News
Who will forego owning a car when Tesla’s ride-sharing service becomes available?
Picture this: no car payment, no car insurance, no circling the block looking for parking and no depreciation. Foregoing car ownership sounds pretty great. Why is it then that so many Americans insist on having a car? Simply stated: freedom.
Somewhere after the years of public transit, biking many miles or begging your parents for a ride, most of us got our own set of wheels. For some of us, it came in the form of a $900 death trap of a car that shook violently above 55 miles per hour. For others, an uncool but reliable toaster of a car. The car world as we have known it has always meant that unless you live and work in a major city with great public transportation, a personally owned vehicle is about the only convenient way to travel from point A to point B on a regular basis. This is especially true for families. If you’ve never been on a bus or subway with a baby in a stroller, spare yourself the circus. It’s also true depending on exactly which neighborhood you live in, even if you are in a major city. Taxicabs, where available, are far more convenient than public transportation, but certainly aren’t widely available outside of the most densely populated metro areas and at least to me, have always been cost prohibitive to use for any more than a special occasion. To reiterate the point, we all like freedom. And convenience. We like to go where we want to when we want to, without standing on a bus or watching a train timetable.
Ride-sharing services such as Lyft and Uber have upended the traditional taxicab model and, in many markets, undercut the price while providing a superior service. I certainly enjoyed riding in a flawlessly clean Kia Optima Hybrid Saturday night with a chatty and friendly driver far more than the high mileage, stale smelling, yellow Crown Vics that pass as taxis in Philly. The before and after experience are far better as well. Smart phone apps tell you who will be picking you up, in which kind of car, and exactly how far away they are. Cabs still require being flagged down and the joke’s on you when the 5th one passes you by with the “vacant” indicator light in use but passengers in the rear. Afterwards, you get notified that your credit card was charged in some amount that you had already been prepared for. In a taxi, you either pull out cash when you see the ever-surprising sum due or watch the driver give you an attitude for using their in-car credit card machine.
Trends are already developing among young adults to move into thriving urban areas, work nearby and pass up owning their own wheels. A lot of reasons contribute but the ease of using ride-sharing services is certainly one of them. What I’d like to explore here is whether or not this trend will grow – both among young adults as well as others – as autonomous vehicles come to market and bring with them the possibility that ride-sharing services will be even more common and affordable. I offer below a few categories of people and my assessment on whether or not they may give up a car in favor of autonomous vehicle ride-sharing.
TARGET: YOUNG, SINGLE, URBAN DWELLER. ANSWER: YES.
These folks are already the group that are giving up cars today, so surely they’ll continue to do so when that option becomes cheaper and even more widely available.
TARGET: YOUNG, SINGLE, ANYWHERE ELSE DWELLER; ANSWER: PROBABLY.
These folks will share many of attributes of those who forego car ownership today. They will, on average, have student loan debt to tackle and plenty of familiarity with smart phones.
TARGET: TWO ADULT HOUSEHOLD WITH NO KIDS. ANSWER: MAYBE.
This group of folks may be willing to forego one car in the household. Depending on their age and familiarity with today’s ride-sharing offerings, they could be the perfect target to give up one car. This demographic is the one I belong to. Having jobs in opposite directions makes owning two cars the most convenient option, but outside of the work commute, the second car never moves.
TARGET: TWO PARENT FAMILY. ANSWER: PROBABLY NOT.
Children are required to ride in car seats for quite a few years these days. For that reason alone, I would imagine ride-sharing to be more trouble than it’s worth. If, like the two-adult household with no kids one car is solely used as a commuter, that one could probably be given up. But the way I understand today’s modern family to work, either parent has to be ready to spring into action with little notice if daycare gets shut down due to snow or Junior gets sick in school.
TARGET: MATURE ADULTS. ANSWER: HOPEFULLY.
This is where I’d really like to see ride-sharing take off. If you are fortunate enough to make it to old age, your eyes or reflexes may not join you in their youthful form. The mature adults I’ve been close with have all wanted to continue driving beyond the point that in their individual circumstances, was probably wise. I get it. Freedom. When you’re a feisty octogenarian with an old habit of going to the grocery store daily (a holdover for the decades when you hid your smoking habit from everyone) it must be impossible to imagine yourself sans keys. If we can invent these cars, surely we can also invent easy ways of calling one up for a customer who isn’t particularly interested in owning or operating a smart device. (A telephone dialing service, perhaps – especially helpful for those with vision problems.)
AS FOR ME?
I just got done telling my better half that due to his short commute and our never using our second car outside of the work day, we could easily ditch car number two and have him Uber to work. The conversation was short-lived, as I have the longer commute and he has no interest in handing over the Model S fob to me on a permanent basis. In theory though, might it work? Yes. Would I end up doing it? Probably no. I’d be more inclined to owning an autonomous Tesla and letting it work for me such that the overall cost of owning and operating it was comparable to using a ride-sharing service in place of owning one.
The why is simple: freedom.
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
