News
Tesla coverage turns negative a week before crucial Earnings Call
Tesla news coverage this week has been especially negative, and the timing of it, which comes a week before arguably the most anticipated Earnings Call in recent memory. With Tesla reporting production and deliveries that were well over Wall Street’s consensus, anticipation for the Q1 2021 Earnings Call is slightly higher than usual, and the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is at an all-time high.
There are always a few negative Tesla stories every week. It might involve a story about some owners who didn’t receive adequate customer service, it might be about a production bottleneck that Tesla is encountering. However, these are relatively micro-scale issues that are resolved within a matter of days in most cases. This week, the news has been geared toward more disruptive, long-term, macro-level issues, like a very public car accident that has both sides of the Tesla circle butting heads, a test from a very well-known product review company that has to do with the aforementioned accident, and other safety issues that have resulted by a rumored irresponsible driving speed by a customer in China. Whether you agree with it or not, there seems to be a more coordinated attack on something that Tesla does well, which is to keep its drivers and owners safe. One of the strongest points of Tesla’s overwhelmingly successful venture into the automotive industry thus far was the company’s ability to keep vehicle occupants safe in the event of a crash, and also roll out software and semi-autonomous driving functionalities that aim to improve consumer safety in revolutionary ways.
This is a preview of 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.
This doesn’t always turn out to be what the media wants to report, however. The week before the Q1 Earnings Call, it was relatively impossible to notice that the tide turned negative on Tesla news coverage. While it is understandable that a violent automobile crash that took the lives of two men should be covered, it captured national headlines and dominated news coverage across the world for several days. Interestingly, I don’t remember such widespread news coverage for the Ford Death Wobble.
Journalists find stories and then build upon them for other sorts of coverage. It’s spin-off coverage where readers get to see how creative the mind of a writer is. There are millions of stories that could be written based on the recent automobile accident. However, a majority of them were negative, and it doesn’t necessarily come down to truth, it comes down to perception. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that many of the journalistic coverages were completely accurate simply because of Autopilot’s misunderstood capabilities in the real world. I still receive questions and comments daily from those who I talk to who believe Teslas are capable of driving themselves. What is even more frustrating is that, at times, owners and drivers, who should have the company’s best interest at heart, spread content, Tik Toks, and other forms of social media portraying that their all-electric car can drive them from Point A to Point B while they sit in the back seat and take a nap. This kind of content is irresponsible, immoral, and wrong. Acting like a Tesla can drive itself completely just for few thousand views is a selfish act that puts the hard work of Tesla engineers at risk for losing all of their work.
That brings me to the unfortunate accident in Texas. We don’t know, yet, what the exact cause of the accident was. We don’t know who was in the driver’s seat, if AP was being tricked, or if it was even on at this point. Most evidence would likely indicate that AP couldn’t have been activated due to the lack of road lines, and the rate of travel isn’t something that AP would let the driver do, to begin with. Eventually, we will have all the facts of this story, and we will be able to accurately say who or what was responsible. But as of right now, those things cannot be speculated against.
Still, news sources are claiming that this car was “driverless,” which is a complete nonsensical narrative considering there are many boundaries that would require a driver to be present during the vehicle’s operation. This didn’t stop Consumer Reports from putting together one of the most ridiculously biased tests I have ever come across. I felt that it simply proved Tesla Autopilot would only be tricked in extreme circumstances, by not following the automaker’s directions and trying to outsmart one of the most capable semi-autonomous driving programs in the world.
The obvious effort to derail Tesla’s momentum is being noted by the fans, followers, and owners of the company. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. In my perspective, for years, MSM has been driving home the point of global climate change, using it as a way to scare people into change. While I believe that fear isn’t always the best way to convince a large group of people to do something, I think climate change is a real issue and it will affect people for generations to come. With cars being such a large contributor to the problem, you’d think the media, the same interests that have been preaching the dangers of carbon emissions for years, would report car companies who are working to transition the automotive industry to electrification, would get a “fair shake.” This just hasn’t been the case.
Trust me, I am a critic of Tesla when it is warranted. I have experienced issues with their customer service department personally, and I have been highly critical of their handling of other issues with its vehicles. I have spoken many times about the LR RWD Model Y and how it was a disgrace for Tesla to keep these pre-orderers in limbo for years. However, there are statistics that prove FSD and AP’s ultimate task: to make driving safer. Most recently, the Q1 2021 Safety Report showed Autopilot was nearly 10 times safer than a human driver. You don’t see mainstream media covering this, but you’ll notice automotive blogs and news outlets taking full advantage of the statistics, which prove Tesla’s mission is becoming more real with every mile driven.
With the momentum Tesla posted with the Production and Deliveries report, I think many people were expecting a big financial quarter. The timing of the negative news is eye-opening, and it seems to be a coordinated effort to perhaps slow down Tesla’s momentum moving forward. Tesla is gunning for yet another consecutive quarter, bringing the total to seven straight if things go well on Monday. Whether Wall Street will recognize the impressive tone of this feat, we’ll see. However, media coverage has done all it can to bring Tesla’s chances of a great quarter down, but with developments, demand, and deliveries all in healthy figures, there doesn’t seem to be much of a chance of that happening.
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 has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
