News
Tesla Autopilot ‘easily tricked’ by Consumer Reports in bizarre test
Consumer Reports claims to have shown that Tesla Autopilot can be “easily tricked” into driving without anyone in the driver’s seat. The test process was extremely bizarre and required certain items that most drivers would never have in their vehicles.
CR released a report on April 22nd entitled, “CR Engineers Show a Tesla Will Drive With No One in the Driver’s Seat.” The test was in response to the recent and very public Tesla Model S crash in Texas, where two men, unfortunately, passed away after their all-electric sedan crashed violently into a tree at a high speed. Investigators are attempting to determine whether the vehicle was “driverless,” a claim made by several mainstream media outlets. CEO Elon Musk chimed in just days after the crash and the very public coverage of it to say that it would be impossible for Autopilot to function on the road where the crash occurred due to the lack of road lines, which are required to initiate the use of Basic Autopilot.
Tesla alleged “driverless” crash in Texas: What is known so far
The CR test required the vehicle, a Tesla Model Y, to be in motion, and engineers then engaged Autopilot and set the speed dial to 0, which brought the car to a stop. Next, Jake Fisher, CR’s Senior Director of Auto Testing, placed a “small, weighted chain on the steering wheel, to simulate the weight of a driver’s hand, and slid over into the front passenger seat without opening any of the vehicle’s doors, because that would disengage Autopilot.” The Autopilot speed was then adjusted so that the vehicle would accelerate from its stationary position. The car managed to drive up and down the half-mile lane of the CR test track, although nobody was in the seat or controlling the vehicle. “It was a bit frightening when we realized how easy it was to defeat the safeguards, which we proved were clearly insufficient,” Fisher said. The engineers encouraged nobody to try the experiment at home, but who will have a custom weighted chain sitting around to experiment with anyway?
“In our evaluation, the system not only failed to make sure the driver was paying attention, but it also couldn’t tell if there was a driver there at all,” Fisher added, but he wasn’t done throwing shade at Tesla. “Tesla is falling behind other automakers like GM and Ford that, on models with advanced driver assist systems, use technology to make sure the driver is looking at the road.” GM’s SuperCruise and Ford’s recently released BlueCruise are what Fisher is referencing, but the comparisons don’t really add up.
Tesla Autopilot has over 23 billion real-world miles of data that is stored in a Neural Network to improve performance. With every mile driven, Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving functionalities become more robust, more precise, and more adaptable to human behavior. Ford and GM have accumulated only a fraction of these statistics. Tesla, meanwhile, recently reported its Q1 2021 Safety Report, where it found that Autopilot is nearly 10 times safer than human driving.
Tesla’s Q1 2021 accident data shows Autopilot is closing in on being 10X safer than humans
The test performed by CR is extremely bizarre because people would not normally have all of these things in their vehicle or even in their possession, to begin with. Tesla maintains that drivers are responsible for remaining attentive during the entirety of their driving experience. The company has never claimed to have released a program capable of Level 5 autonomy where a driver needs to pay no attention to the road or the vehicle’s surroundings. Yet, Tesla’s very-publicized crash raises questions from those who have a historical distaste for the company and its products. Consumer Reports has not been keen on Tesla in the past. They have indicated that GM’s SuperCruise, despite being less effective or safe than Autopilot based on data, holds a commanding lead over Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving program.
It is worth noting that Tesla has several safety thresholds that would prohibit anyone from attempting to let the vehicle drive itself. These include a steering wheel monitoring system, which will bring the car to a complete stop if the driver is not holding it. The system also requires a driver to be in the seat to function, and the company recently revoked FSD software from several drivers who were abusing the program by being inattentive. More safety features, like a facial features recognition camera, will monitor the driver’s eyes and face to ensure they are paying attention to the road.
What are your thoughts on the CR study? Let us know in the comments, or let me know at @KlenderJoey on Twitter. You can email me at joey@teslarati.com as well.
A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.
Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.
Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.
In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.
The charging documents state:
“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”
Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”
The documents outlined this:
“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘
Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.
Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.
Tesla shocked with its quarterly delivery report yesterday by reporting it delivered 480,126 vehicles in the second quarter of 2026, a 25 percent year-over-year jump that crushed Wall Street estimates of roughly 400,000–408,000 units. Production reached 451,758, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority.
The result ended two years of annual delivery declines and drew down inventory, signaling demand that outpaced earlier production.
Tesla bears had long warned that the expiration of the U.S. federal EV tax credit would hammer demand. Without the $7,500 incentive, they argued, American buyers would balk at higher effective prices, leading to a sharp slowdown.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
That narrative has not played out as predicted. While U.S. EV sales faced broader headwinds, Tesla’s global numbers held firm, underscoring the company’s ability to offset domestic pressure through other levers.
There are several plausible factors that explain Tesla’s strength during this quarter. Let’s take a look at them:
Rising Gas Prices
Rising gas prices provided a powerful tailwind, especially in the U.S.
Geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran conflict pushed fuel costs higher earlier in the year, amplifying the lifetime savings of electric vehicles. Even as oil prices later moderated, the psychological and financial impact lingered, encouraging fleet operators and private buyers to accelerate EV purchases. European sales rebounded sharply, helping drive the quarter’s outperformance.
Full Self-Driving Adoption
Advances in Full Self-Driving (FSD) supervised software also appear to have boosted appeal. Tesla expanded FSD availability in select European markets and continued refining the system.
No complaints from me because I finally got to enjoy this drive on FSD; I usually like to manually drive down this mountain https://t.co/RBFniRPSR0 pic.twitter.com/XQ5sOpN1Yg
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
For tech-oriented buyers, the promise of future autonomy and enhanced driver-assistance features adds perceived value beyond the car itself. This differentiation helps Tesla stand out in a crowded market where competitors focus primarily on hardware and basic range.
Pricing Strategy, Affordable Configurations
Tesla’s offerings and its pricing strategy during Q2 further stimulated demand. Tesla introduced lower-cost versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, widening accessibility without sacrificing core margins.
These moves countered affordability concerns and attracted buyers who had been waiting on the sidelines. Combined with attractive financing and leasing options, the pricing strategy converted interest into actual orders more effectively than many analysts expected.
Broad European Recovery
Supported by government incentives, corporate fleet electrification, and easing political headwinds around CEO Elon Musk, Tesla was supplied additional momentum through stronger registration numbers throughout Europe.
Strong exports from the Shanghai Gigafactory and a production ramp at Giga Berlin ensured supply met this resurgent demand. Corporate buyers, in particular, accelerated transitions to EVs to meet sustainability targets, providing a steady volume base.
These elements created a virtuous cycle that delivered the strong deliveries report. While bears correctly flagged the loss of the U.S. tax credit as a risk, Tesla’s diversified playbook demonstrated that it could remain resilient against those headwinds. The Q2 beat suggests the company remains adept at navigating shifting market conditions, even as competition intensifies.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise
