News
Tesla Autopilot Abusers need to be held accountable, but how?
Tesla Autopilot Abusers need to be held accountable for their actions. For years, Tesla engineers have worked long and hard to improve Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. Hundreds of thousands of hours of work have been put into these driving assistance programs, whether it would be through software, coding, and programming or through other mediums. However, years of hard work, diligence, and improvement can be wiped away from the public’s perception in a minute with one foolish, irresponsible, and selfish act that can be derived from an owner’s need to show off their car’s semi-autonomous functionalities to others.
The most recent example of this is with Param Sharma, a self-proclaimed “rich as f***” social media influencer who has spent the last few days sparring with Tesla enthusiasts through his selfish and undeniably dangerous act of jumping in the backseat while his car is operating on Autopilot. Sharma has been seen on numerous occasions sitting in the backseat of his car while the vehicle drives itself. It is almost a sure thing that Sharma is using several cheat devices in his Tesla to bypass typical barriers the company has installed to ensure drivers are paying attention. These include a steering wheel sensor, seat sensors, and seatbelt sensors, all of which must be controlled or connected by the driver at the time of Autopilot’s use. We have seen several companies and some owners use DIY hack devices to bypass these safety thresholds. These are hazardous acts for several reasons, the most important being the lack of appreciation for other human lives.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
While Tesla fans and enthusiasts are undoubtedly confident in the abilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, they will also admit that the use of these suites needs to be used responsibly and as the company describes. Tesla has never indicated that its vehicles can drive themselves, which can be characterized as “Level 5 Autonomy.” The company also indicates that drivers must keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times. There are several safety features that Tesla has installed to ensure that these are recognized by the car’s operator. If these safety precautions are not followed, the driver runs the risk of being put in “Autopilot Jail,” where they will not have the feature available to them for the remainder of their drive.
As previously mentioned, there are cheat devices for all of these safety features, however. This is where Tesla cannot necessarily control what goes on, and law enforcement, in my opinion, is more responsible than the company actually is. It is law enforcement’s job to stop this from happening if an officer sees it occurring. Nobody should be able to climb into the backseat of their vehicle while it is driving. A least not until many years of testing are completed, and many miles of fully autonomous functionalities are proven to be accurate and robust enough to handle real-world traffic.
The reason Tesla should step in, in my opinion, and create a list of repeat offenders who have proven themselves to be irresponsible and not trustworthy enough for Autopilot and FSD, is because if an accident happens while these influencers or everyday drivers are taking advantage of Autopilot’s capabilities, Tesla, along with every other company working to develop Level 5 Autonomous vehicles, takes a huge step backward. Not only will Tesla feel the most criticism from the media, but it will be poured on as the company is taking no real steps to prevent it from happening. Unbelievably, we in the Tesla community know what the vehicles can and what safety precautions have been installed to prevent these incidents from happening. However, mainstream media outlets do not have an explicit and in-depth understanding of Tesla’s capabilities. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they have no intentions of improving their comprehension of what Tesla does daily.
While talking to someone about this subject on Thursday, they highlighted that this isn’t Tesla’s concern. And while I believe that it really isn’t, I don’t think that’s an acceptable answer to solve all of the abuses going on with the cars. Tesla should take matters into its own hands, and I believe it should because it has done it before. Elon Musk and Tesla decided to expand the FSD Beta testing pool recently, but the company also revoked access to some people who have decided that they would not use the functionality properly. Why is this any different in the case of AP/FSD? Just because someone pays for something doesn’t mean the company cannot revoke access to it. If you pay for access to play video games online and hack or use abusive language, there are major consequences. Your console can get banned, and you would be required to buy a completely new unit if you ever wished to play online video games again.
While unfortunate, Tesla will have to make a stand against those who abuse Autopilot, in my opinion. There needs to be heavier consequences by the company simply because an accident caused by abuse or misuse of the functionalities could set the company back several years and put their work to solve Level 5 Autonomy in a vacuum. There is entirely too much at stake here to even begin to let people off the hook. I believe that Tesla’s actions should follow law enforcement action. When police officers find someone violating the proper use of the system, the normal reckless driving charges should be held up, and there should be increasingly worse consequences for every subsequent offense. Perhaps after the third offense, Tesla could be contacted and could have AP/FSD taken off of the car. There could be a probationary period or a zero-tolerance policy; it would all be up to the company.
