results when driving at 35mph. The challenge for a driver isn't sudden loss of control as you may experience at 65+mph. The city driving challenge is trying to track markings, signage, pedestrians, and parked cars while also navigating and managing the vehicle's basic operation. FSD can track all of that without distraction and leave the driver responsible for more human reasoning tasks.
You failed, in this case by hastening to cross the intersection as soon as the light came green, to account for the possibility of another driver's error. If you weren't taught to do that, as I was, then the mistake is not entirely your own. It was still a mistake, which you have already acknowledged would have led you into an accident had your vehicle not rescued you.
> There's more time to react and lower risk of catastrophic results when driving at 35mph.
Not for me. You're the one wearing power armor, remember.
Even if we accept your interpretation of the situation as true, you're making the case for FSD. You can think of FSD (or other self-driving solutions) as raising the floor for bad drivers. If I'm a driver with some otherwise dangerous habits (nobody is perfect) then FSD is filling the gaps in my skill.
> Not for me. You're the one wearing power armor, remember.
But this is a joint interaction between the pedestrian and the vehicle. I can't make the pedestrian more aware. I can't give the pedestrian super-human reaction time. I can, however, give those traits to the vehicle. That's a major selling point for autonomous vehicles.
As a pedestrian, I don't need superhuman reaction time, because unlike some I move at speeds a human mind can comprehend. Nor, I promise you, need I be "more aware" - what a frankly foolish thing to say, when there is nothing on Earth even remotely as dangerous to me, day to day, than you and those like you! I assure you, I am about as aware as it is possible to be. I have to be! Look at you.
But this again is a splendid illustration of the problem, for which I again must give my gratitude: the old-school motorhuckle lifestyler dingbats were right all along, it turns out, to call cars "cages." You carry yours around in your head all the time, I see.
I was watching the Tesla display on my way back home from LaGuardia airport last week (passenger, not driver).
No accidents or close calls, but it was obvious that I might be focused on 1 or 2 things in that very busy and chaotic environment whereas the car (FSD or otherwise) sees more than 2 things and possibly avoids something on my behalf.
...so you hired a professional to do that job for you, instead of risking the wellbeing of everyone nearby. This was the correct decision!
When I'm driving I know what I'm doing, what I'm planning to do and can scan the road and controls with that context.
Making me have to try and guess what the car is going to do at any given time is adding complexity to the process: am I changing lanes now, oh I guess I am because the autonomy thinks we should etc.
I've got plenty of experience, and (feel as though) I know most of it's failure points. I had to drive my 30 minute commute last week, and it was decidedly unfun. I have seen the future and I don't want to go back.
I agree that there are situations where what I do as a trained driver is different from augmented cruise.
A good example (or perhaps I'm wrong) is this: in a lane, car pulls into lane in front of me and between the car further ahead. Now I don't have enough space in between me and that new entrant. But instead of using brakes (unless eggregious), I bleed speed until I make space I want. Augmented cruise doesn't do that - it hits brakes.
So, from behind, I think it looks like I'm using my brakes a lot more than I am when on augmented cruise. And excessive brake use distracts the driver behind me.
People these days letting the car drive, thinking they can spring into action I think are underestimating just how cold their cache lines are getting and the major page fault they're going to take when they try to take over.
And I've seen comments by people that they were letting the car drive itself into a bad situation they could see developing, but didn't jump in to take over right away in anticipation (effectively betting on the car over their own skill but still realizing they had to jump in if the car got it wrong--which is just so incredibly confused).
> the self-driving feature had “aborted vehicle control less than one second prior to the first impact”
It seems right to me that the self-driving feature aborts vehicle control as soon as it is in a situation it can’t resolve. If there’s evidence that Tesla is actively using this to “prove” that FSD is not behind a crash, I’m happy to change my mind. For me, probably 5s prior is a reasonable limit.
The former is to be expected. The latter seems likely to potentially make an already dangerous situation worse by suddenly throwing the controls to an inattentive driver at a critical moment. It seems like it would be much safer for the autopilot to continue doing its best while sounding a loud alarm to make it clear that something dangerous is happening.
This is essentially what FSD does, today. When the system determines the driver needs to take over, it will sound an alert and display a take-over message without relinquishing control.
in the BEST CASE, this is a confluence of coincidences. Engineering knows about this and leaves it "low prio wont fix" because its advantageous for metrics.
In the worst case, this is intentional.
In any case, the "right thing to do" is NOT turn off the cameras just before a collision, and yet it happens.
This is also Safety Critical Engineering 101. Like.... this would be one of the first scenarios covered in the safety analysis. Someone approved this behavior, either intentionally, or through an intentional omission.
Source for autopilot being disabled “seconds before a crash” also disabling cameras? (Sorry if I missed it above.)
How is a car supposed to pre-empt when it is in a situation that is to challenging for it to navigate? Isn't it the driver who should see a situation that looks dicey for FSD and take control?
It seems to me FSD for Tesla is not ready to go into Prod as it is now.
By anticipating further ahead. If it finds itself into a situation that it can't get itself out of, it means it should have made more defensive choices earlier or relinquish control earlier. And if it doesn't have either the reasoning capacity or the spatial awareness data to do that, it is not fit for general usage and should be pulled.
I agree you right in that's what you expect to happen.
How does a driver judge what is and is not "dicey" from the FSD's perspective?
If you don't have confidence in FSD, then you wouldn't use it in the first place. If you do have confidence, then why would you ever (or how often) would you take over?
Is there some kind of 'confidence gauge' that the FSD displays in how well it thinks it can handle the situation? If there is/was, perhaps the driver could see it dropping and prime himself to take over.
Also, Tesla routinely claims that "FSD was not active at the time of the crash" in such cases, and they own and control the data, so it's the driver's word against theirs. They most recently used this claim for the person who almost flew off an overpass in Houston because FSD deactivated itself 4 seconds before impact[1]. They used it unironically as an excuse why FSD is not at fault, despite the fact that FSD created the situation in the first place.
[1] https://electrek.co/2026/03/18/tesla-cybertruck-fsd-crash-vi...
> because FSD deactivated itself 4 seconds before impact
This isn't accurate. The driver deactivated FSD 4 seconds before impact. Don't get me wrong, the video looks pretty much like FSD wouldn't have been able to do anything better than the driver did, but she didn't give it a chance.
That's still not a good look.
And it does mean that FSD isn't to be as trusted as it is because if the car is putting itself in unresolvable situations, that's still a problem with FSD even if it isn't in direct control at the moment of impact.
For normal incidents, 2 seconds is taken as a response time to be added for corrective action to take effect (avoidance, braking). I’d expand this for FSD because it implies a lower level of engagement, so you need more time to reengage with the car.
> If FSD (Supervised) was active at any point within five seconds leading up to a collision event, Tesla considers the collision to have occurred with FSD (Supervised) engaged for purposes of calculating collision rates for the Vehicle Safety Report. This approach accounts for the time required for drivers to recognize potential hazards and take manual control of the vehicle. This calculation ensures that our reported collision rates for FSD (Supervised) capture not only collisions that occur while the system is actively controlling the vehicle, but also scenarios where a driver may disengage the system or where the system aborts on its own shortly before impact.[0]
In theory, that should more than cover the common perception-response times of around ~1 to 1.5 seconds used as a rule of thumb for most car accidents. But I'm quite curious what research has been done on the disengagement process as driver assistance systems return control to the driver and its impact on driver response times and their overall alertness.
If drivers trust the car to handle braking and steering for you, are we really going to see perception–response times that low, or have we changed the behavior being measured? Instead of timing a direct response to a stimulus, we’re now including the time required to re-engage their attention (even if they're nominally "paying attention"), transition to full control of the vehicle, and then react to the stimulus that they're now barreling down on.
For that matter, this approach is making the implicit assumption that pressing the brake pedal or turning the steering while is a sign of now-active control and awareness. Is it? Or could it just be a sort of instinctual reaction? I've been in the passenger seat when a driver has slammed on the brakes, only to find myself moving my right foot as if to hit an imaginary brake pedal even knowing I obviously wasn't the one driving. Hell, I remember my mom doing that back when I was learning to drive during normal braking.
