News
Elon Musk is trying to help solve the Flint Water Crisis
After building a mini-submarine to aid in the rescue attempt of the members of the Wild Boar soccer team in Thailand, Elon Musk is now flexing his philanthropic muscles towards a long-standing issue in the United States — the Flint Water Crisis.
Musk previously noted on Twitter that he has already been helping out the citizens of Flint. Spurred on by some Flint residents and activists for the city, however, Musk opted to take a more hands-on approach. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO promptly coordinated with individuals testing the contamination levels of the city’s water system, and by Wednesday, Musk has provided an email address, flint@x.com, where residents can send the results of their water’s ppm (parts per million) and ppb (parts per billion) levels.
Musk’s pledge to help the people of Flint has mostly been met positively by the online community, with several of his followers even offering to lend a hand to a “barnstorming weekend” aimed at installing water filters in the homes of the city’s residents. Musk also reacted favorably to the idea of utilizing Flint’s local plumbers to help in the initiative. Despite being in China to discuss Tesla’s plans of building Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai, Musk further stated that he would call Flint Mayor Karen Weaver about plans to address the city’s water problems.
Gathering input this week, will begin taking action next week and let people know how they can help
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 12, 2018
Just like his efforts to help in the Thailand cave rescue operations, Musk’s pledge to help the city of Flint became a target for his staunch critics online. Key Flint activist Mari Copeny, better known as Little Miss Flint due to her letter to then-president Barack Obama about the ongoing water crisis, clarified Musk’s involvement, however, stating that the city is appreciative of the serial tech entrepreneur’s efforts to help.
Hey world. Let’s set the record straight. My team has been working with @elonmusk and his team for over a week to figure out the best solution to help #Flint with the #FlintwaterCrisis
Extremely grateful for him and all he has done so far.— Mari Copeny (@LittleMissFlint) July 12, 2018
The Flint Water Crisis started in April 2014, after the city’s drinking water source was changed from Lake Huron and the Detroit River to the much cheaper Flint River. Insufficient water treatment caused lead to be leached from lead water pipes into the residents’ drinking water. Lead pipes are viable pipes for water systems, provided that corrosion inhibitors are used to prevent lead from contaminating the water. A common corrosion inhibitor is orthophosphate, which forms low-solubility complexes with the lead in the pipes. Orthophosphates were used in Flint’s systems when the drinking water was coming from Detroit, but when the shift to the Flint River was conducted, no orthophosphate or any other anti-corrosion inhibitors were used. The absence of these inhibitors is behind the harrowing images of rust-colored water coming from Flint’s water supply.
The lead-contaminated water caused several grave problems for Flint’s residents. Between 6,000 to 12,000 children from Flint have been exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead, which could result to serious health problems. The percentage of Flint children with elevated blood-lead levels is estimated to have risen from about 2.5% in 2013 to as much as 5% in 2015 as well. An outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease, a form of atypical pneumonia with no known vaccine, also resulted in 10 fatalities. The Legionnaires’ outbreak is linked to Flint’s contaminated water supply.
A comparison between Flint’s water coming from the Flint River and the Detroit River. [Credit: Occupy]
The Flint Water Crisis has resulted in several lawsuits being filed against government officials, many of which were accused of mismanaging the situation. Since the water crisis’ peak, however, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has stated that the lead content of Flint’s water has fallen below the federal limit. As of April 2018, the MDEQ issued a statement assuring Flint’s residents that the city’s water quality “has been restored.” Regardless of this, however, many Flint residents remain skeptical that their water is now safe, especially considering that the replacement of the contaminated lead pipes is still ongoing. In this sense, Musk noted on Twitter that the planned “barnstorming” weekend in Flint would not only aim to give residents water filters for their homes; it would also attempt to fix residents’ perception of the city’s water supply.
You’re right on both counts. Most houses in Flint have safe water, but they’ve lost faith in govt test results. Some houses are still outliers. Will organize a weekend in Flint to add filters to those houses with issues & hopefully fix perception of those that are actually good.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 11, 2018
While Elon Musk’s recent philanthropic ventures are attracting more attention than usual, the SpaceX and Tesla CEO’s humanitarian efforts have actually been going on for some time. It should be noted that Tesla’s big battery in South Australia was started after Musk became aware of the power crisis in the region. After Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, Musk also promptly sent a team to help the island nation get back on its feet. As of Musk’s latest update, he noted that there are currently 11,000 projects underway in Puerto Rico.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
