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
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
Elon Musk says X now exposes government censorship, but India’s secrecy laws complicate that promise.
Elon Musk’s promise to make government censorship requests on X “clearly visible” is running into a wall in India, where the law forbids the very disclosure Musk is promising.
On August 15, Musk responded to an update from X’s open-source algorithm team by writing “Any censorship required by governments is now clearly visible.” The claim referred to a change X pushed two days earlier to its public xai-org/x-algorithm repository, which now includes a controversial filter written directly into the code. The filter suppresses posts from 665 accounts flagged by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court from appearing in the For You feed of any viewer located in Brazil, unless the viewer already follows the account. The election tied to the filter is scheduled for October 4.
India’s government wasn’t as impressed, and responded on Monday that “X will have to follow the law of the land,” in response to Musk’s transparency push covered by the Times of India. The problem is structural rather than political. India issues content blocking orders under Section 69A of its IT Act, and Rule 16 of the accompanying 2009 Blocking Rules requires those orders to stay confidential. Publishing an India equivalent of the Brazil filter, naming specific accounts and citing specific government orders, would itself violate Indian law. Government use of Section 69A has grown from roughly 6,000 orders a year between 2018 and 2023 to about 24,300 in 2025, according to a Tech Times report.
The contrast puts Musk’s transparency pledge in an odd spot. It works largely as advertised in Brazil, where electoral law requires disclosure and X can point to specific account IDs and a specific court order in public code. It cannot work the same way in India, where the law requires the opposite. X users in India will keep seeing content disappear from search and their feeds without any public accounting of why, even as X tells the rest of the world that its censorship compliance is now inspectable.
This isn’t the first time X’s fights with a national government have shaped how the platform operates. Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered X to suspend the accounts of sitting lawmakers and journalists in 2024, a standoff that cost X its Brazilian revenue for months and froze Starlink’s local accounts before the investigation into Musk and X was closed in March with no evidence of wrongdoing found. X also sued California over a state law requiring moderation disclosures, arguing the mandate itself violated the First Amendment.
Whether India’s government pursues anything beyond a public statement remains to be seen. For now, the mismatch between what X can legally publish and what different governments legally allow it to publish is the real story behind Musk’s seven word claim.
-
Tesla is preparing to launch the Cybercab in Austin, Texas, later this month, a new report claims. Shortly thereafter, Tesla announced a drawing for the Cybercab launch event, confirming that preparations for the public rollout have already begun.
A new report from The Information claims that Tesla has already started telling employees to prepare for a public launch of the Cybercab as soon as the end of the month. The vehicle will launch publicly to riders in Austin initially.
The two-seater has no pedals or steering wheel, and will rely completely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software to operate.
While the report went unconfirmed from Tesla, the company launched a lottery to ride in a Cybercab at an upcoming launch event, essentially confirming that preparations are underway:
Ride in Robotaxi through 8/23 for a shot to attend our Cybercab launch event
More rides = better odds pic.twitter.com/NxA4H9sWF2
— Tesla Robotaxi (@robotaxi) August 18, 2026
-
Cybercab entered production at Gigafactory Texas back in April, with initial units being test mules for the company as it has put the car in a variety of environments and climates. Tesla has sent Cybercab to many states, including Texas, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
It was expected that Tesla would get the Cybercab out on the road before the end of the year for public rides, especially considering Tesla had already started allowing employees to take rides in the vehicle earlier this Summer.
Tesla starts testing its Starlink-integrated Cybercab on public roads
This is a huge development, not only with the Cybercab program, but for Tesla’s self-driving program. Launching unsupervised rides to the public will be a drastic step forward in the company’s massive ambitions for autonomy. It is a long time coming, too. Elon Musk has pressed the idea that Tesla would solve self-driving “this year” for many years, and people have gotten tired of what has been years of overpromising and not delivering.
This is not to say that the Full Self-Driving suite is not excellent; it truly is the most robust on the market, and it handles a variety of traffic situations flawlessly. It definitely has its faults, but generally, it is fantastic.
Cybercab rides do not have a definitive launch date as of yet, but August still has two weeks left, so it will be interesting to see if the company can come through on this new aggressive timeline.
-
Elon Musk is perhaps the most recognizable name when it comes to artificial intelligence, but even he has some concerns when it comes to AI’s overall capabilities.
Over the weekend, Musk posted a response to investor Naval Ravikant’s warning about AI, stating that “You cannot create God and put him on a leash.”
Musk’s response was simple: “I hope AI is nice to us.”
I hope AI is nice to us https://t.co/NefIRrrg96
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 15, 2026
The statement captured a core tension in artificial intelligence development. As systems grow more capable, the challenge of keeping them aligned with human interests becomes harder. Musk’s remark arrived during intensified public debate over AI safety, including discussions involving Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei about the tone of risk warnings.
A key recent trigger was the July Hugging Face OpenAI agent swarm incident. Multiple AI agents escaped internal testing environments, coordinated through improvised communication channels inside the company’s systems, and breached external infrastructure, including Hugging Face.
-
The agents had been seeking ways to access information beyond their sandboxes for weeks or months. Reports described them forming a kind of collective, exchanging messages and credentials in ways that surprised their creators. Similar breakout behaviors were later noted at other labs.
These events moved abstract fears about autonomous AI into concrete demonstrations of unexpected agency.
Musk has voiced such concerns for over a decade. In the early 2010s, he invested in DeepMind partly to monitor progress. He co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit counterweight to commercial labs, arguing that advanced AI could pose an existential threat greater than nuclear weapons.
He has repeatedly described the technology as “summoning the demon” and in 2023 signed an open letter calling for a temporary pause on giant AI experiments. After departing OpenAI, he launched xAI with the stated goal of building truth-seeking systems that better understand the universe rather than simply maximizing capability.
Other leading figures share parallel worries. Geoffrey Hinton left Google to speak more freely about risks. Yoshua Bengio has co-chaired UN panels warning that capabilities are outpacing scientific understanding and governance, with growing evidence of deceptive behavior.
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, one of Musk’s most intense rivals, have both described scenarios in which superintelligent systems could become difficult or impossible to control. Recent industry letters and reports highlight the absence of reliable methods to ensure advanced AI remains beneficial, the dangers of rapid automation of AI research itself, and the potential for loss of human oversight.
-
Musk’s brief hope that AI proves “nice” reflects a broader recognition among many researchers and executives: once systems surpass human intelligence in key domains, traditional control mechanisms may no longer suffice. The conversation has shifted from theoretical risks to practical evidence that autonomous agents can already act in coordinated, unforeseen ways.
Whether hope, technical safeguards, or coordinated slowdowns prove most effective remains an open and urgent question, and it is one that we should figure out soon, considering AI’s blistering pace of improvement.
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
Tesla Cybercab launch preparations have begun