0. https://www.tesla.com/fsd/safety#:~:text=within five seconds
AEB should still be working to pump the breaks AFAIK, but auto-steer and cruise control will be disabled while the computer and electronics are still perfectly operational to make the car more secure for the passengers and first responders after the event.
EDIT: IIRC the threshold for disengagement is 1s.
> It's well known for a while now, and it's not to avoid recording being active, it's to avoid a possibly damaged computer to keep working in a likely compromised situation. What happens if the car crashes and flips, AP/FSD has no training on that, and wheels keep spinning at full speed while first responders try to secure the car?
That sounds like an ass-covering justification. There may be a good reason for triggering some kind of interlock to prevent the problems you outlined, but if their implementation 1) also stopped recording seconds before a crash or 2) they publicly claimed it wasn't responsible since it turned itself off, then Tesla is behaving unethically and dishonestly.
For 1) it's the first time I hear it from a technical point of view - Tesla's dashcam records continuously for the last 10m, and should save the data on the internal computer in case of a crash and send it back to Tesla if feasible AFAIR (I'm an owner). IIRC it's not the first case though where Tesla claimed the data wasn't available or corrupted, and then it was actually recovered some time later after pressure from authorities. So I think technically the data is there, but also believe Tesla is behaving unethically and dishonestly to cover up or delay retrieval.
2) I often hear it as FUD, as in: AP/FSD was off, the user just did it by accident, wasn't accustomed to it, or just didn't know how it worked. AFAIR most of the accidents had the data released and showed some of the following: user touched steering wheel and disengaged autosteer/FSD (whether knowingly or by accident), user was pressing accelerator pedal by accident, user was pressing accelerator instead of brake, etc etc
Individual tragic anecdotal incidences aside the vagueness of the article really diluted the merit of the claims.
The headline says - "How Tesla hid accidents to test its Autopilot" but the actual article has no explanation as to (1) how Tesla hid anything or, for that matter, (2) who did Tesla hide this information from
It mashes together a Tesla data leak from 2022 and an unconnected lawsuit from 2026 without ever explaining how those 2 are connected.
Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all.
This is something I find frequently as well, moreso with Musk related things than Tesla. Lord knows there are plenty of things to be critical of.
If investigative journalism wants to regain the respect it once had, fewer allegations with concrete claims serves both the public and faith in media over large quantities of vague claims.
I admit if you want to sway public opinion, the latter is more effective, but is also a mechanism that doesn't require alignment with the truth. When that approach is normalised, it opens the door for anyone to shove popular opinion around.
- The documentary is from the RTS. The RTS is the main publicly owned media from Switzerland. They are not the typical European owned public media: They are generally pretty well funded (contrary to most). They also tend to generate good (high) quality content, tend to be independent and rather neutral (leaning slightly to the left politically speaking).
- The video is in French because, in Switzerland, the media are divided in three group associated to the regional languages: RTS for the French, SSR for the German and RSI for the Italian. Thats why you do get German translation.
- They are generally pretty cooperative and open minded. If one of you want to submit english subtitles. Just contact them, they might accept it (I do not promise anything).
I started out writing a list of European countries with high quality public broadcasters, but the comment started looking silly since the list quickly grew very long.
Also, they don't tout a single party line.
I can say the same about the foreign bureaus of State-owned media thingies like Deutsche Welle and Radio France Internationale, both of these entities actively rooting for the Romanian political candidate that was seen as closer to German and French interests (I’m talking the last couple of rounds of Romanian presidential elections).
The quality of European publicly owned medias is highly country specific and variates quite a lot:
- Some of them are critically underfunded and it becomes visible (tendency to cheap sensationalism, superficial investigation or recycled content).
- Some of them are politically rooted (Left or Right) or controlled due to a direct/indirect government involvment.
But all considered: I would say that the average are still an order of magnitude better in term of content quality and independence that the average privatized media.
FSD has built this generation's newest children of the magenta line.
Or LLM users.
I don't ever want to be inside an AI driven vehicle that might decide to sacrifice me to minimize other damage
You mean deaths to multiple other people, do you not? Let's just call a spade a spade here and point out the genuine ethical dilemma.
