News
NHTSA says your Tesla can’t be this quiet starting Sept., 2019
We at Teslarati are all in favor of making vehicles as safe as possible. Indeed, in our research and analysis of Teslas, we were proud early on in 2013 when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) awarded the Tesla Model S a 5-star safety rating, not just overall, but in every subcategory without exception. It was so safe, in fact, that the all-electric sedan broke the testing equipment at an independent commercial facility. Fast-forward to 2015. The Model X was the first SUV to be five-star in every category, according to Tesla CEO Elon Musk. It even won the prestigious Golden Steering Wheel (Das Goldene Lenkrad) award for best SUV this year.
Safety is important and should be primary to any driving situation. It should prevail over luxury features, style, and even comfort. However, a new NHTSA regulation that purports to target safety in its language is little more than a superficial gesture within a larger framework of driver, passenger, and pedestrian concerns.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 141, which will begin on September 1, 2019, requires all newly manufactured hybrid and electric light-duty vehicles to make an audible noise at speeds below 19 mph. The sound requirement has been designed to help pedestrians who are blind, have low vision, cyclists, and other pedestrians to detect the presence, direction, and location of hybrids and EVs traveling at low speeds. At higher speeds, the sound alert will not be required because other factors, such as tire and wind noise, seem to provide adequate audible warning to pedestrians and will not be the subject of this regulation.
“We all depend on our senses to alert us to possible danger,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “With more, quieter hybrid and electrical cars on the road, the ability for all pedestrians to hear as well as see the cars becomes an important factor of reducing the risk of possible crashes and improving safety.”
Creating a social environment in which all individuals — especially those with disabilities, underrepresented groups, children, and the elderly — are physically and psychologically welcomed and safe is absolutely paramount to a healthy community. Manufacturers and drivers of hybrids and EVs do have a responsibility to contribute to such an environment.
Yet, clearly, we have a generation who has been accustomed to the sounds and smells of internal combustion engines. Wouldn’t driver and pedestrian education be a more efficacious way to ensure that hybrids and EVs do not pose a safety threat? Daniel Kahneman’s (2013) work, Thinking Fast and Slow, suggests that innovative products require a higher degree of learning than existing products. Education to help EV drivers and individuals who do not have personal access to hybrids and EVS, thus, who have not built in conscious mechanisms toward the awareness of hybrids and EVs in traffic, would have longer lasting and more permanent results.
Making the case for educating pedestrians
As the general population increases its awareness of the risks of pollution to both health and the environment, the internal combustion engine has become less desirable. As a result, battery-powered, fuel-cell electric, and hybrid vehicles are technologically viable alternatives to the internal combustion engine. And they’re beginning to take on a significant segment of the U.S. vehicle market.
Essentially, an internal combustion engine works like a cannon. The sound that results is formidable and part of our collective U.S. psyche. It is ingrained in our psychological expectations of what an engine should be. Electric motors, however, make very little noise compared with an internal combustion engine. Research on the safety implications of quiet electric vehicles has mostly focused on pedestrians’ acoustic perception of EVs and suggests that EVs compromise traffic safety. However, Cocran & Krems‘ 2013 research determined that, based on gained individual experience, drivers adjust their evaluation of noise-related hazards. Some statistical observation studies in literature indicate that hybrid or EV drivers intend to be more careful, less risk takers in traffic (Horswill and Coster 2002). Thus, it makes sense to increase the awareness factors for everyone — EV drivers and pedestrians — to create more robust safe traffic situations when EVs are added to the vehicle mix.
Adding to the sound mix
Principles to increase awareness of hybrids and EVs have generally focused on alerts, or sounds that indicate the presence of an EV. Other principles, such as orientation mechanisms, which make it possible to determine where the vehicle is located, roughly how fast it is going, and whether it is moving toward or away from the listener, extend beyond mere white or overt noises.
Education transcends any of these physical additions to a hybrid or EV. Hybrid and EV drivers as well as pedestrians should be exposed to new conceptual thinking about the place of EVs in traffic situations. Alongside the new federal safety standard that requires low speed noise, hybrid and EV automakers can build in specific educational materials to prepare their consumer base for new driving situations, which will continue to add safety awareness. With access to multiple new technologies, drivers could have multimodal educational opportunities.
- Audio systems could provide periodic, random reminders to increase driver awareness of pedestrians and cyclists in slow speed situations.
- Automakers could require that drivers work through a series of interactive online tutorials that accentuate driver understanding of slow speed safety adaptations with hybrids and EVs.
- Traditional print manuals should include dedicated sections that address slow speed driver safety decision making.
- Before-driving checklists should include explicit instruction in slow speed situations and the possibility of pedestrian interactions.
Consumer safety groups can also assume responsibility for educating their constituents about new needs for pedestrian and cyclist awareness.
- Cyclist advocacy organizations can provide seminars to their members during events to increase strategies for hybrid and EV slow speed situations.
- Existing support groups for persons with visual impairment can add workshops about hybrid and EVs to empower them to anticipate potential slow speed traffic situations.
- Minimal training standards for service animals could include special animal recognition of hybrid and EVs.
- Traditional and highly respected elderly advocacy organizations like AARP could provide print and online materials to help a generation who grew up with internal combustion engines to accommodate strategies to recognize hybrids and EVs in traffic.
Yes, adoption and diffusion of new innovations can be a long-term, complicated process. Airbags, child safety features, exhaust gas hazard, seat belts, and driver assist technologies currently provide hybrid and EV drivers with a toolkit of pedestrian safety measures. But we want more than to prevent what NHTSA says is about 2,400 pedestrian injuries each year that occur during low speed hybrid or EV/ pedestrian interactions. We want to create a cultural climate in which a social vehicular knowledge base extends well beyond the internal combustion engine.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
