News
Cruise in hot seat amid Fire Department’s claims that robotaxis delayed responders in fatal incident
General Motors’ self-driving unit, Cruise, saw protests outside its San Francisco headquarters earlier this week. The protests come amidst the San Francisco Fire Department’s claims that some of the company’s autonomous robotaxis contributed to the tragic death of a pedestrian.
The incident, which happened on August 14, involved a pedestrian who was hit by a car in the South of Market neighborhood of San Francisco. The pedestrian’s injuries were so severe that there was heavy bleeding, and the person was no longer responding to verbal commands. It was evident that the injured pedestrian needed urgent medical care, so it was pertinent to have the person transported to a hospital as early as possible.
Public reports from the San Francisco Fire Department that were obtained by Forbes claimed that the behavior of Cruise robotaxis ended up impeding the workflow of emergency responders, so much so that critical medical care was delayed. One of the Fire Department’s reports about the incident reads as follows.
“On 8/14/2023, I was assigned to Medic 87 and responded to Incident FD23108420, at 7th Street and Harrison, for an auto vs. pedestrian. Harrison Street is 4 lanes of one-way traffic heading westbound. Upon arrival on scene, the victim was found in the (2) left lanes of Harrison Street, suffering from life-threatening injuries. SFPD and E01 had arrived prior to M87’s arrival. SFPD had a vehicle parked in the #1 lane of Harrison, and E01 had positioned its apparatus across the left 2 lanes of Harrison to shield the patient from oncoming traffic. The right 2 lanes of Harrison were blocked by (2) autonomous Cruise vehicles that had stopped and were not moving, blocking ingress and egress to the incident scene.
“The patient was suffering from life-threatening injuries, with a GCS 3, agonal respirations, and absent peripheral pulses. SFPD had applied a tourniquet to the left lower extremity to stop life-threatening bleeding from injuries sustained after being struck by a vehicle. Ventilations were assisted with a BVM, and the patient was packaged for rapid transport to a trauma center.
“While loading the patient to the ambulance, the (2) Cruise vehicles were still stopped in the right 2 lanes of Harrison, prohibiting rapid egress from the scene. SFPD had attempted manual takeover of the autonomous vehicles, but were unsuccessful. This contributed to a delay in transport with a critical trauma patient.
“SFFD members had to locate an SFPD officer and request him to move his vehicle to allow successful egress from the scene, but doing so further delayed patient care. These delays caused by (2) autonomous vehicles blocking a normal egress route from the scene contributed to a poor patient outcome, delaying the definitive care required in severe trauma cases. The patient was pronounced deceased at SFGH approximately 20-30 minutes after arrival due to severe blunt-force trauma.”
Cruise has spoken out against the Fire Department’s account of the event. In a comment to The San Francisco Standard, a Cruise spokesperson noted that “we did not impede the vehicle from getting to the hospital” and “what the fire department said is not accurate.”
“The first vehicle promptly clears the area once the light turns green and the other stops in the lane to yield to first responders who are directing traffic. Throughout the entire duration the AV is stopped, traffic remains unblocked and flowing to the right of the AV. The ambulance behind the AV had a clear path to pass the AV as other vehicles, including the ambulance, proceeded to do so. As soon as the victim was loaded into the ambulance, the ambulance left the scene immediately and was never impeded from doing so by the AV,” Cruise noted in a statement.
Cruise has reportedly provided a video to back up its claims. The video reportedly showed that while one Cruise robotaxi was indeed stopped at an intersection, there was a free lane to its right where traffic was moving. The video, which was reviewed by Forbes, did show numerous vehicles, including a small ambulance, moving through the free lane. However, the publication noted that it was not clear from the footage if the larger SFFD ambulance, which was likely transporting the severely injured pedestrian, could have navigated the area as easily.
Below are incident reports from the San Francisco Fire Department. The case in question is described in Page 68 and 69 of the document.
Cruise San Francisco Reports by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads-up.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
