News
Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system exists; pretending it doesn’t makes roads less safe
Tesla’s FSD Beta program has begun its expansion to more users. And while the system is only being distributed today to drivers with a perfect Safety Score, the advanced driver-assist system is expected to be released to users with a rating of 99 and below in the near future. True to form, with the expansion of FSD Beta also came the predictable wave of complaints and pearl-clutching from critics, some of whom still refuse to acknowledge that Tesla is now utilizing its vehicles’ in-cabin camera to bolster its driver-monitoring systems.
Just recently, the NHTSA sent a letter to Tesla asking for an explanation why the company rolled out some improvements to Autopilot without issuing a safety recall. According to the NHTSA, Tesla should have filed for a recall notice if the company found a “safety defect” on its vehicles. What was missed by the NHTSA was that the Autopilot update, which enabled the company’s vehicles to slow down and alert their drivers when an emergency vehicle is detected, was done as a proactive measure, not as a response to a defect.
Consumer Reports Weighs In
Weighing in on the issue, Consumer Reports argued that ultimately, over-the-air software updates do not really address the main weakness of Teslas, which is driver-monitoring. The magazine admitted that Tesla’s driver-assist system’s object detection and response is better than comparable systems, but Kelly Funkhouser, head of connected and automated vehicle testing for Consumer Reports, argued that it is this very reason why the magazine has safety concerns with Tesla’s cars.
“In our tests, Tesla continues to perform well at object detection and response compared to other vehicles. It’s actually because the driver assistance system performs so well that we are concerned about overreliance on it. The most important change Tesla needs to make is to add safeguards—such as an effective direct driver monitoring system—to ensure the driver is aware of their surroundings and able to take over in these types of scenarios,” Funkhouser said.
Jake Fisher, senior director of Consumer Reports‘ Auto Test Center, also shared his own take on the issue, particularly around some Autopilot crashes involving stationary emergency vehicles on the side of the road. “CR’s position is that crashes like these can be avoided if there is an effective driver monitoring system, and that’s the underlying problem here,” Fisher said, adding that over-the-air software updates are typically not sent to address defects.
Tesla’s camera-based DMS
Funkhouser and Fisher’s reference to direct driver monitoring systems is interesting because the exact feature has been steadily rolling out to Tesla’s vehicles over the past months. It is quite strange that Consumer Reports seems unaware about this, considering that the magazine has Teslas in its fleet. Tesla, after all, has been rolling out its camera-based driver monitoring system to its fleet since late May 2021. A rollout of the camera-based system to radar-equipped vehicles was done in the previous quarter.
Tesla’s Release Notes for its camera-based driver monitoring function describes how the function works. “The cabin camera above your rearview mirror can now detect and alert driver inattentiveness while Autopilot is engaged. Camera data does not leave the car itself, which means the system cannot save or transmit information unless data sharing is enabled,” Tesla noted in its Release Notes.
What is interesting is that Consumer Reports‘ Jake Fisher was made aware of the function when it launched last May. In a tweet, Fisher even noted that the camera-based system was not “just about preventing abuse;” it also “has the potential to save lives by preventing distraction.” This shows that Consumer Reports, or at least the head of its Auto Test Center, has been fully aware that Tesla’s in-cabin cameras are now steadily being used for driver monitoring purposes. This makes his recent comments about Tesla’s lack of driver monitoring quite strange.
Legacy or Bust?
That being said, Consumer Reports appears to have a prepared narrative once it acknowledges the existence of Tesla’s camera-based driver-monitoring system. Back in March, the magazine posted an article criticizing Tesla for its in-cabin cameras, titled “Tesla’s In-Car Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns.” In the article, the magazine noted that the EV maker could simply be using its in-cabin cameras for its own benefit. “
“We have already seen Tesla blaming the driver for not paying attention immediately after news reports of a crash while a driver is using Autopilot. Now, Tesla can use video footage to prove that a driver is distracted rather than addressing the reasons why the driver wasn’t paying attention in the first place,” Funkhouser said.
Considering that Consumer Reports seems to be critical of Tesla’s use (or non-use for that matter) of its vehicles’ in-cabin cameras, it appears that the magazine is arguing that the only effective and safe driver monitoring systems are those utilized by veteran automakers like General Motors for its Super Cruise system. However, even the advanced eye-tracking technology used by GM for Super Cruise, which Consumer Reports overtly praises, has been proven to be susceptible to driver abuse.
This was proven by Car and Driver, when the motoring publication fooled Super Cruise into operating without a driver using a pair of gag glasses with eyes painted on them. One could easily criticize Car and Driver for publicly showcasing a vulnerability in Super Cruise’s driver monitoring systems, but one has to remember that Consumer Reports also published an extensive guide on how to fool Tesla’s Autopilot into operating without a driver using a series of tricks and a defeat device.
Salivating for the first FSD Beta accident
What is quite unfortunate amidst the criticism surrounding the expansion of FSD Beta is the fact that skeptics seem to be salivating for the first accident involving the advanced driver-assist system. Fortunately, Tesla seems to be aware of this, which may be the reason why the Beta is only being released to the safest drivers in the fleet. Tesla does plan on releasing the system to drivers with lower safety scores, but it would not be a surprise if the company ends up adopting an even more cautious approach when it does so.
That being said, incidents on the road are inevitable, and one can only hope that when something does happen, it would not be too easy for an organization such as Consumer Reports to run away with a narrative that echoes falsehoods that its own executives have recognized publicly — such as the potential benefits of Tesla’s camera-based driver monitoring system. Tesla’s FSD suite and Autopilot are designed as safety features, after all, and so far, they are already making the company’s fleet of vehicles less susceptible to accidents on the road. Over time, and as more people participate in the FSD Beta program, Autopilot and Full Self-Driving would only get safer.
Tesla is not above criticism, of course. There are several aspects of the company that deserves to be called out. Service and quality control, as well as the treatment of longtime Tesla customers who purchased FSD cars with MCU1 units, are but a few of them. However, it’s difficult to defend the notion that FSD and Autopilot are making the roads less safe. Autopilot and FSD have already saved numerous lives, and they have the potential to save countless more once they are fully developed. So why block their development and rollout?
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