I believe that this needs to be taken so seriously, and there need to be consequences because of the blatant disregard for other people and their work. The irresponsible use of AP/FSD by childish drivers means that Tesla’s hard work is being jeopardized by horrible behavior. While many people don’t enjoy driving, it still requires responsibility, and everyone on the road is entrusting you to drive responsibly. It could cost your life or, even worse, someone else’s.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving version 14.2 yesterday to members of the Early Access Program (EAP). Expectations were high, and Tesla surely delivered.
With the rollout of Tesla FSD v14.2, there were major benchmarks for improvement from the v14.1 suite, which spanned across seven improvements. Our final experience with v14.1 was with v14.1.7, and to be honest, things were good, but it felt like there were a handful of regressions from previous iterations.
While there were improvements in brake stabbing and hesitation, we did experience a few small interventions related to navigation and just overall performance. It was nothing major; there were no critical takeovers that required any major publicity, as they were more or less subjective things that I was not particularly comfortable with. Other drivers might have been more relaxed.
With v14.2 hitting our cars yesterday, there were a handful of things we truly noticed in terms of improvement, most notably the lack of brake stabbing and hesitation, a major complaint with v14.1.x.
However, in a 62-minute drive that was fully recorded, there were a lot of positives, and only one true complaint, which was something we haven’t had issues with in the past.
The Good
Lack of Brake Stabbing and Hesitation
Perhaps the most notable and publicized issue with v14.1.x was the presence of brake stabbing and hesitation. Arriving at intersections was particularly nerve-racking on the previous version simply because of this. At four-way stops, the car would not be assertive enough to take its turn, especially when other vehicles at the same intersection would inch forward or start to move.
This was a major problem.
However, there were no instances of this yesterday on our lengthy drive. It was much more assertive when arriving at these types of scenarios, but was also more patient when FSD knew it was not the car’s turn to proceed.
Can report on v14.2 today there were ZERO instances of break stabbing or hesitation at intersections today
It was a significant improvement from v14.1.x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
This improvement was the most noticeable throughout the drive, along with fixes in overall smoothness.
Speed Profiles Seem to Be More Reasonable
There were a handful of FSD v14 users who felt as if the loss of a Max Speed setting was a negative. However, these complaints will, in our opinion, begin to subside, especially as things have seemed to be refined quite nicely with v14.2.
Freeway driving is where this is especially noticeable. If it’s traveling too slow, just switch to a faster profile. If it’s too fast, switch to a slower profile. However, the speeds seem to be much more defined with each Speed Profile, which is something that I really find to be a huge advantage. Previously, you could tell the difference in speeds, but not in driving styles. At times, Standard felt a lot like Hurry. Now, you can clearly tell the difference between the two.
It seems as if Tesla made a goal that drivers should be able to tell which Speed Profile is active if it was not shown on the screen. With v14.1.x, this was not necessarily something that could be done. With v14.2, if someone tested me on which Speed Profile was being used, I’m fairly certain I could pick each one.
Better Overall Operation
I felt, at times, especially with v14.1.7, there were some jerky movements. Nothing that was super alarming, but there were times when things just felt a little more finicky than others.
v14.2 feels much smoother overall, with really great decision-making, lane changes that feel second nature, and a great speed of travel. It was a very comfortable ride.
The Bad
Parking
It feels as if there was a slight regression in parking quality, as both times v14.2 pulled into parking spots, I would have felt compelled to adjust manually if I were staying at my destinations. For the sake of testing, at my first destination, I arrived, allowed the car to park, and then left. At the tail-end of testing, I walked inside the store that FSD v14.2 drove me to, so I had to adjust the parking manually.
This was pretty disappointing. Apart from parking at Superchargers, which is always flawless, parking performance is something that needs some attention. The release notes for v14.2. state that parking spot selection and parking quality will improve with future versions.
Any issues with parking on your end? 14.1.7 didn’t have this trouble with parking pic.twitter.com/JPLRO2obUj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
However, this was truly my only complaint about v14.2.
You can check out our full 62-minute ride-along below:
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 – Full Review, the Good and the Bad
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
