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
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