What's the ratio between "bodies of your own kids" and "other human bodies you have no other connection with" in terms of what a "proper" AI that is controlling a car YOU purchased, should be willing to make in trade in terms of injury or death?
I think most people would argue that it's greater than 1* (unless you are a pure rationalist, in which case, I tip my hat to you), but what "SHOULD" it be?
*meaning, in the case of a ratio of 2 for example, you would require 2 nonfamiliar deaths to justify losing one of your own kids
I mean deaths the AI predicts for other people, yes
And I'm not saying I would never choose to kill myself over killing a schoolbus full of children, but I'll be damned if a computer will make that choice for me.
Isn’t this entirely hypothetical? In reality, are any systems doing this calculus? Or are they mimicking humans, avoiding obstacles and reducing energies in a series of rapid-fire calls?
There's plenty we could talk about: i.e. the failure scenarios of shallow reasoning systems, the serious limitations on the resolution and capability of the actual Tesla cameras used for navigation, the failure modes of LIDAR etc.
Instead we got "what if the car calculates the trolley problem against you?"
And observationally, proof a staggering number of people don't know their road rules (since every variant of it consists of concocting some scenario where slamming on the brakes is done at far too late but you somehow know perfectly well there's not a preschool behind the nearest brick wall or something).
I remember running some basic numbers on this in an argument and you basically wind up at, assuming an AI is fast enough to detect a situation, it's sufficiently fast that it would literally always be able to stop the car with the brakes, or no level of aggressive manoeuvring would avoid the collision.
Which is of course what the road rules are: you slam on the brakes. Every other option is worse and gets even worse when an AI can brake quicker and faster if its smart enough to even consider other options.
Yeah, there are a shocking number of accidents which basically amount to "they tried to swerve and it went badly".
You can concoct a few scenarios where other drivers are violating the road rules so much as to basically be trying to murder you -- the simplest example is "you are stopped at a light and a giant truck is barreling towards you too fast to stop".
If you are a normal driver, you probably learn about this when you wake up in the hospital, but an autonomous vehicle could be watching how fast vehicles are approaching from behind you. There's going to be a wide range of scenarios where it will be clear the truck is not going to stop but there's still time to do something (for instance, a truck going 65mph takes around 5 seconds to stop, so if it's halfway through its stopping distance, you've got around 2.5 seconds to maneuver out of the way).
That does leave you all sorts of room to come up with realistic trolley problems.
But all require a human (or malicious) driver on one hand. The more rule-following AVs on the road, the fewer the opportunities for such trolley problems.
And I'd still argue that debating these ex ante is, while philosophically fascinating, not a practical discussion. I'm not seeing a case where one would code anything further than collision avoidance and e.g. pre-activating restraints.
The typical human preference WRT the trolly problem ("don't take an action which leads to deaths, even if it would save more lives") is also a reasonable -- maybe the only reasonable answer -- to these hypotheticals.
Ie, move against the light to avoid getting rear ended, but not if you're going to run over a pedestrian or cause an accident with another vehicle trying to do so. (Even if getting rear ended would push you into the pedestrian or other car.)
You can't get into a trolley situation without driving unsafely for the conditions first, so companies focus on preventing that earlier issue.
What is the lowest likelihood of your own death you'd find acceptable in this situation?
I would suggest that all but the most narcissistic would have some limit to how many pedestrians they would be willing to run over to save their own lives. The demand that the AI have no such limit—“that the AI will prioritize my life and safety over literally any other concern”—is grotesque.
As for me I actually like driving and I'm good at it. I'm not afraid of operating my own vehicle like so many people seem to be
Replacing bad other drivers with good autonomous systems is likely a great trade off for you, even if you are in an autonomous vehicle that is eager to sacrifice you if there is an unavoidable incident.
You just said that you do not care how many people you kill - regardless of whether they are pedestrians, whether they are driving cars or whether they are on the bus. That is what people react to.
This is a fair concern. I’m unconvinced it’s even remotely a real market or political pressure.
On the market side, Waymo is constrained by some combination of production and auxiliaries. (Tesla, by technology.) On the political side, the salient debate is around jobs, in large part because Waymo has put to bed many of the practical safety questions from a best-in-class perspective.
