News
Self-driving Teslas and autonomous vehicles will end traffic as we know it
We are all fascinated with autonomous driving in terms of what it can do for us. Make the elderly mobile again without endangering the rest of us with their arguably reduced reaction times, less acute hearing and vision. We dream of the day when we can sleep through a long, boring trip. Doing valuable work in what would otherwise be dead time is a plus too. One thing we haven’t talked about too much is how autonomous cars can radically reduce the congestion of our roads.
Six Inches of Separation (With All Due Respect to Kevin Bacon)
One way we can reduce highway congestion is to reduce the following distances between cars. It takes a human about four seconds to react to a car stopping ahead of us. At 60 mph, that translates to 88 feet per second or a total traveled of 352 feet before you are really starting to stop the car. Using the 2 1/2 second rule would yield 220 feet. Now if you have a car which reacts in, oh say, 1,000 nanoseconds, or a millionth of a second, some have argued that a six inch separation would be more than enough time for the computer to stop the car in time to avoid a collision. So, a non-autonomous car would take up about 220 feet of roadway per car, autonomous cars would take up roughly 20 feet per car. 220 divided by 20 yields about 11 cars per 220 feet of roadway rather than one. You’ve magically increased the carrying capacity which decreases congestion.
Platooning
This increased use of autonomy will almost certainly create “platooning” on our roads where cars headed in the same direction are pulled up within inches of the car ahead creating a “car train” of 30, 50, or more cars all traveling at high speed to a destination ahead of them. With level 5 autonomy, some have suggested that 90 mph is reasonable while remaining very safe.
So let’s do a mind experiment here. You have a 220 foot stretch of roadway which can now safely carry 1 car traveling at 60 mph. Let’s put in a platoon of 11 cars traveling at 90 mph. That 220 foot stretch of roadway at 90 mph can carry 15 cars rather than 11 because 90 is 150% of 60. You have now increased the carrying capacity of the roadway by 1500%, or put another way, it would be like the New York State Thruway had 1/15 the cars on it that it does now. Rush hour would be like driving at three in the morning.
You may say that 220 feet is a preposterous amount of road and that people routinely travel only 10 to 20 feet behind the car in front of them. My response is look at the accident statistics. Yeah, you can travel that close. You just can’t travel that close safely.
Goose it Man!
One of the arguments against high speed travel in cars has been that as you increase speed, miles per kilowatt drop radically. Wind resistance is the big thief of range. When you read about people who manage to get ridiculous miles per charge out of their Teslas you can bet that last dollar that they are driving slowly!
Here’s where we can take a lesson from NASCAR and…wait for it, GEESE! Any fan of NASCAR knows that the drivers “draft” the car in front of them to save gas. The reason is very simple. The car in front is pushing the air out of the way, and the car behind benefits from traveling at the same speed in a partial vacuum, enabling the following driver to save fuel and possibly avoid a pit stop.
Why am I talking about geese? Ever wonder why geese travel in that cool V-formation? Similar reason. They avoid the turbulence from the goose ahead and conserve energy. Being cooperative sorts they trade places with the leader, who drops back and lets the next goose in line take over the toughest place, which is the lead. That way all the geese get to where they’re going quicker and with less fatigue. In our terms, with less battery energy expended.
I foresee platooning supplemented with leader “dropback” like the geese, let’s say, every five miles, to enable very fast driving times with lower fuel/kilowatt hour consumption. This will become part of the autonomous software suite.
So, all hail the goose, and I, for one, look forward to autonomous driving because of the effect platooning will have on our drives, and the automatic increase of the carrying capacity of our roads. Cool, very cool!
Allan Honeyman
(Submitted via email to the Teslarati Network. Do you a post you’d like to share? Email it to us at info@teslarati.com)
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