I'm not really thinking about when self driving is State of the Art Research. I'm talking about when it becomes table stakes.
Honestly the real truth is I just do not trust tech companies to make decisions that are remotely in my best interest anymore.
I can't even trust tech companies to build software that respects a "do not send me marketing emails" checkbox, why would I ever trust a car driven by software built by the same sort of asshole?
Idk, we solve it then. Motor vehicles kill 40,000 Americans a year [1]. I’m willing to cautiously align with Google and maybe even Tesla if they can take a bit out of those numbers.
"Prioritizing my life over every other concern" looks like plowing over pedestrians to get me to the hospital. I dont think you can legally sell a product that promises that.
Have you been in a Waymo? SAE Level 4 is here, and it’s safer than humans [1].
I haven't seen a good criticism of their methodology. If you have one, I'd be curious about their take.
On a more-direct measure, Waymos have had starkly lower fatalities and at-risk incidents than human drivers on average and, I think, near their best.
Vastly VASTLY prefer Waymo. It's very good at its mission and is, at minimum, infinitely better than being in an Uber rideshare. I'd rather wait 20 minutes for a Waymo than 5 for any Uber or 0 to use my own car.
Ironically, Waymo got me much more interested in using my city's public transportation offering which is much better than I previously thought.
That said, Tesla FSD v14 is the best autonomous option for a supervised system that you can actually use.
It's not like they sold us leaded gasoline or "healthy tobacco" for decades.
If there was a significant problem, my liability only insurance premiums would be higher for the Tesla compared to a non Tesla. But they are not.
You’re correct inasmuch as we have no evidence there is “a significant problem.” But if Tesla is hiding evidence, as this article suggests, that might just be because lawsuits are still gaining steam.
Why? They only pay out if you’re at fault. And if there aren’t final judgements in a deep pipeline of cases, premiums wouldn’t have a reason to adjust yet.
I am also assuming that a collision involving a Tesla has at fault determinations that are more accurate than other brands, given the 6 or 7 cameras that are recording and should make determining fault easier.
Basically, if the Tesla was more dangerous to drive than a Toyota, because it was a Tesla, then insurance companies would be paying out more for insuring Teslas, and hence insurance companies would be charging higher liability only insurance premiums.
edit to respond to Forgeties79:
> The issue is they are potentially lying. It’s why we are even having this discussion. The numbers could be fraudulent
When your vehicle gets into a collision, no one contacts the auto manufacturer about who was at fault. Suppose two cars collide. The police write a report, collect evidence, maybe the drivers submit their video recordings to the insurer.
But no one is calling Tesla and asking them to determine who was at fault. And if they did, Tesla would say we never agreed to be liable, and the driver should have been paying attention. There is no way to escape that if it was costing insurers more to insure liability for a Tesla, they would be asking for higher premiums.
Whether or not Tesla is lying to the government or whoever is irrelevant for the goal of determining if Teslas cause more damage than other vehicle brands.
> if the Tesla was more dangerous to drive than a Toyota, because it was a Tesla, then insurance companies would be paying out more for insuring Teslas
You may be over indexing how much work liability insurers do. I have an umbrella policy. It absolutely doesn’t take into account the fact that I ski and fly a plane, for example. At the end of the day, their liability is capped and it’s usually easier to weed out by claims history than running models on small premiums.
And my entire point is I trust the incentives of the insurer to accurately price risk and determine at fault more than a publication that needs clicks.
> And given Tesla is potentially mucking with the data, the exculpatory value of having all those cameras is diminished.
Does the data from Tesla even come into play for an insurer? They need to pay the damaged parties regardless of whether or not Tesla and its software are at fault. For premium pricing purposes, what Tesla does is irrelevant until after Tesla is found liable.
In the meantime, a collision with a Tesla is the same as any other auto brand’s. I don’t think Ford/Toyota/anyone else’s software comes into play. No auto brand picks up the liability for the driver (except Mercedes in some circumstances, I think), so no automaker is in the picture for payment in the event of an individual collision.
Fair enough. I agree with you in the long run. I just don't think we've seen the litigation that will define liability play out yet.
> Does the data from Tesla even come into play for an insurer?
Directly? No. At least, not unless AI actuaries make the work worth the while.
For juries calculating damages? Plaintiffs weighing whether to bring a case? Sure. That, in turn, plays into liability. And that is something insurers care about.
> In the meantime, a collision with a Tesla is the same as any other auto brand’s
In the meantime, yes. If collisions with Teslas predictably result in larger damages than with other brands, you'd expect to see more litigation when a Tesla is involved/suspected at fault, and with that, higher costs.
> No auto brand picks up the liability for the driver
Tesla has been assigned liability already [1].
[1] https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2025/08/jury-awards-24...
And unfortunately, musk has earned people’s default skeptical stance towards him.
I'll get downvoted but just giving you the facts. I'm glad the Autopilot name has been retired. Such a bad name, but maybe a good name because autopilot in planes can't see and avoid obstacles either.
If autopilot was missleading, full self driving is too?
For some reason you could turn this on when you're not driving on the highway. It doesn't do anything for traffic lights, stop signs, obstacles, etc. because it's just cruise control. It's also included with every vehicle (unlike FSD).
Would you go to a driver's funeral and tell their family that um, ackshully it's sparkling autopilot?
What do you think you're adding to the conversation? You're trying to distract from the fact that real, actual people have been actually killed by this.
Tesla (or probably mostly Elon) was not selling "adaptive cruise control". It's selling "Autopilot" for $8k (now with a subscription AFAIK), with a pinky promise that "soon" or "next year" or "after two weeks" (jk) you essentially will set a destination, go to sleep and wake up at destination[1].
It's same as saying that "LLM != AI" and arguing that "ChatGPT is not AI - it's a glorified statistics model that is good at creating human sounding texts". Yeah - you and I understand this - but the average guy most likely does not and will get burned by this, because dozen tech-bros are burning billions of dollars and try to convince everyone that it's a panacea to every problem you can think of.
[1] It's a slight exageration, though I won't spend time digging for quotes but my main point is that's what Tesla are selling to an average guy and not nerds who can distinguish on what's possible, what's working and what level of driving assist there are.
[1] https://electrek.co/2026/03/18/tesla-cybertruck-fsd-crash-vi...
This terrible statistic can’t just be explained by aggressive driving owners or some other factor like that. Dodge has plenty of aggressive drivers buying their 700HP V8 rear wheel drive vehicles but they have better fatal accident rates than Tesla.
I’m convinced that Tesla makes unsafe cars and covers it up wherever they can.
The crash test safety awards their vehicles have won are clearly not representative of reality.
The self-driving system Tesla offers is only “ahead” of the competition because the competition is unwilling to sell an unsafe system.
Basically the same as Kia. Why are Kias so bad?
Kia have way smaller and cheaper cars with less security features to market. Tesla had front page news at some point saying how they were the safest car ever produced.
Tesla is giving people driving their cars a false sense of security.
> The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024 Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.
This would affect both driver selection and performance during impact
Slap a ridiculously powerful drivetrain on it and a premium price tag and you have a Tesla
“That’s it? If you’re gonna die, die with us?”
Tesla sells too many vehicles for it to be a “self selecting driver population” thing anymore. They sell almost as many Model Ys as Honda CRVs.
I have a hard time believing that driver profile has anything to do with it, and I especially dislike the temptation to explain away the data by making unsubstantiated excuses for the company.
Dodge has better statistics than Tesla and they almost exclusively sell muscle cars.
I don’t like Elon but I also don’t think fiction and misleading stats serve anyone.
I know you probably don't know off the top of your head, I'm hoping someone can chime in.
The main take-away for me from that page is that very few manufacturers seem to design for actual safety (only Volvo had good results), and Tesla was angry that a new test had been introduced which feels indicative of a bad safety culture.
It's not an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The lengths people will go to defend Tesla continue to astound me. Can’t we just say that they suck without making excuses for them?
Like this: https://www.euroncap.com/assessments/tesla/model%2B3/1110/
Something has to be flawed or there has to be some bias.
Synthetic controlled environment crash tests can’t test for a lot of fatal and documented problems with Teslas like electric door latches trapping occupants, distracted drivers due to most vehicle functions being screen-based, owners who think the vehicles are more autonomous than they really are due to misleading marketing, and other issues that crash tests just don’t catch.
I.e., They might do well once they’re in a crash but they might get in more crashes per mile leading to more fatalities per mile and a crash test can’t show that.
I can even accept that they get into more crashes per mile because they aren’t road tripped as frequently as gasoline cars and are used in more high fatality settings (e.g., stroads have worse fatalities than highways). Obviously that in particular wouldn’t be Tesla’s fault.
Care-free drivers could be the result of their marketing for sure but ultimately it's on them and this is precisely the bias I'm talking about.
Look, I do drive a Model 3. I like some parts and hate the others. Calling this "Autopilot" should have been illegal. But it does sound quite weird to me to insinuate they aren't safe as cars when European agencies found no safety issues with them.
lol. Those same European agencies you claim find the Tesla to be super safe are the ones mandating physical controls in future vehicles.
https://www.autoblog.com/news/europe-and-china-now-require-p...
Study on the distracting touch screens:
https://www.washington.edu/news/2025/12/16/video-drivers-str...
Eyes off road during level 2 autonomous driving:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
Teslas can do well in synthetic crash tests and still get into more fatal accidents per mile for other reasons. The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’d be fine with admitting that it’s because EV owners put fewer highways miles on them. But Tesla’s dismissive and combative reputation on safety along with removing simple controls like turn signal stalks isn’t doing them any favors.
I own a Mazda from their physical controls era (sadly somewhat coming to a close with the 2027 CX-5). The idea that the median driver is an uber driver juggling two phones is not realistic. My Mazda does not allow me to operate CarPlay with the touch screen while I’m driving. This alone stops me from messing with it. I can operate common functions by feel with physical buttons in the vehicle without looking at the screen.
I can operate the climate controls, mirror adjustments, turn signals, gear shifter, windshield wipers, air vents, drive modes, basically everything without looking completely by touch and muscle memory.
As a model 3 owner you have to admit your Tesla is basically an impossible rental car for the average person who has never driven one. They’ll have to take a tutorial on how to shift with a touch screen, how to adjust mirrors, where are the turn signals, how to turn on the windshield wipers, etc.
Now imagine if every car brand was Tesla and they all had completely different touch screen software designs and everything was on the screen. I think Avis and Hertz might go out of business or have to start their own car company to compensate.
Tesla’s fatality statistics don’t share my bias and speak for themselves.
At some point “it’s the driver’s fault” turns into “bad vehicle design” when enough scale is applied. Tesla is not some kind of low-volume niche automaker.
If I write software where the “Save” button is small and grey and the “discard changes” button is bold and blue, it’s not the user’s fault when many of my users lose their data. I was responsible for bad design.
It was Tesla’s choice to remove physical controls, make their screen as distracting as possible, make their cars accelerate faster than they need to despite competing in mainstream vehicle segments, deliver FSD with misleading promises in beta state, remove manual door releases from the vehicle trapping people inside, etc.
I don’t know what’s so hard to believe about the study. Tesla’s numbers are pretty similar to other low-performing brands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISeeCars.com#Partnerships
https://x.com/larsmoravy/status/1860100416819855492
Looking for more. tl;dr is that NHTSA publishes accident rates but not mileage. ISeeCars has access to legacy auto mileage from dealership data but guessed at mileage for Tesla's in the period in question. Their methodology was not released and was a fraction of the total mileage that Tesla recorded over that period.
I do agree that Tesla could do a much better job with data transparency. But the claims of the ISC report are pretty difficult to reconcile with the crash test ratings they've gotten from many regulators across the world.
This doesn’t show that ISeeCars is biased against Tesla specifically. Certainly their methodology could be flawed, but we don’t really have anyone else debunking them directly, and we have no evidence that it’s a hit piece.
IIHS crash test scores being good are the only counterpoint and those are synthetic in nature: crash test in a controlled environment. They can’t test for things like whether the occupants could get out or whether autopilot hallucinated and got into an accident that would have otherwise not happened.
Tesla makes unsubstantiated, exaggerated claims about capabilities of their system and directly encourages unsafe behavior. How many other manufacturers encourage test subjects to drive full speed ahead into a concrete divider "to see what happens"?